[log in to unmask] (Dave Hendrickson) wrote:
 
>Although I'm delighted to see UMass-Lowell at the top of the overachievers
>list, I wonder how valid this measure is for hockey.  In hockey, there are
>radically different styles of play that don't seem to be accounted for in
>this analysis.  Baseball, from which this measure was extrapolated, wouldn't
>seem to have the same stylistic variations.
 
I'd have to disagree with you.  Baseball has far greater variations.
You not only have the differences in style of play, but also park
effects.  No other sport can be affected as significantly by the
architecture of the arena (not just size of playing surface or the
weather) as baseball is.  Check out the reference book "Total
Baseball" and see to what efforts they must go through to account for
the park effect in analyzing player performances.  Or follow Bill
James' reasoning behind his player ratings (Offensive winning
percentage?), where he has to compare a player with his teammates to
negate the park effect.
 
>A highly offense-minded team that blows a team's doors off would be expected
>to do better in this analysis than a more defensive-minded team that beats
>everybody by a goal or two or three.  The most obvious example of this is
>Michigan and Lake Superior State.  High-powered Michigan is listed as a big
>underachiever because when they play a weak team the score looks more like
>a football result.  Lake Superior, listed as an overachiever, just grinds
>everyone down but because of their style rarely have blowouts.  The two
>teams have roughly the same records but one is an overachiever and one an
>underachiever, apparently based solely on style of play.
 
>Color me dubious,
 
Don't get me wrong, I was not presenting this as a be-all, end-all of
ratings.  I just thought it was interesting to look at.  And yes, the
math does work out so a defensive minded team's expected percentage
will be closer to .500 than an offensive minded team's.  So, if two
teams have the same record, one defensive, one offensive, the
defensive team will have a higher over/under mark than the offensive
team if the record is over .500, the opposite if it's under .500.
 
However, I've gotten quite a bit of email from people saying "yeah, I
expected those teams to be there," so there may well be some validity
to this.
 
I'd have to say the biggest problem is the lack of games.  You really
need more than 35 or so games played to minimize the effects of a few
blowouts (refer back to the RPI-Air Force example in the first post).
 
I also don't think this is necessarily a good predictor of the
playoffs.  More a look towards next year.  In baseball, the
overachievers of last year usually don't do as well as the next year,
and the underachievers do better.  The actions that made you an
overachiever aren't going to end simply because you're in the playoffs
now.
 
Kurt Stutt
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.