Ideas for Future Studies

[MarkGio]

I'd like to see more data on man-games lost and it's affect on winning. Even some simple macro-level stats can start a conversation, such as 1 injured centreman reduces the chances of winning by X% league wide.

Moreover, I think a simple look at team stats after a player's injury could be a useful to examine how valuable a player is to a given club. Ultimately I'd like to know how much a team is worse off with Player-X out of the line-up.

To add fuel to the fire, I'd like to know which injuries are the most detrimental to a player's performance. Assuming the recovery time is identical, Is a broken foot worse than a broken hand at reducing point totals? Average recovery times?

This stuff and more would be gold for fantasy pools.

[tag0519]

I'm not sure if this exists already but what would everyone think of a stat called - "Adjusted Plus/Minus"? Seems that +/- has a lot to do with the team as well as the individual. Lets face it - Stamkos and Tavares would have a better +/- if they were on Pitt or Chi. It would be good to get an idea of a players "real" +/-.

[Cunneen]

Originally Posted by tag0519

I'm not sure if this exists already but what would everyone think of a stat called - "Adjusted Plus/Minus"? Seems that +/- has a lot to do with the team as well as the individual. Lets face it - Stamkos and Tavares would have a better +/- if they were on Pitt or Chi. It would be good to get an idea of a players "real" +/-.

There are several attempts to calculate adjusted plus minus. There are relatively simple versions which adjust a player's plus minus to his own team's success. This is relatively simple and still doesn't tell us much about a player's performance.

There are more in-depth, statistically driven models by statisticians that attempt to find the true value of a player. A great one is by Brian Macdonald, and it was presented at the MIT Sloan sports analytics conference. Link is below. I'd advise anyone interested in hockey analytics to take a loot at the full paper.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=2838

[Hardyvan123]

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee

In James' case, it was expressed as percentage of leaguewide at-bats taken by HOFers. In any given year, it was around 10% of total at-bats that were taken by HOFers, with a massive upward tick in the 1925-34 time frame.

I think ice time would be too limiting, since we'd only be able to look at the last 13 years.

I remember this as well and James was very good about throwing ideas against the wall.

as I recall, alot of the "extra AB" from that time period came from the veterans committee inclusions to the HOF in baseball but it's been a long time since I read that book.

We had a similar bulge of Dmen from the early 70ish era in the top 60 Dman project but I think alot of it does come down to politics and engrained opinions rather than any statistical data.

It's certainly possible for certain eras to have higher or lower number of HHOFers or elite players but alot of it is subjective and can't really be quantified by pure numbers, there are other factors at work IMO.

[MrCaptain]

I'd love to see the average salary of players picked at each spot in the draft.

Salary is essentially what GMs and Agents estimate is the "worth" of a player. Not every player in the study would be worth exactly what he's making, but hopefully that would be averaged out over a large sample size. This would be a relatively simple way of putting a numerical value on draft picks.

I could then say "your first overall pick is worth on average a $6M player. My 9th, 10th, and 11th overall picks are each worth on average a $2M player. I'll trade you 9, 10, 11 for 1"

[MrCaptain]

I'd also like to see the offensive zone chopped up into "blocks" and see the average shooting percentage from each of these blocks. You could then assign a numerical value to a shot from each of these blocks.

This would reveal the difference between one player ripping 10 shots on net per game from absolutely anywhere and the player who picks his spots and takes 3 high percentage shots per game. The value of where a shot is taken would make questionable stats like "corsi" much more valuable because I want to know if my player is creating high percentage shots for and preventing high percentage shots against.

[Cunneen]

Originally Posted by MrCaptain

I'd love to see the average salary of players picked at each spot in the draft.

Salary is essentially what GMs and Agents estimate is the "worth" of a player. Not every player in the study would be worth exactly what he's making, but hopefully that would be averaged out over a large sample size. This would be a relatively simple way of putting a numerical value on draft picks.

I could then say "your first overall pick is worth on average a $6M player. My 9th, 10th, and 11th overall picks are each worth on average a $2M player. I'll trade you 9, 10, 11 for 1"

I might look into this. We could determine then at which spots in the draft the best value can be gotten, while we can also see which picks are usually over paid for.

[Cunneen]

Originally Posted by MrCaptain

I'd also like to see the offensive zone chopped up into "blocks" and see the average shooting percentage from each of these blocks. You could then assign a numerical value to a shot from each of these blocks.

This would reveal the difference between one player ripping 10 shots on net per game from absolutely anywhere and the player who picks his spots and takes 3 high percentage shots per game. The value of where a shot is taken would make questionable stats like "corsi" much more valuable because I want to know if my player is creating high percentage shots for and preventing high percentage shots against.

The only problem I would say with this is that a decent amount of research has been done that has shown that teams aren't able to generate a crazy amount of scoring chances compared to their shot differentials. Teams that have good Corsi or Fenwick or shot differential stats drive the play at even strength, and those teams are able to generate scoring chances. In the words of Vic Ferrari, "Corsi begets scoring chances, scoring chances beget goals"

links that are the research I mentioned
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travi...8#.UZVHh3DR05Q

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011/...ing-percentage

http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/05/...verything.html

[Czech Your Math]

Originally Posted by tag0519

I'm not sure if this exists already but what would everyone think of a stat called - "Adjusted Plus/Minus"? Seems that +/- has a lot to do with the team as well as the individual. Lets face it - Stamkos and Tavares would have a better +/- if they were on Pitt or Chi. It would be good to get an idea of a players "real" +/-.

There is such a stat. It compares a player's ESGF/GA ratio while he's on the ice vs. that of his team while he's off the ice. It's one of the best studies done IMO:

Adjusted Even Strength Plus-Minus

[MrCaptain]

Originally Posted by Cunneen

The only problem I would say with this is that a decent amount of research has been done that has shown that teams aren't able to generate a crazy amount of scoring chances compared to their shot differentials. Teams that have good Corsi or Fenwick or shot differential stats drive the play at even strength, and those teams are able to generate scoring chances. In the words of Vic Ferrari, "Corsi begets scoring chances, scoring chances beget goals"

links that are the research I mentioned
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Travi...8#.UZVHh3DR05Q

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011/...ing-percentage

http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/05/...verything.html

What I'm getting at is trying to put a value on scoring chances. Every shot is technically a scoring chance, but I want to see who is getting or setting up the good chances.
For example, the patented Ryan smyth slapshot as soon as he crosses the blueline. Ya he's creating shots, but he might score on 1/100 of them.
I want to know what spots on the ice players are most likely to score from, and who's shooting and setting up shots from those zones.

[Cunneen]

Originally Posted by MrCaptain

What I'm getting at is trying to put a value on scoring chances. Every shot is technically a scoring chance, but I want to see who is getting or setting up the good chances.
For example, the patented Ryan smyth slapshot as soon as he crosses the blueline. Ya he's creating shots, but he might score on 1/100 of them.
I want to know what spots on the ice players are most likely to score from, and who's shooting and setting up shots from those zones.

I think the key question is whether looking at scoring chances really adds any value. If teams are not able to consciously drive up scoring chances independent of shot differentials, then there is not much reason for people to look at scoring chances very closely. So far I haven't seen much research to show that.