View Single Post
Old
09-06-2012, 03:29 PM
  #44
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
2) there is no adjustment for the fact that good players tend to play good players and bad players tend to play bad players, dragging everyone's statistical QualComp artificially towards the mean.*

*Similar to how the best faceoff men usually match up against each other since only some faceoffs are important - this drags faceoff numbers of the best faceoff men artificially towards 50%
You are right about both things, but although these numbers are dragged towards the mean, they aren't dragged all the way there, or even that close. there is still great variance and the results pass the smell test (i.e. look at the faceoff leaders or QoC leaders)

I believe there is a better faceoff percentage out there now that factors the competion, situation and a couple other factors into it. I think hockey prospectus had it.

Also, if what you're saying is true (and I believe it is), then the effects of QoC are very much understated. Which would explain why even after including QoC adjustments and running formulas the "best defensive defenseman" lists still look a little odd. This number ought to be dragged away from the mean in order to understand its true impact.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote