tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3299311926633621468.post8307711597310365843..comments2024-08-31T00:17:58.675-07:00Comments on Objective NHL: PP S% Percentage: CorrectionJLikenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02570453428274983835noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3299311926633621468.post-77793067512026467362021-11-20T10:35:13.965-08:002021-11-20T10:35:13.965-08:00Hi nnice reading your blogHi nnice reading your blogKalebhttps://www.kalebstone.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3299311926633621468.post-6460467251804665502009-05-30T10:06:46.392-07:002009-05-30T10:06:46.392-07:00Ahh...special teams. The enigma of pro hockey. Vic...Ahh...special teams. The enigma of pro hockey. Vic has been saying for awhile that the PP and PK seem to be total mysteries when comes to trying to predict anything.Kent W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15679878875910837307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3299311926633621468.post-22996110059765664372009-05-28T17:20:33.914-07:002009-05-28T17:20:33.914-07:00Here's a brief summary of the methodology involved...Here's a brief summary of the methodology involved, as described in my original post on the matter:<br /><br />"I looked at how many shots each team took at 5-on-4 during the 2008-09 regular season. The values can be viewed at behindthenet. I then figured out the average 5-on-4 shooting percentage in the league (~0.128). I then simulated 100 'seasons'. In each 'season', the number of shots taken by each team was the number of 5-on-4 shots taken by that team during the 2008-09 season. However, the percentage of scoring a goal on each shot for every team was 0.128 -- the league average 5-on-4 shooting percentage. That is, each team was assigned the exact same shooting percentage. This is significant as, in any particular 'season', any deviation from the mean is strictly due to randomness, thus allowing one to determine how the spread in 5-on-4 should appear through the impact of randomness alone."JLikenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02570453428274983835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3299311926633621468.post-5818344302170958952009-05-28T14:25:23.185-07:002009-05-28T14:25:23.185-07:00Sorry, I was wrong. I looked at it a little more ...Sorry, I was wrong. I looked at it a little more closely today, and I realised I was implicitly making the assumption that shots and goals are uncorrelated, which is obviously not true. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 0.016 is, as far as I can tell, a good estimate for the pure chance shooting %age standard deviation, even with shots being randomly distributed.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3299311926633621468.post-34696845218091018642009-05-27T23:53:11.917-07:002009-05-27T23:53:11.917-07:00You're a little vague about your methodology, but ...You're a little vague about your methodology, but it sounds like you took number of power play shots as a given. Which isn't reality--power play shots are a random variable too. So your estimate of .016 for the standard deviation due to pure chance is actually a lower bound for the standard deviation due to pure chance. That means your estimate of how much of PP shooting percentage is random is, once again, low-balling it.Ryannoreply@blogger.com