
just saying

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
I can't keep up with all this math, but I think some of these models/formulas could be applied to even BOYS hockey and likely extrapolated to other sports as well. You're obviously a GIRLS sports hater based on your sexist comment, but maybe it could even be applied to your favorite BOYS sport. Wouldn't that be cool?PACOTACO wrote:spending this much time crunching theoretical statistics for GIRLS hs hockey only makes you look like a
just saying
Sorry too, I may have gotten a little too defensive but it really came across to me as a "girls sports aren't important, why are you spending time on this?" type thing. I apologize if I misinterpreted it, it was the ALL CAPS and underlining of 'GIRLS' that set me off....PACOTACO wrote:I'm sorry. Maybe underlining GIRLS was not the correct way to state my point. Did not mean for it to come off as sexist whatsoever. This could without question be applied to the BOYS stats as well(which I would also consider a waste of time).
No one on this forum is Arthur Friedman(look it up) so what relevance does this really have?
Most people are aware that these stats are quite meaningless to college coaches and recruiters. Just seems like a silly thing to spend that much time figuring out??
Plus, who knows how accurate the stats actually are with how they seem to be adjusted on the mngirlsshockeyhub.
The underlining point is its incredible how people obsess with stats. If you watch girls hockey year round(elite, national camp, and season play) the same girls consistently score on the top of the charts. (but yes Im a huge sexist because I spend my free time watching and following GIRLS youth and HS hockey)
Just my two cents, now ill go away and wont come back
Well said - very well said!sinbin wrote:One man's hobby is another man's obsession is another man's Waterloo. And, of course, when I say "man", I mean it in the generic sense to include all men and all women, so as not to be sexist.
Thanks for your comments, Lucky. Another way of thinking about this is 'model skill.' Algorithms aside, how 'skilled' is KRAPPI in terms of identifying offensive prowess. Having watched many of these players in the Advanced / HP process, Fall Elite Leauge, and regular season, I'd say its doing pretty good. But I'm not the state's biggest hockey hound. If a season-aggregate model does pretty good, is it worth the effort of compiling a game-specific model?luckyEPDad wrote:A test of your assertion is to compute the KRAPPI rating for subsets of a players games. Using Amy Peterson from Minnetonka as an example. Compute here KRAPPI rating against BSM, Warroad, EP, Hill-Murray, Buffalo, Edina, Blake and Hopkins (13 games) and compare the result to games against Apple Valley, Roseau, Duluth, Eagan, Andover, Anoka, Wayzata, Centennial, Breck and Chaska (12 games). If the SOS adjustment is correct the results should be similar.
To get reasonable results you'd have to do this for dozens of players. If game results are in a workable digital format that wouldn't be a problem, but doing the work by hand is a daunting task.