The two posts below are interesting, I don't mean to steal Showerhead's
thunder here, but rather to enforce the merit of the direction that he is heading with this PK stuff. I know that a great many readers of the Oilogosphere
do not view the comments sections, and while that is generally wise, you should make an exception for those posts.
The issue of shot quality always rears it's head around these parts, more specifically the influence of individual players on the shot quality on their own goalie. I'm sure it is obvious to most that this is usually because people who live in the moment a lot ... well they need something to cling to, bless them. And while I think that everyone agrees that there is an impact, there is a wide disparity between the magnitude of this in the views of people like Tyler Dellow
and people like Robin Brownlee
Below is a crude model of dice rollers and the Edmonton Oiler PKers
. We all know that, given 180 rolls of a die, we expect to see a '6' rolled thirty times. We also know that it's damn unlikely that 10 dice rollers will all throw a '6' exactly thirty times. Shit happens. Some guys will run hot and others cold. If you played board games as a kid, you know this already.
So the question is; how much of the save% behind individual PKers
is just coincidence? How much (the remainder) can be chalked up to their ability to affect shot quality?
Take every Oiler defensemen
or forward who has been on the ice for 60 or more shots against (a cool dozen Oiler
skaters as it happens) and pit them in a game of 'rolling for sixes' with weighted dice, or 'Vic Sixes' as the kids are calling it now. The dice are weighted the same for everyone, the chances of rolling a six are 16.08%, the same as the chances of an opponent scoring on a shot during an Oilers
5v4 PK this season so far (and that sucks by the way, but history is telling us this has no sustain, in fact it's screaming it in our ear).
So, by way of example, Souray
has been 5v4 PKing
while the opponents have shot 123 pucks on the Oiler
net. So he gets 123 rolls of the dice, weighted as above. Same goes for every other bugger. And all of the Oilers
play 1000 games of 'Vic Sixes (TM)'
And if we look at the results of Vic Sixes - Game One - then Sheldon may have done great or done poorly, depending on the love he got from the dice on the day. In this case he got 21 'sixes', the same number as goals against that he has been on the ice for at 5v4 PK. Is he crap at Vic-Sixes? Is he unlucky at Vic-Sixes? I mean the chances of this happening by coincidence alone are only one in three, surely he just sucks at Vic-Sixes (I know I won't be picking him for my team tomorrow
!). I mean nobody is just that unlucky, are they?
Turns out that they are, in the right measure. Simple math tells us that one in three are just that unlucky. No more and no less.
If you have twelve players then one guy should be in the "there is only a one in twelve chance he is just unlucky" range. One hot roller should be in the "there is only a one in twelve chance he is just lucky" range. Two hot rollers should be in the "there is only a one in six chance they are just lucky" range. And so on, because the world is round.
Now let's load the dice, if we know that Cole has stunning PK numbers at 5v4 (he does, best on the Oilers
), why isn't MacTavish
playing him more? Is Craig really that MacStupid (Gregor callers nod in unison)
, or does he somehow, magically, know that it is just luck. That can't be, can it? I mean gosh darnit
, surely his staff is not counting scoring chances.
How many times has Robin Brownlee
told us that there is no such thing as luck, this as he posts from Joanne Ireland's basement while smoking left handed cigarettes with Terry Jones. Surely you are as proud as me that he called bullshit on Horcoff
, no? Wake up and smell the Brownlee
, motherfuckers, there's no such thing as luck, at least not when you're giving 110%, that's for damn sure. And when you're giving 115% (near the theoretical limit, btw
) well there just isn't any luck at all. Don't listen to NHL coaches, they're just blowing smoke up your ass, thank Christ we have folks like Mark Spector
to parse that information into meaningful bits for us.Anyhoo
, turns out that if you think in these terms, pretend for the fuck of it that NHL coaches aren't complete fucktards and that NHL beat writers just might be ... and plot the results out assuming it was just luck. Well you'd expect the dice rollers results to be linear with expectation, and they average a correlation of .971 to linear (by the by, Oilers PKers
are at .976). And you'd expect the standard deviation to be .29, it is in fact .287 (by the by, Oilers PKers
are at .297).
Now let's load the dice. So we know that Cole is the bomb and Moreau
is the suck at rolling them bones this year. Let's believe it's not in the dice, but rather in the wrist action (OilFans.commers
nod in unison). We'll give the extreme guys the benefit
of the doubt, a 0.1% better chance of rolling a six, that's not much folks.
Visually, which is the way the human brain really sees numbers, and with dice loaded to the extremes (-.005 represents the worst dice roller being responsible for 0.5% (1 part in 200) of his bad luck being the consequence of poor wrist action and a lack of positive thinking.
By average correlation to linear and average spread (standard deviation):
By rank correlation to linear and rank spread (standard deviation):