View Single Post
Old
04-20-2013, 04:24 PM
  #41
Dilettante
Registered User
 
Dilettante's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPhilly View Post
I recognize the legal maxim that states "hard cases make bad law," but let me give you an example of one of the most memorable plays I've ever seen in person- and postulate that the metric described above has little way of taking the contribution into account.

Philadelphia v. up-and-coming Ottawa team. Legion of Doom line. Renberg carries in puck from R Wing. Lindros gets deep into the zone, and angles to L side, then cuts behind the net as if preparing to start a cycle. Two defenders give complete attention to Lindros, which leaves Renberg partially open, and John LeClair completely open. Cross-ice pass/score.

Now Lindros had more to do with that goal than any player... and he didn't even touch the puck...

I for Incomplete on the measurement attempt as given above. Needs to return to the shed for some overhaul work---
I think this is a really important point that speaks to the nested nature of hockey data. Using your example, even though LeClair scored the goal and Renberg got the assist, everyone on the ice (including the opposition) had an effect. I imagine Lindros being on the ice significantly increased the probability that his linemates would get a point regardless of whether he recorded an objective stat (i.e. goal, assist, hit, etc.), perhaps looking at his contribution that way might more accurately assess his value?

Dilettante is offline   Reply With Quote