HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

1992-1993..Professional scouts rate the NHL players

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-10-2011, 02:42 AM
  #76
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Prove the correllation, then.
Yeah, the correlation, surprisingly, does not exist.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 06:02 AM
  #77
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Prove the correllation, then.
This is for this last season. I have only included the goalies who played the entire game. Otherwise we would get a bias since goalies who let in the first couple of goals tend to get pulled and have horrendous save percentage.

Shots Against Goals Against Frequency Save%
12 1.00 4 91.67
13 2.00 3 84.62
14 2.00 7 85.71
15 2.00 5 86.67
16 1.50 12 90.63
17 2.05 20 87.94
18 2.00 16 88.89
19 2.32 28 87.78
20 2.44 36 87.78
21 2.26 38 89.22
22 2.26 73 89.73
23 2.17 88 90.56
24 2.44 106 89.82
25 2.42 120 90.30
26 2.32 139 91.09
27 2.28 120 91.57
28 2.59 141 90.75
29 2.24 145 92.27
30 2.31 121 92.31
31 2.44 128 92.14
32 2.31 108 92.80
33 2.67 113 91.90
34 2.98 107 91.23
35 2.42 104 93.08
36 2.66 87 92.62
37 2.33 66 93.69
38 2.78 55 92.68
39 2.77 61 92.90
40 2.43 44 93.92
41 2.66 53 93.51
42 2.82 22 93.29
43 2.45 20 94.30
44 2.71 17 93.85
45 2.63 19 94.15
46 2.38 8 94.84
47 3.20 10 93.19
48 3.20 5 93.33
49 4.33 3 91.16
50 2.75 4 94.50
51 1.50 2 97.06
52 7.00 1 86.54
55 3.00 1 94.55

And this is how it looks graphically where the size of the markers are proportional to the number of occurences.



Last edited by matnor: 07-10-2011 at 06:08 AM.
matnor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 07:25 PM
  #78
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,125
vCash: 500
You are overdoing it. Also breaking it down into tiny one-game samples is probably less statistically efficient than just looking at the whole season. If you don't feel like it, I will do it later, and I will even take out PPs to even the playing field because there is a known correllation between facing more pp shots and having a lower sv%.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 07:34 PM
  #79
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Well there is some correlation. The question is how much. It can't be completely written off. Take my last post and tell me how it's false, or not related.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 07:35 PM
  #80
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Also, most of the highest shooting percentages come from players who don't take a whole lot of shots.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 07:37 PM
  #81
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Also, Ovechkin.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 08:06 PM
  #82
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Prove the correllation, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Yeah, the correlation, surprisingly, does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
This is for this last season. I have only included the goalies who played the entire game. Otherwise we would get a bias since goalies who let in the first couple of goals tend to get pulled and have horrendous save percentage.

Shots Against Goals Against Frequency Save%
12 1.00 4 91.67
13 2.00 3 84.62
14 2.00 7 85.71
15 2.00 5 86.67
16 1.50 12 90.63
17 2.05 20 87.94
18 2.00 16 88.89
19 2.32 28 87.78
20 2.44 36 87.78
21 2.26 38 89.22
22 2.26 73 89.73
23 2.17 88 90.56
24 2.44 106 89.82
25 2.42 120 90.30
26 2.32 139 91.09
27 2.28 120 91.57
28 2.59 141 90.75
29 2.24 145 92.27
30 2.31 121 92.31
31 2.44 128 92.14
32 2.31 108 92.80
33 2.67 113 91.90
34 2.98 107 91.23
35 2.42 104 93.08
36 2.66 87 92.62
37 2.33 66 93.69
38 2.78 55 92.68
39 2.77 61 92.90
40 2.43 44 93.92
41 2.66 53 93.51
42 2.82 22 93.29
43 2.45 20 94.30
44 2.71 17 93.85
45 2.63 19 94.15
46 2.38 8 94.84
47 3.20 10 93.19
48 3.20 5 93.33
49 4.33 3 91.16
50 2.75 4 94.50
51 1.50 2 97.06
52 7.00 1 86.54
55 3.00 1 94.55

And this is how it looks graphically where the size of the markers are proportional to the number of occurences.


BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 09:03 PM
  #83
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Those are extremely poor sample sizes. Save your smileys for if the resjlts agree with you when alanlyzed properly.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2011, 10:50 PM
  #84
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
So your contention is that more SOG = higher sv%?
Was the original claim of a SOG - SV% relationship about the game level or the season level? Because it's definitely true on the game level. Matnor's numbers prove that without a doubt.

On the other hand, the relationship is much weaker on a season level, and might be non-existent after correcting for arena recording bias.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 12:00 AM
  #85
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Was the original claim of a SOG - SV% relationship about the game level or the season level? Because it's definitely true on the game level. Matnor's numbers prove that without a doubt.

On the other hand, the relationship is much weaker on a season level, and might be non-existent after correcting for arena recording bias.
Right. And since season level is what everyone talks about, it makes sense that it should be what is used in any discussion of correlation.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 12:54 AM
  #86
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,125
vCash: 500
Unfortunately, I could not separate the goalies' TOI by situation - I thought NHL.com had that, but it doesn't. So I just used raw sv%. I only used goalies with a reasonable sample size - the top-45 in minutes played.

The correllation between shots against per minute and total sv% is 0.286. Weak.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 01:05 AM
  #87
ComradeChris
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 595
vCash: 500
Lidstrom doesn't even make the list...

I'd give him a 30.

ComradeChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 07:56 AM
  #88
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Unfortunately, I could not separate the goalies' TOI by situation - I thought NHL.com had that, but it doesn't. So I just used raw sv%. I only used goalies with a reasonable sample size - the top-45 in minutes played.

The correllation between shots against per minute and total sv% is 0.286. Weak.
I think most rules of thumb put .30 as Moderate so there is most likely something there..

More specifically it depends on how much you believe save percentage to be due to chance.

If you believe that the results are prone to chance then the significance is weaker. If you believe that save percentage results are not very prone to chance results then the significance could be stronger.

But I'm getting way too far removed from my stats classes though so..

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 08:44 AM
  #89
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
I don't want to hijack the thread, especially since this has been discussed before but I should just give a few comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You are overdoing it. Also breaking it down into tiny one-game samples is probably less statistically efficient than just looking at the whole season. If you don't feel like it, I will do it later, and I will even take out PPs to even the playing field because there is a known correllation between facing more pp shots and having a lower sv%.
Efficiency is not a problem here. I did not break it down to one-game samples. What I did was to aggregate the save percentage for each number of shots in a game. For instance, a goalie faced 20 shots 36 times with an average save percentage of 87.78.

You are right that it would be important to take special team effects into account. However, as you say, we would expect the bias to go in a downward direction. That is, a goalie that is often on the penalty kill will face more shots in total that are also of higher quality.

Quote:
Those are extremely poor sample sizes. Save your smileys for if the resjlts agree with you when alanlyzed properly.
What do you mean poor sample sizes?

Quote:
Was the original claim of a SOG - SV% relationship about the game level or the season level? Because it's definitely true on the game level. Matnor's numbers prove that without a doubt.

On the other hand, the relationship is much weaker on a season level, and might be non-existent after correcting for arena recording bias.
Yes, my claim was only on a game-by-game basis. It is theoretically possible that the relationship disappears when aggregating. For instance, take Brodeur as an example. It could be the case that on a game-by-game basis he has better save percentage when he faces more shots. On the other hand, he has historically played on a defensive-minded team which may have lowered both the shot quality and the number of shots he faced. So, when comparing him to another goalie he would have both better save percentage and having faced fewer shots. In that way, the aggregate effect could be different.

I tested this using aggregate data (save percentage by season and goalie) from 83/84 to 07/08 for goalies who played at least 40 games and regressed the save percentage on the average number of shots per game faced by each goalie and season. And the result is statistically significant on any conventional significance level. On average, each extra shot per game results in a higher save percentage by almost 0.1 percentage point. That is around half the effect found on the individual level (where an extra shot per game leads to a higher save percentage with around 0.2 percentage point).

To visualize the result I split the goalies into five groups for each season sorted by the number of shots they faced on average. I then aggregated the save percentage for each group and this is the result:

GroupSA/GPSave%
1 25.3 89.85%
2 27.28 89.96%
3 28.60 90.07%
4 30.17 90.05%
5 32.45 90.27%

As can be seen, the difference in save percentage between the fifth of the goalies with the least shots against and the fifth of the goalies with the most shots against are around 0.4 percentage points. So, I'm not argue that it's a big difference but the effect is there.

You are right that arena-recording bias could confound the result. To test that one would have to aggregate game-by-game data after removing the arena effect. Unfortunately, it would require some data work that I'm not sure I have the time for. I might check that later (or you might want to do it )

Quote:
The correllation between shots against per minute and total sv% is 0.286. Weak.
I guess it was my fault for using the term correlation. A correlation coefficient (or R-squared for that matter) is only useful if my claim would have been that the number of shots a goalie faces is the dominant determinant of save percentage. Of course that is not my point, a goalie's skill is much more important. That being said, it may still be worth taking into account. Specifically, two important questions need to be adressed. First, is the effect statistically significant (and it is, though we may worry about confounding factors)? Second, is the effect is of significant size? That is, is it important to take into account that a goalie who faces one additional shot have a lower save percentage with 0.1 percentage point? If the answer is yes to both these questions than the fact that the correlation coefficient is small is pointless.

All in all, sorry for derailing the thread. I think this is interesting and is something that is worth studying more. My conclusion is that there is a clear positive correlation on a game-by-game basis and that it looks as if this is also true on a goalie-and-season level though there are a number of unresolved issues that needs to be addressed. I guess my main point is that I sometimes here arguments such that "not only did he have an outstanding save percentage, he had it while facing the most shots in the league" and I think that is a problematic statement.

matnor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 11:10 AM
  #90
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
What do you mean poor sample sizes?
I mean, single games.

If using single games to analyze sv% trends works, then why not break it down into periods too? I'm being facetious when I say that, of course. But I obviously have much more confidence in results that are based on greater samples of data.

overpass' point about arena bias is important because these would be "phantom" shots, not goals, added to make a sv% appear higher.

also, using only full games confounds the results, too. A goalie who gets bombed for 5 GA after facing 25 shots in half a game (we've seen it happen, right?) would not show up in your study, but that's a case of a goalie who faces 50 shots "per game" and had an 80% sv%. If you think about it, it's not that likely that a goalie will stay in for a full game of 40+ shots if his sv% is very much below 90%. He'd probably get pulled. So of course you're more likely to capture instances of 0-3 GA in 40+ shot games doing it that way.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2011, 12:47 PM
  #91
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I mean, single games.

If using single games to analyze sv% trends works, then why not break it down into periods too? I'm being facetious when I say that, of course. But I obviously have much more confidence in results that are based on greater samples of data.
Aggregation level has to do with what one wants to analyze (game-by-game effects) or (season-goalie effects) but it has nothing with precision as long as the sample is the same. I know it may sound unintuitive but aggregating or disaggregating does not do anything for statistical efficiency per se.

Quote:
overpass' point about arena bias is important because these would be "phantom" shots, not goals, added to make a sv% appear higher.
Yes

Quote:
also, using only full games confounds the results, too. A goalie who gets bombed for 5 GA after facing 25 shots in half a game (we've seen it happen, right?) would not show up in your study, but that's a case of a goalie who faces 50 shots "per game" and had an 80% sv%. If you think about it, it's not that likely that a goalie will stay in for a full game of 40+ shots if his sv% is very much below 90%. He'd probably get pulled. So of course you're more likely to capture instances of 0-3 GA in 40+ shot games doing it that way.
That's a good point so I tried using shots against per 60 minutes instead but requiring at least 10 minutes played. In that case the effect is still there but much smaller (0.07 instead of 0.19). Setting at least 30 minutes as the threshold the effect is close to the one above (0.17 instead of 0.19). I haven't thought about it too much, and this way estimates something slightly different, but I think your point may be quite important.

matnor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.