View Single Post
Old
06-17-2013, 04:54 PM
  #30
Cunneen
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 94
vCash: 500
Wow, I missed a lot since my last comment. The point I am making is not that we should use shot based analysis only. Rather it that we need to account for variance in shooting percentages. So my way of doing it (as well as Eric T's prefered way) is to start with shot based analysis and then regress SH%.


Fournier, you point out that regressing towards the NHL mean shooting percentage is not ideal, since we know that some players are better shooters than others. This is of course true, and there are ways in which our regression can be refined. Eric talks more about this in this article http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...gression-goals

And there are many other variables that can be accounted for besides the ones that Eric looks at in that article. Competition, usage, teamates, and goaltending are the four obvious variables that a very smart person could tinker with and isolate from the talent in SH%.


Let's remember that even if we regressed every player's SH% towards the league average SH%, our predicative power would still be great using these new regressed Shooting Percentage numbers combined with shot differentials compared to using strictly goal rates. But we would be foolish to not refine our regression and be more precise.

Taco, your point is spot on. A player's SH% regression should be refined based on sample size, usage, teamates, competition, etc. We can't be regressing everything to the league average SH%

Cunneen is offline   Reply With Quote