| Course | MT241 Sport Analytics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Tactical analysis |
| 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 8
Dump It In or Carry It: A Unit 8 Tactical Analysis of One Second Line's Zone Entries
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT241: Sport Analytics
Unit 8 Tactical Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The club, its lines, the 79 tracked games and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
The Question
The club's coaches want more offense from the second line, which scored at 5-on-5 well below its share of chances in the first half of the season. This analysis asks one tactical question: would the second line create more shots if it carried the puck into the offensive zone more often instead of dumping it in? The data are the club's own video tracking of zone entries for the 79 games with usable video this season, coded under the definition adopted after the Unit 5 data review, in which any entry with possession, carried or passed across the line, counts as controlled.
Entries and What They Produce
The club recorded 4,872 entries at 5-on-5 across the 79 games, about 62 a game. Of those, 52 percent were controlled and 48 percent were dump-ins, where the puck is shot or chipped into the zone and chased.
Controlled entries: 2,533, producing 0.58 unblocked shot attempts each before the puck left the zone
Dump-ins: 2,339, producing 0.26 unblocked attempts each
A controlled entry produced more than twice the attempts of a dump-in. That ratio is close to what published tracking work found when analysts first began recording entries by hand in the early 2010s; Tulsky et al. (2013) reported that teams generated roughly twice as many shots after carrying the puck in as after dumping it. The match gives some confidence that the club's coding is sound.
Line by Line
The lines use the two kinds of entry very differently.
Top line: 38 percent dump-ins
Second line: 62 percent dump-ins
Third line: 44 percent dump-ins
Fourth line: 51 percent dump-ins
The second line dumps the puck more often than any other line, including the fourth line, whose job is usually to dump, chase and hit. Its two wingers are both strong forecheckers, and the coaches have encouraged a dump-and-chase style for them. But the second line's center carried the puck well in his previous role, and the line's results after controlled entries, 0.61 attempts each, are slightly better than the club's average.
How Opponents Defend the Second Line
Opponents' habits matter too. Video of the second line's last twenty games shows that opposing defensemen stood up at their blue line on about a third of its entries, more often than against the top line, whose speed forces defenders to back off. Against a defenseman who stands up, a carry is risky and a dump-in into the corner is often the sensible play. Against one who backs off, the carrier usually has room. The proposed change should therefore depend on what the defense does, not on a fixed share of entries, and the coaches can read it from the bench as easily as the players can on the ice.
The Raw Estimate
The second line makes about 15 entries a game, about 9 of them dump-ins. Suppose one in three of those dump-ins, about three a game, became controlled entries. At the raw gap of 0.32 attempts per entry, the line would create about 0.96 extra unblocked attempts a game, roughly 79 over a season.
Why the Raw Estimate Is Too High
The raw gap overstates what a change would produce. Players do not choose to dump the puck at random. They dump it when a carry is hard: when defenders stand up at the blue line, when the puck carrier is alone, when the line is tired at the end of a shift or when a line change is coming. The dump-ins that become carries under a new instruction would be the hardest of the carries, made in exactly those situations, and they would produce fewer shots than the average controlled entry. The data cannot see these reasons, because the tracking records the entry and its result, not the pressure that shaped the choice. Alamar (2013) warns that observational sports data rarely let an analyst separate the effect of a choice from the reasons it was made.
To allow for that selection, the analysis halves the estimate, to about 0.48 extra attempts a game, or roughly 40 over a season. Rosenbaum (2017) explains why comparisons drawn from choices people made freely tend to overstate what a policy imposing those choices would achieve, and the entry data are a clear case. Halving is a judgment, not a calculation. It assumes that forced carries would produce about half the usual advantage over a dump-in, which is cautious without assuming the change would be worthless.
The gap in the data measures the entries players chose, not the ones a coach would ask them to try.
The Cost of Failed Carries
Carries can fail. When a carry is stripped at the blue line, the other team often breaks the other way with numbers. The club's data show that 9 percent of its controlled entry attempts were turned over at the line, and those turnovers led to an opposing unblocked attempt within twenty seconds about 40 percent of the time. If three more carries a game are attempted in harder situations, perhaps 15 percent of them fail, about 0.45 failed carries a game, leading to about 0.18 extra attempts against. Netted against the halved gain, the change is worth about 0.3 attempts a game in the club's favor, small but positive.
The Proposed Change
The proposal is narrow. When the second line's center or a winger crosses the red line with speed and a teammate within a few strides, he should try to carry or pass the puck in rather than dump it. Dump-ins remain the choice when the carrier is alone, when defenders stand up at the line or near the end of a shift. The coaches would explain the rule in practice using video of the line's own entries, and the wingers' forechecking role would continue on the dump-ins that remain.
A Ten-Game Trial
The change should be tested for ten games. The measure is the second line's unblocked attempts per 60 minutes at 5-on-5, compared with its first-half rate, and a secondary measure is the rate of opposing attempts within twenty seconds of a failed carry. Ten games is too few to prove the change works, since game-to-game variation is large, but it is enough to see whether the line can carry more often without a rise in turnovers. If turnovers rise above 15 percent of carries, the trial should stop early.
References
Alamar, B. C. (2013). Sports analytics: A guide for coaches, managers, and other decision makers. Columbia University Press.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2017). Observation and experiment: An introduction to causal inference. Harvard University 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.
The Purdue Global MT241 Unit 8 instructions
The eighth unit asks students to analyze one tactical choice with data and propose a change a coach could try. The prompt expects the choice to be measured, its results compared, and the expected effect of a change estimated with its risks. Because game data record what players chose, not why, the estimate should be adjusted for selection, and the adjustment explained. Name the specific players or line affected and describe the change in hockey terms, then design a short trial with a measure and a stopping rule. Most sections expect about five pages in APA 7, built on an entry or event table, a breakdown by line or player and at least three sources, including one that checks the data against published work.
How this MT241 Unit 8 example is built
The analysis states the coaches' question and notes that entries are coded under the definition settled in Unit 5. The entry table sets controlled and dump-in results side by side, checked against Tulsky and colleagues, with a margin note on testing the data first. A line-by-line breakdown shows the second line's 62 percent, and a section on opponents notes defensemen standing up on about a third of its entries. The raw estimate follows, then the reasons it runs high, with Alamar and Rosenbaum cited and the highlighted line on choices players made. A second note explains the halving. The cost of failed carries, the narrow proposed change and a ten-game trial with a 15 percent turnover stop close the paper.
MT241 Unit 8 rubric: what earns full points
In a tactical analysis the marks follow measurement, comparison, estimation and the proposed change. A clear table of the tactic's results earns the base. A breakdown that locates the problem, such as one line's habits, earns more than a team average. Graders reward estimates that are honest about selection and costs, showing the raw figure, the adjustment and the reason. The change should be specific enough to coach and limited enough to test. A trial with a measure and a stopping rule shows the analysis can be checked. Citing published work to check the data, accurate arithmetic throughout and plain hockey language complete the rubric.
Common MT241 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most frequent error is treating the raw gap between two tactics as the effect of switching, which ignores why players chose each. Another is proposing a sweeping change, such as never dump the puck, that no coach would adopt. Some papers forget the cost side, here the rushes that follow failed carries. Others give estimates to two decimals without saying how uncertain they are. Make sure the line-level figures add up to the team totals. If you have tracking data for a different tactic, our writers can help you set up the comparison, the selection adjustment and a trial the coaches could run.
Get an MT241 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Which pattern does your Unit 8 prompt point to: entries, shot selection, a press, a pitch count, fourth-down choices? Send the data or case it supplies and the rubric. A first custom analysis arrives in 24-48h at no charge, proposing one change, sizing it after correcting for selection, and naming the measure a trial would use. 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 9: Recruitment Recommendation
- MT241 Unit 10: Analytics Report
- MT240 Unit 8: Governance Case Study
- MT237 Unit 8: Logistics and Transport Study
- MT236 Unit 8: Process Improvement Proposal
- MT221 Unit 8: Service Metrics Review
MT241 Unit 8 questions, answered
What is a controlled zone entry?
Bringing the puck into the offensive zone with possession, by skating it across the blue line or completing a pass to a teammate who crosses it. The alternative is an uncontrolled entry, usually a dump-in, where the puck is shot into the zone to be chased. Tracking studies have repeatedly found controlled entries lead to more shot attempts, though the gap partly reflects when each is chosen.
Why halve an estimate instead of using the measured gap?
Because the measured gap includes the effect of the situations in which each entry happens. Players dump the puck more often when pressured or tired, which lowers shot rates regardless of the entry. Without data on those situations, halving is a stated judgment that keeps the recommendation conservative. A stronger paper names the assumption and shows the result at both the full and halved gaps.
How detailed should the proposed change be?
Detailed enough that a coach could explain it to players in a sentence and a trial could measure it. The example names one line, one situation, entering with a supporting forward nearby, and a target of about three more carries a game. Changes phrased as general philosophies, such as playing faster, cannot be tested and tend to score lower.
Where can I find a free MT241 Unit 8 sample paper?
The full MT241 Unit 8 tactical analysis is on this page. It compares carried and dumped zone entries, finds the second line dumping most, halves the estimated gain for selection and proposes a ten-game trial.
How much is the proposed change worth in the MT241 Unit 8 sample?
About 0.48 extra unblocked attempts a game after halving the raw 0.96 for selection, and about 0.3 once the rushes against that follow failed carries are counted. Small, but positive for a line that needs offense.