An excellent Twitter thread sure to piss off some people:
I think someone just took the current alternate logo and changed the oil drop to white.
I think Burke makes a good point when he talks about how the methods in moneyball were tools for survivability of low budget teams. It provided an incremental improvement in being able to identify diamonds in the rough that you could get cheaper than they were actually worth to create a passable team. Rarely, if ever, leads to an actual contender, but you can get an advantage over other teams in your same situation if you are really good at identifying those players.
In hockey, there is value too, you could find some underrated guys, but for the most part, good players are known, and sought after. Maybe analytics in hockey actually have more value the other way, identifying guys that you think are trying hard and doing stuff, but you find they are actually not helping you push play in your favour (ahem, Kris Russell, lol).
The worst thing that you can do in hockey is coach for Corsi's like eakins did with us. When you start telling guys that shot attempts are the key to winning, well, we all saw what happened. Guys tossing garbage from anywhere. Even worse, Eakins thought that reducing the more frequent low quality Corsi's against was better than stopping the rarer high quality chances (because you could overall allow less corsi's against by reducing the more common events), thus the swarm was born...and we know what happened there too. The analytics are only valuable when the teams are focused on creating and reducing high quality chances for and against, which has been what hockey has always been about, until guys like Eakins came along to try some bad experiments.