• carefully chronicled, I thought of something that isn't tracked: the relation between a player's on-ice effectiveness and the amount of times his name is said by the commentator. Does the total time a player spends on the ice translate equally to mentions in the play-by-play? If a player scores a goal is his name mentioned more frequently throughout the game?
I decided to watch some Vancouver Canucks hockey while carefully listening to the commentators. I’ve compared player mentions by name with playing time. Now, please enjoy these random and incredibly...
I’m a big hockey fan. I also love statistics. Obviously following important stats like goals and assists, wins and losses are interesting, but it's the more obscure numbers and percentages that I have some bizarre need to follow.
Facts like the winning percentage of a team when trailing after two periods or how many shifts players average per game. These numbers shed light on unsung heroes and paint a more complete picture of how teams are playing beyond goals scored or total wins. Although it seems that every event in a hockey game is already •
• I was surprised that each team's player mentions were in the hundreds by the end of the game. There was a large difference between each team's total mentions, favoring the Canucks. Probably a little bit of homerism by the commentators. Overall, not a terrible way to spend a few hours with a couple beers and a pad of paper but this particular statistic is probably not worth tracking long term.
After collecting these statistics I was kind of dissapointed there weren't any unexpected revelations. Players are referenced in almost equal relation to the time they spend on the ice. No suprise that the goalie had the most references. There is the occasional spike if a player is having an excellent game. Some players, like Samuelsson, had several points and were still not mentioned a lot. •