Provided that they have scored the first goal, the winning team will score the second goal about two-thirds of the time. Getting the first goal is important, as you now have a 1-0 lead, can potentially lead by two in the next goal, and are not trailing. Two-thirds of the time, the winning team will score the first goal. Mathematically you combine both the ‘x1’ and ‘x3’ values. ![]() After all, you can score the second goal after scoring first or you can score the second goal after being scored on first. The value of scoring second, though, is both the value of scoring second given you scored first AND the value of scoring second given you were not the team that scored first. About one-third of winning teams end up on the right side, being scored upon. If you do want that you’d have to break it down further:Ībout two-thirds of the winning teams end up on the left side, scoring the first goal. The value of scoring second is independent, or agnostic, of who scored first. Independence has a very important meaning in probability. You could be tied scoring the second goal, or you could have a 2-0 lead: ![]() Now this may seem confusing, but we have to realize that the value of scoring the second goal is independent of whether or not you scored the first goal. We still find that the team that scores the second goal wins about two-thirds of the time: The part that gets difficult is when we look at the value of the second goal (or the third goal). The winning team scoring first 67% of the time also means that the team that scores first has a win percentage of 67%. The team that does not score first wins the rest of the time, or about 33%: In fact, we do find that the team that scores first wins about two-thirds of the time, or about 67%. This also means that on average the winning team carries a 67% probability of scoring the next goal at any point of the game. On average a winning team scores two-thirds, or 67%, of the goals. Let’s start off really simple and set some conditions. Now as a fair warning: I’m not artistic, and I wrote this quickly, so the drawings won’t look very pretty. I find probability trees helpful, so I will try to show what is going on here. Not everyone will get what Tulsky described in that article right away. There is a very small percentage of people who will understand the Monty Hall problem intuitively. I’m not making fun of Jason Gregor because it can be a difficult concept to grasp. ![]() Eric Tulsky, now of the Carolina Hurricanes, showed that the value of scoring first equals the value of any other goal.Ĭonditional probability can be difficult. It may be a bit controversial and difficult to get right away, but the value of scoring first is not special. Not long ago Jason Gregor tweeted about the value of scoring first. You sure it doesn’t matter? Įvery once-in-a-while I will rant on the concepts and ideas behind what numbers suggest in a series called Behind the Numbers, as a tip of the hat to the website that brought me into hockey analytics: Behind the Net. Teams who give up first goal are 78-128-23. This season teams who score first are 151-50-28.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |