Post-Game Talk: Leafs Kept Calm, Proved Corsi Wrong & Still #1 in the Atlantic

Status
Not open for further replies.

Disgruntled Observer*

Guest
Things I don't like about corsi.

-It judges all shots taken as equal. Just a number. A weak shot from a terrible angle is equal to a great shot 10 ft outside the net.

-Someone earlier in this thread said that the Leafs had 13 shots from <20ft while the Predators only had 5. That means that over half of our shots had a better chance of creating something...only 5 of 36 Predator shots were possibly harmful.

-It can't possibly be judged accurately because the optics of a game changes as the score changes. If we're defending a 2 goal lead...most teams like to keep it clean in front of their net, let teams take low key shots and dump the puck whenever they get it and it repeats again and again..

In this case, your corsi will be negative even though you're just defending your lead and letting the time run out.

Don't even get me started on individual corsi stats for and against, those are just bogus. Seguin went from ~60% with the Bruins to about 45% with Dallas at the moment. The team you play for has a big impact on how good those advanced stats are.

I don't think Corsi is flawless by any means. But it's still a great means to assess your teams strengths and weaknesses, and what might come back to haunt you over a long enough timeline.

When you nitpick one specific stat analysis alone (like number of shots not including quality shots) I agree that flaws stick out.
But Corsi as the entire sum of it's parts is a pretty handy tool.

Leaf fans are down on it right now, because the leafs currently have a bad Corsi rating.
But I think the leafs will likely improve at those aspects of the game, and then I'm certain most leaf fans will magically start to value Corsi ratings.
 

ECanuck

Registered User
Jan 7, 2010
5,805
1,020
Hamilton
If it is using averages then there are a lot of things that can be misrepresented. It would work great if you had 23 identical players. Then you would have better precision and accuracy. Otherwise, the numbers can be out to lunch on specific things.
 
Last edited:

Disgruntled Observer*

Guest
If it is using averages than there are a lot of things that can be misrepresented. It would work great if you had 23 identical players. Then you would have better precision and accuracy. Otherwise, the numbers can be out to lunch on specific things.

Talent in the nhl is so saturated that over a long enough timeline I think puck possession, number of shots, etc. are largely the deciding factors on winning and losing.
Every team has good passers, talented snipers, etc. Sure... some a little better than others. But I don't think enough to compensate for having low overall Corsi stats. Again, this only works over a long timeline.
 

ECanuck

Registered User
Jan 7, 2010
5,805
1,020
Hamilton
Talent in the nhl is so saturated that over a long enough timeline I think puck possession, number of shots, etc. are largely the deciding factors on winning and losing.
Every team has good passers, talented snipers, etc. Sure... some a little better than others. But I don't think enough to compensate for having low overall Corsi stats. Again, this only works over a long timeline.

It doesn't take into account that a great puck possession team could just have an average goaltender.

One less sniper than 15 teams.

Slow footed defense that gives up 2 on 1's once they lose the puck along the boards.

There are many other variables you can add.
 

TheKule

Registered User
Jun 3, 2011
1,897
752
I really really dislike that people refer to Corsi and Fenwick, and PDO as 'advanced stats'. There's nothing advanced about them, it's just counting shots, or comparing shooting percentages. Sabr nerds laugh at these guys trying to use such a simplistic metric as a predictive tool.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,520
Talent in the nhl is so saturated that over a long enough timeline I think puck possession, number of shots, etc. are largely the deciding factors on winning and losing.
Every team has good passers, talented snipers, etc. Sure... some a little better than others. But I don't think enough to compensate for having low overall Corsi stats. Again, this only works over a long timeline.

CORSI is a gross generalization of all the on ice variables and individual skills and team strategies that makes the sport worth watching.

Shots and puck possession kind of correlate in theory, but there's lots of different kinds of possession. The New York Rangers used to like the dump and chase cycle game and waste crap tons of energy trying to curl out, putting low percentage shots on net and going for rebounds and all that stuff. The Toronto Maple Leafs turned the puck over a lot, but also had the ability to recover it, have a defenseman spring the transition with a one touch pass to a streaking winger for an odd man rush.

One team is spamming, the other is being opportunistic. 161 Phil Kessel shots on goal aren't the same as 144 Ryan Callahan shots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->