Name me the best 20 hockey players on the planet and justify it using only corsi.
You can't do that. As I stated about Corsi: "[it is an] advanced statistic that has proven over the years to be one of the best
(there are more that add to the greatness of a player/team) measurements that is more able to predict the outcome of the game from prior stats."
What it does is it shows whether or not someone is a liability on the ice, or whether or not they are highly effective at what they do.
Take Matt Hunwick, is he effective? No the eye test, and the advanced stat test prove he's not.
Take Shea Weber, is he effective? Yes and no. The eye test for the most part says yes, and the fact he's got other things going for him; intimidation, shot blocking(which is both good and bad), hard slap shot, good first pass. The problem with him? His team has the puck less when he's on the ice, and he's forced to do things like block shots, and throw hits because he most likely won't have the puck.
Now take someone like Erik Karlsson. Some people think during the eye test he fails in the defensive zone. The reason for this is because the only times that he gets stuck there it ends up being bad news and it sticks out for people. He possesses the puck so often, and he doesn't have to play defense it makes him the best defenseman in the leauge. It's the same thing as Connor Carrick and Jake Gardiner. These two almost never actually have to play defense because when they're on the ice the puck is on a Leaf players stick and no shots are being directed towards our net. When they're actually in the defensive zone they don't look overally good, but they're great at keeping it out of the zone, and making sure shots aren't directed at our net.
I used to not believe in these stats either, but they're easily the best way to figure out (for the most part) who's a better player than who.