View Single Post
08-17-2012, 05:22 PM
#22
Verviticus
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,998
vCash: 50
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sureves 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!