MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177703410 · doi:10.3138/infor.52.2.39

A Markov Model for Hockey: Manpower Differential and Win Probability Added

2014· article· en· W2177703410 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Edward H. Kaplan, Kevin Mongeon, John Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueINFOR Information Systems and Operational Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chainOperations researchDifferential (mechanical device)Computer scienceDifferential gameMarkov processMarkov modelMathematical optimizationOperations managementMathematical economicsMathematicsEconomicsStatisticsEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We extend the classic Poisson model of hockey based on score differential and time remaining in the game to include the effect of penalties, and derive the associated Markov win probability model given the goal/manpower differential state at any point in a hockey game. Given data from the 2008/9–2011/12 National Hockey League seasons (a total of 4,920 games) reporting second-by-second goal and manpower differentials (which results in roughly 17.7 million observations), we estimate the state dependent transition rates and win probabilities. The data reveal that even after controlling for the home edge afforded by visiting teams being penalized more frequently than home teams, the goal scoring rate for the home team is higher than for visiting teams at most equivalent manpower differential levels. We use the model to develop a new win probability added metric for evaluating individual players based on their incremental contribution to the probability of winning and illustrate its use and conservation properties.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFOR Information Systems and Operational ResearchSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207