I swear half the time when people use advanced stats in arguments they do so because they're not capable of thinking for themselves and have to be told what to think, even though they don't know how to actually apply these numbers in the right way. They look at a "-" in front of a number and immediately think that a player is bad. Pay attention during games and you'll learn something.
Now if you use the stats to backup your argument, that's obviously fine, but if just copy/pasting numbers is all you can do...
The biggest problem with advanced statistics is that no one questions them. No one thinks about them, or tries to add context to them. What makes Corsi better than any other stat? It has a larger sample size than goals/points, but it's still skewed by the people you play with. Corsi in the aggregate of a team context is telling, but for individual players it's not really that helpful.
In baseball, advance stats work for batting, they work for a large amount of pitching statistics, and they kind of work for defensive statistics if you look at say a 5 year sample size. Even then you're only getting an idea and not a clear picture.
When applying them to a fluid game like hockey where guys play at most 1/3 of the game, your stats are going to be more like baseball's defensive statistics. You're adding many variables to the equation, and it complicates things.
If you're going to use advance hockey statistics you have to use several of them and add context.
Corsi isn't the best way to judge a player either I feel. Hockey is a game of 5 vs 5 and not 1 on 5, so if a player is on the ice for more shots against it immediately makes his stats worse? What about the other 4 that were out there with him not only during that shift but the rest of his shifts through the game? I said it before but Corsi I feel is more of a team stat.
I've looked at the Corsi numbers, GF, GA, GF%, etc from the past 3-5 seasons. Almost all are heavily skewed by team, system, and teammates. Even the relative numbers.
Corsi Relative was the best of the group, but even then you had players grouped together with their common linemates, so how do you determine which of them is the driving force? Maybe it's they're work together that makes effective, and not their individual efforts.