Except all of those teams regressed in an overall sense as well.
That fact was just irrelevant to my point.
But to address that specific claim:
0910 WSH: Goal differential: + 86
1011 WSH: Goal differential: + 28
0809 PIT: Goal differential: + 25
0910 PIT: Goal differential: + 14
0607 BUF: Goal differential: + 60
0708 BUF: Goal differential: + 18
0607 NSH: Goal differential: + 59
0708 NSH: Goal differential: + 3
They collectively went from 57.5 to 15.75 in terms of goal differential. A regression of 72% to the league average.
So to claim that the teams in question performed "better than expected" the following year is:
a) Wrong; and
b) Intellectually lazy (if you made the claim without checking); or
c) Intellectually dishonest (if you checked but chose to make the assertion regardless)
OF COURSE their goal differentials went down! Not only is goal-scoring decreasing as time passes, and powerplay opportunities going down (surprise, surprise, 2 of the teams are from 2006-2007), but these teams went through MAJOR changes to their offensive cores, that you keep ignoring to fit your narrative.
Let's actually ANALYZE things again, instead of just blindly going off of numbers.
Buffalo lost their #1 scorer (32 goals, 95 points), their #3 scorer (37 goals, 69 points), and essentially lost their #6 scorer (23 goals, 61 points).
Nashville lost their #1 scorer (24 goals, 76 points), their #4 scorer (22 goals, 60 points), their #7 scorer (22 goals, 39 points), and their #10 scorer (15 points in 17 games). They also lost Weber for 1/3 of the season the next year, hurting production.
Washington lost their #8 scorer (12 goals, 42 points), though the most important change was their injuries the next year. Fleischmann for 59 games, Fehr for 30, Mike Green for 33 (and was not the same even when playing), Semin for 17, etc. 2009-2010 was also the last year Ovechkin was his league-crushing goal-scoring self. Having three 100+ forwards and a PPG defenseman every year is somewhat impossible, however it is not like it was only for the one year, so not exactly luck. Either way, this is not a good team to model the Leafs against, as they are built entirely different.
Similarly, the penguins are also built very differently, but let us look at them, just for kicks. Lost their #4 scorer (25 goals, 46 points), their #6 scorer (17 goals, 36 points), and dealt with some injuries the next season.
Now since we are measuring correlation to success and not goal-differential (funny, goal differential is always brought up as a terrible way to judge success by your group), let us look at how, you know, they actually did.
Judging by our basic analysis, we would assume that scoring would go down for each of these teams, to varying degrees. We would expect Pittsburgh to have been affected the least, as they lost less substantial pieces and their great scoring in 08-09 was mostly a result of Malkin and Crosby. As we look at the results, we see that Pittsburgh actually defied the odds, and actually had 2 more points than the previous season.
We would expect Washington to be affected next-least, as they endured bad injuries and their superstars all had bad years, however, they lost the least during the off-season. As we look at the results, we see that Washington did drop off by 14 points, but still finished 1st in their conference.
We would expect Nashville to be affected 2nd-most, as they lost considerable offensive firepower in the off-season, and endured an injury to a main guy in the following year. As we look at the results, we see that Nashville dropped off by 19 points, consistent with our predictions.
Lastly, we would expect Buffalo to be the worst off, as they lost even more offensive firepower, including 2 of their 3 top offensive drivers in one off-season, in what may be the worst off-season in Buffalo Sabre history. Once again, it appears expectations are met by reality, and Buffalo dropped the most with 23 points.
Now if you had read properly, you would notice I said performed as or better than *expected*. I did not say performed better than the previous year (though one team actually did).
So to claim that the results support any theory other than the fact that these teams lost considerable offensive firepower either in the off-season or during the year, and thus ended up with a worse offensive year, is:
a) Wrong; and
b) Intellectually lazy (if you made the claim without checking); or
c) Intellectually dishonest (if you checked but chose to make the assertion regardless)
And you basically just put words in my mouth.
No, if you look again, that it precisely what you are implying.
Certainly, with only four teams, the regression wouldn't, in all likelihood, have been precisely to 67%.
But that is the expected result. The one most likely to occur, probabilistically.
Based off of what, exactly? How did you come to this number, and how can you use this number for what you have already described as irregular teams?
You also brought up a good point. This is 4 teams. How is 4 teams from a sample of at least 240 teams (if only going back to the lockout, which is skewing the numbers enough as it is - only the cap world is represented... hmm...), representative of a trend or whatever you are trying to prove?
It is a serious sample size issue, even aside from how wrong you were about those 4.
I suppose you're right in a technical sense. A team's true talent shooting percentage can only be estimated, rather than known with certainty. So, taking that into consideration, my apportionment was inappropriate.
Still though - I'm not sure it really detracts from my overall point. Statistical principles predicted that a group of teams ought to have regressed 67% of the way to the mean with respect to EV shooting percentage. They actually regressed 83% of the way to the mean. I don't believe that's a point in favour of the "EV shooting percentage is sustainable" crowd.
You are ignoring the underlying reasons for the regression of offensive statistics, which are clear as day, and using numbers that you yourself have admitted are inaccurate.
It is like you have 5 apples. You tell a bunch of people that these apples are going to decay, and by tomorrow, there will only be 2 apples. You sneak back at night, and eat 3 of the apples. The next day, you proclaim to the world, LOOK AT MY BRILLIANCE! FOR I PREDICTED THAT THE APPLES WOULD REGRESS, AND LOOK! ONLY 2 APPLES!
In the numbers, there were 5 apples yesterday, and today, there are 2 apples. You said there should be 2 apples, there are 2 apples. To an outsider, only looking at the numbers, they may think you were right; the apples decayed. But we all know what really happened, and it had nothing to do with the decay of apples.
The apples were taken away. Just as the offensive contributions of key players were taken away for these teams.
It's interesting that you would characterize a decrease in goal differential from +86 to +28 as "minimal regression."
It is interesting that you consider getting 2 more points than last year, substantial regression.