🏒@HockeyBangers2026-27 projections
How the projections are built

The model

Every projection is built the same way, by hand-written rules you can read and check — not a black box and not a hunch. The guiding idea: project the process, not last year's results. A player who scored on 20% of his shots won't do it again; a player whose scoring chances went up probably will. The model separates the two everywhere.

Inputs
Four seasons of Natural Stat Trick tracking data, plus 2025-26 split into quarters · age (from date of birth) · who's coaching the team and whether that changed · real-world context notes · hand-curated bets on roles the data can't see yet.
1
Deployment — how much he plays
Project ice time at all strengths, 5-on-5, and the power play. Anchor on how the role ended (the second half, nudged by the final quarter), trust that finish more when the coach stays and for ascending young players, and regress toward the three-year norm by age.
2
Rates — how much he produces per minute
Each stat's per-60 rate is projected off the underlying process (shot quality, shot volume, chance creation), then last year's finishing luck is regressed only as far as the chances support it.
Reality checks
Blend the one-year read toward the player's three-year body of work (weighted by age), apply a small age curve, give rookies and young risers a development step instead of a flat repeat, and steady injury-shortened seasons toward a multi-year pace.
3
Counts — the projected line
Rate × ice time × 82/60, computed for each strength and summed. Output: goals, assists, points, power-play points, shots, penalty minutes, hits, and blocks — all per 82 games.

The core equation

Everything reduces to one line, applied category by category:

count (per 82) = projected rate/60 × projected TOI/GP × 82 / 60

The two halves are projected separately because they behave differently. Minutes (deployment) are a coaching decision that tends to carry from how a season ended. Rate (production per minute) is a skill that has to be separated from luck. Multiplying two honest projections beats fitting one blended number to last year's total.

Step 1 · Deployment

Rather than average a whole season, the model leans on how the role ended — the second half is the ~40-game read, tilted by (not dominated by) the final quarter. A player promoted to the top power-play unit in January shouldn't be projected off the minutes he played in October.

Step 2 · Rates — process over results

This is the heart of it. Each category is projected off the repeatable signal, and the noisy part is regressed toward the multi-year norm.

Goals

Goals are shot volume × finishing. Shot volume is one of the most repeatable things a skater does, so last year is trusted heavily. Finishing percentage is not — it's regressed toward the multi-year mark, and then capped at what the player's own shot quality (expected goals) implies. A career shooting year on flat chances regresses hard; a player whose chances genuinely rose keeps most of the gain.

Assists

Primary assists (the pass that sets up the goal) repeat far better than secondary assists, so they're trusted more and the volatile secondary slice is reverted harder. The luck signals — on-ice shooting percentage and the share of goals a player is in on — are regressed toward the norm unless the underlying chance creation (high-danger involvement, primary-assist rate) actually rose with them, in which case the step-up is treated as real.

Power play

Power-play conversion barely repeats year to year, so a hot power-play shooting season is regressed aggressively. The projection is rebuilt from the second-half top-unit role and its own chance quality. Power-play points are the sum of the projected power-play goals and assists — one projection, so the power-play line always agrees with the points line.

Peripherals (hits, penalty minutes, blocks)

These are role and temperament stats, anchored on how the year ended. Fighting-driven penalty minutes regress harder than ordinary minors (they're streakier). Hits are deliberately not reverted toward the multi-year average: a scan of four seasons showed big year-over-year hit swings persist about 80% of the time — a player who stops hitting stays stopped — so reverting them would erase exactly what sticks.

Why "process over results" matters. Two players both score 30 goals. One did it on a normal 12% shooting rate and heavy chances — the model projects him to repeat. The other did it on an unsustainable 22% with average chances — the model projects a pullback. Same past total, different future, because the model reads the how.

The reality checks

The human layer

The model is usually right about regression and often blind to real-world news. So a curated set of hand-checked bets sits on top — a signed contract, a playoff role, a depth-chart change, an injury timeline — and the rule is to bet only where there's real information the model lacks, never to overrule its regression on a hunch. When two reads conflict, the bet is a hedge (a lean), not a coin flip. The Lines page marks which teams have been through this hand review.

A quick glossary

What it doesn't do

Every number on a player's card shows its own reasoning — the trend it was read off, the luck that was regressed, and any context or curated bet applied. This page is the map; the cards are the territory.