Sens Players give take on CORSI
- Thread starter Sun God Nika
- Start date
Hammertyme
Registered User
Lehner isn't happy with his playing time I assume.
As far a Corsi it is really a useless stats basically looking at shots at the net for and against. Doesn't take in to effect shot position on the net(goalie chest vs corner of net) shot initiation point(side vs directly in front).
Plus minus at least tells what happens when you are on the ice as far as what counts the most- goals for and against during even strength play.
Both stats are line(team) reflective. Being that hockey is not an individual sport it asks, how do you play as a collective?
Spezza, Karlsson and Michalyk are about a 100 points but a minus 48. Better chance(indication) of getting scored on than scoring when on the ice.
Shut down guys have a reason for a lower +- as they are playing against top line more often.
I still maintain that when these guys tighten up that this team will flourish.
As far a Corsi it is really a useless stats basically looking at shots at the net for and against. Doesn't take in to effect shot position on the net(goalie chest vs corner of net) shot initiation point(side vs directly in front).
Plus minus at least tells what happens when you are on the ice as far as what counts the most- goals for and against during even strength play.
Both stats are line(team) reflective. Being that hockey is not an individual sport it asks, how do you play as a collective?
Spezza, Karlsson and Michalyk are about a 100 points but a minus 48. Better chance(indication) of getting scored on than scoring when on the ice.
Shut down guys have a reason for a lower +- as they are playing against top line more often.
I still maintain that when these guys tighten up that this team will flourish.
Not useless, it just has to be used in conjunction with other information to have any real value. On its own, its a decent barometer but not conclusive of anything.
Stats not supported by observation and/or other stats are often deceiving.
Hammertyme
Registered User
Useless might be strong. Karlsson is a great offensive player, has a bazillion shots and has a good corsi YET gives up more goals against.
YNWA14
Onbreekbaar
- Dec 29, 2010
- 34,543
- 2,560
I think everyone already knows that Corsi has flaws. It's not a perfect predictor of performance or results. However if you took the top 8 teams in each conference in terms of Corsi For - Corsi Against you'd probably have a very high percentage of teams that make the playoffs and teams that don't.
Qward
Because! That's why!
Guys, the point of the thread was what NHL players think of corsi. Not whether corsi has merits.
YouGotAStuGoing
Registered User
Lehner may not particularly enjoy the Sens TV segments (and come to think of it, he wasn't in the 12 Days of Senators video at all, was he?) but he sure does a lot to endear himself to the fans. On some level, I think we'd all like to be able to openly have that type of contempt for at least one person in our lives.
At the same time, Kassian, Smitty and Condra are so much fun with these things. I'd be perfectly okay with keeping Kassian for the locker room presence and never playing him... but obviously I think he might not be too agreeable to that arrangement.
At the same time, Kassian, Smitty and Condra are so much fun with these things. I'd be perfectly okay with keeping Kassian for the locker room presence and never playing him... but obviously I think he might not be too agreeable to that arrangement.
Qward
Because! That's why!
He was the best part of the 12 days. He was the 10 seconds of Lehner.
I think his humor just comes off that way. Do not read into it too much people.
YouGotAStuGoing
Registered User
Hammertyme
Registered User
So how do we comment on what is going on in someone elses head? You take the topic and extrapolate. OOPS sorry for extrapolating.
Now getting back on the true topic. Gee Kassian is funny!
Corsi is a super simple stat that gets complicated by people trying to just throw out stats and percentages. If people just said it for what it was , shot attempts, it would be much well better received. Graphs, percentages...that stuff gets lost on most people because they want to just watch, not interpret something. It should just be called the SAD stat and that's it.
Hammertyme
Registered User
Very true, really not much better than shots on goal but I guess it does show possession to a small degree. I don't think the players care one bit. Its who wins or loses.
Alfieghetti
inflamed
- Jul 29, 2009
- 842
- 0
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
1% of people in the world have been to College
19% of Canadians (rich country) have been to College
30% of Pro Hockey Players have been to College
HF conclusion = Hockey Players are dumb
19% of Canadians (rich country) have been to College
30% of Pro Hockey Players have been to College
HF conclusion = Hockey Players are dumb
Last edited:
PaGEEsBack
tell a friend
- Aug 6, 2013
- 1,964
- 0
Legend Killer
Registered User
- Nov 15, 2007
- 3,575
- 1
Yeah, but Paul Maclean clearly cares about possession. He talks about it all the time in post-games, though he never actually uses the word corsi.
He'll say something like "we had 60 shots, 10 were blocked, 20 missed, so it was a really good game." That's the literal definition of corsi.
e: Ditto Bobby Ryan, who was on the record a few weeks ago talking about how he judges how good his game was by how many shots (not shots on goal) he takes. Again, that's corsi.
Also, your assertion that corsi is only a slightly better metric than shots on goal is flat out wrong. Sample size alone makes shot attempts a much a better metric than shots on goal to judge teams on a season-by-season basis. See this article for reference. You'll generally see 30-50% more corsi events than shots on goal in a single game, simply because so many shots get blocked or miss the net.
The more shots you direct at the net, the more goals your team is likely to score. Similarly, the more shots you direct at an opponent's net, the less likely it is that the opponent will be directing shots at your net (they can't shoot if they don't have the puck), and the less likely it is that you'll be scored on. While shot quality has an effect, if you look at this article, you'll see that shot attempts and scoring chances track so closely that they're basically interchangeable, meaning that, while shot quality definitely has a strong role to play (see last year's Leafs for example), in general, the more shots you direct at the opponent's net, the more scoring chances you'll have, and the more goals you'll score.
Plus-minus is a much worse measure of relative success than corsi, simply because goals are a much more variable event than shot attempts. You'll generally see less than 5 goals per game. You'll generally see over 60 shot attempts per game, especially if the Sens are playing. While players get penalized in the same way by both metrics - ie. they just step onto the ice and a goal is scored or a shot attempt is taken - the simple fact that there's thousands more corsi events than goals over the course of a season (and especially within any given game) means that outliers like this are minimized when you're looking at a player's shot attempt differential rather than goal differential. The noise and potential for random chance skewing the stats are minimized over the larger sample.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that corsi is the be-all-end-all of judging a player, or that it's even the best metric by which to judge players. Rather, I'm just saying that you fundamentally misunderstand how it can be used, or how useful it is. There are players out there who succeed very well without playing a possession game. Take Spezza for example - he's never been a very strong possession player, but the way he plays, he's never had to be, especially with his historically strong on-ice shooting percentage. On the other hand, in almost every game you watch where you see a line visibly dominating the competition, if you check the shot attempt differential for that line at the end of the game, 10 times out of 10 you'll see that line with very strong corsi numbers.
Last edited:
Scrub*
Team Canada
- Dec 28, 2008
- 9,289
- 2
No it's just hockey. Obviously your team played better than the other if you have the puck more and take more shots. I don't really see the need to make up some fancy term for something so simple?
LOL At Lehner.
SensTV pick on him all the time, and he hates it.
You can tell they know exactly the type of reaction they are going to get, anytime they film a segment with him.
In short:
"I'm a viking, I don't have time for your silly games."
SensTV pick on him all the time, and he hates it.
You can tell they know exactly the type of reaction they are going to get, anytime they film a segment with him.
In short:
"I'm a viking, I don't have time for your silly games."
Exactly! I love lehner so darn much! <3
GimmeMyJetpack
Classless.
And i suppose you can remember the play of every single team in every single shift for the entire season?
The difference is it allows you to track it and use it with other stats.
.
Nobody made up a fancy term for something simple. A guy named Jim Corsi who worked for the Sabres just started using it, and that's what the Sabres called it. When more people started looking at it, the name stuck, since that's the name the Sabres had originally used.
(On the other hand, fenwick is named after the blogger who first looked at it, and I agree that it's a really dumb name)
And the simplicity is why I get annoyed when people talk about "advanced" stats. Corsi and fenwick aren't advanced stats. They're the most simple stats in the game - shot attempts and unblocked shot attempts. But despite that simplicity, corsi's the best possession metric available in hockey, and fenwick is the best predictor of team success.
And generally, when people talk about corsi, they use it exactly like you just used it. If your team has a better shot attempt differential (adjusted for score effects), you obviously played better than the other team. That's all corsi is. When you have better shot attempt differentials over the course of the season, obviously you're generally playing better than the other team in most of the games when you play. Similarly, when a player or line has a very shot attempt differential, obviously they were carrying the play when they were on the ice. Why people get so mad about these stats is beyond me, but I'm pretty sure its 50% confusion over the name and 50% misplaced anger or anti-intellectualism.
The Expert
Registered Expert
Yeah, Lehner was great. Had the best answer for the Corsi question, and that's just the way Lehner is. He isn't a teddy bear, nor should he be one.
