View Single Post
07-31-2013, 05:23 AM
Blue Blooded
Registered User
Blue Blooded's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Cunneen View Post
haha, yea sure. Sorry, I've argued this point so many times with guys like Rob Vollman I get tired of it, but one more time is ok.

I have several problems with GVT.

The first is that it has several seemingly arbitrary values in the calculations. Here are some examples.

First, goals are given the value of 1.5 assists. Why? I don't know, it's a number that was chosen without any empirical backing.

Second, defensemen are assumed to have 1.5 times more defensive responsibility as forwards. Again, where did this number come from? It's completely random/arbitrary.

Third, defensemen are given 25% of the credit for every save. This assumes the existance of team shot quality over the course of the season, which again and again has been proven to have a minimal affect at best. Again, an arbitrary #.

I also have a problem with the fact that GVT incorporates plus minus (adjusted) into the calculations. That is a terrible way to evaluate defensive performance. Also, when evaluating defensive performance, why does GVT use Team shots against rather than on ice shots against. Another example of a terrible method.

I have a few other issues, but the above reasons are enough to show that GVT is a terrible statistic which should never be used in player analysis until it's many issues are solved.
What is your opinion on HA's HARO/HARD/HART ratings?

My summer brain doesn't have the energy to properly analyze the methodology, but at a glance it looks decent. It may try to do too much though.

In practice the results seem quite decent, although it seems like playing on a good team still seems to help your value quite a bit - which is something I think the metric tries to compensate for.

Blue Blooded is offline   Reply With Quote