View Single Post
Old
08-17-2012, 12:41 PM
  #15
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
zone starts aren't relative. can you please explain this more thoroughly?
Yeah sure, sorry, what I did above is using +/- per 60 relative to team, as well as +/- per 60 relative to 10-most common teammates, as such it is a relative stat.

As such, if we are going to consider zone starts %, it needs to be relative to the team he plays on. That way, if we are going to say for instance:

Player A Team A: +0.20 per 60 relative to team, +0.25 per 60 relative to teammates, 50% o-zone starts

versus

Player B Team B: +0.20 per 60 relative to team, +0.25 per 60 relative to teammates, 50% o-zone starts

We need to know the relative o-zone starts in order to see who was the better player between the two. Perhaps Team A is in the offensive zone 80% of the time and Team B is in the offensive zone only 20% of the time. The fact that Player B has 50% o-zone starts despite the fact that his team is almost never on the attack shows he is being used in an offensive role and only getting +0.25 per 60 relative to teammates. It should be easier for him to get +/- relative to team/teammates since he's being used in a more offensive role. While Player A is playing 50% o-zone starts despite the fact that his team is almost always on the attack and as such is being used in a defensive role, and yet he still manages to be +0.25 per 60.

Player A is better in this case (all else being equal of course) and that's why you need relative o-zone starts to use in conjunction with relative (to team/teammates) +/- and not nominal o-zone starts.

Quote:
yeah ok, if this isnt meant to be predicative - but then what's the point? is it a study for its own sake? I guess, what conclusions can we extract from it, and what things can we do with those conclusions?
Yeah fair enough, I made the study more as a means of showing why the Norris nominees were as they were this year, not as a means of being predictive in nature. I agree with you, if we wanted to take that approach you would need to normalize both shooting percentage and save percentage.

Sureves is offline   Reply With Quote