Scouting Automated Ratings Analyzing Habits (SARAH): A Statistical Methodology for Scouting and Player Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The project serves a two-fold purpose: to reduce the time that scouts and coaches spend trying to identify what players have foundational on-ice habits, and to streamline the process of evaluating the developmental progress of a players' habits. Essentially what we did was first look at the various national women's hockey teams and identify the set of "habits" a player regularly executes (i.e., edgework, catching the puck in the hip pocket, pass placement, etc). Combining the dataset of players' habits with a set of players' microstats (entries via pass/stickhandling, exits via stickhandling/pass, accurate/inaccurate passes, etc.), we developed a random forest classification model to accurately predict if a player possesses a certain habit based on their set of microstats. We also used random forest regression on our data to see how habits impacted each specific microstat. Combining this with an estimate of how frequently players used each habit, we created a Player Development Matrix for a player's habits based entirely on their microstats. To help coaches, scouts, and anyone else access & use these tools, we've also created an interactive visualization for these models using our training dataset of national women's hockey teams in the last Worlds and Olympics.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it