Is it me or is RW reading this chart wrong? It is not a strictly QOC chart, its a % difference of QOC and expected QOC...Dumo is not getting the 10th toughest minutes. Hes getting the 10th furthest deviation from his expected QOC based on his own skill level.
Chris Tanev and Jake McCabe are not getting the 6th and 7th toughest QOC in the league..

Is it me or is RW reading this chart wrong? It is not a strictly QOC chart, its a % difference of QOC and expected QOC...Dumo is not getting the 10th toughest minutes. Hes getting the 10th furthest deviation from his expected QOC based on his own skill level.
Chris Tanev and Jake McCabe are not getting the 6th and 7th toughest QOC in the league..
- joecool2931

No if you read the second tweet, the QoC is measured relative to the expected QoC based on their ice time. Some people on here have had this conversation waaayyyy back, because hockey has fluid line changes, it's actually kind of tough to give your players the level of competition you want to. In practice, it kind of works to match up certain lines against certain lines, but statistically, QoC evens out as players finish their shifts against different lines because the opposing coach pushes back and tries to take the matchups your coach is looking for away. So in some ways your QoC is closer tied to ice time than it is to deployment, since you're more likely to see stronger competition the longer you're on the ice than you are if you're only there briefly.

Regardless, I'm not sure how much I'd read into this stat because it may be purely luck based.

No if you read the second tweet, the QoC is measured relative to the expected QoC based on their ice time. Some people on here have had this conversation waaayyyy back, because hockey has fluid line changes, it's actually kind of tough to give your players the level of competition you want to. In practice, it kind of works to match up certain lines against certain lines, but statistically, QoC evens out as players finish their shifts against different lines because the opposing coach pushes back and tries to take the matchups your coach is looking for away. So in some ways your QoC is closer tied to ice time than it is to deployment, since you're more likely to see stronger competition the longer you're on the ice than you are if you're only there briefly.

Regardless, I'm not sure how much I'd read into this stat because it may be purely luck based.
- Victoro311

So they are using TOI is an indicator of Quality of player (for player in question)(dumolin) and comparing them to QOC of other players based on their TOI.

So if i am understanding it correctly its just a relative avg TOI comparision? Do the other players you play most against have a higher avg TOI than you?

So they are using TOI is an indicator of Quality of player (for player in question)(dumolin) and comparing them to QOC of other players based on their TOI.

So if i am understanding it correctly its just a relative avg TOI comparision? Do the other players you play most against have a higher avg TOI than you?
- joecool2931

No the quality of player is still tied to whatever metrics are typically used to dictate the quality of player. They're not saying "This dude got X amount of ice time, so he must be X good" otherwise known as the Aussie Method of player evaluation. What they did was found the average QoC that a player faces when receiving X amount of ice time, and this stat measures the delta between that average QoC and the QoC the player actually faced.

I see what they're trying to do, I'm just not sold its useful. Because if your base assumption is that QoC evens out with ice time, then it should follow that missing that mean is luck.

No the quality of player is still tied to whatever metrics are typically used to dictate the quality of player. They're not saying "This dude got X amount of ice time, so he must be X good" otherwise known as the Aussie Method of player evaluation. What they did was found the average QoC that a player faces when receiving X amount of ice time, and this stat measures the delta between that average QoC and the QoC the player actually faced.

I see what they're trying to do, I'm just not sold its useful. Because if your base assumption is that QoC evens out with ice time, then it should follow that missing that mean is luck.
- Victoro311

Actually, the Aussie Method is based on emojis.