Frequently Asked Question #2: Quality of Competition statistics at Behind the Net
I hope you enjoyed part 1 of the Frequently Asked Questions at Behind the Net. I'd like to discuss the second-most common question I get about the site: what exactly is Quality of Competition, or QualComp?
The basic idea is this: we want to characterize the characteristics of the opponents that a particular player lines up against.
There are numerous ways we could go about this. We could average out the points-per-game of opposing players(as Jonathan Willis has suggested, and which works reasonably well, particularly when you have no ice time information), but I think the best place to start is with what I called "Relative +/-" or "Rating" in part 1. Relative +/- adjusts a player's on-ice +/- relative to his team's +/- while he was off the ice. In general, it corrects for the boost players get from playing on a good offensive team and vice-versa.
If we average that rating across all of a player's opponents, weighting for how much time they played against one another, then we have an estimate of how good a player's opponents were relative to their teams. In a general sense, first line players have the best ratings, so players who play against the first line should see the highest opponent rating. That average opponent rating is the "Quality of Competition" faced by a given player.
Here's a worked example from 2006-07:
If you lined up against Anaheim's top line, you'd get:
| Name | Pos | Team | # | Rating/On/Off +/- |
| KUNITZ | F | ANA | 14 | +1.97 |
| SELANNE | F | ANA | 8 | +1.65 |
| PRONGER | D | ANA | 25 | +1.61 |
| MCDONALD | F | ANA | 19 | +0.94 |
| NIEDERMAYER | D | ANA | 27 | -0.31 |
The Quality of Competition would be the average of 1.97, 1.65, 1.61, 0.94 and -0.31, which is 5.86/5 = +1.17.
So now that we have the preliminaries out of the way, what does Quality of Competition tell us? Take a look at the 2007-08 list: Quality of Competition for 2007-08. Niedermayer, Pahlsson and Moen are 1/2/3, reflecting their usage as the increasingly rare "checking line" in Anaheim. Jay Pandolfo is 4th among forward, Mikko Koivu 5th, and John Madden 6th. In 2006-07, Madden and Pandolfo were #1 and #2. Nick Lidstrom's always in the top 10 too. Basically, Quality of Competition tells us if players were used overwhelmingly against top competition, and it gives us another data point we can use to adjust a player's very high (or very low) +/-.
One of my favorite uses for it is to look at a team I don't know a whole lot about, and see what it says about defensive pairings and usage. For example, the 2008-09 LA Kings:
| GP | 5v5 TOI | |
| Doughty | 81 | 16:14 |
| Greene | 82 | 15:55 |
| Johnson | 41 | 15:46 |
| O'Donnell | 82 | 15:41 |
| Quincey | 72 | 15:20 |
Five guys, all within one minute of each other in terms of 5v5 ice time. On many teams, it's obvious who the #1 and #2 D are because they log much more ice time than other players - both against other teams' good players and against not-so-good ones. But if we add Quality of Competition to the mix:
| GP | 5v5 TOI | QualComp | |
| Doughty | 81 | 16:14 | 0.037 |
| Greene | 82 | 15:55 | -0.003 |
| Johnson | 41 | 15:46 | 0.016 |
| O'Donnell | 82 | 15:41 | 0.049 |
| Quincey | 72 | 15:20 | -0.025 |
Now it makes more sense. The #1 pairing was Doughty-O'Donnell, though if Johnson hadn't been injured, he might have had more time on the first unit. Matt Greene is clearly the #4 D, and Kyle Quincey is #5. And this is generally consistent with how they were used last season. On most teams, this method works out very well, though it's reflective of how the coach sees the player, and not necessarily of what the player's abilities are.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Have you ever considered basing your Rating on Corsi or EV shots rather than +/-? That’s something I want to do but I’m way behind you and the other database guys as far as my ability to access and parse the raw game data.
definitely an interesting idea, and it wouldn’t be too hard to implement on my end. The advantage of using goals is that there’s no question about whether they happened or not. Corsi – particularly when blocked shots are included – brings into question the accuracy of the scorers in certain rinks. I’m also not sure that the general public accepts the significance of Corsi +/- just yet…
Important point about the reliability of the accuracy of shots records.
That being said, another interesting aspect of those stats is that there are on ice Save% outliers on every teams; roughly 1 or 2 guys at both ends of the scale. Last year outlying Habs were Bouillon (7 GA because of a low on-ice sv%) and D’Agostini (8GA) on one side, Lapierre (-7GA) on the other side.
On the Blues squad? Yep, Berglund, whose .958 on-ice s% was way up from the team’s 0.904, giving him -21 GA. Now, I may be off a few goals, those were my first forays in data mining, and Berglund wasn’t the only one on the Blues being so high up the scale (Perron and Woywitka), so I’m willing to chalk this up to superior defensive skills, but I’m not convinced yet.
I do believe the large data-set used by the Qualcomp calculation drowns this, but Qualteam may be a bit off because of it, no?
The biggest concern I have is that +/- might not be as accurate a measure of EV play over a single season. For instance, the Bruins and Canucks in 08/09 had terrific +/- despite middling Corsi and shots at EV. Both played behind great goaltenders and had high SH%‘s on the year. I didn’t watch a lot of Bruins games but I watched a several Canucks games where the opposing team was better at maintaining zone pressure but couldn’t beat Luongo.
The above point is probably only relevant if you’re using single-season data to compute your QC/QT metrics. I think I read somewhere that a multi-year average of +/- is the “best” measure of EV play.
This effect isn’t particularly detrimental in the QC calculations since, as I understand it, Gabe is using “Rating” or “+/- relative to the rest of the team,” instead of raw +/-. So, even though the Islanders sucked big time there will probably be some that have just as high a rating as the top guys on the Bruins and Canucks.
by Scott Reynolds on Oct 9, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
+1 for doing some sort of QOC based on corsi. you don’t have to replace the one based on goals, just do both of them!
I was curious if you were planning on making the QC analysis you did for the AHL publicly available and if you’re planning on doing a similar analysis for other leagues. I was thinking of doing one or two manually, but if you’re going to be using a script then I probably won’t bother.
If you don’t mind me asking, which leagues have you done and/or are you planning to do?
by Scott Reynolds on Oct 10, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions

by 





















