| Course | MT241 Sport Analytics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Player comparison 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 4
One Second-Line Job and Two Centers: A Unit 4 Player Comparison Report With the Lead Flipped
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT241: Sport Analytics
Unit 4 Player Comparison Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The club, both centers, the winger and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
The Question
The coaching staff asked one question: which of two centers should play on the second line next season? The veteran, 30, has held the job for two years. The younger center, 23, spent most of last season on the third line. This report compares them only on what the club's 5-on-5 data can show. It does not judge leadership, injury history or contract cost, which the staff will weigh separately.
Putting Them on the Same Footing
Totals would mislead here, because the veteran played 1,090 minutes at 5-on-5 and the younger center 640. All figures are therefore rates per 60 minutes of 5-on-5 play. Alamar (2013) stresses that comparisons between players are only fair when the measure is scaled to opportunity, and ice time is the opportunity in hockey.
Points per 60: veteran 1.95, younger center 1.62
On-ice expected-goals share: veteran 53.1 percent, younger center 51.9 percent
Share of shifts started in the offensive zone: veteran 61 percent, younger center 38 percent
On these numbers alone, the veteran looks better. He scores more, and his team creates a larger share of chances when he plays. But the third row matters. The veteran started 61 percent of his shifts in the offensive zone, where shots come easily, and the younger center started only 38 percent there. The younger center was used as a defensive player and still kept his team's share of chances above 50 percent.
Results Relative to Teammates
A second way to compare players is to ask how the team does with each one on the ice compared with the same team when he is off it. This removes some of the effect of playing on a strong or weak line. When the younger center was on the ice, the club's expected-goals share was 3.6 points higher than when he was off. For the veteran, the gap was 1.4 points. By this measure, the younger center did more to lift the team than the veteran did. Relative figures are a rough version of what regression-based player ratings, such as the model of Gramacy et al. (2013), estimate more formally by accounting for every teammate and opponent at once; the rough version is enough to show the direction here.
With and Without the Top Winger
The veteran's numbers raise a further question: how much of his result comes from his regular linemate, the club's best winger? The with-or-without table splits the veteran's minutes.
With the top winger, 760 minutes: expected-goals share 55.1 percent
Without the top winger, 330 minutes: expected-goals share 48.9 percent
Without the winger, the veteran's line was outplayed. The younger center played only 90 minutes with that winger, too few to read, but his 51.9 percent share came mostly with third-line wingers. Thomas et al. (2013) showed how much a player's apparent value depends on the teammates and opponents he shares the ice with, and the veteran's split is a clear example of that dependence.
Much of what looks like the veteran's lead belongs to the winger beside him.
Opponent Quality
Who a center plays against also shapes his numbers. The club's tracking of opponents' ice time shows that the veteran, on the second line, most often faced other teams' second and third lines. The younger center, on the third line, faced a mix of third and fourth lines, but he was also used to start defensive-zone shifts against top lines after icings, about 120 of his 640 minutes. In those minutes his line's expected-goals share was 47.8 percent, below even but respectable against the best players in the league.
That split cuts both ways. The younger center has shown he can survive hard minutes in short bursts. He has not shown he can produce offense against second lines over a full season, which is what the second-line job asks of him. The recommendation below takes that gap into account.
What the Data Cannot See
Several things that matter to the coaches do not appear in this report. The data record where shots came from but not who made the defensive play that stopped a chance, so a center's work away from the puck is only partly visible. They do not show how each center communicates on the bench or handles a bad shift, which the staff can judge better than any table. And they show only last season. A 23-year-old center may still be improving, while a 30-year-old center's results usually hold steady or begin to slip, which slightly favors the younger player for next season but cannot be measured directly from one year.
Faceoffs
The veteran wins 55.8 percent of his faceoffs and the younger center 47.2 percent. Coaches value faceoffs, so the gap needs a price. Over a season, a second-line center takes about 900 faceoffs. A gap of 8.6 points is roughly 77 extra wins. Published estimates suggest that a few dozen to a hundred faceoff wins are worth about one goal over a season, since most wins do not lead directly to a shot. The veteran's faceoff edge is therefore worth roughly one goal a season, real but small next to the differences above.
Recommendation
The report recommends giving the younger center the second-line job, with the veteran moving to the third line, where his offensive-zone usage can continue. The recommendation rests on three points: the younger center's stronger effect relative to teammates, his results in harder defensive minutes, and the veteran's dependence on the top winger.
The move also has a benefit beyond the second line. The veteran's results on offensive-zone starts are strong, and a third line built around him, with sheltered starts and a skilled winger, could give the club more scoring depth than it had last season, when the third line was outscored. The lead is narrow, and the report states its doubt. The younger center's sample is 640 minutes, enough to suggest a pattern but not to settle it, and his numbers could fall when he faces stronger opponents on the second line.
Decision Rule
To test the change, the staff should review it after 25 games. If the younger center's on-ice expected-goals share on the second line stays above 50 percent, the change should stand. If it falls below 48 percent, the veteran should return to the role. Between those two figures, the staff should keep the change and review again at 40 games, adding the opponent quality the younger center faced.
References
Alamar, B. C. (2013). Sports analytics: A guide for coaches, managers, and other decision makers. Columbia University Press.
Gramacy, R. B., Jensen, S. T., & Taddy, M. (2013). Estimating player contribution in hockey with regularized logistic regression. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 9(1), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2012-0001
Thomas, A. C., Ventura, S. L., Jensen, S. T., & Ma, S. (2013). Competing process hazard function models for player ratings in ice hockey. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 7(3), 1497-1524. https://doi.org/10.1214/13-AOAS646
The Purdue Global MT241 Unit 4 instructions
Unit 4 asks students to compare two or more players for a specific decision, such as a roster spot, a trade or a contract. The prompt expects the comparison to be fair: figures scaled to opportunity, usually per 60 minutes or per possession, context such as zone starts or opponents, and some way of separating a player from his teammates. A recommendation is required, and stronger papers attach a rule for checking it later. State the decision first and what the report will not judge, such as character or injury history. Plan on about six pages in APA 7, organized with a question box, tables and a short recommendation, and cite the course text plus at least two sources on player evaluation.
Inside the MT241 Unit 4 example
The report opens with the staff's question and the things it leaves to the coaches. Rates per 60 put both centers on one footing, and a margin note shows why zone starts make the raw comparison unfair. Relative results follow, with a pointer to regression ratings. The with-or-without split of the veteran's 1,090 minutes leads to the highlighted line about the winger beside him, with Thomas and colleagues cited. A section on opponents notes the younger center's 120 hard minutes against top lines at 47.8 percent, and another lists what the data cannot see. Faceoffs are priced. The recommendation moves the veteran to a third line, states the 640-minute sample in a note and ends with a decision rule at 25 and 40 games.
Reading the MT241 Unit 4 grading rubric
Player comparisons earn marks for fairness, context, use of evidence and the recommendation. Rates instead of totals and a stated reason for them are expected. Context earns more when it changes the reading, as zone starts and linemates do here, than when it is listed. Graders reward an attempt to separate the player from teammates, whether through relative figures or a with-or-without split. A recommendation scores when it grows out of the tables and admits its doubt, often with the minutes played printed next to it. A decision rule for review shows the report can be tested. Clean tables, accurate citations and a frank list of what the tracking misses complete the rubric.
Common MT241 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The commonest error is comparing totals across players with very different ice time. Another is noting context such as zone starts and then ignoring it in the recommendation. Some reports stack many metrics without saying which one decides. Others recommend with certainty from a few hundred minutes. Pricing a skill such as faceoffs keeps it from being overweighted. Remember that a with-or-without split needs enough minutes in each part to read. If your prompt names real players, our writers can help you gather the public rates and build the tables and decision rule around them.
Get an MT241 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Tell us which two players, lineups or approaches your Unit 4 prompt sets side by side, and what decision the comparison serves: a roster spot, a contract, a lineup. With the rubric attached, a first custom report costs nothing, arrives within 24-48h, and puts both on rates, deployment and teammates before leaning either way. 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 5: Data Quality Review
- MT241 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT241 Unit 7: Visualization Exercise
- MT241 Unit 8: Tactical Analysis
- MT241 Unit 9: Recruitment Recommendation
- MT241 Unit 10: Analytics Report
- MT240 Unit 4: Labor and Compensation Study
- MT237 Unit 4: Vulnerability Assessment
- MT236 Unit 4: Demand Forecast Exercise
- MT221 Unit 4: Complaint Response Letter
MT241 Unit 4 questions, answered
Why compare hockey players per 60 minutes?
Because ice time varies enormously between players, and even between seasons for one player. A total rewards whoever played more, which often reflects a coach's choices and injuries rather than quality. Rates per 60 minutes at 5-on-5 put players on the same clock, and printing the minutes beside each rate shows how far the comparison can be trusted.
What is a with-or-without-you analysis?
A split of a player's results into minutes played alongside a particular teammate and minutes played apart from him, set beside that teammate's results without the player. It shows who is carrying whom. The example runs it on the veteran center and the club's best winger, and finds most of the veteran's edge travels with the winger.
How much is a faceoff win worth?
Less than its prominence on a stat sheet suggests. Published estimates generally put an extra won draw at a small fraction of a goal, so a gap of several percentage points over a season adds up to roughly one goal. Faceoffs matter more in particular situations, such as defensive-zone draws late in close games, and a report can say so.
Where can I find a free MT241 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page holds the full MT241 Unit 4 player comparison report. It compares two centers on 5-on-5 rates, zone starts, relative results and minutes with and without the top winger, then recommends with a review rule.
Who gets the second-line job in the MT241 Unit 4 sample?
The younger center, narrowly. He lifted the club's expected-goals share more relative to teammates and held up in defensive minutes, while much of the veteran's edge came with the top winger on his line.