Shot locations matter for individual shots. But when you are looking at a population of 1000 shots, it's unlikely that one player only took shots from the blue like and the other from the slot. If it were true it would show up in their shooting %. No one has ever claimed that 1 break away is equal to a shot from centre ice - other than you. Have you ever seen a box score where one team had 50 shots and another team had 10, but the 50 were all from the blue line while the 10 were all breakaways? Me neither.
Same with quality of competition.One shif vs Crosby compared to one shift vs Glass? Obviously there is a difference. But have you ever seen a season worth of play where one first pairing Dman played their entire TOI vs Crosby but the Other first pairing Dman playd against Glass? Me neither. I have however seen one player play 50% of their ice time with Kopitar while another player played 50% of their ice time with Sean Monahan. Which one do you think had an easier time?
Faceoff locations have minimal impact over a course of a season. That has been shown a countless number of times. Obviously it takes more than one play to see the relationship.
What does "Corsi rates them the same" mean? That's not even true or the reason why corsi is a valuable indicator. Where did you get this bizzare idea?
Corsi works, because over 10 games or more, a team takes hundreds of shot attempts and conceded hundreds of shot attempts. Some are high danger, some are low. The distribution high danger shots/ medium danger shots/ low danger between teams is not nearly as different as their #of shot attempts taken or faced though. Like I said earlier, have you ever seen one team continuesly have breakaways and the other shoot from center ice? It's more likely that if you gave up more total shots, you game up more shots from the slot as well.
I love the fact when I blast corsi as an individual stat the stat heads come out and tell me why I'm wrong and use team stats to back it up.
If you're good a not allowing quality scoring chances, you're goalie is going to have better stats than when you allow a lot of high quality scoring chances. To me, this is common sense.
What's better, giving up 120 low percentage shots against, or 105 higher percentage shots against?
Correlation does not equal causation. If you could show me that Corsi causes winning that would mean something. As it is maybe winning causes good Corsi.
I actually like Corsi as a team stat as there are no quality of competition biases. On the individual level it tells you what happened but not why.
Good coaches use their better defensive d-man against the forwards who can score not just the guys who shoot a lot. It does not balance out, coaches are not rolling 4 lines and 3 d pairs.
Back to this Berkshire list while not based only on Corsi it is based on stats that do not pass the smell test. If this was so predictive of team success one would expect some of these top guys to have helped their teams a little bit more.
Hockey is a team game, winning teams are usually greater than the sum of their parts. Really it requires players who complement each other. A defense full of Karlssons and Burns' will not win a cup. You need a few Vlasics and Webers mixed in to provide the balance.
My take away from this list is Karlsson may actually be underrated on these forums. It's borderline laughable how any statistic that gives him a semblance of defensive credit is seen as a joke. Hate to break it to people but transitional play is a massive part of being a top tier defenseman. And Karlsson happens to be phenomenal at it.
I would argue that this is where Corsi fails for rating individual players especially D-men. It does not measure the impact a player has on that shot distribution and assumes it is the same for all players, it is not. The low danger shots and even the medium danger ones don't matter for the most part, Todays goalies stop those. It is the high danger shots that matter, reduce a those by a % point or two and you will reduce goals against. By the same token you see some elite d-men with brutal on ice sav% from their goalies relative to their teammates - hello Erik K. Why? The eye test tells me because he takes unnecessary risk to generate offense that leads to odd man rushes the other way.
Again these stats tell you what (which is damm useful) but not the why (which is more useful)
Ensuring that your team scores more goals than it lets in while you are on the ice is also a massive part of being a top tier defenseman. And Karlsson happens to be pretty ordinary at it.
Last year EK 5-5 was 2.63GF60 and 2.73GA60 for a minus .10
Girodano 2.52GF60 against 2.80 for a net minus as well.
I love the fact when I blast corsi as an individual stat the stat heads come out and tell me why I'm wrong and use team stats to back it up.
Correlation does not equal causation. If you could show me that Corsi causes winning that would mean something. As it is maybe winning causes good Corsi.
I actually like Corsi as a team stat as there are no quality of competition biases. On the individual level it tells you what happened but not why.
Good coaches use their better defensive d-man against the forwards who can score not just the guys who shoot a lot. It does not balance out, coaches are not rolling 4 lines and 3 d pairs.
Back to this Berkshire list while not based only on Corsi it is based on stats that do not pass the smell test. If this was so predictive of team success one would expect some of these top guys to have helped their teams a little bit more.
Hockey is a team game, winning teams are usually greater than the sum of their parts. Really it requires players who complement each other. A defense full of Karlssons and Burns' will not win a cup. You need a few Vlasics and Webers mixed in to provide the balance.
But if that were the case, then there would be a strong relationship between on ice save percentage and individual players. But there isn't. Why is that? Why does Karlsson's expected GA stats or scoring chance against and rel scoring chance against (which factor in shot location) do not reflect what you are saying?
And it's certainly debatable weather Karlsson's risk are unnecessary. His team is at 42% CF% when he isn't on the ice. Do you think it's possible to win playing that type of hockey?
Should we not consider the team impacts on that though? Or are we gonna pretend like teams that are bottom in the league without these players are the same as teams that are top of their league without their first Dman on the ice?
I'll admit it is tough to show causation, how would you propose that would be done ?
I think logical reasoning is the best solution ( or that I have thought of )
Team who attempt to shoot the puck more...have he puck more...teams who have the puck more ..... Probbaly have better systems, players, choaches....combine all that together and you get teams that win more
I'm all about proof, so I'll admit it isn't the greatest argument for causation
Honestly, if I were to rate defensemen in the defensive zone, I'd use.
Quality of competition measured by number of points from forwards, not by corsi.
Because to me, these are the most important things a defenseman does in the defensive zone.
Quality of competition measured by number of points from forwards, not by corsi.
This is the most important bit. Corsi based QOC stats are weak in my opinion as everyone can make a shot attempt but the truly quality competition are guys like Mike bossy who were burying 1 in 5 of those shots.
Hasn't happened yet. I've seen more opinions and more team stats but not one slice of evidence that says corsi is a good way to measure defensive play.You love the fact that when you say something wrong people come and correct you? That's nice
It is common sense, but that is not how the game actually plays out. There is tons of data out there to show it. Players influence shot volume much better, than save percentage. People also have developed scoring chance models and expected goal models based on where shots are coming from - they show a very similar picture that corsi shows.
Obviously in your example, assuming the difference between low and high percentage shots is high enough, it might be better to give up more low percentage shots than 105 higher percentage shots. But that's not how the game ever turns out - we have data on that.
s
Here’s an interesting article on the subject, with emphasis on the 3rd and 4th graphs and their explanations:
https://hockey-graphs.com/2016/03/3...arincin-and-quality-of-competition/#more-8588
No, I have no evidence of any of this, it's simple the way I view defense.I love the fact that you ducked my question and can't show why your method is any better
And how would you like us to use individual stats? All you are going to do is disagree with the list because
a) eye test
b) your stats are better ( so explain, show why they are better )
So it seems pretty tough to do that
Thing is KEK65's case most of his teammates were better than him GF60-GA60 at 5 on 5
Wideman 2.35vs 2.06 so +.29
Cowen 2.27 vs 2.04 so + .23
Ceci 1.96 vs 1.85 or +.11
Methot 2.56 vs 2.46 or +.10
weircoch 1.99 vs 1.92 or +.07
Karlsson 2.63 vs 2.73 or -0.10
Boro 1.44 vs 2.08 0r -0.64
Phaneuf is worse too but most of his numbers were accumulated on a worse team Toronto.
So at the end of the day at 5 on 5 the only guy he was better than on a net basis is Boro.
Giordano is not that bad relative to his teammates but he was still 4th with JJ, brodie and ENgelland having better numbers.
Quantity of chances against is important but one should not ignore those that go in especially if they seem to go in way more often when certain guys are on the ice.
That's an interesting way to present things, but here is a more complete picture:
Karsson is GF2.63 GA2.73 = -0.10 or 49.0 GF%
Karlsson's TMGF1.85 TMGA1.98 =-.13 or 48.2 GF%
So he improved the team's goal difference by 0.8GF% per 60 minutes in 2015-2016. Also more food for thought, his most common partner, Methot:
Methot with Karlsson, GF 2.84 GA 2.26 so +.48 or 55.7 GF%
Methot away from Karlsson, GF 1.64 GA 3.07 so -1.43 or 34.8 GF%
To say he doesn't provide value in outscoring at 5v5 is pretty bizarre. In addition, the whole issue with volatility, SV%, AND the eye test and all that jazz, which supports the fact that he is a very effective 5v5 player.
Hasn't happened yet. I've seen more opinions and more team stats but not one slice of evidence that says corsi is a good way to measure defensive play.
I still think the best way to keep scoring down is to keep shots and pressure to the outside, in lower scoring areas.
Show me this data proof, for individuals, not team stats.
No, I have no evidence of any of this, it's simple the way I view defense.
I never said my way was perfect, but those are the things I'd like to see measured.
Maybe if I have time (doubtful) I'll do it.
Not that bizarre he doesn't. They give up more than they score when he is on the ice so its hard to see the value he provides in outscoring the opposition. His other dmen are better.