Quality of Competition
View Single Post
08-23-2012, 07:37 PM
Join Date: Oct 2007
Originally Posted by
In the wild, CorsiRel varies from +22 (daniel sedin) to -32 (manny malhotra).
Meanwhile CorsiRel QoC only varies from about +2 to -2 in extreme cases.
This tells me that players face a largely uniform level of competition. When you scale players out of 40 (+20 to -20) you only have a variation of 4 which is about 10% in the worst case and on average closer to 2 or 3%.
On the other hand CorsiRel QoT varies a lot more. +7 to -7 let's say. Which is 250% more important a difference than in QoC.
This also makes sense intuitively. If you're a 1st line center you're gonna play with your team's best players on a very reliable basis. Meanwhile the coach has to make active and difficult decisions to match the player against better or worse competition. At the same time the other team's coach is also matching lines so it's almost a balanced force in that sense. (Mostly noise though. Looking at the stats it seems Coaches are completely incapable of controlling who matches up against who.)
This also ties into my opinion that there is great opportunity for a team that recognizes that the popular opinion (that you shouldn't give prime opportunities to players that play on lower lines) is actually wrong. The fear that a player will fold "facing tougher competition" isn't rational because the higher he climbs in the line hierarchy, the easier his time will be because the quality of his team mates will increase dramatically while the competition he faces will remain relatively stable. There seems to exist a LOT of overrated top liners and a lot of excellent third liners that could populate a very competitive team for cheap.
(I used a max of -20 regarding CorsiRelQoC because only a handful of players have a CorsiRelQoC lower than -20. It plays against my argument anyway right?)
I also looked at your p/60 QoC post sjaustin77. My problem is that it isn't a measure of a player's overall ability. While Corsi and +/- are probably better suited to. At least intuitively.
To the bolded, at this point it is more for myself - I doubt that I will ever have the time or resources to develop and present it the way that I would like but I will explain it a little bit. I actually use an adjusted figure so purely offensive players will move down and defensive players will move up so it has a component of defense. Maybe not as much defense as other systems but those also leave out a lot of context on how and why players get those numbers.
Until or if I ever get my systems into the public I guess no one would ever give them any weight (and at this point no one really knows about them); but from the work I have done so far I think my numbers have a more accurate order, make more sense, are easier to calculate the differences and can be explained by going through each player individually though that would take forever. As a small example, +/-QOT has Krejci, Horton, Lucic near the bottom of the league on par with Thornton, Paille, Campbell. About the only difference between them and Bergeron, Seguin, Marchand is each other and those 3 rank near the top of the league. They played similar amounts with all 6 Bruins D and the other forwards. There are many similar inconsistencies in both +/- and Corsi that just don't make sense.
I also think that while Corsi may be better at predicting future results I think production is a better measure of what actually happened so I think production is a better place to start. I think when people talk about QOC they are largely talking about offense. Top defenseman aren't put out there to stop third liners who are good at defense. Look at any best player lists and they are dominated by offense first players. Even defensemen lists are mostly dominated by high offense defenseman.
Another problem I have is with relative numbers. As far as I know they are relative to teammates. All that tells me is how good a player was relative to a teammate not to the player I want to compare him against. Take the top player on a team of all stars they all look the same basically with relative numbers of 0. If you took the same top player on a team of 4th liners wouldn't he now look like the much better player even though he is the exact same person?
How are you figuring out the difference between players? To me whether it is +2 to -2 or +7 to -7, that looks like a huge difference, much more than 2, 3 or even 10%. How do you measure either of the systems? Here is +/-QOC for Backes - .117, Callahan - .062, Pacioretty - .000, Yandle - neg .057, and Emmerton - neg .169. How do you calculate how much better Backes' competition is over Callahan, Pacioretty, Yandle and Emmerton? It has to be greater than 10%.
In general there won't be a huge difference in top defenseman who are playing the same role but when used differently I think it is much greater. Coaches are actually pretty good at matching up their top D vs the top forwards. At home they get last change so they can basically always do it. When they are away a player like Chara is always ready to change quick to go on or off as the guy he is shadowing does.
Most defenseman aren't used as much like this and that is why in general there may be only a couple % difference but there should be a huge gap between them and the middle or lower tier defenseman. There will and should be a huge difference between Chara and Yandle (both top defensmen but used differently) or Chara and MA Bergeron (not a top tier defenseman and definitely not used to shut down top lines). I don't see how it can only be a small difference.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by sjaustin77