View Single Post
04-28-2012, 10:35 PM
#51
seventieslord
Student Of The Game

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country:
Posts: 30,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by plusandminus Yes, there is a high correlation according to Pearson's correlation coefficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson...on_coefficient But, that does not necessarily be taken as proof that the estimations are "96 %" correct, because when actually (for example) taking a table with estimated icetimes in one column, and factual ones in another, one can see that they are significantly less accurate than that. The correlation coefficient (for example +.96) needs to be viewed in context. And what I did, was to actually take the time to study how wrong (or right) the estimations actually were, rather than relying on a number.
You probably know your numbers better than I do. As far as the accuracy of the numbers, I am just parroting what I was told, and I do know 96% correllation doesn't necessarily mean "96% correct". I do think the numbers pass the smell test though - what about you?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BraveCanadian I don't recall seeing this but I'd be interested in what you found. I have long suspected that the ice time estimates which were fudged to match up with player usage from the late 90s would get less accurate the farther we go back from the calibration seasons. Particularly for seasons before the mid-80s when ice time management changed dramatically.
There was no fudging; the same formula was followed all the way through. A factor was applied to all 1st/2nd line/pairing players but it was uniform. there was no "wait, this doesn't look right for Gretzky so I'm just going to give him two more minutes and take a minute each from Messier and Krushelnyski..."

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Czech Your Math - most are results-oriented, in that if the results aren't what they're "looking for", they find it easy to dismiss or ignore them (which is why I don't find the "eyeball test" very important in most cases)
This has to be in response to my earlier comments. Let me clarify, I don't think anything needs to look a certain way "for me". I have no problem with laying out the methodology and then saying "according to this specific methodology this is what results we get". But when I say the end results need to look a certain way it is more for other people than me. I want more advanced work like yours to be accepted, and if it gives a result like I calculated (Turgeon 5-6% better than Savard) then that is just too different from some more conservative peoples' perceptions to ever get widely accepted.

As you said though, this does a better job than regular adjusted stats, at least from what little testing I've done.