Corsi, shot quality, and the Toronto Maple Leafs

Gutchecktime

Registered User
Dec 24, 2005
3,738
341
They're fine to rub it in. Does it advance the discussion?

The discussion at this point would probably be why they were wrong about the Leafs' success this year - or ways a team was able to overcome a strong metric. So it seems like admitting they were in the first place would be the first step.

Instead of trying to say they're still right or never said it.
 

Bear of Bad News

Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
Sep 27, 2005
13,345
26,517
I'd rather move on (hopefully I've expressed my sentiments clearly on that point). On this subforum, I'd think that we could aspire to more than fanbase bickering.

My post earlier (11:21am EDT) was compelling (at least in my own mind). Is that a decent place to jump off from?

Why do the Leafs defy Corsi (if they do), and can that information make our predictions better?
 

TieClark

Registered User
Jun 14, 2011
4,112
0
I only follow Twitter for Richard Sherman. :laugh:

I certainly think that there's something to the goaltending aspect; if we believe that save percentage is a true measure of goaltending skill (to some degree) then there shouldn't be a reason why that aspect of PDO should regress entirely (I do 99% of my analytics on the goaltending end, so if I'm missing a fundamental aspect of PDO, someone please speak up). There *is* a significant amount of variation in save percentage year-to-year (as with any binomial distribution), but there's an underlying probability driving it.

I assume that when you say skill up front, you're referring to the opposite side of the coin (if you have players who consistently find ways to exceed a league-average shooting percentage, then the same argument would hold as what I describe above for goaltending).

As far as special teams are concerned, is PDO inclusive of special teams (or is it even strength only)?

Beyond that, it's still perplexing that a team that's consistently outshot can post a good record, since ultimately (goals for) = (shots taken) * (shooting percentage), and (goals against) = (shots received) * (1 - save percentage). It's clearly something to be studied further.

On the other hand, if we perfectly understood hockey at this point, then where would the fun be in that? ;)

Speaking of SV%, Mirtle has recently stated that it's more of a team stat than a personal stat. I agree with that thinking... while most top teams have great goaltending, it seems far too convenient for nearly every top team to have a goalie near the top of the league in SV%. While GAA is MORE of a team stat, that doesn't mean SV% isn't also closely tied to a teams success... again because of shot quality.
 

Bear of Bad News

Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
Sep 27, 2005
13,345
26,517
Speaking of SV%, Mirtle has recently stated that it's more of a team stat than a personal stat. I agree with that thinking... while most top teams have great goaltending, it seems far too convenient for nearly every top team to have a goalie near the top of the league in SV%. While GAA is MORE of a team stat, that doesn't mean SV% isn't also closely tied to a teams success... again because of shot quality.

I wonder how much of that is from situational differences - even strength vs. power play vs. shorthanded. I agree that shot quality pervades even beyond that distinction; I've been trying to tease it out of my own goalie data for some time now (it's a challenge).

If teams have a consistent way to improve save percentage, then that would clearly counter the tendency of PDO towards 1000.
 

TieClark

Registered User
Jun 14, 2011
4,112
0
I wonder how much of that is from situational differences - even strength vs. power play vs. shorthanded. I agree that shot quality pervades even beyond that distinction; I've been trying to tease it out of my own goalie data for some time now (it's a challenge).

If teams have a consistent way to improve save percentage, then that would clearly counter the tendency of PDO towards 1000.

Mirtle is a big ES SV% guy so I'm guessing that's where he was targeting. I think it applies to everything again though... some teams are good PKing, some aren't. A goalie that has a solid PKing team theoretically should have an easier time saving shots compared to his comparable on a weaker PK team.
 

Gutchecktime

Registered User
Dec 24, 2005
3,738
341
Speaking of SV%, Mirtle has recently stated that it's more of a team stat than a personal stat. I agree with that thinking... while most top teams have great goaltending, it seems far too convenient for nearly every top team to have a goalie near the top of the league in SV%. While GAA is MORE of a team stat, that doesn't mean SV% isn't also closely tied to a teams success... again because of shot quality.

Did he really say that? I'm not sure I agree with that at all. I feel like we've seen enough goaltenders go from really bad teams to good teams and vice versa and not had their SV%s affected...
 

TieClark

Registered User
Jun 14, 2011
4,112
0
Did he really say that? I'm not sure I agree with that at all. I feel like we've seen enough goaltenders go from really bad teams to good teams and vice versa and not had their SV%s affected...
I don't think that's true at all.. there are very few goalies that can maintain solid SV% numbers with bad teams. Miller is one that I can recall off the top of my head but he's about as good as it gets.

You look at goalies like Scrivens and Fasth who have great stats with great teams and have seen their stats plummet since joining Edmonton

Edit: Foot in mouth on Scrivens... that surprises me that his stats are still that high
 

Gutchecktime

Registered User
Dec 24, 2005
3,738
341
I don't think that's true at all.. there are very few goalies that can maintain solid SV% numbers with bad teams. Miller is one that I can recall off the top of my head but he's about as good as it gets.

You look at goalies like Scrivens and Fasth who have great stats with great teams and have seen their stats plummet since joining Edmonton

Luongo's one I'm thinking of.

I'm not sure what you mean about Scrivens. It doesn't look like his stats have plummeted.

2013-2014: 19 gp, .931 Los Angeles
2013-2014: 11 gp, .929 Edmonton

*Posted before I saw your correction.
 

Gutchecktime

Registered User
Dec 24, 2005
3,738
341
It kinda looks like we shoulda seen these coming too.

Toskala:

2005-2006 Sharks 37gp, .901
2006-2007 Sharks 38gp, .908
2007-2008 Leafs 66gp, .904

Raycroft:
2005-2006 Bruins, 30gp, .879
2006-2007 Leafs, 72gp, .894

Are you sure Mirtle didn't say GAA was more affected by the team? That sounds like something I've heard him say recently. Him and McGran got into it.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,121
30,340
I don't think that's true at all.. there are very few goalies that can maintain solid SV% numbers with bad teams. Miller is one that I can recall off the top of my head but he's about as good as it gets.

You look at goalies like Scrivens and Fasth who have great stats with great teams and have seen their stats plummet since joining Edmonton

Edit: Foot in mouth on Scrivens... that surprises me that his stats are still that high

Fasth has a .926 in edmonton, not that it's relevant given it's only 2 games, but he hasn't seen his numbers plummet yet anyways. Even his GAA is better at 1.85.
 

The Shrike

Registered User
Jul 13, 2008
940
239
Toronto
2014 Sports Industry Conference

Scroll down to video named Trust the Data, 40:16 mark:

Audience question: "What percentage of stats do you guys use that are public knowledge, and what percent are stats that you guys have developed in house."

Reid Mitchell (Head of scouting, Toronto Maple Leafs): "I don't know what the percentage is, but I'd say for us, internally, not a hundred percent, but very close, are internal stats, that we don't make public....so that's all in house, and we definately don't broadcast it, and it's no disrespect to our fans, or the media, but that is our internal content."

Alex Rucker (Senior Analytics Consultant, Toronto Raptors): "Yeah, zero percent public, I write reports regularly, and I don't think I've ever used a public data point, whether it's PER or APM, I mean I'm aware of them, I know they exist, mostly I want to know about them so I can figure out what their flaws are....."

These answers demonstrate the problem with fan obtainable information, it's inferior to the data that the teams are collating internally. There are 30 teams collecting data separate from not only the public, but also from each other.

I suspect teams with greater financial resources, and the willingness to spend said resources, have a considerable advantage in the collection, and the collation of advanced statistics.

As such, it may not be a surprize to the Leafs, internally, that they are so high in the standings.
 

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
These answers demonstrate the problem with fan obtainable information, it's inferior to the data that the teams are collating internally. There are 30 teams collecting data separate from not only the public, but also from each other.
This is the reason I'm so unimpressed with guys like Steve Burtch, who comes off as thinking that he's on the leading edge of statistical analysis, and that professional hockey teams are actually run like some kind of cross between a beer league team and the village from Hot Fuzz.
This is distinct from excellent, humble posters like Chalupa Batman, who seem more driven to learn and experiment, and occasionally fight with teenagers on HF because it's fun and cathartic, as well as everyone who's contributed to the stats community without being unnecessarily snotty about it.

I suspect teams with greater financial resources, and the willingness to spend said resources, have a considerable advantage in the collection, and the collation of advanced statistics.

As such, it may not be a surprize to the Leafs, internally, that they are so high in the standings.
Not so sure about this though. The Leafs have had more resources than other teams for ages, and they haven't out-performed other teams, not by a long shot. They're on an up-cycle now, which was bound to happen eventually.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,121
30,340
This is the reason I'm so unimpressed with guys like Steve Burtch, who comes off as thinking that he's on the leading edge of statistical analysis, and that professional hockey teams are actually run like some kind of cross between a beer league team and the village from Hot Fuzz.
This is distinct from excellent, humble posters like Chalupa Batman, who seem more driven to learn and experiment, and occasionally fight with teenagers on HF because it's fun and cathartic, as well as everyone who's contributed to the stats community without being unnecessarily snotty about it.


Not so sure about this though. The Leafs have had more resources than other teams for ages, and they haven't out-performed other teams, not by a long shot. They're on an up-cycle now, which was bound to happen eventually.

Given the quality of the RTSS data, it's really not surprising that teams would want to use in house stats. I'm sure you could find lots of people willing to plot shot location data for minimum wage for an NHL team:sarcasm:
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,442
19,575
Waterloo Ontario
I don't think that's true at all.. there are very few goalies that can maintain solid SV% numbers with bad teams. Miller is one that I can recall off the top of my head but he's about as good as it gets.

You look at goalies like Scrivens and Fasth who have great stats with great teams and have seen their stats plummet since joining Edmonton

Edit: Foot in mouth on Scrivens... that surprises me that his stats are still that high

As was pointed out Fasth's number have also been good. And since Scriven's first win on Jan 26 the Oilers are 9-4-3. Great goaltending can hide a lot of team failings. Bad goaltending, such as what the Oilers received over the first 20 games or so can make a mediocre team look down right awful.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
Just jumping back to answer this

As far as special teams are concerned, is PDO inclusive of special teams (or is it even strength only)?

Technically it could be in all situations, but when it's usually talked about people refer to even strength or even strength close situations. Unsurprisingly, teams have higher PDOs when on the PP than the PK, so teams that spend a larger percentage of time up a man as opposed to down will have higher overall PDO (which is one of the reasons the all situation PDO doesn't mean as much).

Anyway, moving on from PDO because I could spend far too much time on it and it's really a topic for another thread.

I wonder how much of that is from situational differences - even strength vs. power play vs. shorthanded. I agree that shot quality pervades even beyond that distinction; I've been trying to tease it out of my own goalie data for some time now (it's a challenge).

If teams have a consistent way to improve save percentage, then that would clearly counter the tendency of PDO towards 1000.

This is one of the big reasons I was excited for the shot quality project from Chris Boyle and why I reached out to him to see if his data was public. Unfortunately it wasn't, although he did say "not at this point" as opposed to "no", so it's possible he'll eventually release it.

Intuitively, we know that certain shots are harder to stop than others, the problem is statistically quantifying that effect. Under the standard corsi/fenwick model, these effects are ignored under the guise that over large sample sizes the effects will disappear. In other words, the claim is that shot quality, although it exists, isn't controllable in a meaningful sense, but is rather a fluctuating thing based on luck inside of a game.

Although even the most ardent of supporters of corsi/fenwick will agree that games like MA Fleury had on Sunday (where the stats say he was terrible, but the eye test said he was actually great and the team was hilariously bad in front of him) will happen from time to time, a team can't really control them enough to matter in the statistical sense.

That's what we're really trying to dig into in this thread. Is that viewpoint correct? Or is the claim that the Leafs (among others) have "figured out" a way to maintain higher quality shots than their opponents (through either skill or system) correct?

It's worth noting along those lines that we need to be speaking the same language. Go beyond whether one side is right or wrong about the fate of the Leafs in the standings and instead focus on what's actually happening and how it relates to the numbers, not the over reaching claims of some posters. ie. If one poster says "corsi says the Leafs should regress" and then the Leafs play 7 shootout games in a stretch of 13, winning 5 of those shootouts (like they did earlier), you could easily say "hah you were wrong". However the problem is that doesn't actually advance anything. The underlying claim, that the Leafs were outperforming their corsi, remains addressed. The Leafs found a way to earn points in the standings without beating a team in the "usual" way.

Now, that's not nothing, however if we're discussing corsi (as the thread topic suggests) then shootouts are irrelevant so we're comparing apples (performance in "corsi situations") with oranges (overall team record). Claiming that the Leafs winning a shootout means they proved corsi wrong, without actually paying attention to underlying numbers, is just as simplistic as saying that corsi dictates they're likely to have a worse record than they do. Both are simplifications and generalizations. The typical Corsi model does not imply the Leafs overall record will fall, it implies that the record in corsi situations will fall. Similarly winning a shootout doesn't mean corsi is wrong, just that the Leafs were able to win outside of corsi.

Hopefully we're all on the same page after that. So now we can look at corsi specific situations. More specifically the most relevant are corsi/fenwick during even strength and during 5on5 close games (all tracked on extraskater.com).

Earlier in the year I compiled 5 and 10 game rolling averages for Goals for %, Shots for %, Fenwick for %, and Corsi for % for the Leafs to look for some trends. I just updated them and there's some things worth noting.

ULcopqJ.png


That's the 5v5close, 10 game rolling average, through the game on 3/16 against the Caps. The averages are weighted based on time spent at 5v5close (ie against the Caps there was only 12 minutes of 5v5close play, compared to 48 in the Rangers OT game in 3/05).

As you can see, shots, fenwick and corsi all track pretty close to each other, there's no meaningful different at any time in the season. However goals has a massive swing. At the beginning of the season the Leafs had a crazy goals for rate during close games, approaching 80% for one 10 game stretch and basically at or above 60% for 20 straight games.

Then, around the 25-30 game mark their luck started to change and the goals for starts to fade back down to near where corsi and fenwick are. That's where the "regression" really happened. During that time is also when the Leafs went on the stretch of pushing a ton of games into the SO and winning many of those, which is why the overall record doesn't match the "corsi close" record.

Recently the Leafs goals for % has again increased which begs the question: Why? Is this random luck fluctuations, or is this driven by something (players returning from injury?) Unfortunately I don't have enough data to determine this :(
 

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
Just jumping back to answer this



Technically it could be in all situations, but when it's usually talked about people refer to even strength or even strength close situations. Unsurprisingly, teams have higher PDOs when on the PP than the PK, so teams that spend a larger percentage of time up a man as opposed to down will have higher overall PDO (which is one of the reasons the all situation PDO doesn't mean as much).

Anyway, moving on from PDO because I could spend far too much time on it and it's really a topic for another thread.



This is one of the big reasons I was excited for the shot quality project from Chris Boyle and why I reached out to him to see if his data was public. Unfortunately it wasn't, although he did say "not at this point" as opposed to "no", so it's possible he'll eventually release it.

Intuitively, we know that certain shots are harder to stop than others, the problem is statistically quantifying that effect. Under the standard corsi/fenwick model, these effects are ignored under the guise that over large sample sizes the effects will disappear. In other words, the claim is that shot quality, although it exists, isn't controllable in a meaningful sense, but is rather a fluctuating thing based on luck inside of a game.

Although even the most ardent of supporters of corsi/fenwick will agree that games like MA Fleury had on Sunday (where the stats say he was terrible, but the eye test said he was actually great and the team was hilariously bad in front of him) will happen from time to time, a team can't really control them enough to matter in the statistical sense.

That's what we're really trying to dig into in this thread. Is that viewpoint correct? Or is the claim that the Leafs (among others) have "figured out" a way to maintain higher quality shots than their opponents (through either skill or system) correct?

It's worth noting along those lines that we need to be speaking the same language. Go beyond whether one side is right or wrong about the fate of the Leafs in the standings and instead focus on what's actually happening and how it relates to the numbers, not the over reaching claims of some posters. ie. If one poster says "corsi says the Leafs should regress" and then the Leafs play 7 shootout games in a stretch of 13, winning 5 of those shootouts (like they did earlier), you could easily say "hah you were wrong". However the problem is that doesn't actually advance anything. The underlying claim, that the Leafs were outperforming their corsi, remains addressed. The Leafs found a way to earn points in the standings without beating a team in the "usual" way.

Now, that's not nothing, however if we're discussing corsi (as the thread topic suggests) then shootouts are irrelevant so we're comparing apples (performance in "corsi situations") with oranges (overall team record). Claiming that the Leafs winning a shootout means they proved corsi wrong, without actually paying attention to underlying numbers, is just as simplistic as saying that corsi dictates they're likely to have a worse record than they do. Both are simplifications and generalizations. The typical Corsi model does not imply the Leafs overall record will fall, it implies that the record in corsi situations will fall. Similarly winning a shootout doesn't mean corsi is wrong, just that the Leafs were able to win outside of corsi.

Hopefully we're all on the same page after that. So now we can look at corsi specific situations. More specifically the most relevant are corsi/fenwick during even strength and during 5on5 close games (all tracked on extraskater.com).

Earlier in the year I compiled 5 and 10 game rolling averages for Goals for %, Shots for %, Fenwick for %, and Corsi for % for the Leafs to look for some trends. I just updated them and there's some things worth noting.

ULcopqJ.png


That's the 5v5close, 10 game rolling average, through the game on 3/16 against the Caps. The averages are weighted based on time spent at 5v5close (ie against the Caps there was only 12 minutes of 5v5close play, compared to 48 in the Rangers OT game in 3/05).

As you can see, shots, fenwick and corsi all track pretty close to each other, there's no meaningful different at any time in the season. However goals has a massive swing. At the beginning of the season the Leafs had a crazy goals for rate during close games, approaching 80% for one 10 game stretch and basically at or above 60% for 20 straight games.

Then, around the 25-30 game mark their luck started to change and the goals for starts to fade back down to near where corsi and fenwick are. That's where the "regression" really happened. During that time is also when the Leafs went on the stretch of pushing a ton of games into the SO and winning many of those, which is why the overall record doesn't match the "corsi close" record.

Recently the Leafs goals for % has again increased which begs the question: Why? Is this random luck fluctuations, or is this driven by something (players returning from injury?) Unfortunately I don't have enough data to determine this :(

I have even strength shot quality data (based on angle, distance and shot type) at the team level for the last few seasons (2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13).

Having analyzed the data, I can tell you that the claim that shot quality isn't controllable at the team level is definitely not true - the differences between teams are larger than what one would predict based on random chance. It's also repeatable from one half of the year to the other. Both at home and on the road.

That said - the variance between teams isn't all that great.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
34,953
12,226
North Tonawanda, NY
I have even strength shot quality data (based on angle, distance and shot type) at the team level for the last few seasons (2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13).

Having analyzed the data, I can tell you that the claim that shot quality isn't controllable at the team level is definitely not true - the differences between teams are larger than what one would predict based on random chance. It's also repeatable from one half of the year to the other. Both at home and on the road.

That said - the variance between teams isn't all that great.

How do you define shot type? If it just Wrist/Snap/Slap/Tip or does it include additional data such as if it's a rebound, transition shot, one timer, with screen, etc.?

Also, how was the data generated?
 

TieClark

Registered User
Jun 14, 2011
4,112
0
Does anyone have the numbers on the leafs record when they have a good Corsi game? It seems to me every time they should be winning, they don't.
 

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
How do you define shot type? If it just Wrist/Snap/Slap/Tip or does it include additional data such as if it's a rebound, transition shot, one timer, with screen, etc.?

Also, how was the data generated?

1. Shot type = wrist/backhand/tip-in/deflection/snap/slap/wrap-around.

2. Data is from the icetracker at nhl.com.
 

Delicious Dangles*

Guest
There's some bold assumptions in there, specifically that the Leafs over the last 2 years have had a unique combination of elite goaltending, elite shooting and a system that purports to limit scoring chances while not having a meaningful impact on average shot distance.

Bold claims require bold proof.
I don't see how it is a bold claim. In fact, I would consider the bold claim to be the one that goes against the actual results and what we see before us.

The entire top-6 consists of players with a career shooting percentage higher than 10, many significantly higher (all except raymond higher than 11%).

Kessel since breaking out a few years ago has hovered around 12.5%.
JVR since breaking out and joining top lines/roles has hovered around 12.5%.
Raymond over the past 2 years has hovered around 12.5%.
Lupul since joining the Leafs has averaged around 12.5%, and is actually having his worst year as a Leaf in that regard.
Bozak has a career average of 16.5% over 5 seasons, and has hit that mark or higher in the last 3 years.
Kadri has a career average of 14.1%, which is actually being dragged down by the games when he wasn't a full-time NHLer. He has posted higher than that since becoming a mainstay on the team.

They also have a line-up of offensively skilled D, some of which are skilled at goal-scoring.

As for goaltending, a 0.925 this year and a 0.924 last year is historically pretty elite.

As for the system, it is a system that has been talked about by staff, and is clearly evident when watching all the games. It can be frustrating at times for a viewer and can give the impression of failure, because it allows for easier keep-ins due to lack of pressure on the points and sides, but it is largely effective at limiting good chances, or at least spreading the opposing team out enough to provide enough time for Bernier to track it.

I never said that, I said that luck exists in response to your claim that it flat out doesn't.
I still wouldn't call it "luck" in the traditional sense. It is technically within control to varying degrees, which can also be affected by on-ice situations.

NHL players can be EXTREMELY accurate given no outside pressure.

Regardless, claiming that a statistic with terrible correlation magically becomes amazing because half of it is "luck" and thus doesn't matter, is frankly ridiculous.

If there are any of those people in this thread you should respond to them instead of making sweeping generalizations.
I was...

Frankly, if people who support these stats want to bring them more respectability and accuracy, they should be debating against the people who improperly apply them and claim that there is no need for vast improvements, instead of the people who question and poke holes to expose weaknesses.
 

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
Regardless, claiming that a statistic with terrible correlation magically becomes amazing because half of it is "luck" and thus doesn't matter, is frankly ridiculous.

And yet, those with doctorate degrees in mathematics - like Brian MacDonald - or Harvard graduates who develop patents in the nanotechnology industry for a living - like Eric Tulsky - or electrical engineers who NHL teams hire to do consulting work - like Gabriel Desjardins - would disagree with you unequivocally on this point.
 
Last edited:

Delicious Dangles*

Guest
Then, around the 25-30 game mark their luck started to change and the goals for starts to fade back down to near where corsi and fenwick are. That's where the "regression" really happened. During that time is also when the Leafs went on the stretch of pushing a ton of games into the SO and winning many of those, which is why the overall record doesn't match the "corsi close" record.

Recently the Leafs goals for % has again increased which begs the question: Why? Is this random luck fluctuations, or is this driven by something (players returning from injury?) Unfortunately I don't have enough data to determine this :(
We know why though. The timing makes it very obvious. An incredibly tough stretch of games (hardest all year, and probably in recent memory), mixed with a ton of simultaneous injuries/suspensions/absences for personal reasons that affected every line. I'm sure the cameras invading their personal and work environments for a month+ didn't help much either.

I don't understand how people can look at the circumstances and not understand why goals dropped.

In fact, a lot of fluctuations in this league can probably be explained by the circumstances of the respective teams at those points.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,442
19,575
Waterloo Ontario
And yet, those with doctorate degrees in mathematics - like Brian MacDonald - or Harvard graduates who develop patents in the nanotechnology industry for a living - like Eric Tulsky - or electrical engineers who NHL teams hire to do consulting work - like Gabriel Desjardins - would disagree with you unequivocally on this point.

I am going to bet I could find at least one person with a doctorate in mathematics who would agree with the main premise of that post. :D

Though to be honest I am not so sure that any of the people you name would disagree unequivocally.
 
Last edited:

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
I am going to bet I could find at least one person with a doctorate in mathematics who would agree with the main premise of that post. :D

Though to be honest I am not so sure that any of the people you name would disagree unequivocally.

The assertion that the role of binomial variance is invoked solely or primarily to excuse the imperfect correlation between predictive metrics and future results is laughable - to the point where no reasonable person would take the assertion - or the person making the assertion - seriously.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->