View Single Post
Old
08-17-2012, 05:22 PM
  #22
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,640
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
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.



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.
fair enough. thanks!

Verviticus is online now   Reply With Quote