What is the Lowest Corsi rating for a Stanley Cup champ ?

[HamiltonNHL]

What is the Lowest Corsi rating for a Stanley Cup champ ?
Corsi = CF% (close, 5v5)
I am interested in CF% and the Rank amongst the other teams.

The Kings won last year and they had the best CF% (close, 5v5)

/researching.

To answer the general question, yes corsi for% 5v5 can be used to predict playoff success. Fenwick close 5v5 is more accurate.

Higher fenwick close generally means you're a better team, and being a better team generally means you win more, but it doesn't guarantee anything, especially in the playoffs.

I might switch to Fenwick close .. probably do both.

Click to read more...

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

There was a thread a while back that used advanced stats of all the playoff teams and eliminated them based on historical parametres of past Cup champions to predict who would win the Cup and it was accurate. I really wish I could find it.

 

[Xelebes]

Contender: 2007-2008 Pittsburgh Penguins: 46.5%
Champion: 2008-2009 Pittsburgh Penguins: 48.1%

 

[sharks9]

That's for Fenwick Close, the lowest was '09 Pittsburgh, but that's mostly because they were a bad possession team overall until they fired Therrien and hired Bylsma halfway through the season. They would've been good overall if they had him all season.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Found it. Though now that I skim through it, there doesn't seem to be any Corsi mentioned.

http://www.hookedonhockeymagazine.com/which-teams-best-resemble-past-stanley-cup-champions/1/

 

[eklunds source]

That's for Fenwick Close, the lowest was '09 Pittsburgh, but that's mostly because they were a bad possession team overall until they fired Therrien and hired Bylsma halfway through the season. They would've been good overall if they had him all season.

Just to go a little further on this; Pittsburgh was under 50% with Therrien and (IIRC) they were 54.9% under Byslma.

 

[sharks9]

Just to go a little further on this; Pittsburgh was under 50% with Therrien and (IIRC) they were 54.9% under Byslma.

Yep, I didn't remember the exact numbers but I knew it was something like that.

Basically, unless you're over 50% Fenwick Close you have a very slim chance at going far in the playoffs.

 

[fcpremix88]

Found it. Though now that I skim through it, there doesn't seem to be any Corsi mentioned.

http://www.hookedonhockeymagazine.com/which-teams-best-resemble-past-stanley-cup-champions/1/

That was an interesting read with hindsight. Granted, Boston/Chicago wasn't a brave guess, but hone guess was right.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Only results from the last 7 seasons are available.

The lowest was the Penguins (16th CF% rank, CF 49.2%)
The Stanley Cup champ was ranked #1 or #2 many times (5 of 7)= 71%.

When the first or second ranked team didn't win, they beat either a team ranked 1st or 4th.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Contender: 2007-2008 Pittsburgh Penguins: 46.5%
Champion: 2008-2009 Pittsburgh Penguins: 48.1%

Yep. That's what I found.

That's for Fenwick Close, the lowest was '09 Pittsburgh, but that's mostly because they were a bad possession team overall until they fired Therrien and hired Bylsma halfway through the season. They would've been good overall if they had him all season.

Cool Graphic. Thanks.
I think there should be a better way to display the relationship between Fenwick/Corsi and playoffs than that graphic though. Not sure what mind you

Just to go a little further on this; Pittsburgh was under 50% with Therrien and (IIRC) they were 54.9% under Byslma.

Interesting. That would have put their ranking at 4th.

 

[Paralyzer008]

From what I recall seeing from old data, the Hurricanes were around 48% the year they won the cup.

 

[HOLDITHERE*]

Can this corsi thing just die now?

No?

I'll try again next week.

 

[hatterson]

Can this corsi thing just die now?

No?

I'll try again next week.

If you have a method that provides higher predictive power, you're welcome to present it.

If you don't, you're welcome to ignore the thread.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

So Winnipeg has a 6/7 chance of making the cup final.


http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5close&sort=CFPCT&sortdir=DESC

I keep hearing ... Teams say Winnipeg is hard to play against.

 

[swissexpert]

So Winnipeg has a 6/7 chance of making the cup final.


http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5close&sort=CFPCT&sortdir=DESC

I keep hearing ... Teams say Winnipeg is hard to play against.

So Calgary is gonna pick McDavid hopefully. Oh wait...

Hate those stats, the team with less shots isn't automatically the worse, it really depends on playing style etc..
Of course is shomewhat of a correlation between shots and quality, but not decisive if you ask me. You could also say that the team with the most points win, it's probably the same result

 

[Romang67]

So Winnipeg has a 6/7 chance of making the cup final.


http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5close&sort=CFPCT&sortdir=DESC

I keep hearing ... Teams say Winnipeg is hard to play against.

... I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

But thank you.

 

[SmytheKing]

So Calgary is gonna pick McDavid hopefully. Oh wait...

Hate those stats, the team with less shots isn't automatically the worse, it really depends on playing style etc..
Of course is shomewhat of a correlation between shots and quality, but not decisive if you ask me. You could also say that the team with the most points win, it's probably the same result

You could say that, but you'd be wrong.

http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/04/14/20...dictions-advanced-analytics-hockey-fancystats

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Stanley Cup winners and their regular season rankings

2006 Carolina Hurricanes: 3rd in Goals For, 20th in Goals Against
2007 Anaheim Ducks: 8th in GF, 7th in GA
2008 Detroit Red Wings: 3rd in GF, 1st in GA
2009 Pittsburgh Penguins: 6th in GF, 17th in GA
2010 Chicago Blackhawks: 3rd in GF, 6th in GA
2011 Boston Bruins: 5th in GF, 2nd in GA
2012 Los Angeles Kings: 29th in GF, 2nd in GA
2013 Chicago Blackhawks: 2nd in GF, 1st in GA
2014 Los Angeles Kings: 26th in GF, 1st in GA

2015 Chicago Blackhawks: 17th in GF, 2nd in GA
2015 Tampa Bay Lightning: 1st in GF, 12th in GA

 

[HamiltonNHL]

CF% 5v5,close.

Stanley Cup final is #2 vs #4.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201516&sit=5v5close&sort=CFPCT&sortdir=DESC

CF% 5v5,close. This year is #3 (Penguins) vs. #6 (Sharks).

FF% 5v5,close. This year is #6 (Penguins) vs. #3 (Sharks).

 

[LetsGoBLUES91]

That's for Fenwick Close, the lowest was '09 Pittsburgh, but that's mostly because they were a bad possession team overall until they fired Therrien and hired Bylsma halfway through the season. They would've been good overall if they had him all season.

What an absolute mess this is.

 

[Rorschach]

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201516&sit=5v5close&sort=CFPCT&sortdir=DESC

CF% 5v5,close. This year is #3 (Penguins) vs. #6 (Sharks).

FF% 5v5,close. This year is #6 (Penguins) vs. #3 (Sharks).

This link seems to suggest that if the Kings had one more legitimate NHL defenseman, they should have had the best chance to win by a good margin, AINEC and all that.

 

[Creativero]

Yep, I didn't remember the exact numbers but I knew it was something like that.

Basically, unless you're over 50% Fenwick Close you have a very slim chance at going far in the playoffs.

This is the stuff that makes me roll my eyes about 'advanced stats' hockey.

A. It isn't advanced, it's so absurdly obvious to anyone who's played hockey that good players and teams teams get more shots than bad players and teams it should go without saying.

B. Everytime something that goes against the model comes up, people try to make the case that "this example doesn't count" or make an adjustment so the winning team gets a bonus. The stats are the stats you boost the shots totals because your up by two just because it's inconvenient for the narrative you push. It makes no sense.

 

[Hammer Time]

This is the stuff that makes me roll my eyes about 'advanced stats' hockey.

A. It isn't advanced, it's so absurdly obvious to anyone who's played hockey that good players and teams teams get more shots than bad players and teams it should go without saying.

B. Everytime something that goes against the model comes up, people try to make the case that "this example doesn't count" or make an adjustment so the winning team gets a bonus. The stats are the stats you boost the shots totals because your up by two just because it's inconvenient for the narrative you push. It makes no sense.

That's a bad thing? If there's a model that doesn't fit with the results too closely, shouldn't we try to identify what the exceptions are that are making the model go wrong, and tweak the model until it works better?

 

[silverfish]