View Single Post
Old
08-22-2011, 06:59 PM
  #182
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,568
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by plusandminus View Post
IYes. But has it been tested out how much more reliable?
I may try to examine that a bit more.
The "pure" part is the player portion. Taking the differential of the estimated pythagorean win% based on performance. What part of that do you disagree with? I understand the exponent is a bit difficult to pinpoint, but I don't think it makes much difference when comparing players, since all would be affected similarly.

The assignment of some portion of the team's success based is somewhat arbitrary and perhaps not necessary at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by plusandminus View Post
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.
Are you talking about ES data in games the player did not play? If you have that data, it would be interesting. However, if that's what you mean, why not just look at total results (record, GF, GA). I've calculated the actual vs. expected win% for a few players, and could also calculated expected win % using pythagorean based on GF/GA.

If you're bringing ice time into the picture, I don't consider that very important in comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by plusandminus View Post
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.
With and without, yes it's a fairly simple concept.
I don't understand what you mean by unproportional.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote