Jesus. Didn't read anything I wrote, practically afraid of learning. How about on most given nights any player with a 0 in +/- tells you next to nothing? I don't know who you talk to on a daily basis who uses Corsi as the penultimate statistic for evaluating a hockey player, but nobody here is arguing for that. In fact, I specifically said that using it to compare players across the league is silly and basic, lacking all appropriate context. No, I would not say that Corsi is, by itself, a Player Efficiency Rating. But if I have two or three players on my team competing for roster spots, I'd sooner look there than plus friggin' minus.
As usual, you're arguing against statistics in a vacuum when nobody uses them that way but you. The stat is a joke because your ability to interpret it is questionable.Maybe the Wings did have better Corsi, I'm not inclined to look either, but that's also a thing that can happen when only one team has anything to play for in the third period. To top it off, Capitals shooters had a few lucky bounces and Detroit's first goaltender was swimming. That sure sounds like a recipe for a Corsi-negative win to me.