Why is this so hard to believe?
Not just that but the Leafs had some of the worst special teams in the league during that year and conceded the 1st goal the most of any team in the league.
Funny how the whole world proclaimed the Leafs team terrible, and Burke and Wilson idiots for years, when in reality, they were apparently both geniuses and the Leafs were just some of the most unlucky group of players, consistently from year to year, in the history of the NHL.
And now, they're just one of the luckiest teams in the history of the NHL. Funny how that works.
Wait, what's that? Special teams? 1st-goal scored statistics?
You mean we CAN'T just ignore all the outside factors that influence results, and judge solely on corsi and shot-based statistics?
What a surprise.
And now, they're just one of the luckiest teams in the history of the NHL. Funny how that works.
Wait, what's that? Special teams? 1st-goal scored statistics?
You mean we CAN'T just ignore all the outside factors that influence results, and judge solely on corsi and shot-based statistics?
What a surprise.
So the 48 games last year plus the first 10 this year weren't a large enough sample but the 1 game last night was... come on folks.
Control Denied
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2011
- 278
- 0
Corsi doesnt lie. The leafs are a terrible hockey team.
They will be very lucky if they make the playoffs.
This is exactly the same thing that happened to the Rangers a couple of years ago, when everyone were talking about how good they were, while in reality they were at best a borderline playoff team.
Same with Minnesota when they got of to a hot start before they inevitabely ran out of luck.
They will be very lucky if they make the playoffs.
This is exactly the same thing that happened to the Rangers a couple of years ago, when everyone were talking about how good they were, while in reality they were at best a borderline playoff team.
Same with Minnesota when they got of to a hot start before they inevitabely ran out of luck.
THIS is the problem so many have with Advanced Statistics. It's not the curiosity into the numbers. It's the countless people that take them as facts because they don't understand what the numbers actually mean.
Control Denied
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2011
- 278
- 0
Leafs being a crappy corsi/fenwick team means that they are getting outshot night in and night out. Its very simple. Teams that get outshot on a regular basis are not good hockey teams and lose more often than not.
So, unless you want to believe in the magical theory (already patented by the 11-12 NYR fans) that the leafs have found a way to shoot better than other teams, they are eventually going to regress back to where they belong.
So, unless you want to believe in the magical theory (already patented by the 11-12 NYR fans) that the leafs have found a way to shoot better than other teams, they are eventually going to regress back to where they belong.
That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. As mentioned earlier, shot quality means far more than shot quantity. If you go back and look at some of the links posted you'll see how the Leafs collapse and do allow a ton of shots, but all from the outside of the "slot" whereas they refuse to simply shoot unless they have what they deem a quality shot.
I don't think this is necessarily what they plan on paper before the game but it's very evident when you watch the games. There was a 4 on 2 last night where the Leafs didn't even get a shot because they kept passing trying to find the prime shot. Maybe that's not the greatest idea but it's what they're doing.
Secondly, the Corsi completely ignores their great special teams play which is top 10 in both PP and PK. That alone can change the outcome of games on a semi-regular basis.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
I think that has a much bigger impact on the Leafs success since last season then that stupid they keep shots on the outside and don't shoot unless it's a good shot crap, anyone who watches the leafs semi-constantly knows that's not true.
Control Denied
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2011
- 278
- 0
You are just seeing what you want to see. You see the leafs have a great scoring opportunity and you use that to verify your "theory" and forget about all the times their opponents have the same opportunity.
The "only allow bad shots" theory has been used many times before by other fans when their team got outshot but still won and it was bs back then and it is still bs now.
The "only allow bad shots" theory has been used many times before by other fans when their team got outshot but still won and it was bs back then and it is still bs now.
If you watch the leafs regularly you'd know it's true. They definitely collapse and as such teams cannot get shots in the slot since all 5 guys are there. It's also definitely true they don't just shoot like most teams do and that is what is really apparent... they pass too much perhaps actually trying to find that prime chance but it lowers shots and increases SH%.
Not at all... I'm not hoping to see good and thus seeing good. I'm judging the team based off of what I see, good or bad. They have played terribly for most of the year and won so in that sense they are over achieving. But it's not because of the shots... they most certainly do collapse all 5 guys into the middle of the ice which results in many shots, but the vast majority outside and they most certainly do hold onto the puck rather than shoot unless they have prime scoring chances which is why the SH% is so high compared to other teams.
There are game sheets with shot locations that show that this is indeed happening, very clearly. They have been posted plenty of times, and are available for all to see.
Control Denied
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2011
- 278
- 0
You think some game sheets are going to prove anything one way or the other?
You guys are suffering from confirmation bias. But whatever, youll see that im right eventually.
You guys are suffering from confirmation bias. But whatever, youll see that im right eventually.
Listen I'm very clearly a leaf fan, but I call it how I see it. I posted how terrible Carl Gunnarsson was (and still is) when all the Leaf fans were trying to argue he was a great shut down defenceman. I argued Reimer was a legitimate #1 when everyone argued he wasn't. I don't just go along with what everyone else says and I don't love every leaf just because they're leafs.
The game sheets prove where the shots are being taken from... which is the entire argument here. I'm not sure how you can dispute it... what you can dispute is whether it matters that much but I think that'd be pretty foolish to do so.
And why exactly wouldn't an unbiased report showing the location of every shot be a good way to study shot locations?
King Mapes
Sub to My YouTube Blocks_4_days
Good point. This season they have the 6th best PK (0.3 % behind 4th) and 5th best power play. So the year they regularly outshot people and lost (going against the odds of Corsi) they had lousy special teams. This season being 7-4-0 despite being outshot regularly (going against Corsi) they have great special teams. Coincidence?
Control Denied
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2011
- 278
- 0
Because theres too much randomness involved. You would need a really large sample before you could draw any conclusions on whether the leafs are shooting better than their opponents.
No you wouldn't... the sample is the exact same as the sample to indicate the Corsi. If the sample is large enough for the Corsi, the sample is large enough for the shot location chart. Just because there isn't a calculation to determine a Corsi-like number from the location chart doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything... this is exactly what I mean when I say "people that don't understand what the numbers actually mean".
It's not like it's 1 game sheet. It's a ton of them, as far back as corsi has been telling us we're bad, that show very consistent patterns.
What I gather for this is you have no real argument against it because you don't fully understand what the stats mean. Instead you go off of trends others have written articles about and when the trends are questioned, post more articles others have written as arguments for you.
Control Denied
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2011
- 278
- 0
No, I post those articles because they are better than me at explaining why shot quality doesnt exist.
Well, as they always say, if you can't properly explain something to somebody else, it is likely because you don't fully understand it yourself.
But they aren't because neither of them addressed the actual shot charts... one uses goalie sv% which is a very odd stat to use but I assume was used because it's easier to use a number easily available than a chart for every single game. The second one doesn't really address anything at all actually so I'm not even sure you even read it.
Control Denied
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2011
- 278
- 0
shot charts: tons of variance
corsi: less variance
less variance = better when making statements on whether a team sucks or not.
I give up now, time to watch the leafs get outshot 45-10 but win 3-1.
corsi: less variance
less variance = better when making statements on whether a team sucks or not.
I give up now, time to watch the leafs get outshot 45-10 but win 3-1.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Which of these forward prospects would you include in a trade?
- Latest: HogtownSabresfan
