Corsica Hockey algorithmic Canuck player ratings

[PuckMunchkin]

So the moral of the story here is that....

1) Arizona has actually only been rebuilding for two years.

2) Most teams that successfully rebuild do it in significantly less time than 4 years.

3) A mysterious parting of the ways from Advanced Analytics as opposed to letting Gerard Gallant go had far more to do with Florida flatlining.

LOL.

Cool story.

I dont get it. Do you think you made good points here? Or are you laughing at your self or what is going on here?

 

[Peter10]

I don’t know about now, but they definitely were for a sizeable stretch there. Florida’s owners specifically moved out certain players and kept certain players based purely on the analytics.

Florida was for about a year between the Tallon reigns. Great moves were made during that time, Marchessault, Smith and getting rid of Gudbranson, Kulikov. Tallon pretty much killed it again after the one injury filled season.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Fair enough points everyone, and I can admit that my knowledge of the Panthers and Coyotes’ situations are a little weak, but what are we really arguing about here?

In my initial post in this thread, I claimed that Advanced Analytics are a very useful tool, but that it wasn’t the end all and be all (ie Biff Tannen’s Sports Almanac).

There’s more to being a good GM than just being able to read a spreadsheet, and there’s more to being a good player than just what someone’s iCorsi or overall Advanced Analytics is. Whether ‘stats guys’ want to ad it this or not, intangibles are a thing. Deployment is a thing as well (either that or Jay Beagle literally is one of the worst players in the NHL.....lol!).

I can concede the fact that my understanding of Florida’s situation (and Arizona’s) is not comprehensive, but I still think most people on here are placing a little too much stock on the analytics. Or maybe Troy Stecher is a better defenseman than Chris Tanev, lol.

 

[Peter10]

Fair enough points everyone, and I can admit that my knowledge of the Panthers and Coyotes’ situations are a little weak, but what are we really arguing about here?

In my initial post in this thread, I claimed that Advanced Analytics are a very useful tool, but that it wasn’t the end all and be all (ie Biff Tannen’s Sports Almanac).

There’s more to being a good GM than just being able to read a spreadsheet, and there’s more to being a good player than just what someone’s iCorsi or overall Advanced Analytics is. Whether ‘stats guys’ want to ad it this or not, intangibles are a thing. Deployment is a thing as well (either that or Jay Beagle literally is one of the worst players in the NHL.....lol!).

I can concede the fact that my understanding of Florida’s situation (and Arizona’s) is not comprehensive, but I still think most people on here are placing a little too much stock on the analytics. Or maybe Troy Stecher is a better defenseman than Chris Tanev, lol.

Did anyone say, analytics is the only way to go? Because it is not, you should not use it exclusively to make your decisions but you should use it extensively to validate your opinions.

 

[Intangibos]

How well does this take into account quality of linemates? Is Hutton's analytics hurt by Gudbranson or is he actually bad? Is Tanev that poor despite being with Edler? Is Stetcher an absolute monster who puts up those numbers playing with f***ing Pouliot? I need answers!

Also, what are the sample sizes? Does this include previous seasons for guys like Hutton or Roussel who have picked it up this year?

 

[Horse McHindu]

Did anyone say, analytics is the only way to go? Because it is not, you should not use it exclusively to make your decisions but you should use it extensively to validate your opinions.

Which is pretty much what I said in my initial post. I may have erroneously cited Florida as a team that was heavily reliant on Advanced Analytics and have stagnated as a result, but outside of that, I do maintain that analytics are useful tools.....just as long as they are a part of a more comprehensive analysis that includes deployment, intangibles, and the trusted old eyes of a coach and a GM that has a wealth of experience.

 

[clunk]

@RonningMorrisonBooth

 

[Blue and Green]

Which is pretty much what I said in my initial post. I may have erroneously cited Florida as a team that was heavily reliant on Advanced Analytics and have stagnated as a result, but outside of that, I do maintain that analytics are useful tools.....just as long as they are a part of a more comprehensive analysis that includes deployment, intangibles, and the trusted old eyes of a coach and a GM that has a wealth of experience.

Cut-and-paste from first thread post: "The idea is not to suggest that these are the gospel but rather to challenge the assumptions that each of us has about the players."

 

[Blue and Green]

How well does this take into account quality of linemates? Is Hutton's analytics hurt by Gudbranson or is he actually bad? Is Tanev that poor despite being with Edler? Is Stetcher an absolute monster who puts up those numbers playing with ****ing Pouliot? I need answers!

Also, what are the sample sizes? Does this include previous seasons for guys like Hutton or Roussel who have picked it up this year?

As per initial post, the ratings are not based only on this season. They explain that Game Score, one of their main factors in measuring players, is incorporated as a recency-weighted measurement of the past 120 games.

The ratings are proprietary so they aren't going to divulge all of the algorithmic details. You can get a basic summary of the rationale here:

NHL Player Ratings Explained - Corsica Hockey

 

[ErrantShepherd]

As per initial post, the ratings are not based only on this season. They explain that Game Score, one of their main factors in measuring players, is incorporated as a recency-weighted measurement of the past 120 games.

The ratings are proprietary so they aren't going to divulge all of the algorithmic details. You can get a basic summary of the rationale here:

NHL Player Ratings Explained - Corsica Hockey

Their stacking method seems interesting, but it's still hard to judge the value of the ratings provided without more information provided. Even if their particular algorithms are private we could still get a better sense of this with some basic info? But hey, at least these ratings provide a discussion point.

As an aside, Corsicahockey makes mention in their example of WAR and a few models of that recently had Pettersson near the very top of the league, but then didn't have McDavid even in their top 20.

Elias Pettersson is a WAR hero

 

[Blue and Green]

Their stacking method seems interesting, but it's still hard to judge the value of the ratings provided without more information provided. Even if their particular algorithms are private we could still get a better sense of this with some basic info? But hey, at least these ratings provide a discussion point.

As an aside, Corsicahockey makes mention in their example of WAR and a few models of that recently had Pettersson near the very top of the league, but then didn't have McDavid even in their top 20.

Elias Pettersson is a WAR hero

Corsica's full player ratings, however, have McDavid at the top of the heap.

No single method or rating is going to be totally accurate. But for one piece of data, these ratings on the whole do a good job as a starting point. Keep in mind, too, that they aren't static, and that the difference between a lot of players isn't really that much so the rankings will change somewhat from week to week.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

I separated them into forwards and defencemen, showing the ranking within the appropriate group. I've also divided them into tiers of 31 so you could get an idea of where a player would rate approximately on an average team-- e.g., (5) indicates 5th forwards or 5th defencemen.

The idea is not to suggest that these are the gospel but rather to challenge the assumptions that each of us has about the players.

Forwards (out of 451):
Boeser 24 (1)
Pettersson 41 (2) Continues to rise as the sample size increases
Horvat 105 (4)
Baertschi 131 (5)
Leivo 164 (6)
Eriksson 239 (8)
Granlund 259 (9)
Sutter 319 (11)
Virtanen 336 (11)
Roussel 344 (12)
Goldobin 386 (13)
Motte 412 (14)
Schaller 426 (14)
Beagle 440 (14)

Defencemen (out of 245):
Edler 47 (2)
Stecher 100 (4)
Tanev 152 (5)
Hutton 176 (6)
Biega 181 (6)
Pouliot 182 (6)
Gudbranson 242 (8)

Markstrom is rated 37th of 71 goalies.

So, I guess if we were to set up the roster based on these rankings...

Forwards
Line 1: Boeser 24 (1) - Pettersson 41 (2) - [1st line winger] (3)
Line 2: Horvat 105 (4) - Baertschi 131 (5) - Leivo 164 (6)
Line 3: [3rd line center] (7) - Eriksson 239 (8) - Granlund 259 (9)
Line 4:
[4th line center] (10)/Sutter 319 (11) - Virtanen 336 (11) - Roussel 344 (12)
Extras:
Goldobin 386 (13) - Motte 412 (14)/Schaller 426 (14)/Beagle 440 (14)

Defense
1st Pair: [1st D] (1) - Edler 47 (2)
2nd Pair: [3rd D] (3) - Stecher (4)
3rd Pair: Tanev 152 (5) - Hutton 176 (6)
Extras:
Biega 181 (6)/Pouliot 182 (6) - Gudbranson 242 (8)

Notes
Forwards
>Boeser seems high? As does Leivo maybe? Granlund... idk, personal bias says high?
>Are our low end guys, even Virtanen and Goldobin really this low?

Defense
>Edler seems accurate
>Is Stecher really that good?
>Tanev and Hutton feel low
>Rest seem about right

 

[bossram]

The Corsica rankings seem fairly reasonable IMO. Baertschi is higher than I would have thought, but I think Leivo is generally underrated and the ranking seems to correct that a bit.

Stecher > Tanev is also probably true if you're weighing recent results quite heavily.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

So, I guess if we were to set up the roster based on these rankings...

Forwards
Line 1: Boeser 24 (1) - Pettersson 41 (2) - [1st line winger] (3)
Line 2: Horvat 105 (5) - Baertschi 131 (5) - Leivo 164 (6)
Line 3: [3rd line center] (7) - Eriksson 239 (8) - Granlund 259 (9)
Line 4:
[4th line center] (10)/Sutter 319 (11) - Virtanen 336 (11) - Roussel 344 (12)
Extras:
Goldobin 386 (13) - Motte 412 (14)/Schaller 426 (14)/Beagle 440 (14)

Defense
1st Pair: [1st D] (1) - Edler 47 (2)
2nd Pair: [3rd D] (3) - Stecher (4)
3rd Pair: Tanev 152 (5) - Hutton 176 (6)
Extras:
Biega 181 (6)/Pouliot 182 (6) - Gudbranson 242 (8)

Notes
Forwards
>Boeser seems high? As does Leivo maybe? Granlund... idk, personal bias says high?
>Are our low end guys, even Virtanen and Goldobin really this low?

Defense
>Edler seems accurate
>Is Stecher really that good?
>Tanev and Hutton feel low
>Rest seem about right

For more on this...
Plugging in our current players
Forwards
Line 1: Boeser 24 (1) - Pettersson 41 (2) - Baertschi 131 (5)
Line 2: Eriksson 239 (8) - Horvat 105 (4) - Leivo 164 (6)
Line 3: Granlund 259 (9) - Sutter 319 (11) - Virtanen 336 (11)
Line 4: Roussel 344 (12) - Beagle 440 (14) - Motte 412 (14)
Extras:
Goldobin 386 (13) - Schaller 426 (14)

Defense
1st Pair: Edler 47 (2) - Stecher (4)
2nd Pair: Hutton 176 (6) - Tanev 152 (5)
3rd Pair: Pouliot 182 (6) - Biega 181 (6)
Extras:
Gudbranson 242 (8)

Notes
>Defense, seems about right in pairings...
>Forwards, it feels wrong not to have Goldobin in. But based on these rankings he would go in the 4th line but all three players there seem better in an energy/defense based role. Slotting in the centers makes things messier, as it should technically be Roussel, Goldobin, Motte... but Beagle as C took precedence.

This tool is interesting for potentially identifying holes in the roster, for sure.

 

[Cogburn]

I think the ratings of our lesser guys would go up if our overall team was performing better.

A top line winger, a third line center, a top D and a second pairing D plus some roster spackle.

I can say I've seen worse Canucks teams with more missing.

 

[Fatass]

Hockey is all about fancy stats and algorithms .

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Hockey is all about fancy stats and algorithms .

It can be daunting at first.

This will help you understand it a bit:

An advanced stat primer: Understanding basic hockey metrics

 

[ErrantShepherd]

I think the ratings of our lesser guys would go up if our overall team was performing better.

A top line winger, a third line center, a top D and a second pairing D plus some roster spackle.

I can say I've seen worse Canucks teams with more missing.

I would say from what we've seen this season at least, those 4 roster upgrades are about what the team would need to be an actual contending team. Basically a healthy current roster, along with an actual first line winger for 40/6, a third line center who isn't a black hole offensively and not constantly injured so that he doesn't do the defense great either, an actual 1D man (good luck) and yeah a 2nd pairing caliber player.

Arguably though yeah our lesser guys have more to give, at least in theory. Then from within we also slot in Gaudette in that 3rd line center role, Hughes/Hutton(who I think is better than his rating here) in that 2nd pairing role and that covers the basic needs.

A 1st line winger and 1D are always going to be a challenge to find though. Only thing close to those out there in the UFA market seem to be Panarin or Stone for Winger and Karlsson for 1D... but I don't think realistically we get any of them. Even if we did the cap hit would be ridiculous.

 

[Cogburn]

I would say from what we've seen this season at least, those 4 roster upgrades are about what the team would need to be an actual contending team. Basically a healthy current roster, along with an actual first line winger for 40/6, a third line center who isn't a black hole offensively and not constantly injured so that he doesn't do the defense great either, an actual 1D man (good luck) and yeah a 2nd pairing caliber player.

Arguably though yeah our lesser guys have more to give, at least in theory. Then from within we also slot in Gaudette in that 3rd line center role, Hughes/Hutton(who I think is better than his rating here) in that 2nd pairing role and that covers the basic needs.

A 1st line winger and 1D are always going to be a challenge to find though. Only thing close to those out there in the UFA market seem to be Panarin or Stone for Winger and Karlsson for 1D... but I don't think realistically we get any of them. Even if we did the cap hit would be ridiculous.

I don't think it's an overly daunting task, but a smart trade or two to fill the forward ranks and the second pairing D, and Hughes hitting his ceiling and we're not far off what our needs are.

Internally, Gaudette, Dahlen, Juolevi/Woo and Hughes could fill those vacancies in the next few years, but I'd feel better lifting a player or two from a bottom feeder by trade or free agency in the mean time. Say, and don't freak out here, Saad, Anisimov and Murphy from Chicago if it didn't involve major futures. I don't know what it would cost, and all are "poor man's...." when compared to the archetype for a top line winger, third line center and second pairing D, but it's better than who were using now.

 

[Blue and Green]

Time for an update as of Feb 27. Ratings aren't based entirely on this season. (Roussel has moved up quite a bit, Eriksson has fallen noticeably.)

Forwards out of 447 (and their tiers):

Boeser 24 (1)
Pettersson 48 (2)
Horvat 90 (3)
Baertschi 156 (6)
Leivo 212 (7)
Roussel 223 (8)
Gaudette 235 (8)
Pearson 269 (9)
Virtanen 287 (10)
Granlund 305 (10)
Sutter 309 (10)
Spooner 340 (11)
Eriksson 370 (12)
Schaller 414 (14)
Motte 429 (14)
Beagle 445 (14)

Defencemen out of 246:

Edler 50 (2)
Stecher 95 (4)
Biega 145 (5)
Tanev 163 (6)
Hutton 172 (6)
Pouliot 189 (7)
Schenn 242 (8)

Markstrom now 32nd among goalies.

 

[Blue and Green]

End of season, one last update. Remember these are based primarily but not entirely on this season's play. And, I've seen rankings rise/fall by 10% in one game; there's not a huge difference between a lot of players. But it gives a reasonable general idea of the analytical view of a player, and a very good one of the team as a whole-- which, of course, is not flattering to the current roster as a group.

I didn't include rankings of guys who have only played a handful of games in the NHL (Demko, Sautner, Brisebois).

Forwards out of 459 (and their "tier"):

Boeser 33 (2)
Horvat 82 (3)
Pettersson 111 (4)
Pearson 134 (5)
Baertschi 157 (5)
Leivo 179 (6)
Roussel 260 (9)
Sutter 307 (10)
Virtanen 314 (11)
Eriksson 316 (11)
Schaller 318 (11)
Granlund 335 (11)
Motte 384 (13)
Goldobin 386 (13)
Spooner 402 (13)
Gaudette 421 (14)
Beagle 451 (14)

Defenceman out of 258:

Edler 36 (2)
Stecher 91 (3)
Tanev 157 (6)
Biega 171 (6)
Pouliot 201 (7)
Hutton 212 (7)
Schenn 251 (8)

Markstrom 28th among goalies (was around 40th prior to this season)

 

[Hockeyphysio]

End of season, one last update. Remember these are based primarily but not entirely on this season's play. And, I've seen rankings rise/fall by 10% in one game; there's not a huge difference between a lot of players. But it gives a reasonable general idea of the analytical view of a player, and a very good one of the team as a whole-- which, of course, is not flattering to the current roster as a group.

I didn't include rankings of guys who have only played a handful of games in the NHL (Demko, Sautner, Brisebois).

Forwards out of 459 (and their "tier"):

Boeser 33 (2)
Horvat 82 (3)
Pettersson 111 (4)
Pearson 134 (5)
Baertschi 157 (5)
Leivo 179 (6)
Roussel 260 (9)
Sutter 307 (10)
Virtanen 314 (11)
Eriksson 316 (11)
Schaller 318 (11)
Granlund 335 (11)
Motte 384 (13)
Goldobin 386 (13)
Spooner 402 (13)
Gaudette 421 (14)
Beagle 451 (14)

Defenceman out of 258:

Edler 36 (2)
Stecher 91 (3)
Tanev 157 (6)
Biega 171 (6)
Pouliot 201 (7)
Hutton 212 (7)
Schenn 251 (8)

Markstrom 28th among goalies (was around 40th prior to this season)

That really underscores how bad our team is and how much crap we have to get rid of

 

[NoShowWilly]

very surprised leivo made it as a 6. he gave us linden vey year one output with huge opportunity. played a ton with Pettersson and Boeser.

admittedly haven't looked into the numbers they are using to place guys though.

would be a good summer exercise to assign 1-14 to players(forwards) based on where they should be placed in a lineup and their ability to move up effectively.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I mean it’s interesting, but again.......advanced stats and corsi analysis isn’t Biff Tannen’s Sports almanac......and if it was, then Florida and Arizona would have emerged into contender status a few years back.

Advanced Analytics and Corsi are good indicators of many things, but there’s obviously far more to being a good hockey player.

Florida's analytics team only got to run the team for about 9 months. Dale Tallon has done so much damage to that team it's ridiculous. But there are enough people who think like you that allow these dumb GM's to get away with their incompetence.

 

[Tables of Stats]

End of season, one last update. Remember these are based primarily but not entirely on this season's play. And, I've seen rankings rise/fall by 10% in one game; there's not a huge difference between a lot of players. But it gives a reasonable general idea of the analytical view of a player, and a very good one of the team as a whole-- which, of course, is not flattering to the current roster as a group.

I didn't include rankings of guys who have only played a handful of games in the NHL (Demko, Sautner, Brisebois).

Forwards out of 459 (and their "tier"):

Boeser 33 (2)
Horvat 82 (3)
Pettersson 111 (4)
Pearson 134 (5)
Baertschi 157 (5)
Leivo 179 (6)
Roussel 260 (9)
Sutter 307 (10)
Virtanen 314 (11)
Eriksson 316 (11)
Schaller 318 (11)
Granlund 335 (11)
Motte 384 (13)
Goldobin 386 (13)
Spooner 402 (13)
Gaudette 421 (14)
Beagle 451 (14)

Defenceman out of 258:

Edler 36 (2)
Stecher 91 (3)
Tanev 157 (6)
Biega 171 (6)
Pouliot 201 (7)
Hutton 212 (7)
Schenn 251 (8)

Markstrom 28th among goalies (was around 40th prior to this season)

I borrowed your work here for my year-end end comparison thread. I think it adds to what I was going for without being overwhelming to read at a glance. So thanks for doing the legwork!