Whileee
Registered User
- May 29, 2010
- 46,537
- 34,955
Of the canonical 30 examples--because Doerrie used to work for an NHL team so you know she can call penalties off a TV with perfect accuracy--here are the two that were gif'd and keep getting cited:
One in which McNHLAwards hold Appleton immediately before getting held in-turn by Appleton. Two penalties.
The other in which he pulls his parachute because he wants to avoid a clean open-ice hit and puts himself in a more dangerous position. Not a penalty at all.
He writes, specifically, in the article that he was pointedly only paying attention to one team:
"I’m sure there were calls on Edmonton I missed, maybe even obvious ones (the referees even managed to “miss” a puck over the glass call), but over the next 40-plus minutes of hockey there were at least five missed calls on the Jets."
That is more than enough to indicate to me that this is a sound thesis (officiating shouldn't change with the weather) but a bad faith argument. He goes on to completely ignore the fact that Ehlers and Scheifele are also elite at drawing penalties, embeds a tweet showing one of the only two cited examples (of the supposed 30), which isn't a penalty at all, and then goes on Twitter and pretends the Jets defence had the same holes all series as they did in the regular season.
I don't know if Luszczyszyn accomplished what he was trying to--his seemingly-annual article about how it's dumb to change to rules mid-season--but what he definitely did accomplish was to slander the Jets and spread misinformation about how they beat the sad-sack Oilers in four straight.
Watching for and reporting on missed calls on one team is bush league. Also, let's not pretend that the analytics community can't have any ulterior motives. They literally make a living from selling their analytics-focused content. Dom L used his analytical approach to predict that the Jets would finish 6th in the Division, and had them as decided underdogs in the playoff series vs. the Oilers. It's reasonable to question whether he has some implicit bias in his suggestion that the Jets got away with a lot of infractions, since it feeds into the narrative that their win wasn't legitimate. If he were in a real research world he would be excoriated for the obvious conflict of interest. I think a lot of the commentary we see about the Jets from some analytics folks has that slant - the analytics are infallible, so the sweep is just goaltending, refs, luck, etc. I wouldn't argue that none of those played a role, but there certainly is a lot of open bias against the Jets and derision of Maurice, etc. that seems rooted to some degree in a motivation to defend the current analytical edifice against critique. I would note that this climate would be highly unusual in most research domains.