View Single Post
08-22-2011, 03:46 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
It seems I got a bit misunderstood when I included a (GF/GA)*(GF+GA) column. That column was just there as an example of what results it would show. It was the other columns that were the important ones. Below I have deleted that column.

72-50 +22 1.440 112
60-40 +20 1.500 100
40-20 +20 2.000 60
45-30 +15 1.500 75
7- 4 + 3 1.750 11
3- 1 + 2 3.000 4
GD=GF-GA (goal difference). GS=GF+GA (goal sum).

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Also, I agree that small sample sizes tend to lead to skewed results. That is why taking the best X seasons or career numbers are going to be more reliable for almost any metric.
Yes. But has it been tested out how much more reliable?
I may try to examine that a bit more.

I also intend to look at game by game to see just what ES result the player had in the game ("with"), and what ES result the team had with him off ice ("without").
I know this can only be done for recent seasons, unless one wants to rely on estimated ES stats, but I still think it would be interesting to see what results it will produce. I'll get GP W D L GF-GA Pts for the players ("with") and for "without" them, and can then compare the two.

In your 60/40 vs. 40/20 example, context is very important. First, it tells you in what environment the data was created. Second, it tells you what impact the player's performance is going to have. Since one player has 20/20 more than the other, if the R-Off of his team was > 1.0, then his performance did not help his team, while if it was < 1.0 it did help his team.
I understand your example here. But I so far don't like GF/GA to be used, for reasons I have tried to put forward.

The player's portion is calculated by deducting his ES goals for/against from the team totals. The better the ratio and the more goals he was on ice for, the more impact it will have on the estimated win% differential
I understand that. That's what I call "with" and "without". And "with" may be unproportional compared to "without".

I will experiment a bit on my own to see how much it may affect the results.

All stats can "lie", 76% of statisticians can attest to that.
That was a funny statement.

They are similar, but not equal in most cases. An extra 10 GF and 10 GA is outstanding on the '75 Capitals and rather weak on a dynasty team.
Yes, I understand that.

plusandminus is offline   Reply With Quote