View Single Post
08-17-2012, 12:07 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,383
vCash: 500
Nice work btw. I just want to make two comments that I hope will be constructive.

Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
Another thing to note with regards to QoC as I am quite sure this will come up in the posts in this thread, is that QoC plays almost no role in terms of a defenseman's advanced statistics over an 82 game period because they all face top competition, and even if one defenseman faces top competition more than the other, the difference in advanced statistics (ie. goals against, goals for, etc.) is so negligible that it isn't worth analysing (You can read about that here:

As such, because these are all first pairing defenseman who face top competition on a regular basis, we can compare apples to apples here and no one should take issue with that and claim the "tougher competition" card. Please read the article if you are going to make such a post before posting to keep this thread clean.
I have read the article and I believe it is ill-suited for your purpose here (which is about ranking the league's best d-men among themselves). That article's conclusion is based on eyeballing a histogram for 3 Flyers players and showing that Nodl's expected Corsi (49.5%) is "only" 1.1% lower than Betts' (50.6%). Well guess what, the range in Corsi between the league's best and worst players is only ~12% (44-56) according to the article, so a 1% difference is significant! If d-men are uniformly distributed on Corsi and if there are 200 d-men in the league (6-7 regulars per team), that means the d-man who'd be 16th against good opposition could be 1st against mediocre opposition! If the uniformity assumption is wrong, he could leapfrog even more people.

Long story short: If you looked at the whole universe of d-men, then it may be true that QOC wouldn't really matter -- a guy ranked #50 out of 200 could really be 40-60 and it wouldn't matter. But if you're going to rank the league's top 10 d-men, QOC could make you conclude that a guy is ranked #2-3 when he should really be #10.

(I don't know how you can arbitrarily exclude Yandle on QOC and then make the claim that QOC is insignificant. I understand why you do it but to me it's just further evidence that QOC makes a difference, we're just not sure how to account for it.)

Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
However, it should be noted that Kris Letang did not play nearly a full year this year, and it's possible that the games he played the team played better than they did on average (possibly as a result of the fact that he was playing in the first place?). Further analysis would be needed to properly account for this, but I will instead say that this is interesting for another study, but not in itself a clear indication that Letang is in fact as dominant as this indicates (though it potentially is).
"+/- relative to team" wouldn't pick up that effect as Behindthenet's "+/-OFF" only includes games for which the player actually played, i.e. if the Pens sucked while Letang was injured, it didn't affect his +/- relative to team because those games aren't considered. You can easily convince yourself of this by looking at d-men who have played very few games, their +/-OFF is all over the place. (ex: Sneep, Bortuzzo and Strait on the Pens)

barneyg is offline   Reply With Quote