Again, just say you don't understand statistics and move on.
The average NHL shift length is about 40 seconds. Since we are talking about mid shift, I cut in half for simplicity. (again, your failure to follow comes over your obsession with the most miniscule of details that have virtually 0 statistical relevance).
You could cut this down to 0 seconds for a shift that was already ending, or up to 35ish seconds for a shift that had just started. It really doesn't matter.
Again, cutting Caufields EV goal production with the assumption of normal shooting results (the scenario we are talking about) would lead to 3 extra saves by a goalie.
Now, let's generously pretend that every one of these 3 goals happened at the exact beginning of a shift.
You'd then be looking at the difference between an ozone start and a center ice start for shots/minute, and about a minute and a half of ice time.
Considering the highest shots/minute in the NHL is about 0.22
Let's say that's an INCREDIBLY generous gap of 0.3 from ozone starts, and 0.1 from center ice starts (a VERY generous assumption equivalent to 0 shots vs David Pastrnak level shooting volume), that is 0.22 per minute, or about 0.3 shots total in the most generous of scenarios.
Now, to help illustrate how stupid this miniscule difference is, let me highlight something that would be boosting Caufields shot totals.
MTL has played 7 home games vs 5 road games. Teams get advantages at home. Therefore his shot totals are inflated.
You could do this for 8 million different meaningless things if you wanted to. But again, you would get so lost in bullshit that would all end up cancelling out anyway.
But from what I can see from your posts, it appears to simply be some kind of weird kick you're on about how stats are fake and probably something something eye test
I get where you’re coming from, but I think we’re approaching this from different angles when it comes to small-sample stats. I’m not saying shortened shifts explain the whole drop in shot rates — again, it’s a partial factor, and in a 12-game sample, even small influences can end up meaningful when we’re projecting across an entire season.
Your numbers assume goal-shortened shifts only generate around 0.3 shots, but that’s based on broad averages that don’t necessarily reflect the shot-generation potential in specific situations, especially for high-volume shooters. Using league-wide or /60 averages glosses over subtleties in how a higher impact player like Caufield actually generates chances over certain shifts (easy examples being rebound generation, extending shifts, etc). By the nature of being a better than average player, Caufield is going to generate higher than average impacts on these kinds of metrics. And, again, most importantly we are talking about a 12-game sample here — pulling
any conclusions from it would inherently be ill advised.
Beyond the statistical argument and operating from principle, think it’s a little dismissive to call partial factors “ridiculous” when we’re drawing from such a tiny sample size. Analytics should be about evaluating marginal influences, not pre-emptively dismissing them or attacking the person suggesting them. There’s no need to invent a precise number for the impact of shortened shifts to acknowledge that, yes, it could be a minor but non-zero factor here.
All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t reject plausible factors out of hand in a 12-game window just because they’re partial. Yes, his shot generation is down. But acknowledging marginal effects as part of that isn’t nonsense; it’s part of keeping a full picture of what’s going on. The accumulation of a lot of “ridiculous” minor factors could very well add up to a noticeable impact, especially when projecting from a small sample.
Edit: also, even more broadly, maybe re-read this thread with some self-awareness about your tone when speaking with other people. Just from the past couple of pages:
“Pointing to them as meaningful changes in a players level is stupid.”
“Oh god I can't wait for this.”
“Meh, it's a tenuous assumption at best and falls apart when you actually think about the numbers”
“Again, I didn't dimiss it outhand, I thought about it, looked into it, and then realized that it was ridiculous.”
“If you read the post you'd see.”
“Getting lost in thinking through every meaningless piece of noise is a waste of time.”
“Saying 1 shot was a way to make you feel better.”
“Again, just say you don't understand statistics and move on.”
“But from what I can see from your posts, it appears to simply be some kind of weird kick you're on about how stats are fake and probably something something eye test”
“LMAO YOU DID THE THING WHERE YOU PRETEND HALF HIS GAMES DON'T EXIST”
This constant digging at people and dismissing their point of view doesn’t exactly project you as the smartest guy in the room, just the most arrogant.
