Fourth time:
For those making the argument that Lee's SH% is not sustainable, are you saying he's been "lucky" for the past 163 games?
I'm just going to keep asking this question
I'll bite, even though none of my questions ever seem to get answered.
The argument that Lee's shot percentage from the last two years is
unlikely to be sustained is based upon (in simplified form) regression to the mean. Essentially, that's the principle that an extreme measurement
tends to be closer to average on a subsequent measurement. Note the bolded key words, which cannot be ignored or discarded, as people who do not fully understand this principle so often casually do.
Point by point:
"Extreme measurement:" Is a sustained shooting percentage north of 17.8% extreme? Clearly it is, both from a historical perspective and from a current one. It is very difficult to sustain a shooting percentage that high. If you accept that it is, then it is subject to regression. If one doesn't accept that it is, then I'd argue that one needs to build an empirical argument to that effect. I have yet to see one put forth, or to discover one myself, and I'd wager I've delved far more deeply into the numbers than most here.
"Average:" What is average is open to debate. Forwards have averaged a shooting percentage around 10.8% the last decade or so....a nice big picture reference, but probably not the best we can do here. Lee has averaged 14.6% for his career, or 35% better than the "average" forward, and I'd use that number over the previous one. The majority of prolific scorers are above average for their careers...usually in the 11.5% to 14.5% range (especially so among currently active players). Lee's current average is in line with that range, which seems pretty reasonable given his accomplishments.
Whatever number you choose to accept, it's going to be below the 18.5% Lee has averaged the last two years, because I have yet any reasonable justification for establishing an "average" (or, put another way, a baseline) that high. That is easily verified by the fact that no active players are doing so, and that it has been a notably rare event historically. I've already posted those numbers, so I won't rehash them all here.
"Tends to be closer:" Not a guarantee. It could go up next year, and the year after that, the year after that, and every year for the rest of his career. Does anyone actually want to wager that possibility will come to pass, though? It's (much) more likely to regress than to stay where it is, or to go up...no guarantees, just cold, hard probability.
This isn't just hypothetical...there have been a number of studies looking at NHL shooting percentage regression. It's a real, documented, significant thing. And this is all before taking into account the fact that shooting percentages tend to decline as one ages (another studied and well-documented phenomenon).
So, you ask if he's been "lucky" the last 163 games, and the answer is "yes" in the sense that he's riding a wave that can be reasonably expected to recede to some degree.
That said, almost every established player has seasons where they significantly outperform expectations (call them "career years," or whatever), and corresponding seasons where they notably under-perform...both of which can usually be tied to some underlying statistic outliers. By that same token, I'd say that Lee was "unlucky" two years ago when he shot 8.2%, and at the time I would have said that Lee's future shooting percentages were much more likely to increase than decrease....and they did.
"Luck" (or variance) is quantifiably baked into the game, as it is with most team sports, since even perfectly average players do not produce a perfectly average season every time out. They have highs and lows that average to, well, average. These highs and lows are to be expected for every player, whether average or not, so this is not a rationalization to minimize any given player's accomplishments. It's just something of a contextual reality that should not be ignored when trying to anticipate what is likely to happen in the future.
Here's some food for thought: If one truly thinks that Lee's sustainable baseline moving forward is 18.5%, then it follows that he's just as likely to come in above that number next year as he is to come in below it. How many people would take the over if given a choice between the two at even odds?
I'm guessing the betting would skew heavily towards the under if people were forced to put money on it, and for good reason. Only 3 players out of 117 qualifiers who played 60+ games and scored 20+ goals had a shooting percentage above 18.5% this year. The year before that, 6 out of 95 (none of whom repeated the feat this year). The year before that only 5 out of 104...again, none of whom repeated the feat in the next two years. The year before that 2 out of 90...none of whom repeated the feat in the next three years. Just 1 out of 97 the year before that, once again with no repeats in the subsequent years.
That's a 3% success rate over the last 5 years, with
zero repeat success stories at any point during that span. I stopped there, but you should get the idea by now. Betting on a repeat performance of 18.5% (assuming 60+ games played and 20+ goals scored, which seems pretty reasonable) is just not a smart bet and you don't need an advanced degree in mathematics to figure that out.