Similarly the horizontal axis shows differences in opponents faced. It makes a difference if a player sits certain games against either stronger or weaker competition. Kisugite, Curney or Nemecek played against the strongest competition (usually starting against a top line of an opponent) and so had their work harder in this aspect. It was Tomasik who played much more against lesser competition.
The color represents performance of players shown already in Figure 2.20. Accounting for context following statements corrects preliminary evaluation of players: ●
Kisugite and Nemecek had a really strong tournament posting strong performance numbers while playing against the strongest competition
●
Next it was Delong, Doza, Benes or Veltsmid who had overall harder context comparing him to the similarly well performing teammates
●
Suchanek was struggling and recorded a negative goal estimation differential while having rather favourable context
●
Performances of Langer or Krbec ended also in negative values but their quality of teammates was lower
Offensively it were Veltsmid (3.4), Delong (3.3), Garcar (3.2), Kisugite (3.1) and Benes (3.1) with the strongest goal estimation for values per 100 possession. If your team needs to score a goal these might be some of your choices of who to put on the field.
Defensively it were Krbec (1.7), Bauer (1.9), Nemecek (2.0), Doza (2.1) and Tomasik (2.1) with the best goal estimation against per 100 possession values. If a priority is not to be scored on these players proved to have a good goal prevention results.
At the same time data sample from six games is not sufficient to judge players with a big significance. It was just a display of their performances during the nine day tournament in a specific environment with other factors likely playing its role (see Chapter 2.3).
Lastly even strength shot attempts data are presented on a player level. Who was active in finishing plays and who was rather passing instead of shooting? This can be found by looking at the next graph.
74