maybe one of these days people will stop making arguments against analytics as if the goal for the field is to usurp "eye test" or "experience" in the evaluation process.
perhaps a couple of sycophant front offices tried that literally 15 years ago, but almost from the jump analytics in sports has been groomed and developed as a management tool to help actual human beings make better decisions. that's really the extent of it. Tulsky's 97% comments in Custance's podcast felt too self-effacing by half and maybe a bit of self-deprecating humor as well.
major developments in recent years have resulted in developing new analytical tools. either using new technology (accelerometer or GPS tracking stuff) or new concepts (possession/zone entry or shot generation stuff for hockey). you still need the human element to fill in the gaps that analytics can't cover, just like you need analytical tools to fill in the gaps that eye tests, experienced scouting, and people relations processes can't objectively evaluate. Billy Beane knows this, Theo Epstein knows this, and Eric Tulsky and Tom Dundon definitely know this.
in terms of the Carolina Hurricanes, I think the biggest organizational evolution in the Dundon era isn't really the use of analytics, but rather a philosophical change in how "Value" is determined, as well as how decisions are made to retain, move out, or target and identify value using all available means.
the red/yellow/green light decision-making process that Tom Dundon described when he first bought the team wasn't about wheeling in a big computer and typing Run into a terminal window. it was about gathering information, storing and organizing this information so that human beings can access, understand, and utilize it, and establishing a circle of trust so that a group of smart individuals can bring informed perspectives into powwows and make smart decisions nimbly, whether they involve changes of small or franchise-altering proportions.
it's this sort of flexible decision-making that enables rather convoluted deals like the Faulk trade. Faulk's value was more or less determined (with senior-level input from Rod Brind'Amour I might add), contract negotiations were undertaken, and when there was an impasse, they were able to make a move with a clear idea of what value they could get. this allowed them to maneuver a deal for a replacement roster defenseman and an exciting prospect with high end potential. not only that, but given that there was a rather minor exchange of picks and salary retention on Carolina's part, you can feel pretty confident that GMBC felt strongly about the major pieces of the deal. to me as a fan, that's uncommon insight into management priorities, especially in the NHL.
at this point, it remains to be seen how these changes will impact the won-loss record of this particular season. anything can happen, and analytical tools are kind of left standing on the dock as the season pushes out to sea when it comes to things like "leadership" or "chemistry." but if you look at the process itself for what it is and how it has impacted the value of assets throughout the organization, the results are clear as day. the Faulk trade is just the latest iteration.
