| Course | MT241 Sport Analytics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Analytics report |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT241 Unit 10
The Season in Two Pages, the Methods in Twelve: A Unit 10 Analytics Report for a Head Coach
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT241: Sport Analytics
Unit 10 Analytics Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The club, its season, staff and every figure are composite and illustrative and draw on the earlier units' samples; the sources cited are real.
Page One: The Season in Four Lines
We were close to an even team at five on five. We created slightly better chances than we allowed, about 51 for every 49, but we took fewer shots than our opponents.
Our December winning streak came mostly from saves and finishing, not from playing better; our chances in those twelve games were below our usual level.
Our biggest fixable problem is that the second line dumps the puck in more than any other line, and our shots from in front of the net have dropped since November.
We propose three changes, below, and one thing we recommend leaving alone.
Change One: Carry the Puck In More on the Second Line
What players would do: any second-line forward who reaches center ice at speed with support nearby should carry or pass the puck into the zone instead of dumping it. Keep dumping it when the carrier is alone, when the defense stands up at the blue line or at the end of a shift.
What it is worth: about half an extra shot attempt a game for the line, before counting the carries that fail. After the failed carries, which give the other team a chance going the other way, it is about a third of a shot attempt a game. That is small, but over a season it adds up to roughly 25 more attempts for a line that needs offense.
The risk: more turnovers at the blue line. We suggest a ten-game trial, stopping early if more than about one carry in seven is lost at the line.
Change Two: Get Back to the Slot
What happened: before the switch to more point shots in mid-November, about one of every three shots we took came from the slot, the ice directly in front of the opposing goaltender. Since then it has been closer to one in four, lower than most teams manage.
What players would do: keep the point shots, but ease off the instruction so that defensemen look for a pass to a forward in the slot before shooting from the point. Forwards at the net should look for the puck rather than only screen.
What it is worth: shots from the slot go in several times as often as shots from the point. Recovering even half of the lost slot shots should add more scoring chances than the point-shot plan gained.
Change Three: Sign the Left-Shot Defenseman
The 27-year-old defenseman on a weak team made his defense noticeably better over three seasons; the 31-year-old with the better plus-minus did not. We recommend signing the 27-year-old for no more than four years at about $4.3 million a year, so the contract ends before the age at which defensemen usually decline.
Page Two: What Should Not Change
The starting goaltender keeps the job. The backup's better save percentage came from fewer shots and easier ones, mostly on back-to-back nights against weaker opponents. Measured against the difficulty of the shots they faced, the two goaltenders are about the same. This season's numbers cannot tell them apart, so the decision should rest on the coaches' judgment, health and workload. We will review it when the backup has made about 25 more starts against a normal range of opponents.
The top line's style should not change. It carries the puck in more than any other line and produces the most shots per entry.
Page Two, Continued: How to Read Our Numbers
Three cautions go with everything above. One stretch of games, even ten or twelve, says little about how good the team is, because results swing widely from game to game. Some of our numbers were counted differently last season, so we compare seasons only where we have checked the counting. And our numbers show what happened, not always why; the changes above are proposals to test, not guarantees.
Appendix Contents
The appendix holds the work from earlier units for any staff member who wants to check it. Few (2012) recommends keeping detailed tables away from the summary a decision maker reads, and the appendix is organized so that each front-page claim can be traced to its source.
A. Metric definitions. Expected goals, shot-attempt share, on-ice save percentage and goals saved above expected, each with its population, inputs and limits.
B. Data quality verdicts. The six-field review of the two-season file, including the zone entry recoding, the home and road difference in hits and the expected-goals model change.
C. The season analysis. The 82-game summary, the game-by-game chart and the December run compared with the rest of the season, including the shooting and save percentages behind it.
D. Player comparisons. The two centers compared on rates, relative results and minutes with and without the top winger; the goaltender comparison with intervals and shot quality; the three defensemen read against their teams, with the aging evidence (Brander et al., 2014).
E. The zone entry analysis. Entries by type and line, the raw and halved estimates and the cost of failed carries, checked against published tracking work (Tulsky et al., 2013).
F. The slot chart. The final chart, its design notes and the data behind each month.
G. Scripts. The scripts that produce every figure, with instructions for rerunning them on next season's file.
Why the Report Is Built This Way
Alamar (2013) argues that analytics only changes decisions when it reaches the people who make them in a form they can use. The coach makes his decisions in hockey terms: who plays where, how the team enters the zone, who starts in goal. Every front-page statement is written in those terms, and each one states what players would do differently, what it is worth and what could go wrong. The formulas are kept out of the coach's way but not hidden. Anyone who doubts a claim can turn to the appendix and find the table, the method and the caveat behind it.
The report also leaves a question open on purpose. The goaltending decision is the one the coach cares about most, and the honest answer is that the data cannot settle it this season. Saying so, with a date to look again, protects the analytics staff's credibility for the questions the data can answer.
A report that admits what it cannot settle earns trust for what it can.
References
Alamar, B. C. (2013). Sports analytics: A guide for coaches, managers, and other decision makers. Columbia University Press.
Brander, J. A., Egan, E. J., & Yeung, L. (2014). Estimating the effects of age on NHL player performance. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 10(2), 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2013-0085
Few, S. (2012). Show me the numbers: Designing tables and graphs to enlighten (2nd ed.). Analytics Press.
Tulsky, E., Detweiler, G., Spencer, R., & Sznajder, C. (2013). Using zone entry data to separate offensive, neutral, and defensive zone performance. In Proceedings of the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. MIT Sloan School of Management.
MT241 Unit 10 instructions, in plain terms
The final unit asks students to combine the term's work into one report for a decision maker who does not read statistics. The prompt usually requires a short front section in plain language with findings and recommendations, and an appendix holding methods, tables and caveats from earlier units. Each recommendation should say what would change, what it is worth and what could go wrong. Findings that call for no change belong in the report too. Front sections are often limited to one or two pages, and the full document may run to fifteen pages with the appendix. Cite the course text and sources on communicating data in APA 7, and make every front-page claim traceable to the appendix.
How the MT 241 Unit 10 example is put together
Page one opens with four sentences that state the season, the streak, the main problem and the plan, marked by a margin note. Change one asks the second line to carry the puck with support and prices it at half an attempt a game before failed carries and a third after, with a ten-game trial. Change two asks for passes into the slot after a drop from one shot in three to one in four. Change three recommends the 27-year-old defenseman on a four-year term. Page two leaves the goaltending alone and the top line as it is, with a note on why no-change findings matter, then gives three cautions. The appendix contents list sections A to G, and a closing section with Alamar and the highlighted line explains the design.
MT241 Unit 10 rubric: what earns full points
Final reports in MT 241 are graded on translation, completeness, soundness and organization. The front section earns the most when a reader with no statistics can act on it: plain terms, short blocks, a stated value and risk for each change. Completeness means the earlier units' findings appear and agree with each other. Soundness means recommendations follow from the evidence and uncertainty is stated, including questions the data cannot settle. Graders reward a clear split between summary and appendix, with each claim traceable. Jargon in the front section loses marks even when the analysis behind it is good. Consistent figures, correct citations and a tidy appendix complete the rubric.
Common MT241 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common problem is a front section full of technical terms, such as expected-goals share per 60, that the reader asked to avoid. Another is a number on page one that no longer matches its appendix table, usually because an earlier unit was revised later. Some students include every finding from the term instead of the few that support decisions. Others leave out the no-change findings or the questions the data cannot answer. Each recommendation needs a value and a risk. If you have your earlier MT 241 papers, our writers can help you draft the two-page front and organize the appendix so each claim can be checked.
Get an MT241 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Everything the term produced can feed the Unit 10 report: earlier analyses, data files, instructor comments. Name the reader the prompt sets, a coach, a general manager, an owner, and include the rubric. A free first report comes back within 24-48h with the findings up front in that reader's words and the methods behind them. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT241 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT241 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT241 Unit 2: Metric Definition Exercise
- MT241 Unit 3: Descriptive Analysis
- MT241 Unit 4: Player Comparison Report
- MT241 Unit 5: Data Quality Review
- MT241 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT241 Unit 7: Visualization Exercise
- MT241 Unit 8: Tactical Analysis
- MT241 Unit 9: Recruitment Recommendation
- MT240 Unit 10: Sport and Society Paper
- MT237 Unit 10: Supply Chain Report
- MT236 Unit 10: Supply Chain Report
- MT221 Unit 10: Service Improvement Proposal
MT241 Unit 10 questions, answered
How technical should the front section of an analytics report be?
Barely technical at all, in most MT241 versions. The reader is usually a coach or general manager needing the finding, the change and the risk, in the sport's own language. Metric names can appear once, translated, if a later conversation will use them. Everything a specialist would want, formulas, filters and data caveats, belongs in an appendix the reader can consult.
Should the report include findings that call for no change?
Yes, and they are often among the most useful. Telling a coach that a tempting switch is not supported by the data, and when the question should be revisited, prevents a decision made on noise. The example gives its goaltending finding a full paragraph on the front pages for exactly that reason, with the review point named.
How are earlier units' figures used in a final report?
As evidence, reconciled rather than pasted. Where an earlier number changed, because a definition was corrected or more games were added, the report should use the current figure and note the change in the appendix. Graders frequently compare a final report against earlier submissions, and unexplained differences suggest the parts were never brought together.
Where can I find a free MT241 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page holds the complete MT241 Unit 10 analytics report. It gives a head coach the season in two plain pages with three changes and one decision left alone, and places every method in a seven-part appendix.
Why does the MT241 Unit 10 report leave the goaltending question open?
Because the season's data cannot separate the two goaltenders once shot difficulty and sample size are counted. The report says so plainly and sets a review after about 25 more backup starts.