The case for using normalized ice hockey player statistics..

Discussion of Minnesota Girls High School Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Post Reply
LSQRANK
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:05 pm

The case for using normalized ice hockey player statistics..

Post by LSQRANK » Thu Jun 29, 2017 2:25 pm

Here is the web link to a related paper that featured the Blake vs Edina comparison.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... alent_pool

Abstract


The subject of this study involves the raw player scoring statistics of the 2016-2017 Girls Minnesota High School Hockey League. A transformation technique is presented, and applied to the raw scoring data by normalizing the values with respect to a combination of three variables: (1) the relative strength of the opposing team with respect to the player's team; (2) the relative strength of the opposing team with respect to the overall league; and (3) the relative quality of the opposing goalie. The transformed data was then re-ranked sequentially and compared with the NCAA division 1 & 3 college hockey programs that the players had committed toward attending post-high school. It was found that the normalized data was able to reconfirm what the scouts from the major college ice hockey programs had previously evaluated in terms of quality of player. The 11th and 12th grade Forward players with larger normalized scores were uniformly committed to the higher profile programs while those with smaller values tended to be committed to either lower profile NCAA division 1 or NCAA division 3 women's programs, or in most cases uncommitted. A comparison between the normalized and raw top 100 scoring values of the cumulative NCAA division 1 committed players showed that the normalized data was an increasingly better predictor of scoring talent based on college recruiting offers to those players.

ghshockeyfan
Posts: 6132
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:33 pm
Location: Inver Grove Heights, MN
Contact:

Post by ghshockeyfan » Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:34 pm

Very interesting. Reminds me of a couple other attempts we took at showing similar correlation with less rigor about a decade ago or so.

When I coached and scouted for a MIAC D3 program in the early 2000's we took this into consideration and back then the strength of the best/worst HS programs differed more (I believe) than what we see today with an evolved game.

I thought I might be able to find the posts about what others did in a similar way but all I could find so far was this from just a few years back:
http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30271

And this from a decade back:
http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=227056

itsfoilcoach
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: The case for using normalized ice hockey player statisti

Post by itsfoilcoach » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:15 am

LSQRANK wrote:Here is the web link to a related paper that featured the Blake vs Edina comparison.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... alent_pool

Abstract


The subject of this study involves the raw player scoring statistics of the 2016-2017 Girls Minnesota High School Hockey League. A transformation technique is presented, and applied to the raw scoring data by normalizing the values with respect to a combination of three variables: (1) the relative strength of the opposing team with respect to the player's team; (2) the relative strength of the opposing team with respect to the overall league; and (3) the relative quality of the opposing goalie. The transformed data was then re-ranked sequentially and compared with the NCAA division 1 & 3 college hockey programs that the players had committed toward attending post-high school. It was found that the normalized data was able to reconfirm what the scouts from the major college ice hockey progr ams had previously evaluated in terms of quality of player. The 11th and 12th grade Forward players with larger normalized scores were uniformly committed to the higher profile programs while those with smaller values tended to be committed to either lower profile NCAA division 1 or NCAA division 3 women's programs, or in most cases uncommitted. A comparison between the normalized and raw top 100 scoring values of the cumulative NCAA division 1 committed players showed that the normalized data was an increasingly better predictor of scoring talent based on college recruiting offers to those players.
On a side note: I think I would be leery on a one glove fits all approach. Though this maybe a good standard to use for "skaters", it may not be a useful tool for goalies due to varies reasons. One tool the NHL uses is called an Adjusted Save Percentage. It’s a more accurate measure of shot quality based on the area the shot was taken (scoring zones). There are many reasons for this as you would think. But you get active high caliber defense, or hard back checking forwards (D1 caliber Ds/FWDs), your shots may come earlier, higher or around the face off circles and perimeter, and not deep in the slot/scoring zone for rebound potential and higher scoring potential. It also is interesting to know how these statistics fair if you were to measure a goalie that was heavily utilized above 1000 min of heavy playing time, just short of a full season of games. Inversely a goalie playing 300 min (just a couple of games for the season) seems a little light and a little disingenuous to compare/rank at that level of playing minutes to a goalie playing 90% of the games. Are the goalies that you are using in this study playing the 300 min minimum getting the same amount of time against those upper caliber teams using your SOS standards? The top skaters in your study are more than likely playing a 25 game season. A 300 min standard does not equate to 25 games ... Why isn't the same measurement standards used for the goalies? I would be interested to know how this 300 min number came about, and if the comparison is an accurate and reliable representation statistically of their season’s success. It just seems to make an example of these fine goalies using a less than perfect formula with them, and then using what looks like a well thought out study for "skaters" over a 25 game season. Are penalty minutes worked into the formula? There were several teams with well over a 100 + minutes of penalties equaling well over 7 periods of short handed play this season. Not exactly a level playing field for our net minders.

LSQRANK
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:05 pm

Post by LSQRANK » Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:36 pm

Good point about an adjustment of goals against with respect to whether they are full strength goals versus power play goals. We'll have to incorporate that tweak this season. I wish that the high school league would record the location of goals, it would be nice to adapt the NHL adjustment, perhaps we could talk a few teams into recording shot /goal location.

Post Reply