James Tanner: The Quality of Competition Myth Generally used to excuse or promote a player by attempting to give contexts to analysis, it turns out that QoC doesn't really matter at all.

Probably could have just posted Tulsky's article and left it at that.

First, it must be acknowledged that if good players play bad players, they will dominate them. The reason QoC doesn't really matter is because this is never going to be a realistic game scenario - any opposing coach will skate his best defensive players against the other team's best offensive players (neutralizing any advantage) and so on to the point where it's going to be fairly rare that a very good player gets an extended amount of time against easy competition.

"In particular, the impact of quality of competition is often dramatically overstated. This is a little understandable – after all, it should matter a lot who is on the ice against a player at a given time."

Home team gets last change. Would love to see home vs road splits to truly show whether your argument holds water. Any person watching consistently will see the home team (when possible with line rotations) put top lines vs opponents bottom lines. Obviously the visiting team can counter this by in key spots (d-zone faceoffs etc) putting out their best line so as to not allow the home team with last change to put out a Crosby line against a Tanner Glass line.

Anyways, like I said, I do believe the QoC balances out but I don't think that is a good basis for your argument since all teams play an equal number of road vs home games. The best way would be to show a split between home and road where the last change advantage/disadvantage is a factor and would/should answer this question.

Probably could have just posted Tulsky's article and left it at that.
- PepinoPamplemousse

Yes, well unfortunately that is not legal. You can't fault a guy because his secondary research is just really highlighting the original's best points because, that's what secondary research is.

I wish I had the space to include about five or ten articles to really hammer the point home, but logistically, two is the max.

Anyways, I do take your point and I am not after credit at all. For sure and 100% people interested in this stuff should check out the originals. This post is for people who might not ever have done that. Clearly there is a ton of literature on the topic to the point where this might be considered pretty passe by the people who are into this stuff to start with.

Home team gets last change. Would love to see home vs road splits to truly show whether your argument holds water. Any person watching consistently will see the home team (when possible with line rotations) put top lines vs opponents bottom lines. Obviously the visiting team can counter this by in key spots (d-zone faceoffs etc) putting out their best line so as to not allow the home team with last change to put out a Crosby line against a Tanner Glass line.

Anyways, like I said, I do believe the QoC balances out but I don't think that is a good basis for your argument since all teams play an equal number of road vs home games. The best way would be to show a split between home and road where the last change advantage/disadvantage is a factor and would/should answer this question.
- uf1910

I think it's pretty obvious that the home team has a slight advantage. But in poker and in baseball, last to act is a massive advantage. I don't know the all time record for home teams, but I'm guessing because the coach will just adjust on the fly that this isn't even close the advantage you think it is. I assume - but don't actually know - that in baseball the home team wins way more often than it does in hockey.

Do the research and prove me wrong by all means though.

Yes, well unfortunately that is not legal. You can't fault a guy because his secondary research is just really highlighting the original's best points because, that's what secondary research is.

I wish I had the space to include about five or ten articles to really hammer the point home, but logistically, two is the max.

Anyways, I do take your point and I am not after credit at all. For sure and 100% people interested in this stuff should check out the originals. This post is for people who might not ever have done that. Clearly there is a ton of literature on the topic to the point where this might be considered pretty passe by the people who are into this stuff to start with.
- James_Tanner

This is entirely fair, sir.

It's not anti-intellectualism, it's healthy skepticism about methodologies that contain quite a bit of circular logic.

In this case, these shot attempt differentials do not occur in a vacuum. Virtually every team in the league matches lines when warranted and even if they don't have last change, they are preemptively putting their best out for defensive zone draws and quickly changing if possible when they do not have the desired matchup.

So if Rielly is facing competition with only a slightly better shot differential than Gardiner on a shift-ly basis, does it not stand to reason that those same top line players Rielly is facing are also facing every other team's best just about every shift, while the players Gardiner is facing are not?

Also, the same argument against QoC (the fluidity of the game) can be used to challenge the efficacy of all shot-based statistics.

No matter what you think Tanner, I would still entertain trading Gardiner to
one of the other teams you follow....yotes etc.

I think it's pretty obvious that the home team has a slight advantage. But in poker and in baseball, last to act is a massive advantage. I don't know the all time record for home teams, but I'm guessing because the coach will just adjust on the fly that this isn't even close the advantage you think it is. I assume - but don't actually know - that in baseball the home team wins way more often than it does in hockey.

Do the research and prove me wrong by all means though.
- James_Tanner

What home field advantage is there in baseball besides ball park anomalies or getting to bat last that provides a significant advantage at all? How is that more of an "advantage" than the home team getting LAST CHANGE after every faceoff (besides icing)? And how is that only a "slight" advantage while getting to bat last is a "huge" advantage?

Put simply, to compare last change in hockey (where QoC would actually come into play) to batting last or betting last in (frank)ing poker is a joke. I won't even go into the poker argument. But other than game situation what is the advantage to batting last? Do you receive any better pitches to hit off of a worse pitcher (which is a QoC argument that would actually compare in a hockey QoC conversation)? So where is the "huge" advantage that compares?

Furthermore, to argue that QoC is not a large factor but ignoring the single biggest factor that determines QoC (last change) is leaky to say the least. You picked 1 player from 1 team to illustrate your point which was based on full 82 game stats where...wait for it...each team plays an equal amount of disadvantage games with first change as they do advantage games with last change. Bingo, you are correct, those stats will generally average since 41 home vs 41 road is exactly 50% of the games under each circumstance.

Lastly, this isn't a conversation about home records vs road records. This is a conversation about how QoC affects players and their results on the ice. The final result isn't necessarily indicative of how players performed under specific circumstances.

As for the bolded, I'll pass for 2 reasons

1. I have a job and writing about hockey ain't it
2. You were the one making your argument, not me. I simply pointed out a legitimate potential flaw that was not mentioned once in your piece yet quite possibly goes further to answering this argument than any single line you wrote.

It's not anti-intellectualism, it's healthy skepticism about methodologies that contain quite a bit of circular logic.


I disagree. I think some of it is healthy skepticism, but a lot of it is out-right dismissal of facts and science. There's a difference between asking questions and having doubts than refusing to acknowledge that anything that calls into question previously held beliefs is automatically wrong. I see far more of the latter than the former with most people. This is just my experience and as potentially susceptible to my own biases as anything else, but that's how it seems to me. Especially when I listen to the radio and read MSM articles that come off as very protectionist.


In this case, these shot attempt differentials do not occur in a vacuum. Virtually every team in the league matches lines when warranted and even if they don't have last change, they are preemptively putting their best out for defensive zone draws and quickly changing if possible when they do not have the desired matchup.

So if Rielly is facing competition with only a slightly better shot differential than Gardiner on a shift-ly basis, does it not stand to reason that those same top line players Rielly is facing are also facing every other team's best just about every shift, while the players Gardiner is facing are not?

It has been conclusively proven by the fact that when TOI replaces CF as the thing you measure QoC by that you get similar results. I think it's much more likely that coach A tries to get his superstar out against losers and coach B reacts, then does the same thing with his superstars and coach A then reacts, thus causing most players to play against a very wide range of competition. Obviously, there will be exceptions, but, generally speaking, I think we have way more than enough evidence that players face a very similar level of competition.

Also, the same argument against QoC (the fluidity of the game) can be used to challenge the efficacy of all shot-based statistics.
- Snowblind

I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Shots are used because there is a lot of them and you can predict with a fair amount of accuracy that about 8 of every 100 will go in the net.

What home field advantage is there in baseball besides ball park anomalies or getting to bat last that provides a significant advantage at all? How is that more of an "advantage" than the home team getting LAST CHANGE after every faceoff (besides icing)? And how is that only a "slight" advantage while getting to bat last is a "huge" advantage?

Put simply, to compare last change in hockey (where QoC would actually come into play) to batting last or betting last in (frank)ing poker is a joke. I won't even go into the poker argument. But other than game situation what is the advantage to batting last? Do you receive any better pitches to hit off of a worse pitcher (which is a QoC argument that would actually compare in a hockey QoC conversation)? So where is the "huge" advantage that compares?

Furthermore, to argue that QoC is not a large factor but ignoring the single biggest factor that determines QoC (last change) is leaky to say the least. You picked 1 player from 1 team to illustrate your point which was based on full 82 game stats where...wait for it...each team plays an equal amount of disadvantage games with first change as they do advantage games with last change. Bingo, you are correct, those stats will generally average since 41 home vs 41 road is exactly 50% of the games under each circumstance.

Lastly, this isn't a conversation about home records vs road records. This is a conversation about how QoC affects players and their results on the ice. The final result isn't necessarily indicative of how players performed under specific circumstances.

As for the bolded, I'll pass for 2 reasons

1. I have a job and writing about hockey ain't it
2. You were the one making your argument, not me. I simply pointed out a legitimate potential flaw that was not mentioned once in your piece yet quite possibly goes further to answering this argument than any single line you wrote.
- uf1910

I looked it up and the home-field advantage for baseball is 53% and for hockey 55% this shocks me, I thought for sure that baseball would have a bigger advantage, but maybe the advantage of batting last is mostly psychological.

It seems that officiating bias is the biggest reason for home-field advantage, though travel, the difficulty of the schedule, economic incentives, slight rules advantages and psychological boosts from being at home and having your fans all factor.

But, if you consider that the difference is so small, and last change is clearly not the only factor, I think it does help my point, which is that even that advantage isn't much of one.

Ahem.

"The Relationship Between Competition and Observed Results is Real and its Spectacular" https://hockey-graphs.com...its-spectacular/#comments

Over the long run QoC does wash out but over the short term - for example, a playoff series - QoC can have a major impact.

Ahem.

"The Relationship Between Competition and Observed Results is Real and its Spectacular" https://hockey-graphs.com...its-spectacular/#comments

Over the long run QoC does wash out but over the short term - for example, a playoff series - QoC can have a major impact.
- TheMaritimer

This is why coaches make in game adjustments. The Hurricanes (Tulsky included) provide the coaching staff with reports between periods to help with in-game adjustments that sometimes pay dividends. However, in a long term picture, the impact is still pretty minimal when it comes to evaluating how you expect a player to perform.

QoC has a very real impact in the immediate evaluation of a player over a small stretch of games. Over a full season, however, it quickly moves towards being meaningless in player evaluation.

Ahem.

"The Relationship Between Competition and Observed Results is Real and its Spectacular" https://hockey-graphs.com...its-spectacular/#comments

Over the long run QoC does wash out but over the short term - for example, a playoff series - QoC can have a major impact.
- TheMaritimer

Also you clearly did not read the blog.

Ahem.

"The Relationship Between Competition and Observed Results is Real and its Spectacular" https://hockey-graphs.com...its-spectacular/#comments

Over the long run QoC does wash out but over the short term - for example, a playoff series - QoC can have a major impact.
- TheMaritimer

I agree that it CAN have a major impact. It just generally doesn't.

I mentioned in my article that the Oilers are in a unique position to try and exploit this. They have McDavid, RNH and Draisaitl, all of whom project to be 1C players. Since 1C players tend to play the best defensemen and best forwards of the other team, it's reasonable to think the Oilers could, at some point, exploit the fact that most bottom pairing D don't have to play against top line forwards all that often.

The data shows you can easily get an advantage by having a good play play a bad player, just that it's generally not possible to do so often enough to get the desired result. However, if you're team is good enough, I don't see why it can't happen.

The closest thing we saw was the Penguins with Crosby, Malkin, Stall.

2006-07 lost first round, Staal a rookie, doesn't count.
2007-08 Played in SC Final (for the purpose of evaluation, just as good as winning)
2008-09 Won SC
2009-10 Eliminated in second round (by the most incredible goaltending performance I've ever seen).
2010-11 Crosby misses playoffs
2011-12 Crosby just came back from year off, wasn't the same player.
2012-present Jordan Staal traded.

What we see is that the Penguins played three playoff years where they had all three of their #1 centres and played for the Cup twice, losing in the year they ran into the variance wall and were crushed by Jaroslav Halek's career making spring.

Considering the success of the three #1 centre format (albeit a very small sample size) I would think the Oilers would have to be insane to move one of their guys.

I also think Staal for Suter can be called one of, if not the absolute worst trades ever.

After watching the Isles@Bruins the other day with Tavares and Chara on the ice at the same time almost every second of the game (except when Big Z was in the penalty box), it is hard to believe that actual quality of competition does not have much of a variance from player to player. Conversely, it is awfully easy to believe that players like Tavares and Chara, who are the undisputed "#1"s at their respective positions on their respective teams, will have their underlying numbers damped down by constantly facing opposing players of the highest caliber. This is where the logic gets circular.

After watching the Isles@Bruins the other day with Tavares and Chara on the ice at the same time almost every second of the game (except when Big Z was in the penalty box), it is hard to believe that QoC does not have much of a variance from player to player. Conversely, it is awfully easy to believe that players like Tavares and Chara, who are the undisputed "#1"s at their respective positions on their respective teams, will have their underlying numbers damped down by constantly facing opposing players of the highest caliber. This is where the logic gets circular.
- Snowblind

The point is that it can have a big impact in the immediate sense, but it has next to none over the course of a full season or more and should not be taken into account when you are evaluating player performance outside of a game-by-game context.

After watching the Isles@Bruins the other day with Tavares and Chara on the ice at the same time almost every second of the game (except when Big Z was in the penalty box), it is hard to believe that actual quality of competition does not have much of a variance from player to player. Conversely, it is awfully easy to believe that players like Tavares and Chara, who are the undisputed "#1"s at their respective positions on their respective teams, will have their underlying numbers damped down by constantly facing opposing players of the highest caliber. This is where the logic gets circular.
- Snowblind

Say you drop a tablespoon of bleach into a glass of water. You're definitely going to notice it when you drink it.

Now say you drop 10 tablespoons of bleach in a swimming pool full of drinking water... you probably won't know it's there at all.

The point is that it can have a big impact in the immediate sense, but it has next to none over the course of a full season or more and should not be taken into account when you are evaluating player performance outside of a game-by-game context.
- PepinoPamplemousse

That does not make a lot of sense that it would be the case for undisputed top line players like Tavares and top shutdown defensemen like Chara (or Ovechkin, Sedins, on the one hand and Doughty, Keith on the other) where they will always be involved in specific matchups.

You said before that 1% Corsi could make a huge difference.

So why is Reilly's .4% virtually nothing

That does not make a lot of sense that it would be the case for undisputed top line players like Tavares and top shutdown defensemen like Chara (or Ovechkin, Sedins, on the one hand and Doughty, Keith on the other) where they will always be involved in specific matchups.
- Snowblind

But they aren't always involved in specific match-ups. If you look at how much time a player spends on the ice vs. a specific opponent, especially during the regular season, those match-ups barely exist. If a defenseman is playing 25 minutes a night and a forward he's matched up against plays 18 minutes per night, how much time do you think they actually spend on the ice together? 10 maybe?

Those match-ups really just don't happen often enough to have any real measurable impact over the long term.

This is exactly my argument against using long term averaging stats and trying to make predictions of game to game outcomes. Again, I call out the ludicrous use of macro stats. YES, of course everything basically washes each other out when studying the stats over long durations of time. All pluses wash out minuses, all good players wash out bad players, everything travels closer and closer to a midpoint when you look at long term stats. LOL, YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO PREDICT GAME OUTCOMES. You can't say quality of competition doesn't matter because it evens out to make no difference. You can't say quality of shot against doesn't matter because all good shots get negated by bad shots, etc.... This is the most ridiculous twisting of logic. Quality of competition and shot ALWAYS matters in a game to game, man to man, line to line, period to period discussion. No it doesn't matter if you wanna talk about the statistical outcome of All 10,000 NHL games over a 10 year period.

This is exactly my argument against using long term averaging stats and trying to make predictions of game to game outcomes. Again, I call out the ludicrous use of macro stats. YES, of course everything basically washes each other out when studying the stats over long durations of time. All pluses wash out minuses, all good players wash out bad players, everything travels closer and closer to a midpoint when you look at long term stats. LOL, YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO PREDICT GAME OUTCOMES. You can't say quality of competition doesn't matter because it evens out to make no difference. You can't say quality of shot against doesn't matter because all good shots get negated by bad shots, etc.... This is the most ridiculous twisting of logic. Quality of competition and shot ALWAYS matters in a game to game, man to man, line to line, period to period discussion. No it doesn't matter if you wanna talk about the statistical outcome of All 10,000 NHL games over a 10 year period.
- xcheckmajor

This is in no way what we're talking about, but thanks for playing.

Except when I take Washington Vs TO

Rielly had played about 30mins Vs Ovie 5v5 and Gardiner played Zero

I haven't looked in a couple weeks

That's a huge discrepancy - it seemed every All Star from every team had big 5v5 #s
Vs Rielly and very little vs Gardiner

Ristolainen is the worst D on his team? I haven't even watched him play but most people think he's a stud?

Seems most top line D on most teams have the worst analytics, coincidence they all play all the other teams super stars?

Something just smells funny

Sorry, I broke my promise...but it doesn't add up in the common sense department

ALL players are not equal, whoever wrote/thinks that is wrong IMO

This is in no way what we're talking about, but thanks for playing.
- PepinoPamplemousse

Were talking about Quality of Competition having no bearing on a players performance and shouldn't be factored into how good they are or not. But it does. If a certain player's icetime is used 90% of the time against Ovechkin or Crosby or Kane or any other top line in the league, his stats will have a different weighted outcome than a 3rd pairing dman against the 3rd or 4th line.