Advanced Stats and Corsi - Another look. (Mod Warning - Keep it Civil)

[Igy]

You don't need advanced stats to see how bad the Leafs are. It's been apparent all season long. Some people just choose to ignore the fact that the Leafs suck and Bernier has single handily carried this team out of a lottery position. Unfortunately with the situation now, that was a bad thing.

Bernier deserves better. We deserve better.

 

[Faltorvo]

If your goalie has to substantially outplay your opponent's goalie on a routine basis then its only a matter of time. All streaks end, although when the top line is filling the net it creates an additional cushion. I think the club always knew they were playing with fire but Nonis and RC had no solutions. The advance stats are interesting but you don't need to know anything about relative Corsi or QC to know that giving the other team 6 or 8 more chances to score every night is a losing strategy. So long as they win there is no urgency to make a change. Now there is some urgency.

Now put this into perspective.

Those Corsi/fenwik folks have a tough time convincing just fans of it's value and what it projects

Try getting through to a room full of alpha, 20 something ,multi millionaires. One where the core and leadership of that room look at you sideways "dude chill we are winning games"

" yo ,pass the cookies" "yo dude ,that's not my job"

 

[Mess]

If your goalie has to substantially outplay your opponent's goalie on a routine basis then its only a matter of time. All streaks end, although when the top line is filling the net it creates an additional cushion. I think the club always knew they were playing with fire but Nonis and RC had no solutions. The advance stats are interesting but you don't need to know anything about relative Corsi or QC to know that giving the other team 6 or 8 more chances to score every night is a losing strategy. So long as they win there is no urgency to make a change. Now there is some urgency.

It the difference of using just the Win - Loss record of the NHL standings and analyzing how the team is playing.

Winning by playing badly or fortunately through luck is not sustainable over time. Eventually the odds will catch up to a team.

Instead of fixing their problems, tightening up defensively, that Corsi was identifying in high volume of shots and scoring chances against the Leafs decided to play Russian Roulette with Corsi all season long and eventually it looks like their luck ran out.

 

[jmart21]

This was posted on the main board GDT 2 nights ago, I found it really interesting

http://www.extraskater.com/reports/team-game-data?sort=corsi_pct&sit=all

16 or the 18 most dominating games Corsi wise, the team who dominated lost.

I like this post.

The new flavor of the week is certainly "we get outshot". But there seems to be this widespread acceptance that if we go do a systems 180 and revert to a high possession/shots for game we will suddenly be fixed and all the gods will be happy.

The Ron Wilson leafs were that kind of team. Although there have been many personnel changes, this is a clear example that there's more to the game than how many shots you put-up/give-up.

I personally believe that yes, possession does affect the outcome. But I also believe personnel do as well and that expecting a 180 just by firing the coach is very over ambitious.

Many people here will be disappointed when it's clear that even with a new coach, there's still going to be work to do.

 

[Mess]

Now put this into perspective.

Those Corsi/fenwik folks have a tough time convincing just fans of it's value and what it projects

Leaf fans should look at Corsi similar to Vegas odds makers.

You might win for a while and go on a hot streak believing the odds are in your favour, but the odds favour the house and you will lose eventually it only a matter of time.

You can't defy the odds forever only cheat them for so long.

 

[sw13]

Its unsustainable because the team was giving up on average 36 shots per game.

If a goalie stops 33 of 36 shots that equals and .917 sv% but also a 3.0 GAA.

Bernier exceeded that with a top 10 sv% of .923 sv% but his GAA still ranked him #34 overall (2.69 average) based purly on the high volume of shots against not his own play. Bernier would have to record an off the charts .940 sv% unsustainable over time to bring that goals against number down.

Bottom line if your team is giving up on average +3.0 goal against a game (248 GA / 79 games = 3.14 GA/g) no matter how well your goalie plays then its unsustainable and unrealistic to believe the Leafs will consistently score 4 goals a game to win games by outscoring their mistakes (229 GF / 79 games = 2.9 GF/g). Particularly when their goal differential is -19 on the season.

No NHL team can sustain a 4 GF/g mark as Chicago leads the league at 3.27 mark.

To make matter worse the Leafs are badly outshot themselves which means in a limited shots on net themselves, their shooters need to have extremely high unsustainable shooting % to compensate and score 3 or more goals a game.

This is what Corsi has been suggesting.

Great point.

 

[sw13]

I like this post.

The new flavor of the week is certainly "we get outshot". But there seems to be this widespread acceptance that if we go do a systems 180 and revert to a high possession/shots for game we will suddenly be fixed and all the gods will be happy.

The Ron Wilson leafs were that kind of team. Although there have been many personnel changes, this is a clear example that there's more to the game than how many shots you put-up/give-up.

I personally believe that yes, possession does affect the outcome. But I also believe personnel do as well and that expecting a 180 just by firing the coach is very over ambitious.

Many people here will be disappointed when it's clear that even with a new coach, there's still going to be work to do.

Ok yes sometimes teams have good CF% and lose. That is one game. I would look at the teams who have good CF% throughout an entire season. With these stats you can't look at small sample sizes for many reasons. Sure, there is work to do, but I bet this team's CF%, fen close % climb substantially with a new coach.

 

[sw13]

What a lot of people are looking at now, and tracking, are zone entries. To me, these are very cool to look at and study what the good possession teams do to enter the zone vs. the bad. Also, how do these zone entries effect your shot attempts for and against. Whether that is a corsi event, fenwick event, when these events are taking place (close, 5v5, PP, PK). I love this stuff. To me, the leafs are a team that can easily cut down their shot attempts against and increase their SA for with better zone entries and breakout.

 

[number72]

What a lot of people are looking at now, and tracking, are zone entries. To me, these are very cool to look at and study what the good possession teams do to enter the zone vs. the bad. Also, how do these zone entries effect your shot attempts for and against. Whether that is a corsi event, fenwick event, when these events are taking place (close, 5v5, PP, PK). I love this stuff. To me, the leafs are a team that can easily cut down their shot attempts against and increase their SA for with better zone entries and breakout.

In theory that makes sense until Kadri carries it in the zone and turns the puck over for an odd man rush against leaving his goalie to bail out kadri's fumble.

This is more then zone entries instead of dump and chase but making the right decision of who to pass to on zone entry. That part you can't copy.

 

[jmart21]

Ok yes sometimes teams have good CF% and lose. That is one game. I would look at the teams who have good CF% throughout an entire season. With these stats you can't look at small sample sizes for many reasons. Sure, there is work to do, but I bet this team's CF%, fen close % climb substantially with a new coach.

what?!

I'm saying that over a very significant sample size, the Ron Wilson leafs are a very firm example that there is much more to winning games than just outshooting/possessing your opponent....as his leaf team consistently did.

The point of my post: anyone thinking a coaching change is all this team needs is out to lunch...there needs to be personnel changes as well.

 

[ULF_55]

what?!

I'm saying that over a very significant sample size, the Ron Wilson leafs are a very firm example that there is much more to winning games than just outshooting/possessing your opponent....as his leaf team consistently did.

The point of my post: anyone thinking a coaching change is all this team needs is out to lunch...there needs to be personnel changes as well.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, but we know Rotten Ronnie failed in Toronto.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

What a lot of people are looking at now, and tracking, are zone entries. To me, these are very cool to look at and study what the good possession teams do to enter the zone vs. the bad. Also, how do these zone entries effect your shot attempts for and against. Whether that is a corsi event, fenwick event, when these events are taking place (close, 5v5, PP, PK). I love this stuff. To me, the leafs are a team that can easily cut down their shot attempts against and increase their SA for with better zone entries and breakout.

I don't think the Leafs' zone entries are bad... when they try. But they do often dump and go for a change with nobody forechecking instead of waiting to sent in one fresh forward to forecheck or passing it back to the D to regroup. Their breakout certainly looks atrocious and I wouldn't be surprised if their D-zone exit stats are awful.

what?!

I'm saying that over a very significant sample size, the Ron Wilson leafs are a very firm example that there is much more to winning games than just outshooting/possessing your opponent....as his leaf team consistently did.

Take the Ron Wilson Leafs, swap JVR for Schenn and Bernier for Gustavsson and do you still think they'd be a worse team than Carlyle's Leafs? They just plain lacked talent.

I'm hardly a fan of Ron Wilson, but the roster he had from 08-10 was a flaming heap of trash. League-average goaltending might have gotten them a 7-8 seed in '11 or '12. Carlyle's been given a better group to work with and the results are not much different besides a lucky playoff spot last season, and we know how that ended. Wilson's group was famous for having the D pinch aggressively and get caught and having a lousy breakout and getting hemmed in their own zone. Does any of that sound familiar?

 

[indigobuffalo]

Its unsustainable because the team was giving up on average 36 shots per game.

If a goalie stops 33 of 36 shots that equals and .917 sv% but also a 3.0 GAA.

Bernier exceeded that with a top 10 sv% of .923 sv% but his GAA still ranked him #34 overall (2.69 average) based purly on the high volume of shots against not his own play. Bernier would have to record an off the charts .940 sv% unsustainable over time to bring that goals against number down.

Bottom line if your team is giving up on average +3.0 goal against a game (248 GA / 79 games = 3.14 GA/g) no matter how well your goalie plays then its unsustainable and unrealistic to believe the Leafs will consistently score 4 goals a game to win games by outscoring their mistakes (229 GF / 79 games = 2.9 GF/g). Particularly when their goal differential is -19 on the season.

No NHL team can sustain a 4 GF/g mark as Chicago leads the league at 3.27 mark.

To make matter worse the Leafs are badly outshot themselves which means in a limited shots on net themselves, their shooters need to have extremely high unsustainable shooting % to compensate and score 3 or more goals a game.

This is what Corsi has been suggesting.

This is the part that Corsi is almost useless in measuring, because it doesn't measure shot quality.

I think a system that doesn't acknowledge a difference between shooting from the crease on an empty net and shooting on the backhand from behind your own goal, and rates the two scenarios as "equal opportunities against" is dubious from the onset.

I don't mean that to sound like I think there is zero informational value to be obtained by reading the Corsi numbers, but to stand so stoically in front of it's assessments is ill-advised.

 

[indigobuffalo]

Wilson's group was famous for having the D pinch aggressively and get caught and having a lousy breakout and getting hemmed in their own zone. Does any of that sound familiar?

This is what has made me cringe all season long... There really doesn't appear to be a difference between Toronto under Wilson and Toronto under Carlyle, despite some fairly key roster changes to provide Carlyle with more serviceable players.

We were supposed to transition from a run-and-gun offense to a sound defensive team, and we've seen nothing even remotely close to that.

It makes me think the players are uncoachable...

 

[The Legend]

GAA and shots against were a concern all year for the leafs. This corsi and fenwick just confuses things. Occam's razor - simpler is better.

Corsi literally is net shots attempted. Why confused?

 

[The Legend]

I like this post.

The new flavor of the week is certainly "we get outshot". But there seems to be this widespread acceptance that if we go do a systems 180 and revert to a high possession/shots for game we will suddenly be fixed and all the gods will be happy.

The Ron Wilson leafs were that kind of team. Although there have been many personnel changes, this is a clear example that there's more to the game than how many shots you put-up/give-up.

I personally believe that yes, possession does affect the outcome. But I also believe personnel do as well and that expecting a 180 just by firing the coach is very over ambitious.

Many people here will be disappointed when it's clear that even with a new coach, there's still going to be work to do.

People love to cite the Wilson teams as some example for why taking shots is a bad idea, as if were suddenly going to ignore the Leafs had terrible goaltending during those seasons.

 

[The Legend]

This is the part that Corsi is almost useless in measuring, because it doesn't measure shot quality.

I think a system that doesn't acknowledge a difference between shooting from the crease on an empty net and shooting on the backhand from behind your own goal, and rates the two scenarios as "equal opportunities against" is dubious from the onset.

I don't mean that to sound like I think there is zero informational value to be obtained by reading the Corsi numbers, but to stand so stoically in front of it's assessments is ill-advised.

No one pretends it's perfect. If a team is so terrible at Corsi though, it's probably a huge red flag.

 

[Morbo]

What about the run that saw them fall out of a po spot earlier this season, that was one heck of a run down,no?

What about the hot run in January-Februrary? I'm guessing you're going to tell me the wins were all luck but the losses were all deserved?

I don't think the Leaf are a good team or anything, but they aren't going to miss the playoffs because of puck possession. They'll miss because their starter got hurt and because of the 8 game collapse. Corsi people patting themselves on the back over that is entirely disingenuous, which was my original point.

Except that kind of is how it works. If the Leafs had played those 8 games at the start of the season and been out of a playoff spot from the get go, I bet you'd have been on the "they need to improve their Corsi" bandwagon this whole time.

What? That's exactly what I was saying. how is them being out of the playoffs since game 8 in any way comparable to them being comfortably in at game 70 and then missing?

you really didn't think this through.

People love to cite the Wilson teams as some example for why taking shots is a bad idea, as if were suddenly going to ignore the Leafs had terrible goaltending during those seasons.

Somebody posted the possession numbers here and the best one was the year we finished 29th. shows you how bad guys like Raycroft and Toskala truly were, and why Corsi doesn't show the whole picture.

We have score effects, let's try to come up with a ****** goaltending effect.

 

[castle]

I didn't think it was that complicated. Corsi is a skater stat, not a goaltending stat. The two together will determine how things will go for a team over the length of a season. A strong Corsi team can drag an average goaltender to a Stanley cup, just like a strong goalie can do the same for an average team. It's hard when either side of the equation is crap though. Each half probably needs to be at least average and one or the other needs to be elite to go far.

As for 16 of the top 18 Corsi games being losses it's what I would expect as well. Again, it's a skater stat, not a full team stat, and ignores goaltending. The common denominator in all of those losses is either complete **** goaltending for the Corsi team or out of this world tending for the opposition, or sometimes both. Why would the Corsi be higher? Because the possession team would be working even harder to score, possibly and likely using their strongest lines more than usual, to try to salvage a win or a point out of an otherwise good game.

 

[achtungbaby]

I kind of forgot about this thread. Advanced stats aren't advanced. They're just different stats then what we've been used to seeing. Here's a great primer for anyone interested:

Fenwick: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2012/7/25/3184137/intro-to-advanced-hockey-statistics-fenwick

Corsi: http://www.silversevensens.com/2011/10/3/2461198/introduction-to-advanced-hockey-statistics-corsi-ottawa-senators

Like all stats, it's how you think about these numbers along with various other stats and what you see with your eyes. BTW, there are a lot of articles and other sites you can sink your teeth into if you want to delve into this further.

To add: Both of these gentlemen have spent some time and thought thinking this up as no one did before they did it. Let's try to put the same amount of thought into thinking about what they were trying to say.

 

[Faltorvo]

What about the hot run in January-Februrary? I'm guessing you're going to tell me the wins were all luck but the losses were all deserved?

I don't think the Leaf are a good team or anything, but they aren't going to miss the playoffs because of puck possession. They'll miss because their starter got hurt and because of the 8 game collapse. Corsi people patting themselves on the back over that is entirely disingenuous, which was my original point.



What? That's exactly what I was saying. how is them being out of the playoffs since game 8 in any way comparable to them being comfortably in at game 70 and then missing?

you really didn't think this through.



Somebody posted the possession numbers here and the best one was the year we finished 29th. shows you how bad guys like Raycroft and Toskala truly were, and why Corsi doesn't show the whole picture.

We have score effects, let's try to come up with a ****** goaltending effect.

that's why I brought up that bad run Volc, it brought them back to the pack that opened the door for a short bad run like this, to do what it did.

to what I bolded

maybe you just have issues with people being right, when the news is bad.

I would apply the bolded to the folks that railed against the advanced stats and turned out to be dead wrong.

 

[Gary Nylund]

And yet if it wasnt for a two week stretch of hockey we'd be comfortably in a playoff spot.

Yeah so?

It's more that hot shooters and hot goalies are streaky, while things like puck possession, solid team d and physicality are pretty stable. It's very rare for a team with weak defence, soft players and poor puck possession to be a top team in the NHL, because the moment your top shooters and/or your goalie go on a bit of a cold streak, you suck. The consistently good teams win with great puck possession and strong defensive play, because even when the bounces aren't going your way, you can still win a lot of games with a team like that.

If you have pretty solid puck possession and team defence, but your strength is elite finishers and goaltending, that's absolutely fine - you've likely got a great team. BUT if you're relying on great finishing and goaltending to bail you out of consistently terrible puck possession and team d, then you're looking at an unsustainable formula. That's not the kind of team that can win a high percentage of games all season long.

Good post. Agree with all this.

You don't need advanced stats to see how bad the Leafs are. It's been apparent all season long. Some people just choose to ignore the fact that the Leafs suck and Bernier has single handily carried this team out of a lottery position. Unfortunately with the situation now, that was a bad thing.

Bernier deserves better. We deserve better.

Another good post. Anyone who has watched the games and is capable at looking at things somewhat objectively could see all along that this is not a good team, regardless of how many W's were put on the board because the goalies were playing so awesome.

What about the hot run in January-Februrary? I'm guessing you're going to tell me the wins were all luck but the losses were all deserved?

I don't think the Leaf are a good team or anything, but they aren't going to miss the playoffs because of puck possession. They'll miss because their starter got hurt and because of the 8 game collapse. Corsi people patting themselves on the back over that is entirely disingenuous, which was my original point.

There's a lot more to it than that. I hate it when people way stuff like this. It's almost as if you think that we just got unlucky with Bernier's injury when infact this is simply not a good team and even Bernier can't be expected to win games all by himself all season long.

I didn't think it was that complicated. Corsi is a skater stat, not a goaltending stat. The two together will determine how things will go for a team over the length of a season. A strong Corsi team can drag an average goaltender to a Stanley cup, just like a strong goalie can do the same for an average team. It's hard when either side of the equation is crap though. Each half probably needs to be at least average and one or the other needs to be elite to go far.

As for 16 of the top 18 Corsi games being losses it's what I would expect as well. Again, it's a skater stat, not a full team stat, and ignores goaltending. The common denominator in all of those losses is either complete **** goaltending for the Corsi team or out of this world tending for the opposition, or sometimes both. Why would the Corsi be higher? Because the possession team would be working even harder to score, possibly and likely using their strongest lines more than usual, to try to salvage a win or a point out of an otherwise good game.

Very good!

It comes down to this for me. If you don't watch the games, and want to look at some stats to get an idea of what's going on, then by all means, look at the Corsi numbers. If nothing else, they are a good complement the W/L records and whatever else. But thinking they are some holy grail and eventually teams can be expected to regress to this mean is way off. One reason is that it ignores goaltending. Another is that number of shots is not very useful when we don't know who took the shot, from where it was taken, was it a good shot, was the goalie screened etc. There are plenty of examples of teams who's Corsi numbers have little relation to their W/L records as far as I'm concerned, this debate over Corsi is meaningless to me.

Bottom line - you can analyze to death whatever stats you like. But those stats won't tell you anything that won't be apparent if you just set aside your calculators and watch the games.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

This is what has made me cringe all season long... There really doesn't appear to be a difference between Toronto under Wilson and Toronto under Carlyle, despite some fairly key roster changes to provide Carlyle with more serviceable players.

We were supposed to transition from a run-and-gun offense to a sound defensive team, and we've seen nothing even remotely close to that.

It makes me think the players are uncoachable...

You said it yourself - there have been some key roster changes, so it's not exactly the same group failing every time. It's hard for me to believe that every single player on the Leafs' roster over the last 6 years was completely uncoachable. A much simpler explanation is that two coaches in a row have failed to implement a good system. Neither of them were given great rosters, mind you, but of the two, Carlyle certainly got the better group. In retrospect, Wilson implemented the better even-strength system, as evidenced by possession stats.

 

[number72]

Why are some of the worst canadian corsi teams still in the playoff race (Habs, Leafs) while the two best canadian corsi teams have been eliminated (canucks and senators)?

 

[Al14]

Why are some of the worst canadian corsi teams still in the playoff race (Habs, Leafs) while the two best canadian corsi teams have been eliminated (canucks and senators)?

Sorry to point this out, however, our Leafs are currently outside of a playoff position, with a very minute chance of getting in! Sorry!

So, basically, they're done!