So as I reread this blog post multiple times, I never really quite understood all the details of the project. But one paragraph stood out to me as the important part of the article:
"The corollary of the non-randomness [which is not randomness, but is neither order nor structure] and its effect on puck possession [how strategy plays out in the game] is, and this is what makes hockey so non-transitive [or based on positive feedback loops i.e. game theory], that occasionally, owing to the randomness [again not disorder or contingency] of the puck when in neither team's control, that a bad strategy must sometimes out perform a good strategy. We cannot cover all the possibilities of the puck's behaviour so by definition [how we wish to use language or formulas] what we choose to do, the decisions we make, however, well thought out, must be wrong some of the time [that the words and stats we choose to describe the play of hockey most not only be inadequate in their description but also that if they are adequate then they are still wrong based on the arbitrary nature of their non-randomness]. Conversely, given the randomness of the puck, sometimes the worst decisions must turn out to be right [which is the reason I still have friends and get laid on occasion]." -Wildmanmath (my thoughts in the copper brackets)
Leaving aside the un-witty jokes, my complete misunderstanding of mathematics, and my obtuseness to locate what wildmanmath is actually saying—there is a relevant point in all of this. That while statistics cannot alway account for the beauty of hockey or art, it can still be explained in a scientific manner through the use of mathematics. I will never be able to truly add to this conversation, but I am hoping wildmanmath and others continue to examine how real mathematics can teach us about our beloved game. Might I suggest using this to look at the dirty concept of "clutchness" my friends.