Toronto Maple Leafs: How I learned that ‘Analytics’ Isn’t a Four-Letter Word

Fresh off a spirited, if not undeserved, 4-2 come-from-behind victory by the Toronto Maple Leafs over the Calgary Flames Sunday night, a couple of key advanced statistics caught my eye.

The Toronto Maple Leafs had a QeW+ rating of 6.8, a zone/prevent D% of 59 and a NS factor of positive 2.

Okay, so if you haven’t already guessed, those advanced statistics were completely made up. Qew is obviously a highway; zone and prevent are football defensive coverages and NS factor stands for ‘Nylander Sucks‘, a comment I hear roughly 100% of the time whenever I am find myself in a real-life Maple Leafs discussion.

Case in point: During a random conversation about the Leafs last week with a bunch of co-workers, one stated how much they disliked Nylander, to the agreement of everyone else. He was bothered by how Nylander “thinks he’s so good” while another stated that Nylander was a horrible passer. This was followed up with a comment about how awful Nylander’s reaction was to not scoring on a breakaway (he appeared to be smiling after missing his chance) which, according to this person (and others), was unacceptable.

Toronto Maple Leafs and William Nylander

Not only do these subjective, completely arbitrary ‘takes’ have no basis in fact (statistical or otherwise), but if there’s one facet of Nylander’s game that should be impervious to criticism, it’s his passing ability. But pointing this out, or mentioning his proficiency at zone entries and exits, his stellar possession stats, or his production based on limited ice and PP time as compared to his higher paid young counterparts is usually met with blank stares or flat out puzzlement.

This isn’t to say that William Nylander shouldn’t be criticized. There are elements of his game that are frustrating and he has the tendency to look like he isn’t even trying at times. But it’s very easy to put too much stock into what they eye-test seems to be telling you over what the intricate numbers and statistics are telling you. And that’s what analytics are: the tabulation and dissection of a greater amount of information. Would you rather have more or less information at your disposal?

Now that doesn’t mean you have to take these numbers at 100% face value. Looking only at a spreadsheet is just as silly as completely disregarding the numbers altogether. I absolutely believe that there is an X-factor that some players possess that cannot be quantified in numbers or statistics. But there should be no such thing as being for or against analytics; they’re simply a useful resource to aid in the analysis of a current or prospective player.

But the stigma is still there. At family get-togethers whenever the Leaf conversation strikes up, there is the inevitable moment where I am singled out, like a witch hovering around the parish in late 17th century Salem, and the voices descend upon me: “There he is! There’s the guy who loves Nylander!” And I feign a chuckle, try to explain that I just think he’s a good player who’s unfairly maligned at times, and the scoffing laughter reverberates through the house as I bow my head and accept the scorn.

Those darn analytics; why hast thou forsaken me?