Analysis of Hockey Forward Line Corsi: Should the Focus Be on Forward Pairs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional ice hockey is a popular sport in North America, with multiple previous analyses providing insights into teams. Most research has been done on analyzing pairs of players on the same team that work well together. The focus of this study was to analyze if trios on a forward line perform well together, as there has not been enough research in this field. Our goal was to determine if the third player changes the performance of a duo and identify key factors that explain this change.We have analyzed more than 14 years worth of data. This data started with more than 100 dimensions; from those 100, 35 dimensions were chosen for analysis. To reach our conclusion, we used three methods: K-Means, Random Forest, and Support vector machines.Single variate random forest was used to analyze which variables affected the Corsi Percentage. The results from K-Mean clustering, combined with the results from Single Variate Random Forest, were used to see if the substitution of a third player on a line of three makes a difference in the overall performance of the line. The Support Vector Machine algorithm was used to reinforce the cluster numbers obtained from K-means clustering. Our study found that adding a third player will have a positive effect when the third player consistently plays with the other two players and the three players participate more effectively in defence. These findings could help teams plan how they form their player lines when they want to achieve good game results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".