Corsi and Advanced Stats

Status
Not open for further replies.

BroadwayJay*

Guest
A lot of low percentage shots from the Rangers last night. They had less scoring chances than us even though they had many most shot attempts.


If you adjust for score, I ithe corsi differential diminshes. If you adjust for score, the fenwick differential disintegrates.

This team is a Fenwick powerhouse the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen.

http://hockeystats.ca/game/2014020697
 

BroadwayJay*

Guest
At least at even strength, Nino is still better.

He has better relative CF by quite a bit, albeit on a worse team. He's scored more points. He is suppressing shots better.

Clutterbuck's real problem here is that his line is just not producing corsi events FOR the way that Nino's line is producing them. Otherwise, they're fairly similar. Also, Nino is currently suffering from a low shooting percentage so he should rebound.

Just the facts, but at even strength I'm still taking Nino.

I was sort of hoping this would spark a bit of a conversation. Am I getting deference now? I hope not.

Fight with me! Tell me why I'm wrong!
 

BroadwayJay*

Guest
Leddy and Boychuk are 1 and 2 in Fenwick I believe. I gotta start to look at these numbers more. Still very confusing.

Oh, just ask and I'm happy to explain. Also could come to the meetup next week and I'll rget you completely up to speed.
 

Dice on Ice

Registered User
At least at even strength, Nino is still better.

He has better relative CF by quite a bit, albeit on a worse team. He's scored more points. He is suppressing shots better.

Clutterbuck's real problem here is that his line is just not producing corsi events FOR the way that Nino's line is producing them. Otherwise, they're fairly similar. Also, Nino is currently suffering from a low shooting percentage so he should rebound.

Just the facts, but at even strength I'm still taking Nino.

Dropping back in to say this:

There is no debating that Nino-for-Clutterbuck was terrible from a pure value standpoint. For straight-up player value, it was a C-minus, maybe a D. That's not why Garth made the trade. He made the trade because Nino is a cancer. I hate to be cliche in an intelligent discussion, but despite Nino being far and away the better player in almost every aspect of hockey, NOBODY in the Islanders organization liked him or his agent. NOBODY. In a locker room that has clearly become a band-of-brothers environment, there is no room for that.

Based on how veterans like Nabokov, Visnovsky, Weight, Halak, etc. have responded when introduced to the fold-- and you can throw in guys who had bad reps in other stops like Grabovski-- it really says something when you are not embraced by this group. Nino was one of those guys, and the lack of value via trade was because it was obvious to the rest of the NHL.
 

BroadwayJay*

Guest
Dropping back in to say this:

There is no debating that Nino-for-Clutterbuck was terrible from a pure value standpoint. For straight-up player value, it was a C-minus, maybe a D. That's not why Garth made the trade. He made the trade because Nino is a cancer. I hate to be cliche in an intelligent discussion, but despite Nino being far and away the better player in almost every aspect of hockey, NOBODY in the Islanders organization liked him or his agent. NOBODY. In a locker room that has clearly become a band-of-brothers environment, there is no room for that.

Based on how veterans like Nabokov, Visnovsky, Weight, Halak, etc. have responded when introduced to the fold-- and you can throw in guys who had bad reps in other stops like Grabovski-- it really says something when you are not embraced by this group. Nino was one of those guys, and the lack of value via trade was because it was obvious to the rest of the NHL.

You could have just texted me this lol.

If the question is "are you upset about hte Nino trade, all things considered", my answer is no.

If the question is "objectively, which player has the superior statistical record", my answer is Nino.
 

charlie1

It's all McDonald's
Dec 7, 2013
3,132
0
If you adjust for score, I ithe corsi differential diminshes. If you adjust for score, the fenwick differential disintegrates.

This team is a Fenwick powerhouse the likes of which I don't think I've ever seen.

http://hockeystats.ca/game/2014020697

Which makes the difference in scoring chances even more impressive. You don't even have to adjust for score effects to see that we dominated in chances for most of the game. :laugh:
 

BroadwayJay*

Guest
Which makes the difference in scoring chances even more impressive. You don't even have to adjust for score effects to see that we dominated in chances for most of the game. :laugh:

Oh of course. I was talking about the shot attempts factor that you discussed because that is still important, scoring chances aside.
 

The Underboss

Registered User
Dec 20, 2006
24,133
422
Florida
You know I kind of disliked the advanced stats because I felt that's all some people look at instead of both stats and actual play, but they're growing on me. Thanks BWJ!
 

BroadwayJay*

Guest
You know I kind of disliked the advanced stats because I felt that's all some people look at instead of both stats and actual play, but they're growing on me. Thanks BWJ!

I am but a humble servant to my calculator and spreadsheet. I am glad to be of service, and I have offered to do a complete Q&A to anyone who likes at our next meetup; preferably before the game starts.
 

charlie1

It's all McDonald's
Dec 7, 2013
3,132
0
What about for teams? Is it still the same or is SA Corsi still the best? I will try and find the SA Corsi correlation article and see.

Don't think they tested it for teams, just players. For defensemen, Fenwick (not Corsi) was slightly better than Scoring Chances. For forwards, Scoring Chances was quite a bit better than anything else.

The main point though is that all of the advanced stats were better than just using past goals to predict future goals. That is notable.

http://blog.war-on-ice.com/predictability-differences-for-forwards-and-defensemen/
 

BroadwayJay*

Guest
Don't think they tested it for teams, just players. For defensemen, Fenwick (not Corsi) was slightly better than Scoring Chances. For forwards, Scoring Chances was quite a bit better than anything else.

The main point though is that all of the advanced stats were better than just using past goals to predict future goals. That is notable.

http://blog.war-on-ice.com/predictability-differences-for-forwards-and-defensemen/

You and I already knew that lol.

Also, of note, the NHL has added "enhanced" stats to NHL.com and is including Corsi and Fenwick.

At this point, the war is now in the "reconstruction of the defeated party" side, right?
 

BroadwayJay*

Guest
I would like to see if defenseman's scoring chances against is repeatable, and also if defenseman's scoring chances against has a correlative effect on goalies sv %. All at ev of course.

A bunch of interesting projects right now, we should write this down somewhere and go down the list.
 

bigd

Registered User
Jul 27, 2003
6,854
242
You and I already knew that lol.

Also, of note, the NHL has added "enhanced" stats to NHL.com and is including Corsi and Fenwick.

At this point, the war is now in the "reconstruction of the defeated party" side, right?
You do realize that they are doing this because it's what the young fans of today want. Fans drive the money train. Whether teams are actually using this info to construct their lineup is a totally different subject. Each team has their different views of how much analytics contribute to their lineup. Some value it more than others. The Islanders weren't built through analytics but they are doing very well on the ice and on the analytics board but that's not how these players were picked. $$$$$$ drives the bus! I don't know what this "war" is that you seem to believe you've won. You've only won the right to spend more money on your team and the NHL. It's now part of the entertainment package.
 
Last edited:

BroadwayJay*

Guest
You do realize that they are doing this because it's what the young fans of today want. Fans drive the money train. Whether teams are actually using this info to construct their lineup is a totally different subject. Each team has their different views of how much analytics contribute to their lineup. Some value it more than others. The Islanders weren't built through analytics but they are doing very well on the ice and on the analytics board but that's not how these players were picked. $$$$$$ drives the bus!

You have no idea how the players were picked. Why are you pretending to know things you don't, in this thread of all places?
 

Tavares2TheRescue

#JreeFroadwayBay
Feb 6, 2010
2,182
1
Champaign, IL/LI, NY
You do realize that they are doing this because it's what the young fans of today want. Fans drive the money train. Whether teams are actually using this info to construct their lineup is a totally different subject. Each team has their different views of how much analytics contribute to their lineup. Some value it more than others. The Islanders weren't built through analytics but they are doing very well on the ice and on the analytics board but that's not how these players were picked. $$$$$$ drives the bus! I don't know what this "war" is that you seem to believe you've won. You've only won the right to spend more money on your team and the NHL. It's now part of the entertainment package.

Because you totally know all about how NHL teams make their decisions. Do you really think the Islanders would $6M per year to Grabovski coming off a 35 point season if they didn't see something else about his game?
 

charlie1

It's all McDonald's
Dec 7, 2013
3,132
0
Advanced stat of the day

Interesting tool to compare a forward's advanced stats to what you would expect from a 4th liner, 3rd liner, etc.

It appears to jive with the eye-test quite nicely.

Here it is for Tavares:




Check it out here: http://ownthepuck.blogspot.ca/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad