View Single Post
Old
06-06-2013, 05:12 PM
  #3
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
You could start by looking at how others have done it;


Corsi HART is the is the one developed by the Hockey analysis guy;
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rati...p&sortdir=DESC

Here is his description of how the stat is generated:

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2013/04/11...rt-calculated/
Looking both at the numbers generated and at the way it is calculated, I have some definite questions about that.

Such as... why would the expected offense be TmGF20*LAGF20 and not TmGF20/LAGF20? That seems like a major flaw in the rating system. Obviously the same system when used defensively results in the same flaw.

For example, if the TmGF20 for Detroit is exactly 1.05, and the league average is 1.10, then the calculation projects expected offense of 1.155/20. Let's say Anaheim has a TmGF20 of 1.10, projecting to 1.00 (obviously). The next step in the calculation, which is 100*(PlayerGF20-ExpGF20)/ExpGF20, results in the following scores for two players with GF/20 of 1.50:

Detroit: 29.87
Anaheim: 33.33

So the player who plays for the better offensive team but doesn't individually have any more offensive success is scored as the better offensive player by a significant degree.

When any metric says that Dan Cleary is better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom, Pavel Datsyuk, and Henrik Zetterberg... some serious questions need to be raised. Or that Justin Williams is the second-best offensive player with 162+ minutes.

It also ranks Scott Gomez top-40 offensively for the 2011-12 season, six spots ahead of Jason Spezza. Offensively.

So yeah, I can respect the effort... but it seems kind of flawed.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote