I’m actually a pretty smart person, and I  have plenty of respect for analytical types. But the graphs that hockey analysts post or tweet are kind of coated in mental Teflon as far as I’m concerned. Most of them don’t mean much to me at first glance, and I guess I just don’t care enough to stop and figure out what data they’re presenting. “I guess I don’t.” Well, I was trying to state it gently. I know these graphs & charts must be jam-packed with information I’d probably find fascinating—I’m quite sure of it, in fact—but I’m not willing to spend two nanoseconds deciphering it.

I’m not sure why, exactly, I can’t be bothered. But it’s a stone cold fact: they glide across my consciousness without causing so much as a ripple.

Of all the hockey analytics that mean nothing to me, this type is penultimate in my don’t-get-it-ness:

I assume above the line = good, below the line = bad. That’s as much as I care to delve into it.

This is the ultimate:

I dunno. Away from the line = better than close to the line? I just look at it and see a river.

I am a very visual learner, and graphs should mean a lot to me, but the whole thing seems a little bit silly. I’d rather that you just use your words.

(Please, no offense meant to anyone who creates these or loves & depends on analytics. Perhaps it’s just not for everyone, the same way Bartok or salmiakki aren’t.)