• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Kapanen Traded to Pitt

Preston

Well-known member
Hockey twitter nerds are lazy. And rightfully so. They should be spending their precious hours doing something far more useful. Zeke is right.. It is very difficult to weight QOC and the various factors. Ignoring it is the easiest option.
 

Volcanologist

Well-known member
this is a red herring that is used just to dismiss qoc completely, though, and the fundamental mistake they keep making.

1. Of course quality of teammate matters, which is why have always used team-relative stats from the get go.
2. This question is "regression on WHAT data?". the whole mistake comes from early experiments using guesses at proxies for qoc and qot, not actual hard data. as well as a massive assumption that using the same number for both proxies makes sense. of course teammates will show a bigger correlation than opponents - all looking at qot says is that "this line did X together", whereas looking at qoc means something completely different - i.e. how did this player due against hundreds of opponents. what's worse is that qot teammate data is already influenced by qoc but we ignore it - playing on a matchup line vs playing on a sheltered line can mean a massive amount of qoc influence on your numbers, but that will always have the same impact on your teammate's numbers, so this will be interpretated as qot influence when it's really qoc influence.
3. even saying "qot is more important than qoc" is like saying "apples are more important than oranges". it's a nonsensical statement that makes major faulty assumptions from the get go, and they know that it's a nonsensical statement designed to just ignore qoc completely instead of actually trying to deal with it.
Note that I'm not personally dismissing the concept of QoC at all. Neither did Purdy IIRC, so your reaction is a little strange. All he said was the Qoc was about 1/3 as important in the end. but it sounds like it's the same thing I've been saying...it just isn't reliably collected or calculated.
 

zeke

Well-known member
Note that I'm not personally dismissing the concept of QoC at all. Neither did Purdy IIRC, so your reaction is a little strange. All he said was the Qoc was about 1/3 as important in the end. but it sounds like it's the same thing I've been saying...it just isn't reliably collected or calculated.
the reaction comes from hearing that same line repeated as a mantra every time the issue of QOC is raised. not just by you or micah. it's repeated by every analytics guy every time.

and it makes no sense, from the get go.
 

Volcanologist

Well-known member
as for expected goals stats, there is so much more to it than where on the ice you are shooting from. Even within the same game, the same guy can shoot from the same spot and have wildly different expectations to score each time due to a variety of circumstances. maybe the pass he got the second time was way better. maybe he had more time to get a good shot off. That's before you even get to the concept of two players with completely different skill levels/shot power shooting from the same place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CH1

CH1

The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
as for expected goals stats, there is so much more to it than where on the ice you are shooting from. Even within the same game, the same guy can shoot from the same spot and have wildly different expectations to score each time due to a variety of circumstances. maybe the pass he got the second time was way better. maybe he had more time to get a good shot off. That's before you even get to the concept of two players with completely different skill levels/shot power shooting from the same place.
That's how Pro Football Focus does it. They watch the tape after the game and hand out value judgments based on circumstances/degree of difficulty vs the average player.
 
Top