Let me speak as a statistician for a moment .....
If the situation with discipline were "inconsistent" in some random fashion, that would correspond to variance in the random variable of the amount of consequence relative to a particular class of hockey infractions. However, if the amount of consequence for a particular class of infractions is consistently different for some players than for others, that corresponds to the statistical concept of bias. Bias is a much more insidious and provocative cause of error in statistics, because it is much more difficult to measure and compromises the integrity of statistics no matter how much one observes the phenomenon under consideration (whereas one can reduce variance by observing more cases). Bias is also dangerous to the integrity, not just of statistics, but of the science of statistics itself, because people get the sense that "statistics are worthless." Also, bias can creep into statistics not just because of natural phenomena that interfere in some consistent way with the measurement of a variable, but because someone is manipulating the data for his/her own purposes.
Which is what we are saying, rather it’s the DOPS is consistent, or certain players/teams are treated differently. is based on the audience, and result
But you did bring up a key phrase: integrity of the statistics. As you know, when subjectivity, or “discression”, is a key, primary, or deciding factor, then the data becomes not about what, but about who.
As long as the NHL DOPS, officiating, etc. rely on discretion and interpretation, bias will be present and challenged. Which works very well for them, as it gives them free reign and “claim” integrity at the same time
