View Single Post
Old
08-15-2012, 01:36 PM
  #61
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mindmasher View Post
I don't disagree. It would be nice to factor in team shooting ability. The problem is to get a stable analysis of team shooting ability it may require more data points then the powerplay roster is stable for. Part of the problem in modelling any teams future results is doing is with a small enough data set that you can ignore a huge amount of team roster churn (including coaches).
Right. Maybe this is where observation/watching the games can play a part, as long as it's combined with an understanding of the talent distribution for team on-ice shooting %.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mindmasher View Post
Alternatively, it's possible we have a case of diminishing returns. We might be able to statistically model team shooting% variations amongst different PP's (and use it to modify 'team PP ability'), but if it nets us an additional 9% information for 300% more effort, I think we can agree that in most circumstances having 91% of the predictive power is sufficient for most discussions.
I agree. I just have the feeling that some analysts today would be downgrading 19-year old Mario Lemieux or Wayne Gretzky based on their "unsustainably high percentages", and those guys went on to create a ton of value out of those percentages. It looks like Sidney Crosby creates a lot of value from the percentages as well. Maybe Ryan Nugent-Hopkins will in future. We should be open to recognizing value no matter how it is created.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote