Hockey Twitter & Social Change

I have written before about what a powerful tool social media can be in effecting the change needed in societal attitudes toward many different issues. I have encouraged people to speak out about their experiences and to point out behavior and attitudes that are harmful. I firmly believe that speaking up and setting an example ourselves are the only ways to change our culture. Most of the people I interact with do not stand aside in the face of overt racism, misogyny, homophobia and the like. Things are a little different when we look at casual racism, misogyny and homophobia though.

Because I have only experienced misogyny as a straight white woman, I’ll shape my comments in that regard, but I think that the principles of dealing with these issues are useful in a wider scope.

I know some incredibly smart, passionate people through social media (mainly Twitter). I have great respect for the feminists, both women and men, who discuss important issues; who speak up when they see things that are unacceptable or hurtful; who I consider allies in my continued quest for inclusion in sports writing. I’ve learned many things from them and I would like to think that they have learned a thing or two from me and my experiences.

Sometimes it is tough to remember that none of us are right all the time. Sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes our anger, sadness, frustration and yes, even compassion and empathy, get in the way of making rational decisions. I am as guilty of this as everyone else.

Speaking out about personal experiences that are painful can be very difficult. Painful experiences are highly emotionally driven as should be apparent to everyone. When people are dealing with something painful and the emotions that accompany it, they do not always respond well to advice or criticism no matter how rational it may seem to the person giving it.

I wrote about a situation that involved harassment online several months ago and while I know it is there, I have not reread it since the day I published it. It makes me feel a little sick to my stomach to even think about reading it because I don’t want to feel those same things all over again despite the fact that it was simply online harassment and not face to face or physical. I only received a little bit of criticism regarding that situation, but it was really tough to hear at that time. Now it is much easier to look back on it and see that some of the points made, although critical, were legitimate, despite the fact that I still do not necessarily agree with them. The overwhelming response to the experience I shared was one of support though. I felt so much better knowing that people understood how I was feeling and why I was feeling it. It continues to be an important moment for me in terms of my development as a hockey writer and a person.

It is important that we show support for those who do speak out about painful or uncomfortable experiences. This helps give those brave people a safe place to begin feeling better. It is important to support those who have had these experiences and do not yet feel comfortable speaking out as well. Despite the fact that what many of us call “Hockey Twitter” is a vast space, it can often feel like a very small community. Making it a place of support helps people who have been made to feel uncomfortable feel safe in sharing their experiences. It may seem strange to expect that sort of behavior from a bunch of people who talk and write about hockey; however, this community is unique in that it often overlaps with many major social issues outside of sports.

I will tell you how I view these issues. Of course, you are free to agree or disagree.

When faced with these situations, the real trick for many of us is to figure out how to handle the person responsible for making the one we are supporting feel victimized. Many times, it is easy to decide how to do this because the responsible party has done something we all agree is egregious, such as physical assault, psychological abuse and the like. It becomes much harder when we are faced with actions that some may see as a grey area. Hitting on another person, making a sexual advance or making casual comments that may inherently be degrading to women but have been generally socially acceptable for a long time may fall into this grey area for many people.

I think that many of us can agree that simply hitting on someone, i.e. asking them out, is not harassment in and of itself. If the invitation to engage in some sort of social interaction is not desired, it will be declined. Consider this caveat however: Asking someone out or hitting on someone you have become friendly with on social media and having that person decline WILL change your relationship with that person. It will more than likely become uncomfortable so that should be a consideration if you are trying to decide whether to do this. I know that seems overly simplistic, but apparently it is not clear to some.

If the invitation is declined, it should end there. Further invitations should not occur. Declining a potentially romantic social invitation once MUST be enough. Continued invitations make the receiving party feel uncomfortable and potentially, depending upon the tone of the invitations, even threatened. This is unacceptable.

Sexual advances through social media are creepy. They make the recipient feel uncomfortable and sometimes even unsafe. At the very least, they make that person feel like their social media community is a place that they must be on guard even against those that may outwardly be seen as nice and accepting people. This behavior creates a feeling of being unwelcome for many women. I am sure that sexual advances are made toward men through social media as well, but I am not familiar with that situation so I cannot really speak to its prevalence.

A good rule of conduct is to refrain from making any sexual advances through the use of social media because often the person making such an advance fully believes it will be welcomed when it will in fact not be welcomed. I realize that morality is different for everyone and I am not judging how people conduct their sex lives; however, your want for a casual or serious sexual relationship should not be pursued in a manner that leaves a trail of people feeling uncomfortable, unsafe or victimized in your wake. If someone does make a sexual advance that is unwelcomed, even once, he or she should be prepared to be regarded as creepy within his or her social media community. If those advances continue to be made toward the same person after they have been rebuffed or even ignored, it is harassment, plain and simple.

In determining how to respond to these types of things, it is helpful to me to think of how these actions would be viewed if they were done in person in a social setting. If you were hanging out in a bar and saw a friend getting hit on, you probably would not have much of a problem with it unless the invitation was declined and the person doing the asking continued to press the matter. Likewise, if someone made a sexual advance toward your friend while you were out at a bar and it was unwelcomed, you would likely think the person making the advance was a creep. If those advances continued after being declined, you would likely get security involved or take some sort of action to stop the advances and make your friend feel safe. Perhaps these same feelings should guide us on social media as well.

When we are responding to someone being made to feel uncomfortable or unsafe in our social media community, it is important to be supportive of the person speaking out. How you measure your response to the situation in terms of your feelings, actions or words regarding the person making another feel uncomfortable or unsafe is up to you; however, I think the examples about being out with friends that I discussed above may help in determining the level of response. Everyone is different and thus the responses will be different.

The really complicating factor in all of this stems from the use of social media accounts for professional and personal purposes. The line between professional and personal use is often very blurry. Many in the hockey twitter community are paid to write about and/or analyze hockey. Others are bloggers who do the same but often with little or no payment or as a venture undertaken in their free time. Still others are personalities who do not write anywhere in particular, but have carved out a niche for themselves in the community.

When someone uses an obviously personal account on Twitter to act in a manner that makes the rest of us feel like he or she is a creep, harasser or even a danger to others, the response is often public shaming and ostracizing. Extreme cases may even result in action by public authorities.

When someone who is considered a blogger acts in a threatening or abusive manner, the response is usually public shaming and dismissal from the blog he or she writes for or a severe loss in readership. When the actions of the blogger are in more of the gray area of these issues, a loss of reputation or standing is likely, but may be able to be regained.

When people who have gained their following or audience mainly through a professional, i.e. compensated, venture behave in a way that makes others feel uncomfortable, unsafe or even threatened, using their professional or official social media account, it directly reflects upon the organizations that employ them. Public relations and image are important for the success of these companies and actions will often be taken in response to damaging behavior. If it is a single instance of poor judgment, the resulting action from the employer may be a reprimand or a public apology. If a pattern of this behavior comes to light, it is far more damaging to the organization’s reputation and thus more serious measures may be pursued.

The most important thing to remember in all of this is that the people speaking out about how the actions of another made them feel uncomfortable, unsafe or threatened are ENTITLED to do so. The response to how they were treated is entirely up to those observing it. If it is something in a rather grey area such as asking someone out, the result is likely to be some embarrassment or a slightly damaged reputation if that person is a professional. Once we move past simply asking someone out, the results, particularly for a person using their professional account to carry out such behavior, are more dramatic.

Again, the response to such behavior is measured by the people observing and reacting to it, not the person bringing the behavior to light. Speaking out and saying “this is what happened and here is how this behavior made me feel” is NOT what determines the resulting reaction from the general community. The ACTIONS undertaken by the person engaging in the inappropriate, unprofessional, questionable, offensive or abusive behavior ARE what determines the type of response that follows.

We are each responsible for responding to these situations in a manner we believe to be appropriate. If the person is a professional, then his or her employer is responsible for determining the appropriate action to take in response to the behavior depending upon the severity of its impropriety.

How the hockey twitter community responds can often take on a mob mentality. Sometimes we get so caught up in the mood of the response of others that we do not take the time to think about what we feel an appropriate response really is from our point of view. This is a fairly common occurrence outside of social media as well, so I do not think this is in any way unique. We are each responsible for our own reactions. Sometimes issues arise and upon first glance do not seem all that out of the ordinary or all that egregious. It is only upon hearing more back story or more information on how a certain type of behavior is harmful that we start to rethink our opinions. If we want others to rethink their views on issues of societal importance, we MUST be willing to discuss those issues.

Willingness to discuss an issue is not the same thing as angrily calling people names or labeling people because they do not see something in the exact same way that I do. So long as the person with whom we are discussing an issue is not simply engaging in harassment or name calling, we should be willing to talk. We should be willing to explain our position without simply dismissing the thoughts on that issue from others. We should be willing to answer questions.

I have often seen an issue of societal importance come up with a disappointed or disapproving type of response that prompts others to say “Can you tell me why that is so bad?” or something similar. Yes, context is hard when it comes to the short bursts of written word on social media, but it is important that these questions get answered. When someone asks a question like this about an issue that holds import for you, it is your opportunity to explain your thoughts. At that point, you are being offered a platform from which to explain something important.

Sure, one out of every ten of these questions may be from someone looking to be a jerk, but the majority of these questions, at least in my experience, are genuine. The conversation may not be an easy one. It will probably result in a litany of questions or positions expressed that have been shaped by years of misunderstanding, cultural misconceptions, ingrained attitudes or simply unfamiliarity with the issue, but it is of the upmost importance that these conversations happen.

Ask yourself:

How often have I seen someone change a long held understanding of or opinion on an issue simply because they were told they were wrong?

How often have I told someone “your entire way of thinking about this is wrong” and had that result in the person suddenly changing to the opinion I desire them to have?

If we want to consider ourselves leaders in effecting the change we want to see in society with regard to the issues we hold dear, we must be willing to explain the reasons the change is necessary and important. Change, growth and learning are all challenging to various degrees depending upon the issue. People need a sufficient reason to make a change. The reason must, in some way, validate them as a person. Those validations may be very simple, such as “this attitude negatively affects people I care about and I don’t want to do that” or “the things I thought I knew about this group of people are not true”, but they are necessary nonetheless.

I am not advocating tolerating people set upon harassing you or trolling you. Those people thrive off of the misery of others and will likely not change even for the most persuasive of reasons. Do with them as you will. I am advocating for an open discussion with participants who, even if not entirely enthusiastic, are at the least not intentionally disrespectful.

Explaining why something is wrong or harmful when it seems like it should be so obvious is a frustrating and at times even maddening process. If you do not choose to go through it, that is understandable, but know this: social change does not happen when we ignore undesirable or harmful behavior and attitudes. Demanding that people change their long held attitudes just because someone tells them they are wrong is not an effective means of persuasion. Meeting respectful, sympathetic or at minimum, interested but questioning voices with hostility kills the environment needed for open discussion and growth.

I have failed at following this idea before and I am fairly certain I will fail at it again, but I am going to try my best. I hope you will do the same.

*reposted to correct a bug with the sharing button **originally posted on August 19, 2014

The New NHL Terms Of Service & Analytics

The NHL’s website, NHL.com, recently updated the language of the TOS (Terms of Service) regarding the use of the site’s Services and Content. This has caused a stir in the analytics community due to the possible implications of the language contained therein. A friend asked if I would look over the former and updated TOS’s and give my impressions of the meaning and possible implications there from. Of course, these are simply my impressions of the language in the old and new TOS’s and are not intended to be construed as legal advice nor should these impressions be relied upon in such a manner.

 OLD NHL.COM TOS:

In addition, the NHL Parties also provide access to certain footage (video and audio), photographs, text, images, statistics, logos and other media and intellectual property related to or otherwise associated with the National Hockey League, its member clubs and the sport of hockey (collectively, the “Content”).

- NHL.com Terms of Service (formerly used), Section 2. Services And Content

RTSS statistics and data (i.e. data targeted by scraping programs used for stats sites, stats/tracking projects etc…) were included in the definition of Content for the purposes of the old TOS.

You may not use any of the Content or Services for commercial purposes. The Services may not be viewed in areas open to the public or in commercial establishments where multiple people can view it at the same time. Further, you may not copy, distribute, modify, republish, broadcast, retransmit or publicly display any of the Content or Services, create derivative works of them, charge admission for their viewing, or transmit or distribute running accounts of them, unless you have the prior written permission of NHL ICE, which permission may be withheld in NHL ICE’s sole discretion.

- NHL.com Terms of Service (formerly used), Section 2. Services and Content

 

Sites and/or projects using RTSS data were prohibited by the old TOS. Enforcement of this provision was not undertaken as far as I know.

NEW NHL.COM TOS:

You may not access or use, or attempt to access or use, the Services to take any action that could harm us or any other person or entity (each a “person”), interfere with the operation of the Services, or use the Services in a manner that violates any laws.

- NHL.com Terms of Service (recently updated), Section 2. Prohibited Content and Activities

 

The new TOS details a general position by the league indicates a desire to protect their site and services from malicious attack and/or abuse. The language seems to target activities by outside parties attempting to use Content (included in definition of Services) that would hamper or interfere with the efficient functioning of the site.

For example, you may not:

  • Impersonate any person or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your credentials,  affiliation with any person, or the origin of any information you provide;
  • Engage in unauthorized spidering, scraping, or harvesting of content or information, or use any other unauthorized automated means to compile information;
  • Obtain or attempt to gain unauthorized access to other computer systems, materials, information, or any services available on or through the Services;
  • Use any device, software, or routine to interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Services or any activity conducted on the Services or attempt to probe, scan, test the vulnerability of, or breach the security of any system, device, or network;
  • Circumvent, reverse engineer, decipher, decompile, disassemble, decrypt, or otherwise alter or interfere with (or attempt, encourage, or support anyone else’s attempt to engage in such activities) any of the software comprising or in any way making up a part of the Services. The use or distribution of tools designed for compromising security (e.g., password guessing programs, cracking tools, or network probing tools) is strictly prohibited;
  • Take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our network or infrastructure;
  • Upload or otherwise transmit any communication, software, or material that contains a virus or is otherwise harmful to our or our users’ computers, devices, or systems; or
  • Engage in any other conduct that restricts or inhibits any person from using or enjoying the Services, or that, in our sole judgment, exposes us, users or any other third party to any liability, damages, or detriment of any type.

Violations of system or network security and certain other conduct may result in civil or criminal liability. We may investigate and work with law enforcement authorities to prosecute users who violate the Terms. We may suspend or terminate your access to the Services for any or no reason at any time without notice.

- NHL.com Terms of Service (recently updated), Section 2. Prohibited Content and Activities

The majority of the examples provided in the Prohibited Content and Activities section focus on actions that would attempt to circumvent the site’s security such as paywalls, blackout provisions, etc. The specific language that has been the focus of added scrutiny for analytics users is “Engage in unauthorized spidering, scraping, or harvesting of content or information, or use any other unauthorized automated means to compile information”.

 Scraping or harvesting content or information is often used on sites that provide shooting/possession information and in projects that examine shooting in conjunction with manually tracked events such as zone entries, zone exits and the like. While this language could be used to enforce a prohibition of these activities, it’s inclusion in a section describing prohibited malicious activities could indicate the league’s intention in that regard. My reading of these sections together and in comparison with the former TOS language leads me to believe that unless a user engages in scraping activity that somehow harms the league’s site and/or its users, the league may not be enforcing the provision.

Additionally, the costs associated with enforcement of these provisions, including proving damages associated with the scraping activity could be a deterrent to enforcement unless the user engaging in the scraping or harvesting of data is somehow making a good deal of profit from the venture. Because the league’s site does not currently offer certain processed forms of the RTSS data (Corsi, Fenwick, etc…) the use of the data in this manner would appear to be harmless to the site in that it is not taking users or viewers away from the league’s site, thereby diminishing ad revenue, nor interfering with the need for users to register for pay services. These provisions appear to be geared more toward the league’s actions against sites providing “pirated” feeds of games and also entities that may try to harvest user data.

Both the TOS formerly used by the NHL and the current TOS include language that would allow the league to require activities such as scraping be stopped. The language is more specific in the current TOS of course, but in and of itself, is not represent a change in the league’s policies. Technically, these provisions could even be used to prohibit articles or other such writing that includes any statistics kept by the league, e.g. penalty minutes, power play opportunities, etc…

The fact of the matter is that it is good for the league to have widespread coverage of its product. So long as others are not making ill-gotten money off of proprietary information, it doesn’t seem that the league would benefit from or have a real interest in putting a stop to activities such as tracking on ice events and correlating them with RTSS data despite the fact that they most certainly could do so.

Again, these are simply my impressions of the language in the old and new TOS’s and are not intended to be construed as legal advice nor should these impressions be relied upon in such a manner.

*reposted to correct a bug with the sharing button **originally posted on August 15, 2014

A Quick Note On The Troll Writer & The Outrage

When I joined Twitter, I did not know who was who or what was what when it came to writers and columnists. I did not just immediately know who had reliable opinions and information or who the “troll” types of writers were. It took me a long time to discern who the good writers and troll-ish writers were out there and I’m still doing so with regard to various topics and issues. Many of us who have been around for a little while travel in small circles on social media and through experience have come to have a pretty good handle on who the writers are who will likely make us angry with their opinions.

Sometimes, when the issue is something close to our hearts, it is difficult to just ignore or hold back on voicing our frustrations with these troll-ish writers, their articles or their opinions. When this happens, occasionally, others in our circles get annoyed with what seems to be another round of outrage. I know it may be frustrating for those who have heard it before, but please consider a few things when you feel fed up with another episode of “Twitter gets angry” and want people to just ignore the troll-ish writers.

First, you can always just mute the person who is angry or the key words involved in the issue so you do not have to see it again. Second, think of an issue that is very personal to you. Think also of someone you often disagree with whether that is a politician, writer, or some other person with a voice that carries far and wide. Now imagine that this person you so often find yourself in disagreement with and frankly, probably have a pretty poor opinion of, has decided to unleash a particularly bothersome writing in regard to the issue important to you. Now try to imagine staying completely silent about it. That is a pretty tough task.

Every day new people join social media. Every day someone happens to see the reaction of someone they like and/or respect to these troll-ish writers. After seeing an opinion they may not have heard or thought about before, they may be moved to rethink the positions these writers take and their own positions on the issues addressed. Every day is a new opportunity for someone new to understand that thinking critically or outside of the accepted norms with which they are familiar on certain issues can be a healthy exercise.

Sure, it may seem boring or annoying to you that people you know are talking about issues you’ve seen them discuss before, but that does not mean those people should stop. The issues and the troll-ish writers are still present, but so are the people who have never heard these arguments before.

*reposted to correct a bug in the sharing button **originally posted on July 12, 2014

A Quick Rant

The Blackhawks have always been my hockey team and always will be. Hockey consumes a major portion of my life. Of course, I have a family and they are my priority, but I also devote a lot of my time to hockey. I talk about hockey on Twitter and I write about hockey too. I not only watch the games like many others, but I go back and watch them again to manually track zone entries, defensive play and special teams strategy. That takes a long time as you would probably guess. I say this so you will understand that I am not a person who just follows the Blackhawks when they are in the playoffs or something like that.

I would love the Blackhawks regardless of their style of play, but I really enjoy the style with which they have played for the last several years. That style is basically highly skilled hockey while keeping the extracurricular activities, i.e. fighting, to a minimum. This style of hockey has been a great source of pride for me and many other Blackhawks fans over the years. I like a good clean hit as much as the next hockey fan, but there is just something about watching a player like Jonathan Toews steal the puck at his defensive blue line, thread through the retreating defensemen and score on a strong move to the net that is so much better. Things like this make me not care at all about which team is leading in hits at the end of a period.

When the Blackhawks are playing a team with an aggressive in your face physical style, they have done a great job over the years of sticking to their game and getting even by scoring. One such instance has become a bit of a rallying point for some Blackhawks fans and has been used by fans of other teams to show what they would want their team to do in such a situation.

During the Stanley Cup Final against the Bruins, Brad Marchand was giving Patrick Kane the business and challenged him to a fight. Kane responded by saying he didn’t think that was a very good trade off and the two continued to verbally jab at each other. Shortly after that happened, Toews ended up scoring and so did Kane. On the ensuing faceoff, Kane was lined up with Marchand and said “You shoulda kept your mouth shut” to him a couple of times. This is really a microcosm of what Blackhawks hockey has been for several years. Attempts to intimidate them have more often than not been met with an offensive onslaught in lieu of fists.

Of course, the Blackhawks have had their share of fights over the past few years but are usually near the bottom of the league in fighting majors. It’s been a wonderful time watching them stick to their game and be successful. There have been a few moments during that time that have been a bit tough to take though. Actions that have led to suspensions for Blackhawks players are what I have in mind here. For the most part, the Blackhawks tend to play a pretty clean game but sometimes tempers get the best of them or a split second decision goes wrong. Brent Seabrook’s hit on David Backes is one of the latter. Duncan Keith’s stick slash to Jeff Carter’s face during the Western Conference Final last season was one of the former. Neither is something I feel good about as a Blackhawks fan or a hockey fan in general. I will not defend either of those actions.

I used to argue the legality of hits on Twitter. I learned after banging my head against a wall for a while that this is futile for me. All it has resulted in for me is unnecessarily elevated blood pressure and annoyance so I decided to stop doing it. Sometimes it is really hard. It is not easy to see some of your favorite players bashed by others who only watch them play a few games a season. I think that’s true for any hockey fan. The urge to say “but he’s not always like that!” and defend one of your favorite players is very compelling when you feel he is being wrongly characterized, but this is never going to change. People will not suddenly go back and watch all of a player’s clean hits on the season to determine only then if he is a “dirty player” when he makes a hit that breaks the rules. I have probably done this to players on other teams and driven their fans crazy just like people have done to my favorite players. It’s just how it is.

At some point, I have had to accept that all of my favorite hockey players, and other athletes in general, may not be the nicest people while playing their sport. It sounds so simple that it is almost silly but in actuality it has been a difficult realization to come to. So much of sports, particularly championship runs, become so romanticized that we build up grandiose notions of who these athletes really are. Regardless of their skill, regardless of the hours and hours of charity work they do off of the ice (court, field, etc…), regardless of how fun they are with their family and fans, they are still ruthless competitors. That ruthlessness is what has gotten them into a professional sport. They have another gear of competitiveness to go along with their amazing talent and skill that they have honed to the point of exhaustion for years. That drive can also lead to being so competitive and so ruthless that they do things that cross the line. This is particularly true in hockey, where physicality is a major part of the game and where punching someone in the face to resolve your differences usually gets you little more than a 5 minute rest in the penalty box.

We do not have to like the bad hits and we certainly do not have to condone them. I do not like seeing dangerous or reckless play in hockey from any player. I like it even less when it is a member of the Blackhawks doing it. It makes me angry and sad at the same time because I know that the Blackhawks do not have to play like that. They have enough talent to win without the dirty stuff. If it were a normal part of their game, I would constantly complain about it and beg for change from the coaches and front office.

I know it’s hard to deal with this type of situation on social media. Just by reminding people that I do not want to discuss the legality of hits, I opened the floodgates to people complaining at me about how “convenient” that was since it was a player on my team at the source of the most recent controversy. Next time I will just keep my mouth shut. Lesson learned. I saw a flurry of tweets from Blackhawks fans calling Seabrook’s hit on Backes dirty and being generally angry about it. I think a big part of it is their actual feeling and part of it is an effort to distance themselves from other fans, who were defending a player on their team regardless of the dirtiness or cleanness of the hit or the actions that led up to it with some serious vehemence.

I, for one, at this point in my life, think it is pointless to fight over whether a hit was legal or not. You, of course, are free to think differently and disagree with me. You do as you wish and do what makes you feel better in that situation. That is not to say that I condone all of the behavior I have seen from fans on Twitter, because some of it I find pretty disturbing, but hey, it’s a free country.

Back to my point though…

My point with all of this is that I have to keep reminding myself that sometimes people that I really admire for their sporting ability do things that I really dislike. Sometimes it is even some of my favorite players doing things I do not like. The truth of the matter is that I can and will continue to be a fan even when things go wrong. I will still be a fan even though players I really like make bad decisions and do things that I disagree with. I hope that as this series continues against the St. Louis Blues, the Blackhawks will remember what got them to this point and leave behind a period of play during which they acted like a completely different team. Some of the play during the third period of Game 2 versus St. Louis made me feel pretty ashamed. I don’t think that makes me less of a fan somehow. I think it’s okay to be disappointed in the actions of the players on your team sometimes. It doesn’t mean that I suddenly hate the Blackhawks or am disloyal. If anything, I think it is a testament to how much I love the team. I hold them to a high standard and I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

Every team has a low point of the season and particularly in the playoffs. I think that was it for the Blackhawks. I hope that was the low spot because if they go any lower than that we will be seeing a roster of Black Aces instead of Blackhawks and it will be an early end to the season. Essentially, if they want to play Blackhawks hockey and win, they have to be better. They have to get back to playing their game instead of getting involved in all of the extracurricular business that leads to tempers eventually blowing. I hope they can do it, because I would really like to watch them play their brand of highly skilled hockey and be proud of how they handled themselves for a lot longer than two more games.

 *reposted to correct a bug with the sharing button **originally posted on April 20, 2014

Lowest Common Denominator

A schism exists in hockey fandom. On one side is the “old school” who believes in traditional stats and intangibles and who despise the cute and fuzzy bunnies on the other side, namely the “advanced stats” crowd. This feud is like the Hatfields and McCoys, in that it is not likely to go away any time soon. So who does that leave? It leaves the casual or typical fans. These are the fans who watch all (or a lot) of the games, but are not really into stats; the fans who, like it or not, buy the majority of the tickets to the games and fund the sport so many of us are obsessed with.

The fans who are not involved in social media may not even know that advanced stats exist in hockey. How would they? If they are not on Twitter or visiting sites dedicated to analyzing the game through more in depth metrics than +/- so how would they have any clue? Most of these fans use Facebook to post shots of their kids and grandkids and there is nothing wrong with that. They might follow the team they support to get in on a contest or two but most of them are not monitoring their team’s PDO and discussing sustainability of their star forward’s shooting percentage.

What this teeming mass of hockey fandom does hear about the game they get through national TV broadcasts, local broadcast teams, perhaps a few articles by local beat writers in the paper or online and local sports talk shows on TV and radio. So what are they learning when they listen these broadcasts? That depends somewhat on the team they follow. The Buffalo Sabres, by virtue of having the namesake of an advanced metric as their goalie coach, Jim Corsi, use Corsi in their intermission shows. Toronto Maple Leafs fans have at least one member of the MSM (main stream media) who regularly uses advanced stats. The Edmonton Oilers have recently started talking more about Corsi during interviews with their players. Very recently, a few members of the Chicago sports media have started using advanced stats in their coverage of the Blackhawks.

These are small steps in a handful of places to get the terms Corsi, Fenwick, etc… into circulation in more traditional news outlets and independent of social media. The overwhelming portion of the information that typical fans get comes from the big sources though. On the whole, these big sources, i.e. game broadcast teams, pre and post game shows, national broadcast teams, etc… do not talk about hockey in terms of advanced metrics. Occasionally, these outlets break down a play to show how it developed or explain how some of the rules of the game work. What they spend a lot of time talking about is a little less educational, namely fighting, retaliation, toughness, heart, grit, leadership, simple play, plus/minus, the will to win, the code, hustle, outworking the opponent, etc…

Hockey is growing in America every year. More and more fans are finding their way to hockey and they are doing it with heavy exposure to these broadcasts. Recently, there were two games during the day in the NHL that featured hat tricks. The lead story on the NHL on NBC broadcast that evening was not these amazing feats of hockey skill, but instead the line brawl and ensuing locker room shenanigans between the Vancouver Canucks and Calgary Flames that had occurred the prior evening. The two hat tricks barely got any coverage.

So what does this teach newer hockey fans? It teaches them to focus on the parts of the game that frankly seem to be the most embarrassing moments for many of us who obsess over hockey on a daily basis. In their effort to draw ratings and fans, the media treatment of the game is actually hurting it. The NHL Department of Player Safety is tasked with trying to keep players from being injured due to predatory hits and banned behavior. Medical research has been showing the terrible effects of repeated concussions and brain injury in athletes and the NHL has been taking steps toward trying to address that. Whether these steps go far enough is a discussion for a different day. Fighting is being discouraged in the game by new rules regarding helmets and visors.

Despite all of these trends in the NHL toward making the game safer, more skilled and less of a goon show, the coverage from the media on many different levels continues to employ an antiquated approach to the game. It should come as no shock then that many fans feel that the game is “going soft”. That is what they hear all the time. When fans tuned in to the pre/post game shows, sports talk shows and broadcasts after Jonathan Toews went down with an injury from a hit delivered by Brooks Orpik, they didn’t hear about how the Blackhawks simply dominated puck possession and shots after that happened. They heard how a team that has won two Stanley Cups in the past four seasons was soft. They heard how the Blackhawks were no longer to be considered a contender for another Cup because their players did not cheap shot or fight one of the Penguins players. They heard that the way to play hockey is to fight a player for delivering what even they said was a clean hit.

Considering how often hits are regaled in these broadcasts, it’s amazing to think that any hockey would even be played with the retaliation prescribed by many hockey pundits for every clean hard hit. The way hockey is being covered by the major media outlets encourages fans to start at and remain at the lowest common denominator of hockey fandom. Hits, fights, retaliation and toughness are the only admirable traits preached to them. Skill is something for soft players despite the fact that those skilled players are the ones doing most of the winning.

Even illegal hits that are discouraged by the broadcasts morph into discussions about how the victimized team should have responded. To think that new fans are drawn to hockey solely based upon fighting is foolish. It all boils down to trying to keep hockey in its brutal past instead of helping to usher in the future of highly skilled teams putting on an amazing show for the fans.

It should come as no surprise then that when someone brings up fighting or retribution for a hit on social media, the fans who have recently made their way into that sphere of hockey fandom go “full meatball” and scream about how hockey is going soft. It is nearly a verbatim recitation of the vitriol spewed forth during the broadcasts. The broadcasts appeal to the lowest common denominator of hockey fandom believing that is where they draw their ratings. In doing so, the broadcasts perpetuate hockey fans remaining at the lowest common denominator in their knowledge of the game and the lens through which they view the game.

It is awfully hard to convince new fans and longtime fans, who are new to more advanced stats, of the merit to viewing the game from a more sophisticated lens when they are constantly told by louder, more far reaching voices that none of that matters. On the other hand, to combat the strongly entrenched views of so many fans and media members, those who do support analyzing the game in newer ways go overboard with criticism. When your belief system is attacked, it is human nature to staunchly defend it and that is what both sides of this debate are doing.

When a fan who is not familiar with more advanced metrics, but may be interested in seeing what they are about, sees all of the people they have ever listened to or learned from while developing their fandom slammed and dismissed out of hand by the advanced stats crowd, they have a very real reaction to it. It is not human nature to suddenly discard a belief system, even one as simple as sports fandom, for a whole new belief system overnight. It is even less likely to happen when the environment surrounding the discussion is hostile, which it often is in the traditional versus advanced metrics debate in hockey.

The only way to affect real change in how the game is viewed and played is to change the message being sent to the typical hockey fan. Less focus on the “code” of honor in hockey, which essentially is playground rules for ten year olds, and more focus on the amazing skill of the players would go a long way to accomplishing this. It feels like a hockey morality lesson every time one of the pregame shows in on. Perhaps actually talking about how hockey is played and how players can be assessed based upon things that require talent would better educate fans and take the focus off of the collateral parts of the game.

Slowly introducing newer ways of analyzing hockey would lead to a whole new thought process going forward. Old dogs can learn new tricks too and would benefit from hearing main stream media embrace these approaches. Showing how fandom can be enhanced by using newer ways of analyzing the game is one way of bringing hockey out of the dark ages and into the modern world. There are still plenty of things to analyze in hockey that do not require advanced metrics. The two ways of doing things do not have to be mutually exclusive. Sometimes hits do lead to a change in possession. That doesn’t mean that hits are the most important statistic. It also means that they do not have to be completely ignored. Using both ways of analyzing the game together, we can all gain a better understanding.

To do this, something has to change. The turf war over the “right way” to analyze hockey has to be resolved. If the NHL wants to move forward and attract more fans, it has to move into the modern era and encourage a more diverse prospective from the broadcasters showcasing its product. The focus on plus/minus, hits and fights has to recede somewhat and make some room for analysis with a bit more substance to it. The NFL and MLB both use far more substantive analysis in their broadcasts even if it is not as advanced as some may want it to be.

It is time that hockey stops assuming that its fans are only capable of digesting the lowest common denominator of analytical information or only wants that level of information. Many advanced stats are not all that advanced. They do not require a degree in statistics to understand. Most fans do not sit around calculating the plus/minus rating of their favorite player; they simply accept whatever the broadcast team tells them it is. There is no need to make fans calculate their second line center’s Corsi For Percentage at Score Close over the last ten games, when they can simply be told what it is. It is not necessary that every fan become an expert in stats to enjoy what the stats can reveal about a player, a team and the game in general.

There is a wonderful opportunity here for broadcasters and other main stream media to grow their markets even more simply by integrating statistics and analytical vantage points that frankly are not that difficult to grasp in the first place. If the nomenclature seems to be a barrier, then simply calling Corsi “All Shot Attempts” and Fenwick “Shot Attempts Minus Blocked Shots” is completely acceptable. Making hockey sound a little smarter is about controlling image. A smarter image attracts new fans. A smarter image helps educate fans that are already watching. A smarter image helps move the mindset from old school goon to hockey fan.

A change in the mindset of fans to something above the lowest common denominator allows for increased acceptance of the rules that are designed to keep players safe. The more educated the fans are about how the game is played and how the players are analyzed, the easier it is for teams to create an identity of skilled play without the fan base screaming about hockey “going soft”. Doing this does not mean that everyone will agree or even buy into the newer methods of analysis, but it does mean that those methods will not seem so foreign. The push back against those methods will be lessened and thus acceptance will occur among new fans more easily. After all, what we all really want is to grow the sport we love so dearly so that more people can enjoy as we do.

The future of hockey will be no different than its past unless we work to move on from the lowest common denominator of understanding and analysis.

*reposted to correct a bug with the sharing button **originally posted on April 7, 2014

The “End All Be All”

Recently, I expressed my frustration with the lack of advanced stats being discussed in a meaningful way by many analysts on TV broadcasts of NHL games. My main point in expressing that frustration was to point out that many hockey fans are not on social media and often do not have access to or knowledge of the resources available to explain stats they may not be familiar with. I was advocating for the inclusion of these stats in broadcasts so that people who are unfamiliar with them could feel more comfortable with them and get some exposure to them in an accessible setting. This level of comfort would decrease the pro-stats versus anti-stats strife and be better for everyone in my opinion. Unfortunately, some read this as me trying to put down people who are not on social media or who aren’t into stats, which was not at all my point. Perhaps I could have done a better job making that clearer but apparently I fell short in that regard.

I received many and varied responses to that post but one of the best basically said that when more NHL teams admit to using them, fans and media would begin to feel more comfortable accepting advanced stats as a useful tool. With that said, I was intrigued this past week by new information regarding the use of advanced stats by some NHL teams. While many in the “advanced stats crowd” have known for a while that there are several teams in the NHL that use their analytics budget for more than just tracking hits, information came out this week that expanded upon that and more importantly, the information was publicized by NHL.com thereby reaching a far larger audience.

While doing interviews with the coaches and players of the San Jose Sharks and L.A. Kings, NHL.com writer Corey Masisak (on Twitter @cmasisak22) asked questions about puck possession and the teams’ use of stats. He was met with a fairly frank discussion that led to confirmation from both teams that they do in fact track puck possession data and use it in their strategies, player usage, etc.

During media availability for the Chicago Blackhawks and St. Louis Blues series, Blues head coach Ken Hitchcock admitted that both he and Blackhawks head coach Joel Quenneville use advanced stats for their teams. On a much smaller level, I was able to get information from a woman who knows one of the Blackhawks analytics people regarding the team’s use of advanced stats. She informed me that the Blackhawks internally track Corsi, Fenwick, zone entries and exits, among other data. This information is then presented to the coaching staff for their use.  Obviously, my Twitter feed is a drop of water compared to the ocean that is the reach of NHL.com and the many other media sites and publications covering the NHL, so I do not expect that to have anywhere near the impact of the aforementioned information.

Regardless, this advanced stats usage by NHL teams such as the Sharks, Kings, Blues and Blackhawks being mentioned and explored by major media sources is a big deal. It is very intriguing. I write about and tweet about advanced stats regularly and sometimes meet with resistance to the information I disseminate. I wondered if perhaps seeing that these very successful teams use advanced stats would sway the opinions of those who had been skeptical as to their usefulness. I took to Twitter and asked for thoughts on the matter. I also made sure to explain that I was not trying to insult or make fun of anyone in order to encourage more honest responses. Obviously my audience, for the most part, are pretty accepting of advanced stats but some of them are not.

The majority of the responses I received from the skeptics boil down to this:

Numbers and stats are fine but they are not the “end all be all” of hockey analysis. You cannot just rely upon numbers to decide who the good players are. The eye test has to agree for the stats to mean anything.

Obviously, I am paraphrasing and summarizing here because several people really took the time to lay out their thoughts and, I would like to add, the majority who responded did it in a very respectful and congenial manner.

The “End All Be All” was the most widely mentioned criticism of advanced stats in the tweets and emails that I received. There seems to be a wide spread notion that folks in the advanced stats crowd begin and end all analysis with the numbers. Perhaps it comes across this way because there just are not that many people in each team’s fan base, at least for the American teams, that focus on this information. Being one of the very few who do stats analysis for a team may lead people to think that stats are the only thing that particular person looks at when in fact it is simply the lack of that type of information from other sources making it stand out.

For the past year, I have followed along on Twitter and frequented the websites and blogs of as many advanced stats people as possible. That is a very short time and happens to coincide with the amount of time I have been on Twitter. In that short time, I have learned an amazing amount from people who have revolutionized stats in hockey and people who use stats as part of their analysis of the teams and players. In that year of paying close attention to and having frequent discussions with these people, not once have I ever heard even one of them say that advanced stats are the end all be all in analyzing hockey. Never.

I think the “end all be all” argument against stats is more a function of perception than reality. Often the advanced stats pack provides a counterargument to more “traditional” analysis by citing ways that the numbers show a different reality than what is being alleged. If the majority of what you have heard in the way of hockey analysis is not numbers related and then it is attacked based upon numbers, it makes sense that you may develop an aversion to the numbers. Again though, I have never heard any in the advanced stats crowd say that numbers are the only way.

I know of several hockey sites that do a wonderful job of breaking down plays and strategies. They are not all that plentiful so people have to search them out. Hockey is so often presented as hit, shoot, score that the actual strategy to the game is left by the wayside fairly often. Further, there are people who are doing tracking projects for zone entries, zone exits and passing. These manual tracking projects require a lot of time to carry out and frankly, I do not think it will shock anyone to learn that not every NHL team has a member of the public that does this.

The long and short of it is this: Hockey is a tough game to analyze. It is more fluid than many other sports and lacks the technological applications that some other sports have to help track data. Even the data provided to the NHL is tracked by people, so as fans we have to make do with what we have. No, Corsi and Fenwick are not perfect, but they are the best tools we have at this point to analyze puck possession and puck possession is the name of the game. All told, I think that the more people are hearing about teams using advanced stats, the more they are coming to accept that they are useful, but they still have some reservations.

*reposted to correct a bug with the sharing button **originally posted on April 21, 2014

I Just Want To Talk About Hockey

Early last week, a male sports blogger wrote an article on an SB Nation site dedicated to an NBA team. One of his readers did not agree with his analysis apparently. From what I can gather from the writer’s Twitter timeline, the reader created multiple accounts to harass him and other men who contribute on to that site. He was also harassed on Twitter from what I can see.

The day following those incidents, of which I was not aware at the time, I was conversing with another woman on Twitter and she sent me a link for an article. The article was unrelated to the NBA story so I have to think it was not part of the reason I came up on this unhappy fan’s radar. The only thing I can come up with is that the reader searched Twitter for SB Nation.  I have SB Nation in my bio since I write for Second City Hockey, so I suppose this made me an easily identifiable target.

I do not follow the writer of the NBA article on Twitter nor do I belong to the section of SB Nation for which he writes.  As a writer for Second City Hockey, my focus is on hockey and the use of advanced statistics to analyze the game. I do not write about basketball, although I am a fan of the sport.

I’ve only been on Twitter for about a year. I only started writing about hockey in November of 2013 and was asked to write for Second City Hockey after my first blog article. My use of advanced stats has occasionally elicited some “watch the game you nerd” type of messages. Some have been a bit harshly worded, but easy to ignore. I had never even blocked anyone on Twitter until midway through the Winter Olympics when someone decided to prove that Phil Kessel is a better hockey player than Patrick Kane by being a misogynist. The funny thing about that was that I was not even making that point or its converse and during the conversation the guy asked me to prove his point using stats. It was bizarre and I ended up blocking him after he told me to get back in the kitchen.

I’ve dealt with unbelievable misogyny in the past having grown up a “tom boy” on the farm, playing sports, working on cars, being good at science, going to law school and to a great extent while practicing law. I’ve had judges scream mercilessly at me in front of a jury during a trial and later admit to doing so to see if I would cry. I didn’t and I won the trial. I’ve had male attorneys move lecterns so I couldn’t get behind them when trying cases very late in pregnancy. I was told on several occasions by named partners in firms I have worked for in the past that I should handle specific clients’ cases, client dinners and the like because the client’s decision makers thought I was attractive. You can take my word for it that I was told specific details of what made me attractive by the men with their names on the door of the firm. I have had male attorneys, clients and opposing parties openly question my ability based solely upon my gender. I proved them wrong by doing my job very well. Many of them admitted to me afterward that they were wrong and apologized. Some of them did not, but after I had beaten them in court, I did not really care.

The common thing in all of this is that not once did any of those people ever turn their misogyny into threats of physical violence. That is likely because most of those encounters were face to face and the other person was not emboldened by the lack of physical proximity. This is what made what happened recently so disturbing to me. Once the unhappy fan who had been harassing the NBA writer found me on Twitter, he sent me an aggressive and sexually explicit message. I had no idea of what was happening with regard to the NBA article so I thought it was a random spam bot.

He sent me another explicit message using the NBA writer’s name as his Twitter name. I blocked and reported it as abusive using the form Twitter provides, which I had never done before. Much to my surprise, the same guy made a new account and his messages increased in their aggressive and explicit nature. I took some screen shots and kept blocking and reporting the accounts. He started using Twitter handles made up solely to insult me as he created new accounts. The messages started including threats of sexual violence toward me and finally toward my children as well. While trying to screen shot one tweet, four or five more would pour in from him. I kept blocking and reporting these accounts and tweets.

Many people who know me on Twitter tried to help. A few of them did some digging and discovered the source of the situation. It appeared that this unhappy fan was trying to get the NBA writer in trouble by harassing me on Twitter using the writer’s name. Several people suggested that I report this situation to the police and at that point, my harasser stopped sending me messages.  I thought it was over with, but then he started back up again. The second wave of harassment was short lived thankfully and only involved two additional accounts made to carry it out. At one point the person told me that if I didn’t want to be harassed and “bullied” online, I should stay off of my computer. That reasoning is completely ridiculous, but I would not expect a person like that to understand why.

I did get an email from Twitter that basically told me to call the police if I felt the threats of violence were “credible” which, I understand, is a way to cover the company from liability. I do not expect Twitter to fight all of my battles for me, but it would be nice to have a policy that would have prevented this person from creating so many accounts in such a short time frame.  I will not be holding my breath for this to happen.

Several days have passed and now that I’ve had a little time to collect my thoughts, the whole situation is bothersome on an even larger scale. This is just a small piece of a much larger puzzle. The logical explanation for me being chosen as a victim of this harassment is that I write about sports on the same collective network as the person who angered this individual. I assume it was a man who was harassing me due to some of the details of the sexual threats but there is no way to be sure. I do not know if he chose me because I am a woman or not. I lean toward that answering being yes. The insults this person lobbed at the NBA writer involved questioning his sexual orientation. The threats of physical and sexual violence sent to me specifically drew upon the fact that I am a woman and also targeted my children.  The threats also involved racist comments about how when this person was “done with me” he would leave me to be gang raped by specific ethnic groups. Of course, he identified these groups with slurs and insulting language. He covered all of his bigoted bases to be sure.

Even keeping in mind that this person was trying to get someone else in trouble, his creativity and the ease with which he sent these threats at such rapid fire pace leads me to think they are not far off from things he would normally think or say. The fact that he immediately resorted to sexual messages and threats of sexual violence is a sad commentary on how he perceives women in the sports world and in general.

I know that I am not the first woman to experience this sort of treatment in life or online. This is my first online experience with this kind of vitriol being focused on me with such intensity, so I hope you will  excuse my lack of sophistication in how to deal with such attacks. I was not prepared to just ignore it or pretend it did not happen. I was not prepared for the way it made me feel. I had a fleeting moment of feeling that I was not safe, but it passed fairly quickly. The feelings that are taking longer to pass are embarrassment, humiliation, vulnerability and anger.

I interact with men and women when talking about sports all the time. It is a very rare occasion that I sense my gender has anything at all to do with the response I get in those conversations. The lack of gender involvement in those interactions made it particularly embarrassing and humiliating when it was suddenly put in the spotlight. I know that the people I interact with on Twitter would not even think of judging me based upon that but it is embarrassing and humiliating nonetheless. The men I interact with may be the subject of attacks but I have not seen them threatened with sexual violence. (This excludes those men who are attacked based upon their sexuality of course.)

The sexual nature of this harassment is what led to the anger I am feeling. I want to write about hockey. I want to talk about sports with other people. I want to argue my point and support it with facts. I want to be proven wrong by someone who knows more than I do. I want someone else to prove a point and show me how I misjudged a situation or misread or misused a stat. I do not want to be targeted for attacks based upon some person’s antiquated view of what parts of the world women are allowed to tread into. I do not want to feel a bit anxious when I open my Twitter account because some completely unstable person may do this kind of thing again. I will continue to write and talk about hockey and sports in general. I am sure this kind of attack will happen again. I hope I am more prepared for it when it does but I do not think I will be able to just ignore it.

I am tired of seeing other women treated this way whenever they open their mouths.  I am tired of seeing smart women who demand to be treated fairly held out as an example of a “hysterical woman” “outraging” over what some men consider funny or not a big deal. Whether it is a bad joke or the lack of women’s sized jerseys available online or just a misunderstanding, I am tired of seeing the men who are called out over their behavior make fun of the women calling them out and then posting every response from a woman who did not think it was a big deal.  This kind of behavior only reinforces these stereotypes and makes women think twice before voicing their opinions. I am tired of people calling these guys “internet trolls” and acting like that is an acceptable thing to be. I am tired of seeing people that say they support women’s involvement in sports and sports writing also supporting the men who make us feel that we are not welcome in their club.

Lastly, I am tired of having to get this angry about things like this, because damn it, I just want to talk about hockey.

*reposted to correct a bug with the sharing button **originally posted on March 9, 2014

What I Learned During The Olympics

As a person who loves hockey, I spend a ridiculous amount of time watching, studying and writing about the NHL. I’ve tried to learn about and teach others about more advanced statistics in order to have a better understanding of the game. I have received a tremendous amount of support and encouragement in this endeavor from many people, both men and women.

There are many people who discuss and use advanced stats. While I have always understood that men clearly outnumber women in the hockey blogosphere, I have not experienced being dismissed out of hand due to being a woman in that little corner of the world. Only once was I even made to feel marginalized in the advanced stats community (for lack of a better term), but frankly that had more to do with me being someone who uses stats instead of someone who thinks up the new ones.

The instances of men being outright misogynists with regard to my involvement in writing about hockey have been few and far between. Occasionally, I have run into someone who has questioned me or doubted my conclusions so vigorously that I am left with the impression that my gender had something to do with it. Nearly all of these instances have involved men on Twitter with whom I have never had prior interaction and who have only just started their accounts.

As for the men who write for established blogs, never once have I been made to feel that I am not good enough or know less based upon being a woman. I’ve only been writing about hockey in any formal manner since late November of 2013 so perhaps I have not been noticed by the wrong people yet and thus have had a positive experience. I hope that will continue to be the case.

If you followed anything that I tweeted or wrote about during the Olympics, you know that I was heavily invested in the Women’s Hockey tournament. I watched every game. I stayed up late to finish getting the stats table together after one of the west coast games for the Blackhawks, took a one and a half hour nap and got up at 3 a.m. so I would not miss the first game that the American women played. I do not say this to impress you or make you think I am some sort of martyr. I say this because I want you to understand how excited I was and how engaged I was in the women’s tournament.

I decided prior to the Olympics that I wanted to track Corsi for the American and Canadian women’s teams and all of the teams involved after the preliminary round. I wanted to do this because I had never seen this done for women’s hockey. I decided to track the American men’s team as well. I saw a bunch of arguments about advanced stats in the Olympics and understood that they would not be useful for future prediction and might be completely undone by luck. The exercise of tracking the men’s team was really more to sharpen my own tracking skills since I have also started tracking zone entries and exits for the Blackhawks. I did not anticipate that anyone would pay attention to any of the stats I tracked nor was I bothered by that prospect.

I started watching the women’s tournament thinking that I would see some half hearted support along country lines as I assume often happens in the case of international competition and some strong support from a few people. I was very pleasantly surprised to find out that I was wrong. Not only did I see support on from the sources I expected to see it from, i.e. some very dedicated female hockey fans, and from some very unexpected places. Not only did some of the women who normally write about the NHL on SB Nation take up the task of covering the women’s tournament, but many of the men did as well.

The coverage was not just lip service, but actual analytic discussion of the teams and the games. I did recaps of all of the American women’s games and several of the Canadian women’s games that were posted at the Blackhawks site for SB Nation, Second City Hockey. I included some stats tables from what I had tracked during the games. Much to my surprise, some of the stats were included in articles on the women’s games from main stream media (with proper credit given of course). By the time the semifinal round came about, I had people from women’s hockey fans to men who write for the NHL asking me for stats on the women’s games. I was very surprised when the excellent advanced stats website www.ExtraSkater.com started sharing my manually tracked stats not only for the men’s tournament, but for the women’s as well. The site also posted scoring stats for the women and their teams.

While all of this was happening, a rather contentious discussion came about after the American women handily defeated the Swedish women regarding the future of women’s hockey in the Olympics. Many people on social media, blogs and main stream media weighed in on the debate with the vast majority coming down on the side of inclusion. It would seem that level headed people do not think that progress deserves punishment. The notable exceptions to this viewpoint either admitted that they simply did not like women’s hockey or were those whose voices so many in the hockey social media community have learned to ignore regardless of the issue. Thankfully, the issue of the continued inclusion of the sport in the Olympics was put to rest the next day when IOC officials dismissed the idea of dropping it from the world stage.

As the men’s tournament went on, the stats I was tracking for Team USA became more and more popular and in demand following each game. This was encouraging not so much in terms of the meaning or weight of the stats themselves, but in the growing interest in them. I continually learn more about them. I genuinely enjoy answering questions and having discussions involving advanced stats as well, so the more the merrier.

Then came the gold medal game between the American and Canadian women. When that game ended, I sat down and cried. I am not much of a crier so this surprised even me. I spent the rest of the day trying to put on a happy face and be pleasant for the sake of my little boys, because that is what parents do. That evening after they were in bed, I had a hard time being upbeat about anything. I feared that I would not even be excited for the men’s game between the same countries. Fortunately, talking hockey the following day with some really wonderful people on Twitter renewed my excitement for the game.

After Team USA lost, I was disappointed and sad that they would not be playing for the Gold Medal, but I was able to shake off those feelings pretty easily as the day went on. The stats that I tracked during the game were widely used by various main stream media outlets. The interest in them was wonderful to see and I was genuinely happy about that.

That good feeling continued into the evening and I started wondering why that was. Why did I have no real difficulty getting over the men’s team loss when the women’s team loss hit me so hard? I know more about and am more familiar with the NHL players. I have a working knowledge of the careers of the women on the team but nowhere near that which I have of the men.

The quick turnaround for the Bronze Medal game against Finland put these thoughts on the back burner. After the men’s team lost the Bronze Medal game, I was not sad, but angry. Angry with how they played, how the game ended up, how the players were being judged. Once again the effort of a team was questioned. Once again the fault for a loss was placed at the feet of one player.

I started thinking more about the unexpected things that I experienced during the Olympics. The men’s tournament features players that I am extremely familiar with from the NHL. I know they are successful. I know they will continue to make money and be cheered for by their fans. I know they will continue to play the game that they love as their job. I know some of them will go on to hoist the Stanley Cup above their heads and feel like they have conquered the world. I know that praise and accolades await them after the Olympics are over. I know people will wear their jerseys and remember their names. I know that they will have all of the things that come with working harder and being more talented than everyone else in their sport.

I cannot say any of those things for the women who played hockey in the Olympics. Their hard work and talent will continue to go largely unnoticed. Once college is over, most of them will only play hockey on a club team, if at all. The masses will not remember their names or buy their jerseys. They will never hoist the Stanley Cup. A Gold Medal at the Olympics is their Stanley Cup. They may go on to play in the World Championships and a few of us will watch their games and cheer for them. They may return to their college teams and win championships, and a few of us will watch their games and cheer for them.

The grand stage for these women is over and done with until the next Olympics. Their lifetime of work gets two weeks to shine every four years. Seeing the American women lose their grasp of the ultimate prize on the biggest stage that women’s hockey is afforded was hard to do. Knowing that this is all that they get is worse. No matter how well any of the teams play, this is all they will get. No matter how inspired we are by their courage, talent and toughness, this is all they will get.

When the Olympics are over, we will go back to talking about and loving the NHL. We will go back to focusing on the Stanley Cup. We will go back to debating the inclusion of women in sports writing. We will go back to asking to be treated equally in writing about sports played in leagues that, no matter how talented we are, we would not be allowed to play in. These are the things that made me sit down and cry after the Gold Medal game. These are the things that made that loss so much harder to bear than anything that happened with the men’s team.

Now that the Olympics are drawing to a close, I am glad that I tracked the women’s hockey stats throughout the tournament. I feel like this was my own way of giving them the treatment I think they deserve and wish they would receive in a wider sense. This was the way I could treat them like the men’s teams in some small part.

*reposted in order to correct a sharing button bug **originally posted on February 23, 2014

Hockey Twitter & Social Change

I have written before about what a powerful tool social media can be in effecting the change needed in societal attitudes toward many different issues. I have encouraged people to speak out about their experiences and to point out behavior and attitudes that are harmful. I firmly believe that speaking up and setting an example ourselves are the only ways to change our culture. Most of the people I interact with do not stand aside in the face of overt racism, misogyny, homophobia and the like. Things are a little different when we look at casual racism, misogyny and homophobia though.

Because I have only experienced misogyny as a straight white woman, I’ll shape my comments in that regard, but I think that the principles of dealing with these issues are useful in a wider scope.

I know some incredibly smart, passionate people through social media (mainly Twitter). I have great respect for the feminists, both women and men, who discuss important issues; who speak up when they see things that are unacceptable or hurtful; who I consider allies in my continued quest for inclusion in sports writing. I’ve learned many things from them and I would like to think that they have learned a thing or two from me and my experiences.

Sometimes it is tough to remember that none of us are right all the time. Sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes our anger, sadness, frustration and yes, even compassion and empathy, get in the way of making rational decisions. I am as guilty of this as everyone else.

Speaking out about personal experiences that are painful can be very difficult. Painful experiences are highly emotionally driven as should be apparent to everyone. When people are dealing with something painful and the emotions that accompany it, they do not always respond well to advice or criticism no matter how rational it may seem to the person giving it.  

I wrote about a situation that involved harassment online several months ago and while I know it is there, I have not reread it since the day I published it. It makes me feel a little sick to my stomach to even think about reading it because I don’t want to feel those same things all over again despite the fact that it was simply online harassment and not face to face or physical. I only received a little bit of criticism regarding that situation, but it was really tough to hear at that time. Now it is much easier to look back on it and see that some of the points made, although critical, were legitimate, despite the fact that I still do not necessarily agree with them. The overwhelming response to the experience I shared was one of support though. I felt so much better knowing that people understood how I was feeling and why I was feeling it. It continues to be an important moment for me in terms of my development as a hockey writer and a person.   

It is important that we show support for those who do speak out about painful or uncomfortable experiences. This helps give those brave people a safe place to begin feeling better. It is important to support those who have had these experiences and do not yet feel comfortable speaking out as well. Despite the fact that what many of us call “Hockey Twitter” is a vast space, it can often feel like a very small community. Making it a place of support helps people who have been made to feel uncomfortable feel safe in sharing their experiences. It may seem strange to expect that sort of behavior from a bunch of people who talk and write about hockey; however, this community is unique in that it often overlaps with many major social issues outside of sports.

I will tell you how I view these issues. Of course, you are free to agree or disagree.

When faced with these situations, the real trick for many of us is to figure out how to handle the person responsible for making the one we are supporting feel victimized. Many times, it is easy to decide how to do this because the responsible party has done something we all agree is egregious, such as physical assault, psychological abuse and the like. It becomes much harder when we are faced with actions that some may see as a grey area. Hitting on another person, making a sexual advance or making casual comments that may inherently be degrading to women but have been generally socially acceptable for a long time may fall into this grey area for many people.  

I think that many of us can agree that simply hitting on someone, i.e. asking them out, is not harassment in and of itself. If the invitation to engage in some sort of social interaction is not desired, it will be declined. Consider this caveat however: Asking someone out or hitting on someone you have become friendly with on social media and having that person decline WILL change your relationship with that person. It will more than likely become uncomfortable so that should be a consideration if you are trying to decide whether to do this. I know that seems overly simplistic, but apparently it is not clear to some.

If the invitation is declined, it should end there. Further invitations should not occur. Declining a potentially romantic social invitation once MUST be enough. Continued invitations make the receiving party feel uncomfortable and potentially, depending upon the tone of the invitations, even threatened. This is unacceptable.

Sexual advances through social media are creepy. They make the recipient feel uncomfortable and sometimes even unsafe. At the very least, they make that person feel like their social media community is a place that they must be on guard even against those that may outwardly be seen as nice and accepting people. This behavior creates a feeling of being unwelcome for many women. I am sure that sexual advances are made toward men through social media as well, but I am not familiar with that situation so I cannot really speak to its prevalence.

A good rule of conduct is to refrain from making any sexual advances through the use of social media because often the person making such an advance fully believes it will be welcomed when it will in fact not be welcomed. I realize that morality is different for everyone and I am not judging how people conduct their sex lives; however, your want for a casual or serious sexual relationship should not be pursued in a manner that leaves a trail of people feeling uncomfortable, unsafe or victimized in your wake. If someone does make a sexual advance that is unwelcomed, even once, he or she should be prepared to be regarded as creepy within his or her social media community. If those advances continue to be made toward the same person after they have been rebuffed or even ignored, it is harassment, plain and simple.

In determining how to respond to these types of things, it is helpful to me to think of how these actions would be viewed if they were done in person in a social setting. If you were hanging out in a bar and saw a friend getting hit on, you probably would not have much of a problem with it unless the invitation was declined and the person doing the asking continued to press the matter. Likewise, if someone made a sexual advance toward your friend while you were out at a bar and it was unwelcomed, you would likely think the person making the advance was a creep. If those advances continued after being declined, you would likely get security involved or take some sort of action to stop the advances and make your friend feel safe. Perhaps these same feelings should guide us on social media as well.

When we are responding to someone being made to feel uncomfortable or unsafe in our social media community, it is important to be supportive of the person speaking out. How you measure your response to the situation in terms of your feelings, actions or words regarding the person making another feel uncomfortable or unsafe is up to you; however, I think the examples about being out with friends that I discussed above may help in determining the level of response. Everyone is different and thus the responses will be different.

The really complicating factor in all of this stems from the use of social media accounts for professional and personal purposes. The line between professional and personal use is often very blurry. Many in the hockey twitter community are paid to write about and/or analyze hockey. Others are bloggers who do the same but often with little or no payment or as a venture undertaken in their free time. Still others are personalities who do not write anywhere in particular, but have carved out a niche for themselves in the community.

When someone uses an obviously personal account on Twitter to act in a manner that makes the rest of us feel like he or she is a creep, harasser or even a danger to others, the response is often public shaming and ostracizing. Extreme cases may even result in action by public authorities.

When someone who is considered a blogger acts in a threatening or abusive manner, the response is usually public shaming and dismissal from the blog he or she writes for or a severe loss in readership. When the actions of the blogger are in more of the gray area of these issues, a loss of reputation or standing is likely, but may be able to be regained.    

When people who have gained their following or audience mainly through a professional, i.e. compensated, venture behave in a way that makes others feel uncomfortable, unsafe or even threatened, using their professional or official social media account, it directly reflects upon the organizations that employ them. Public relations and image are important for the success of these companies and actions will often be taken in response to damaging behavior. If it is a single instance of poor judgment, the resulting action from the employer may be a reprimand or a public apology. If a pattern of this behavior comes to light, it is far more damaging to the organization’s reputation and thus more serious measures may be pursued.

The most important thing to remember in all of this is that the people speaking out about how the actions of another made them feel uncomfortable, unsafe or threatened are ENTITLED to do so. The response to how they were treated is entirely up to those observing it. If it is something in a rather grey area such as asking someone out, the result is likely to be some embarrassment or a slightly damaged reputation if that person is a professional. Once we move past simply asking someone out, the results, particularly for a person using their professional account to carry out such behavior, are more dramatic.

Again, the response to such behavior is measured by the people observing and reacting to it, not the person bringing the behavior to light. Speaking out and saying “this is what happened and here is how this behavior made me feel” is NOT what determines the resulting reaction from the general community. The ACTIONS undertaken by the person engaging in the inappropriate, unprofessional, questionable, offensive or abusive behavior ARE what determines the type of response that follows.

We are each responsible for responding to these situations in a manner we believe to be appropriate. If the person is a professional, then his or her employer is responsible for determining the appropriate action to take in response to the behavior depending upon the severity of its impropriety.

How the hockey twitter community responds can often take on a mob mentality. Sometimes we get so caught up in the mood of the response of others that we do not take the time to think about what we feel an appropriate response really is from our point of view. This is a fairly common occurrence outside of social media as well, so I do not think this is in any way unique. We are each responsible for our own reactions. Sometimes issues arise and upon first glance do not seem all that out of the ordinary or all that egregious. It is only upon hearing more back story or more information on how a certain type of behavior is harmful that we start to rethink our opinions. If we want others to rethink their views on issues of societal importance, we MUST be willing to discuss those issues.

Willingness to discuss an issue is not the same thing as angrily calling people names or labeling people because they do not see something in the exact same way that I do. So long as the person with whom we are discussing an issue is not simply engaging in harassment or name calling, we should be willing to talk. We should be willing to explain our position without simply dismissing the thoughts on that issue from others. We should be willing to answer questions.

I have often seen an issue of societal importance come up with a disappointed or disapproving type of response that prompts others to say “Can you tell me why that is so bad?” or something similar. Yes, context is hard when it comes to the short bursts of written word on social media, but it is important that these questions get answered. When someone asks a question like this about an issue that holds import for you, it is your opportunity to explain your thoughts. At that point, you are being offered a platform from which to explain something important.

Sure, one out of every ten of these questions may be from someone looking to be a jerk, but the majority of these questions, at least in my experience, are genuine. The conversation may not be an easy one. It will probably result in a litany of questions or positions expressed that have been shaped by years of misunderstanding, cultural misconceptions, ingrained attitudes or simply unfamiliarity with the issue, but it is of the upmost importance that these conversations happen.

Ask yourself:

How often have I seen someone change a long held understanding of or opinion on an issue simply because they were told they were wrong?

How often have I told someone “your entire way of thinking about this is wrong” and had that result in the person suddenly changing to the opinion I desire them to have?

If we want to consider ourselves leaders in effecting the change we want to see in society with regard to the issues we hold dear, we must be willing to explain the reasons the change is necessary and important. Change, growth and learning are all challenging to various degrees depending upon the issue. People need a sufficient reason to make a change. The reason must, in some way, validate them as a person. Those validations may be very simple, such as “this attitude negatively affects people I care about and I don’t want to do that” or “the things I thought I knew about this group of people are not true”, but they are necessary nonetheless.

I am not advocating tolerating people set upon harassing you or trolling you. Those people thrive off of the misery of others and will likely not change even for the most persuasive of reasons. Do with them as you will. I am advocating for an open discussion with participants who, even if not entirely enthusiastic, are at the least not intentionally disrespectful.    

Explaining why something is wrong or harmful when it seems like it should be so obvious is a frustrating and at times even maddening process. If you do not choose to go through it, that is understandable, but know this: social change does not happen when we ignore undesirable or harmful behavior and attitudes. Demanding that people change their long held attitudes just because someone tells them they are wrong is not an effective means of persuasion. Meeting respectful, sympathetic or at minimum, interested but questioning voices with hostility kills the environment needed for open discussion and growth.

I have failed at following this idea before and I am fairly certain I will fail at it again, but I am going to try my best. I hope you will do the same.

New NHL Terms Of Service

The NHL’s website, NHL.com, recently updated the language of the TOS (Terms of Service) regarding the use of the site’s Services and Content. This has caused a stir in the analytics community due to the possible implications of the language contained therein. A friend asked if I would look over the former and updated TOS’s and give my impressions of the meaning and possible implications there from. Of course, these are simply my impressions of the language in the old and new TOS’s and are not intended to be construed as legal advice nor should these impressions be relied upon in such a manner.

 OLD NHL.COM TOS:

 

In addition, the NHL Parties also provide access to certain footage (video and audio), photographs, text, images, statistics, logos and other media and intellectual property related to or otherwise associated with the National Hockey League, its member clubs and the sport of hockey (collectively, the “Content”).

- NHL.com Terms of Service (formerly used), Section 2. Services And Content

RTSS statistics and data (i.e. data targeted by scraping programs used for stats sites, stats/tracking projects etc…) were included in the definition of Content for the purposes of the old TOS.

You may not use any of the Content or Services for commercial purposes. The Services may not be viewed in areas open to the public or in commercial establishments where multiple people can view it at the same time. Further, you may not copy, distribute, modify, republish, broadcast, retransmit or publicly display any of the Content or Services, create derivative works of them, charge admission for their viewing, or transmit or distribute running accounts of them, unless you have the prior written permission of NHL ICE, which permission may be withheld in NHL ICE’s sole discretion.

- NHL.com Terms of Service (formerly used), Section 2. Services and Content

 

Sites and/or projects using RTSS data were prohibited by the old TOS. Enforcement of this provision was not undertaken as far as I know.

NEW NHL.COM TOS:

You may not access or use, or attempt to access or use, the Services to take any action that could harm us or any other person or entity (each a “person”), interfere with the operation of the Services, or use the Services in a manner that violates any laws.

- NHL.com Terms of Service (recently updated), Section 2. Prohibited Content and Activities

 

The new TOS details a general position by the league indicates a desire to protect their site and services from malicious attack and/or abuse. The language seems to target activities by outside parties attempting to use Content (included in definition of Services) that would hamper or interfere with the efficient functioning of the site.

For example, you may not:

  • Impersonate any person or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your credentials,  affiliation with any person, or the origin of any information you provide;
  • Engage in unauthorized spidering, scraping, or harvesting of content or information, or use any other unauthorized automated means to compile information;
  • Obtain or attempt to gain unauthorized access to other computer systems, materials, information, or any services available on or through the Services;
  • Use any device, software, or routine to interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of the Services or any activity conducted on the Services or attempt to probe, scan, test the vulnerability of, or breach the security of any system, device, or network;
  • Circumvent, reverse engineer, decipher, decompile, disassemble, decrypt, or otherwise alter or interfere with (or attempt, encourage, or support anyone else’s attempt to engage in such activities) any of the software comprising or in any way making up a part of the Services. The use or distribution of tools designed for compromising security (e.g., password guessing programs, cracking tools, or network probing tools) is strictly prohibited;
  • Take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our network or infrastructure;
  • Upload or otherwise transmit any communication, software, or material that contains a virus or is otherwise harmful to our or our users’ computers, devices, or systems; or
  • Engage in any other conduct that restricts or inhibits any person from using or enjoying the Services, or that, in our sole judgment, exposes us, users or any other third party to any liability, damages, or detriment of any type.

Violations of system or network security and certain other conduct may result in civil or criminal liability. We may investigate and work with law enforcement authorities to prosecute users who violate the Terms. We may suspend or terminate your access to the Services for any or no reason at any time without notice.

- NHL.com Terms of Service (recently updated), Section 2. Prohibited Content and Activities

The majority of the examples provided in the Prohibited Content and Activities section focus on actions that would attempt to circumvent the site’s security such as paywalls, blackout provisions, etc. The specific language that has been the focus of added scrutiny for analytics users is “Engage in unauthorized spidering, scraping, or harvesting of content or information, or use any other unauthorized automated means to compile information”.

 Scraping or harvesting content or information is often used on sites that provide shooting/possession information and in projects that examine shooting in conjunction with manually tracked events such as zone entries, zone exits and the like. While this language could be used to enforce a prohibition of these activities, it’s inclusion in a section describing prohibited malicious activities could indicate the league’s intention in that regard. My reading of these sections together and in comparison with the former TOS language leads me to believe that unless a user engages in scraping activity that somehow harms the league’s site and/or its users, the league may not be enforcing the provision.

Additionally, the costs associated with enforcement of these provisions, including proving damages associated with the scraping activity could be a deterrent to enforcement unless the user engaging in the scraping or harvesting of data is somehow making a good deal of profit from the venture. Because the league’s site does not currently offer certain processed forms of the RTSS data (Corsi, Fenwick, etc…) the use of the data in this manner would appear to be harmless to the site in that it is not taking users or viewers away from the league’s site, thereby diminishing ad revenue, nor interfering with the need for users to register for pay services. These provisions appear to be geared more toward the league’s actions against sites providing “pirated” feeds of games and also entities that may try to harvest user data.

Both the TOS formerly used by the NHL and the current TOS include language that would allow the league to require activities such as scraping be stopped. The language is more specific in the current TOS of course, but in and of itself, is not represent a change in the league’s policies. Technically, these provisions could even be used to prohibit articles or other such writing that includes any statistics kept by the league, e.g. penalty minutes, power play opportunities, etc…

The fact of the matter is that it is good for the league to have widespread coverage of its product. So long as others are not making ill-gotten money off of proprietary information, it doesn’t seem that the league would benefit from or have a real interest in putting a stop to activities such as tracking on ice events and correlating them with RTSS data despite the fact that they most certainly could do so.

Again, these are simply my impressions of the language in the old and new TOS’s and are not intended to be construed as legal advice nor should these impressions be relied upon in such a manner.