All-Encompassing Stats Thread

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Thread for discussion of advanced statistics and analytics of NHL hockey, most likely focused on the Devils.

Fenwick - counts all shot directed towards the net, except for blocked shots (includes shots on net and missed shots)

Corsi - counts all shots directed towards the net (including shots on net, missed shots, and blocks)

Why are these stats important? Because they are a very good indicator of who's possessing the puck, and teams that possess the puck more tend to win hockey games. By possessing the puck you not only increase your chances of scoring a goal, but you also decrease the other team's chances of scoring a goal, since they don't have the puck.

"But Feed Me A Stray Cat, you're completely ignoring shot quality. A team that directs 50 shots from the blueline surely won't have as good a chance of winning as a team that gets 25 shots from the slot." Son, hockey is not played like that. Teams don't try to win the shot battle, and then expect to win the game. They try to win the game, and just as it happens, the winning teams typically get more shots. Teams have a tendency of optimizing the type of shots they take.

Additionally, every team will converge to towards the league median shooting percentage over the long haul. The best shooting team in the NHL over the last six years, the Pittsburgh Penguins, had an even strength shooting percentage of 9.5%, while the median was 8.4%. That's right, the best shooting team, i.e. the team that gets the best quality shots, only did better than the median by 13%. What does that show you? That shot quality is a very small facet of team skill, and is not nearly as important a factor as team puck possession.

Some hard evidence on why Corsi and Fenwick are important: http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2012/1/23/2722089/score-adjusted-fenwick

Some things to be mindful about when assessing an individual player's Corsi:
-Does this player start more in the offensive or defensive zone than his teammates? Not surprisingly, players that start a lot in the offensive zone will naturally have higher Corsi's since they're placed in a more favorable position, and vice versa.
-Although the quality of competition metrics need some fine tuning, it's important to be cognizant of what type of matchups different players get. If someone is routinely facing off against the other team's top lines, especially while starting a lot in their own end, that player should be expected to have a lower Corsi.
-The metric to pay attention to is CorsiRel. This is a player's Corsi number relative to the average for his team. This simply helps strip out strength of team from the argument. Someone scrub on Chicago or Los Angeles might have a very good Corsi, while a good player on Edmonton might have a bad Corsi, and you can't glean much from that.

The 2012-13 NJ Devils, through 3/29/13:
http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67#

RK	SEASON	NAME	TEAM	POS	NUM	GP	TOI/60	Corsi Rel QoC	Corsi QoC	Corsi Relative	Corsi On	On-Ice Sh%	On-Ice Sv%	PDO	Pens Taken/60	Pens Drawn/60	Off Zone Start %	Off Zone Finish %
1	2012-2013 Season	HENRIKTALLINDER	N.J	D	7	15	14.37	-0.96	-2.32	19.3	16.42	6.52	934	999	0.8	0.6	54	53
2	2012-2013 Season	DAVIDCLARKSON	N.J	RW	23	35	13.58	0.20	-0.80	17.3	19.18	6.94	890	960	1.0	1.0	48	52
3	2012-2013 Season	PATRIKELIAS	N.J	LW	26	35	12.77	0.27	-0.64	15.3	17.98	7.87	917	995	0.5	0.9	47	49
4	2012-2013 Season	TOMKOSTOPOULOS	N.J	RW	25	12	8.91	0.57	-0.15	9.8	17.96	3.92	900	939	1.1	1.1	55	58
5	2012-2013 Season	MARKFAYNE	N.J	D	29	22	15.38	0.85	-1.17	8.0	9.93	8.51	922	1007	1.1	0.4	44	48
6	2012-2013 Season	ANDREILOKTIONOV	N.J	C	21	18	12.22	0.09	-2.37	6.5	14.46	9.71	878	975	0.5	0.8	55	53
7	2012-2013 Season	MAREKZIDLICKY	N.J	D	2	35	16.17	0.02	-1.06	4.6	9.86	6.96	897	966	1.1	0.3	60	55
8	2012-2013 Season	TRAVISZAJAC	N.J	C	19	35	14.41	0.11	-0.86	4.5	10.00	5.38	927	981	0.5	0.5	51	54
9	2012-2013 Season	ALEXEIPONIKAROVSKY	N.J	LW	12	31	12.54	0.39	-1.21	3.5	8.80	6.10	938	998	0.6	0.5	57	57
10	2012-2013 Season	ANTONVOLCHENKOV	N.J	D	28	30	12.98	-0.29	0.03	2.2	8.02	6.04	910	970	1.7	0.5	53	56
11	2012-2013 Season	ADAMHENRIQUE	N.J	C	14	30	13.46	0.34	-0.98	1.2	9.51	8.43	910	994	0.3	0.4	46	44
12	2012-2013 Season	ANDYGREENE	N.J	D	6	35	17.17	0.11	-0.66	-0.7	6.39	9.96	903	1002	0.6	0.8	45	50
13	2012-2013 Season	MATTD'AGOSTINI	N.J	RW	16	20	10.96	0.03	0.54	-1.9	-0.55	8.33	901	985	0.3	1.6	56	52
14	2012-2013 Season	PETERHARROLD	N.J	D	10	12	14.68	-0.18	-0.38	-2.1	8.86	1.56	851	866	0.3	0.7	60	55
15	2012-2013 Season	STEVEBERNIER	N.J	RW	18	35	11.79	0.45	-0.40	-2.7	4.80	6.59	886	952	0.3	1.3	50	49
16	2012-2013 Season	RYANCARTER	N.J	C	20	31	12.51	0.60	-0.19	-4.7	2.94	7.50	882	957	0.9	0.8	48	56
17	2012-2013 Season	ILYAKOVALCHUK	N.J	RW	17	32	16.77	0.00	-0.86	-8.3	1.68	7.73	913	990	0.7	0.7	55	52
18	2012-2013 Season	JACOBJOSEFSON	N.J	C	16	16	9.62	-0.11	0.25	-8.4	-5.46	2.04	841	862	0.4	0.8	43	57
19	2012-2013 Season	KRYSTOFERBARCH	N.J	RW	22	22	5.85	-1.24	-1.79	-8.6	0.00	11.43	933	1048	0.9	0.5	57	51
20	2012-2013 Season	ADAMLARSSON	N.J	D	5	28	16.06	0.10	-0.68	-9.5	2.67	10.24	899	1001	0.7	0.3	47	51
21	2012-2013 Season	STEFANMATTEAU	N.J	LW	15	17	9.11	0.63	-0.84	-9.7	1.94	5.80	926	984	0.8	0.4	55	48
22	2012-2013 Season	BRYCESALVADOR	N.J	D	24	34	17.28	0.94	-0.33	-10.5	-0.31	5.24	929	982	0.8	0.2	46	50
23	2012-2013 Season	STEPHENGIONTA	N.J	LW	11	35	11	0.23	-0.60	-15.8	-5.30	12.40	885	1009	0.5	1.1	52	52

Team Fenwick percentage. A 58.92 means that a team has taken 58.92% of all shots directed towards the net, not counting blocks, in the games that they've played, while their opponents have only taken 41.08% of shots. The reason you look at these numbers in "close" or "tied" scenarios is because being up or down by 2-3 goals skews things, as teams that are losing by a lot will usually outshoot their opponent.
http://behindthenet.ca/fenwick_2012.php?sort=6&section=close

Fenwick Percentages	CLOSE ALL DATA	CLOSE HOME	CLOSE ROAD
TEAM	TIED	UP 2	UP 1	DOWN 1	DOWN 2	CLOSE	FENPCT	TOI	GF/60	GA/60	SF/60	SA/60	MF/60	MA/60	FENPCT	TOI	GF/60	GA/60	SF/60	SA/60	MF/60	MA/60	FENPCT	TOI	GF/60	GA/60	SF/60	SA/60	MF/60	MA/60
L.A	58.92	45.04	55.62	56.72	64.33	58.04	58.04	28.19	2.94	2.57	28.92	21.35	13.33	8.76	56.36	27.51	3.08	2.05	23.99	21.04	15.01	9.49	59.52	28.87	2.81	3.06	33.62	21.64	11.74	8.07
BOS	53.04	45.20	54.83	62.67	60.55	54.90	54.90	31.95	3.40	2.46	31.10	25.53	12.79	10.86	55.33	31.39	4.08	2.42	31.48	26.51	12.11	9.56	54.55	32.45	2.83	2.50	30.78	24.69	13.38	11.97
STL	53.86	38.10	53.33	55.67	50.66	54.46	54.46	29.90	2.68	2.61	25.29	20.49	11.01	9.49	50.70	30.14	1.99	2.99	23.14	21.90	10.95	10.20	58.02	29.68	3.33	2.26	27.35	19.15	11.06	8.80
CHI	52.06	54.98	55.59	61.41	51.72	54.32	54.32	29.99	3.03	2.24	27.77	22.92	9.21	8.49	55.74	30.74	2.93	2.07	28.79	22.81	8.54	7.07	52.97	29.28	3.13	2.41	26.76	23.02	9.88	9.88
N.J	52.94	50.35	46.83	57.92	56.18	53.80	53.80	33.46	2.11	2.06	24.68	22.52	11.66	8.44	53.72	31.71	2.67	1.78	23.38	23.27	10.91	6.79	53.87	35.21	1.60	2.31	25.86	21.85	12.33	9.92
VAN	54.72	45.51	45.08	59.55	60.98	53.67	53.67	30.58	2.80	2.35	27.81	25.17	11.66	8.97	56.34	32.35	3.19	2.27	28.13	24.84	14.01	8.04	50.32	28.70	2.34	2.46	27.42	25.58	8.85	10.08
NYR	52.15	46.63	49.65	56.93	59.49	53.52	53.52	30.51	2.20	2.43	29.73	25.34	13.42	11.63	54.77	31.45	2.54	2.44	30.32	24.38	13.99	11.87	51.98	29.45	1.78	2.42	29.03	26.49	12.73	11.33
MTL	56.09	48.42	45.69	57.76	66.33	53.47	53.47	28.53	2.97	2.16	28.51	25.61	11.88	9.96	56.07	25.73	3.29	1.65	29.22	24.14	13.72	10.43	51.27	31.34	2.70	2.59	27.93	26.81	10.36	9.57
DET	52.19	45.45	47.57	54.35	60.31	51.81	51.81	29.66	2.32	2.32	28.08	27.19	11.42	9.40	50.15	29.85	2.72	2.48	26.96	28.62	10.17	8.51	53.43	29.48	1.92	2.16	29.21	25.74	12.69	10.30
FLA	52.13	32.65	44.49	54.45	53.08	51.62	51.62	27.78	1.86	3.30	28.80	25.98	11.46	10.20	52.69	28.43	1.89	3.67	30.22	25.11	11.44	10.33	50.32	27.06	1.83	2.87	27.13	27.00	11.48	10.04
S.J	53.41	46.28	44.26	49.54	66.43	51.54	51.54	29.98	2.35	2.00	26.55	26.31	13.36	11.42	52.42	31.01	2.78	1.57	26.72	25.27	13.66	12.33	50.70	29.06	1.95	2.41	26.38	27.30	13.08	10.55
CAR	50.65	39.67	49.22	53.25	53.88	51.54	51.54	28.43	2.43	2.37	30.06	28.20	13.49	12.66	54.11	27.52	2.73	2.45	31.48	27.66	15.12	11.72	49.17	29.29	2.17	2.29	28.80	28.68	12.05	13.50
PIT	52.39	43.50	48.93	51.80	64.60	51.24	51.24	29.38	3.29	2.04	27.28	28.13	12.93	11.23	53.24	29.10	2.39	1.74	27.45	25.39	12.91	10.42	49.27	29.70	4.28	2.38	27.10	31.14	12.96	12.12
WPG	49.04	46.81	45.60	54.67	59.47	50.27	50.27	32.64	2.50	2.20	27.11	27.47	13.22	12.71	49.67	31.69	1.67	2.45	26.06	26.62	14.59	13.81	50.77	33.49	3.21	1.98	28.00	28.19	12.07	11.79
PHX	49.90	47.87	47.84	57.53	55.41	50.09	50.09	32.14	2.24	2.77	28.11	27.74	12.75	12.43	53.02	30.44	2.74	2.96	28.04	26.18	14.35	10.84	47.37	33.94	1.77	2.60	28.18	29.22	11.23	13.93
OTT	48.34	44.21	52.32	57.29	59.26	49.91	49.91	33.77	2.28	2.34	29.54	30.15	12.39	11.88	50.39	33.29	2.85	1.99	29.02	29.31	11.57	11.48	49.40	34.34	1.64	2.73	30.14	31.12	13.32	12.34
DAL	51.26	41.76	45.73	51.41	52.35	49.73	49.73	29.50	2.77	2.53	24.28	27.06	12.63	10.54	49.77	27.66	3.06	2.81	25.26	27.30	13.40	11.99	49.69	31.46	2.50	2.27	23.37	26.82	11.92	9.18
NYI	50.37	46.94	46.12	50.00	54.46	49.70	49.70	31.68	2.71	2.65	27.22	25.76	10.61	12.61	50.24	33.45	2.27	2.55	26.91	24.45	10.39	12.18	49.03	29.58	3.30	2.79	27.64	27.51	10.90	13.19
PHI	48.73	45.78	46.12	50.29	55.96	49.49	49.49	24.91	2.34	3.14	26.93	24.89	10.07	12.11	51.52	25.53	2.64	2.94	28.65	24.53	11.16	12.49	47.35	24.34	2.03	3.34	25.23	25.23	8.99	11.75
CGY	50.94	47.30	41.59	49.29	52.05	48.96	48.96	28.71	2.60	3.48	25.97	25.97	10.32	11.08	51.33	30.46	3.39	3.06	25.17	25.06	11.49	9.85	45.84	26.60	1.50	4.06	27.07	27.22	8.72	12.78
MIN	47.14	38.76	49.77	51.40	60.98	48.32	48.32	30.44	2.78	2.38	25.04	26.20	9.80	11.65	51.45	31.42	2.92	2.02	27.19	24.38	9.89	11.35	45.01	29.47	2.63	2.75	22.76	28.14	9.70	11.98
COL	46.39	38.05	52.58	50.74	51.76	47.42	47.42	26.90	2.10	3.15	25.84	27.48	10.10	11.54	49.82	24.29	2.33	3.20	28.19	25.87	10.75	12.50	45.33	29.52	1.91	3.11	23.91	28.82	9.57	10.76
NSH	47.41	38.10	41.67	52.22	52.38	47.11	47.11	29.83	2.07	2.47	22.70	24.02	9.37	11.84	49.28	31.82	2.59	2.24	24.51	23.45	9.08	11.55	44.98	28.15	1.57	2.69	20.98	24.56	9.65	12.11
ANA	47.13	47.58	40.51	52.65	53.50	46.64	46.64	30.65	3.51	2.42	23.26	25.73	10.02	13.93	50.95	26.59	2.92	2.12	24.42	23.76	11.81	11.81	43.49	34.72	3.96	2.64	22.37	27.25	8.64	15.55
WSH	47.96	55.03	43.45	47.36	54.91	46.44	46.44	27.42	2.51	2.77	24.33	29.54	10.94	11.26	48.21	26.02	2.74	2.88	22.77	29.26	13.26	9.51	45.04	28.67	2.33	2.67	25.58	29.77	9.07	12.67
TOR	45.65	40.73	42.36	48.01	52.69	44.94	44.94	29.37	3.01	2.84	24.86	30.08	10.95	14.64	45.09	29.03	2.99	3.22	25.26	31.58	12.86	15.27	44.78	29.71	3.03	2.47	24.46	28.61	9.09	14.03
T.B	44.98	39.86	46.08	50.65	49.22	44.79	44.79	26.99	2.16	3.03	23.44	28.97	10.91	13.00	46.65	28.39	2.36	2.73	24.99	28.22	10.69	12.56	42.60	25.50	1.91	3.38	21.61	29.85	11.17	13.53
CBJ	44.40	45.59	40.89	48.56	56.78	44.79	44.79	35.53	2.36	2.70	23.21	28.99	8.25	9.99	46.00	36.29	2.26	2.18	24.54	29.68	7.75	8.70	43.30	34.64	2.49	3.36	21.54	28.15	8.88	11.58
EDM	42.93	42.86	43.59	49.30	47.83	44.72	44.72	28.97	2.07	2.68	24.18	28.87	9.62	12.79	46.98	30.00	1.87	2.50	27.75	28.37	9.25	13.00	42.44	28.05	2.26	2.85	20.79	29.35	9.98	12.59
BUF	44.91	29.50	35.18	49.20	57.25	43.90	43.90	30.46	2.70	3.04	25.16	30.84	8.78	12.95	46.07	34.37	2.68	2.91	28.51	32.47	8.38	10.94	41.74	27.52	2.73	3.16	22.02	29.32	9.16	14.82

EDIT: Can someone help me format these tables?

Click to read more...

 

[CerebralGenesis]

Well done. Will read again A+++

And ya those tables are gross, didn't read that lul

 

[RandoDoomer]

When following hockey starts to feel like doing my taxes, I know I've read too much.

Can someone summarize the above and let me know if we suck or not?

Seriously, though, god bless the eggheads who compile these stats.

 

[hockeyr5]

Cool thread. I always see people mentioned Fenwick and Corsi and always intended to look it up but never did so its nice to finally learn about them.

 

[Saugus]

You do see anomalies every now and then, but in general, Corsi and Fenwick are pretty reliable indicators of which players and teams are the best. Scouts and GMs really should start relying on them more for decision making.

Thanks for putting this together.

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

You do see anomalies every now and then, but in general, Corsi and Fenwick are pretty reliable indicators of which players and teams are the best. Scouts and GMs really should start relying on them more for decision making.

Thanks for putting this together.

It probably would have behooved Ray Shero to give twitter and HF a quick browse before he decided to give up 2 seconds for Doug Murray, that's for sure.

 

[BrodeursCups]

Yeah Murray is awful. Good for the Sharks in getting those picks...

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

I guess this thread is as good a place as any to talk about PDO. It's a simple stat that adds a team's (or a player's) overall save percentage and shooting percentage to try and get an idea of how lucky they are. The idea is that PDO regresses heavily towards 100 over the long term. It makes sense because, when you think about, if you play a hockey game and score on 10% of the shots you take, the goalie saved 90% of shots he faced. Add that together and you get 100. You can apply that over a team for the duration of a season and get an idea of whether they're getting either above-average goaltending or better-than-expected shooting and how that's playing into their wins and losses

Anyways, here's a weekly PDO (and possession) update posted by Cam Charron, a mostly Leafs/Canucks blogger. Not surprisingly, despite being a pretty excellent possession team, the Devils are in the bottom third of the league as far as "luck" is concerned.

http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/4/1/pdo-numbers-by-nhl-team-april-1

 

[JK3]

The Devils have been consistently out shooting their opponents with nothing to show for it for a long time.

I don't know how luck can be used along with stats. I don't believe in it, you create you own "luck" through hard work. They can possess the puck as much as they want, they just don't have the skill to finish.

 

[Devils731]

they just don't have the skill to finish.

For most teams in the league, there are some players who are exceptions, the skill comes generating shots worth taking. Almost everyone, in the long run, tends to bury about the same amount of the good chances they get.

In the short run anything can happen so good or bad luck only really applies when a team has played a large amount of games, the more games the more it likely applies.

 

[GameSeven]

One takeaway is reinforced appreciation for Mark Fayne... Defense Low 43.8% Offensive zone starts (he starts more shifts in the D-zone on average), but a relatively high CorsiRel of 8.0

Sadly, Larsson's numbers here reinforce the reports from John Fischer's article, here: http://www.inlouwetrust.com/2013/3/...new-jersey-devils-shooting-accuracy-by-skater

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

The Devils have been consistently out shooting their opponents with nothing to show for it for a long time.

I don't know how luck can be used along with stats. I don't believe in it, you create you own "luck" through hard work. They can possess the puck as much as they want, they just don't have the skill to finish.

"Nothing to show for it" like a 100 point season and a trip to the finals last year? Don't think of luck as anything but random variance. Pucks bouncing the right way. Nothing wrong with using stats to determine what teams and players are playing above their heads.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

The Devils have been consistently out shooting their opponents with nothing to show for it for a long time.

I don't know how luck can be used along with stats. I don't believe in it, you create you own "luck" through hard work. They can possess the puck as much as they want, they just don't have the skill to finish.

I don't think so. As I said in the first post, the best shooting team in the NHL over the last six seasons only shot better than 13% than the league median. So that's how much finishing really comes into the picture - not much.

Also understand that in an environment where every single NHL team had identical skill level and traits, there would still be teams with 100 points and 75 points, teams with 270 goals and teams with 200 goals, just by pure randomness. An 82 game season is not a large enough sample size to determine who's good and who's not by just wins and losses, goals for and goals against. You need to look further.

 

[GameSeven]

I don't think so. As I said in the first post, the best shooting team in the NHL over the last six seasons only shot better than 13% than the league median. So that's how much finishing really comes into the picture - not much.

Also understand that in an environment where every single NHL team had identical skill level and traits, there would still be teams with 100 points and 75 points, teams with 270 goals and teams with 200 goals, just by pure randomness. An 82 game season is not a large enough sample size to determine who's good and who's not by just wins and losses, goals for and goals against. You need to look further.

By that logic (which I'm not disputing), 60 minutes is not enough of a sample size to determine who is good and who is not. We should have one 24 hour game against each league opponent

 

[The Devil In I]

Devils don't get great scoring chances all that often. They can pressure extremely well, but can't execute/captitalize. We have fools like Clarkson who like to throw the puck on net from all over the place. And defenseman that love shooting it into the shin pads of opposing players or completely wide of the net. These missed/crappy shots count as positives in these stats, and make us look more impressive than actually watching a game would.

"Meh, we take awful shots on net, don't generate a whole lot of point blank chances, and have monumental defensive breakdowns that often lead to goals against. Don't worry, we're just unlucky according to this stat"

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Devils don't get great scoring chances all that often. They can pressure extremely well, but can't execute/captitalize. We have fools like Clarkson who like to throw the puck on net from all over the place. And defenseman that love shooting it into the shin pads of opposing players or completely wide of the net. These missed/crappy shots count as positives in these stats, and make us look more impressive than actually watching a game would.

"Meh, we take awful shots on net, don't generate a whole lot of point blank chances, and have monumental defensive breakdowns that often lead to goals against. Don't worry, we're just unlucky according to this stat"

That's very subjective. Personally, I think the Devils create a decent amount of chances and don't blow assignments any more than our opponents do.

Additionally, Corsi/Fenwick dovetails very well with scoring chances. I'll try to dig up the article, but someone compiled scoring chances for 10-12 teams (various blogs keep track) and found that Corsi/Fenwick explain about 85% of scoring chances.

 

[JK3]

"Nothing to show for it" like a 100 point season and a trip to the finals last year? Don't think of luck as anything but random variance. Pucks bouncing the right way. Nothing wrong with using stats to determine what teams and players are playing above their heads.

I'm not talking about last year. I thought this was for this years team, hence my comment on out shooting opponents the last 20 games and barely scoring twice a game.

It was the opposite at the beginning of the season when they were winning while being out shot.

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

Devils don't get great scoring chances all that often. They can pressure extremely well, but can't execute/captitalize. We have fools like Clarkson who like to throw the puck on net from all over the place. And defenseman that love shooting it into the shin pads of opposing players or completely wide of the net. These missed/crappy shots count as positives in these stats, and make us look more impressive than actually watching a game would.

"Meh, we take awful shots on net, don't generate a whole lot of point blank chances, and have monumental defensive breakdowns that often lead to goals against. Don't worry, we're just unlucky according to this stat"

Players aren't going out on the ice with a "throw easy shots to up our Corsi numbers" mentality. As FMASC mentioned earlier, teams tend to try and optimize their shots. You won't find a team in the NHL that isn't actively trying to create quality scoring chances. Corsi/fenwick (i.e. attempted shots) are the byproducts of these attempts. Teams who consistently generate more attempted shots than their opponent are spending more time holding the puck and trying to create scoring chances. This is why corsi and fenwick tend to predict future success more than goals scored and games won.

Clarkson "shoots from everywhere" because he's not Stamkos. He can't efficiently create scoring chances and he can't consistently shoot at a high percentage of success, so he throws the puck every chance he gets, creating a high volume of low quality chances knowing that something will go in eventually. Most players in the NHL work this way, which is why most players tend to operate in slumps and streaks as far as the media is concerned.

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

On that note, in the spirit of the holiday, I present this article from this morning.


http://gettoourgame.blogspot.com/2013/04/capitals-defeat-flyers-by-score-of-21.html

 

[Basement Cat]

I love when FMASC pulls out these statistics that I don't understand most of the time. Please, after you do this, translate for me. Normally I agree with you but at first I am never sure...

 

[Saugus]

I am a believer in PDO and Corsi. These stats together tell us that the Devils have had good puck possession but just gotten unlucky. Hopefully our luck will change as we get into the playoffs.

 

[The Devil In I]

Players aren't going out on the ice with a "throw easy shots to up our Corsi numbers" mentality. As FMASC mentioned earlier, teams tend to try and optimize their shots. You won't find a team in the NHL that isn't actively trying to create quality scoring chances. Corsi/fenwick (i.e. attempted shots) are the byproducts of these attempts. Teams who consistently generate more attempted shots than their opponent are spending more time holding the puck and trying to create scoring chances. This is why corsi and fenwick tend to predict future success more than goals scored and games won.

Clarkson "shoots from everywhere" because he's not Stamkos. He can't efficiently create scoring chances and he can't consistently shoot at a high percentage of success, so he throws the puck every chance he gets, creating a high volume of low quality chances knowing that something will go in eventually. Most players in the NHL work this way, which is why most players tend to operate in slumps and streaks as far as the media is concerned.

Of course no player goes out there with corsi in mind. It's just the Devils don't have a whole lot of players who can create quality chances. So we end up with lots of low percentage chances. I agree that puck. Possession is important,but this team is a shining example that it doesn't win games.

If you have defenseman who regularly blow assignments, and forwards who are much better at grinding it out than creating chances... you're gonna lose

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

Of course no player goes out there with corsi in mind. It's just the Devils don't have a whole lot of players who can create quality chances. So we end up with lots of low percentage chances. I agree that puck. Possession is important,but this team is a shining example that it doesn't win games.

If you have defenseman who regularly blow assignments, and forwards who are much better at grinding it out than creating chances... you're gonna lose

Who said otherwise?

 

[Hockey Sports Fan]

I feel like this is a good time for this since we could all use some good news.

Devils are second overall in the league in adjusted corsi percentage (the ratio of shot attempts taken to shot attempts allowed).

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201213&sit=f10&sort=CFPCT&sortdir=DESC

SECOND. Only to Los Angeles. Don't bother with what the stats "really mean" or whether you think they matter. Look at the other teams around us in that list and you'll see pretty much a "who's who" of the best teams around the league.

There may not be enough time left for the bounces to start going Jersey's way in time to save this season (5th last in PDO in the league), but take solace in the fact that this is an excellent hockey team, and that we're likely to be back up there with a full season under our belts next Spring.

 

[Saugus]

It's a small consolation when nothing is going right for the team.