Speculation: The firm organization of San Jose wants Carlyle now. What does that tell about us?

[Duffman955]

Just for fun, do you know what other stat may be a better "predictor" of the Playoff Picture and Cup winner?

Team Shutout Percentage.

In the 2013-14 season, 14 of the 16 teams that qualified for the post season were in the top 16 in Shutout Percentage. Whereas only 9 of the top 16 teams that qualified for the post season ranked in the Top 16 in Corsi.

This year, 11 of the 16 teams that qualified for the postseason were in the top 16 in Shutout Percentage. Corsi accounted for 10.

And of the last 5 years, 3 of the Cup Winners have also led the league in Shutout Percentage.

(I'd look up more but I really don't care to. As the point I am about to make below will explain.)

---

Now, are we concluding that Shutout Percentage is the variable that predicts success? Of course not. We haven't done any statistical rigor on it to factor out any number of potential influencing variables.

Is there something there? Maybe. But like Corsi we haven't proved anything. We've just looked at a chart and observed that Playoff and Cup winning teams generally have more Shutouts than other teams.

And will we build a team strategy around getting Shutouts? Hey Bernier, go out and get more Shutouts? Maybe but we'd be overlooking some significant aspects of the game.

People are going to ignore this comment because they don't understand statistics of a complicated system.

I'm not saying Corsi is useless, but it's only a small piece of a giant puzzle. But people are making it the be all end all stat.

Soccer has a much more thorough use of statistics as performance indicator. possession is only a part of the their formula. They also include dribbles, key passes, shots, aerials and a whole lot of other stats. Hockey advanced stats pale in comparison and is almost primitive at this point.

 

[Durrr]

You can't lump in teams from different seasons. Your data is flawed. The game is measured on success year to year. There are no carry overs. Your premise has far too many holes. I will say this, if they handed a cup for 5 collective years of corsi, then you would have a point, but they do not. Let's be realistic here.

This cannot be serious lol. No your right, no corsi cup, just the real cup to each of the teams on the top 5 list. (You know, the thing that actually matters)

 

[Purity*]

The interchanging of players doesn't matter if there is no effect on the corsi, and if it did the corsi will adjust and be reflected in the stats, so why is this relevant?

If a team has a collective cf% of 55 over 5 years, it means that that team has averaged a 55% cf lol, and this factors in any changes in play and personnel.

Unbelievable that you are actually refuting something that is clear as day. The top 5 averaged cf% teams from the past 5 years are the last 7 cup winners, and 6 of the last 8 cups have been won by teams that are top 10 in that time period. How on earth can anyone deny the effectiveness of the stats. Crazy stuff.

Oh yeah, and Boston who was one of those cup winners too, happened to be in the top-half of corsi teams according to his set-standard of "good corsi teams" he previously stated. And on top of that, Tim Thomas happened to have a historic playoff run and was instrumental in Boston's cup win. Coincidence? Hell no.

All this, while meanwhile, COMPLETELY ignoring the insane lopsidedness of pro-corsi teams winning the last 7 cups.

What a sound argument eh?

 

[The Winter Soldier]

This cannot be serious lol. No your right, no corsi cup, just the real cup to each of the teams on the top 5 list. (You know, the thing that actually matters)

You do not carry this season's corsi to next season's do you?

 

[Durrr]

Oh yeah, and Boston who was one of those cup winners too, happened to be in the top-half of corsi teams according to his set-standard of "good corsi teams" he previously stated. And on top of that, Tim Thomas happened to have a historic playoff run and was instrumental in Boston's cup win. Coincidence? Hell no.

All this, while meanwhile, COMPLETELY ignoring the insane lopsidedness of pro-corsi teams winning the last 7 cups.

What a sound argument eh?

There really isn't an argument at this point lol

Duffman was right when he said Corsi is just a piece to a bigger puzzle (because it is not the holy grail of stats, no stat is). None the less, the correlation between good corsi teams and winning is strong, and I've yet to see even a half decent argument against it.

 

[Durrr]

You do not carry this season's corsi to next season's do you?

No it's called an average. You know, something that's used to prevent misleading outliers and paint a broader picture.

 

[Purity*]

There really isn't an argument at this point lol

Duffman was right when he said Corsi is just a piece to a bigger puzzle (because it is not the holy grail of stats). None the less, the correlation between good corsi teams and winning is strong, and I've yet to see even a half decent argument against it.

ZERO doubt whatsoever with this.

Be all and end all? Nah, of course not. Nobody is saying that. But to say it's not a strong indicator of winning teams who can control the puck and maintain pressure? That's just crazy talk.

 

[Durrr]

ZERO doubt whatsoever with this.

Be all and end all? Nah, of course not. Nobody is saying that. But to say it's not a strong indicator of winning teams who can control the puck and maintain pressure? That's just crazy talk.

Lol like people are actually trying to refute that having the puck more often, and getting more shots then your opponent does not equate to winning more games in the long run.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

No it's called an average. You know, something that's used to prevent misleading outliers and paint a broader picture.

The average of taking 5 different teams, different seasons, different personnel, to paint a broader looser picture of what? This season. Andrew Ladd, Bolland, Byfuglien, Brouwer, Madden, Eager, Kopecky, and Niemi were not part of their second cup, nor are they part of this years Hawk's. Your data is flawed comparing different teams and circumstances.

 

[Duffman955]

There really isn't an argument at this point lol

Duffman was right when he said Corsi is just a piece to a bigger puzzle (because it is not the holy grail of stats, no stat is). None the less, the correlation between good corsi teams and winning is strong, and I've yet to see even a half decent argument against it.

CORSI is a useful stat, but you can't base everything on it. It has way too many outlier and inconsistencies.

We need to find a way to quantify other important facets of hockey and add possession stats to form a better performance indicator.

Back to the original topic, I still think Carlyle is a good coach because he had about a 60% win rate which is more than twice that of Horachek, regardless of the team's possession stats.

Also the goaltenders had very high save percentages and several players had the best shooting percentages in their careers. Coincidence? I don't think so. There was definitely more there than meets the eye. Is it a result of the system creating higher quality scoring chances? Hard to make a conclusive argument with a small sample size. But Carlyle's cup and wins speak for themselves.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

CORSI is a useful stat, but you can't base everything on it. It has way too many outlier and inconsistencies.

We need to find a way to quantify other important facets of hockey and add possession stats to form a better performance indicator.

Back to the original topic, I still think Carlyle is a good coach because he had about a 60% win rate which is more than twice that of Horachek, regardless of the team's possession stats.

Also the goaltenders had very high save percentages and several players had the best shooting percentages in their careers. Coincidence? I don't think so. There was definitely more there than meets the eye. Is it a result of the system creating higher quality scoring chances? Hard to make a conclusive argument with a small sample size. But Carlyle's cup and wins speak for themselves.

I agree with this post. Corsi is just one stat. I only have an issue with it when people make it out to be more than what it really is.

Carlyle is a good coach with over 700 games under his belt with a .565 winning %. It is clear this team had better results when he was our coach than it did under Wilson or Horachek.

Coach's are measured in wins and losses and championships. It would be no surprise to see SJ interested in him. If Leafs played better when he was fired, they might not be. But the Leafs only played worse. Whether it is directly or indirectly, Shanahan may have been a catalyst to Carlyle getting another shot in the NHL with how the Leafs imploded under Horachek. Think it is reasonable to surmise this.

 

[The Legend]

I would love the Sharks to get Carlyle. Who's excited for Tomas Hertl on the third line?

 

[The Legend]

As opposed to????

"Look, look! LA Kings missed playoffs! CORSI IS WRONG!"

While conveniently ignoring the massive lopsidedness of pro-corsi teams who have won the last 5 cups.

And also ignoring how the Kings were terrible in the crapshoot known as shootouts - could have easily made the playoffs (and even won the division).

 

[Daisy Jane]

And also ignoring how the Kings were terrible in the crapshoot known as shootouts - could have easily made the playoffs (and even won the division).

I commented on that. two pages back. also pointed out that the other team last year had the exact same problem. top 5 in corsi/possession, but also had a crap time in the crapshoot. They too would have easily have made the playoffs.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

I commented on that. two pages back. also pointed out that the other team last year had the exact same problem. top 5 in corsi/possession, but also had a crap time in the crapshoot. They too would have easily have made the playoffs.

Really? Maybe if they scored 10 or 11 more goals in regulation time to match Minnesota and Winnipeg. They would have made the playoffs? Perhaps quality of scoring chances is a more viable stat than the broader shots directed at the net that corsi is?

To simply pin it on lack of shootout losses, perhaps is missing the journey why they got to the shootout. Only 220 GF last season. 2.68 per game average. That's the problem right there. Or at least part of the bigger problem and not solely just the shootout.

 

[Menzinger]

I commented on that. two pages back. also pointed out that the other team last year had the exact same problem. top 5 in corsi/possession, but also had a crap time in the crapshoot. They too would have easily have made the playoffs.

Yep shootouts are pretty much a coin flip.

The leaf's in the 2013-2014 season won a bunch of games that way - gave a lot of people a false sense of hope that the team was actually good.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Yep shootouts are pretty much a coin flip.

The leaf's in the 2013-2014 season won a bunch of games that way - gave a lot of people a false sense of hope that the team was actually good.

Pretty much. like if someone wanted to (i don't ) it would be interesting to see how many teams would have made the playoffs without the shootout vs. teams who would have starting back in 2005 and while you can argue goals scored in regulation etc as well - the shootout (and the lack of performing well/performing well) in it is becoming a serious thing. It will be interesting to see if this continues next year.

Some teams make their bread and butter in overtime/regulation. there are a lot of teams that don't. the Leafs - historically bad in the shootouts. (like. there were years that I think they went 0fer - which impacted them especially the years where they finished 9th). As you mentioned 2013 completely saved their season, without it - no playoffs. (kinda wish that happened now, right? oh welll).


There are some goalies who are awesome at it. (Luongo, Miller for example pretty much money baring you know. flukes). there are some who are bru.tal. (Hi, bernier, hows it going). and then there are some teams that just don't have the firepower (or they just suck that season). (I don't know how NJD did this season, but again, last season. sucked. the Kings did not have a lot of firepower, especially on the road, which a good chunk of where their shootouts happened, and. look at that, lost, and did not make the playoffs)

 

[Daisy Jane]

Really? Maybe if they scored 10 or 11 more goals in regulation time to match Minnesota and Winnipeg. They would have made the playoffs? Perhaps quality of scoring chances is a more viable stat than the broader shots directed at the net that corsi is?

To simply pin it on lack of shootout losses, perhaps is missing the journey why they got to the shootout. Only 220 GF last season. 2.68 per game average. That's the problem right there. Or at least part of the bigger problem and not solely just the shootout.

(sigh). ookay.

New Jersey was top 5 in the league in possession.
they finished 20th in the league with 88 points.
they went 9 and 18 in the shootout.

This season - I don't know what their numbers were.
they were 29th in the shootout. (only winning 6 times)

LA - scoring only 206 goals last season mind you, was a very respectable 12 and 8 in the shootout. and they were #1 in the league at possession (or high up there, I remember). and they won the cup.

This season - LA scored 220(1?) goals. and only won 3 games out of 15 in the shootout. I would very easily say that the reason why the Kings aren't in the playoffs isn't because they had "high corsi" or better possession, or shot at will - it's because they only won 3 games in the shootout. when Minnesota went 8 and 8 and Winnipeg went 11 and 12). Them having 10 less goals overall in regulation means nothing in the argument. Especially when you consider that two other teams in the league scored the exact same amount of goals they did (Montreal + Pittsburgh) and several teams in the playoffs let in more goals than they did.

the shootout (as well as poor road record) totally shot their chances at making the playoffs.

and even if you want to play the whole "well if they scored more goals than Winnipeg/Minnesota it doesn't change the fact that possessing the puck more gives you more chances to win the game. period. If this was curling, you want to be the team to finish the game with the hammer. why? Possession, you can impact the game better.

if this was volleyball, you want to have service point on your service,

in hockey you want to possess the puck more so than the other team, and more often than not the team that possesses the puck more generally wins the game. regardless of how many overall team goals are scored. because the game does not end at 60(5) minutes in a tie, you have to include the shootout to the argument. LA wins more shootouts, LA is in the playoffs. (for the basic fact they were in there more than Winnipeg to start off with.).

 

[LeafsNation75]

If San Jose does end up hiring Carlyle does that mean the Leafs are entitled to a draft pick under these new compensation rules?

 

[Menzinger]

Great outline Daisy - and it demonstrates a pretty good reason to abolish the shootout.

If San Jose does end up hiring Carlyle does that mean the Leafs are entitled to a draft pick under these new compensation rules?

Yes.

 

[leafs in five]

Only one way to settle this.

I will give you a chance to get even on your lost bet to me, the one we made before this season. Actually lost 2 bets to be accurate.

Let's test your belief on this correlation.

Detroit, NY Ilse and Chicago are the remaining 3 pro Corsi teams left in the playoffs.

Anaheim, Calgary, NY Rangers, Minnesota, Ottawa, Washington and Montreal are the negative Corsi teams.

Simple bet, I will bet you one of the negative Corsi teams will win the cup before a pro Corsi team does this year.

I have enough belief that Corsi is not a strong enough predictor to winning a cup to make this bet. Do you have a strong enough belief to do the same?

how many cups are they awarding this year?

 

[The Winter Soldier]

(sigh). ookay.

New Jersey was top 5 in the league in possession.
they finished 20th in the league with 88 points.
they went 9 and 18 in the shootout.

This season - I don't know what their numbers were.
they were 29th in the shootout. (only winning 6 times)

LA - scoring only 206 goals last season mind you, was a very respectable 12 and 8 in the shootout. and they were #1 in the league at possession (or high up there, I remember). and they won the cup.

This season - LA scored 220(1?) goals. and only won 3 games out of 15 in the shootout. I would very easily say that the reason why the Kings aren't in the playoffs isn't because they had "high corsi" or better possession, or shot at will - it's because they only won 3 games in the shootout. when Minnesota went 8 and 8 and Winnipeg went 11 and 12). Them having 10 less goals overall in regulation means nothing in the argument. Especially when you consider that two other teams in the league scored the exact same amount of goals they did (Montreal + Pittsburgh) and several teams in the playoffs let in more goals than they did.

the shootout (as well as poor road record) totally shot their chances at making the playoffs.

and even if you want to play the whole "well if they scored more goals than Winnipeg/Minnesota it doesn't change the fact that possessing the puck more gives you more chances to win the game. period. If this was curling, you want to be the team to finish the game with the hammer. why? Possession, you can impact the game better.

if this was volleyball, you want to have service point on your service,

in hockey you want to possess the puck more so than the other team, and more often than not the team that possesses the puck more generally wins the game. regardless of how many overall team goals are scored. because the game does not end at 60(5) minutes in a tie, you have to include the shootout to the argument. LA wins more shootouts, LA is in the playoffs. (for the basic fact they were in there more than Winnipeg to start off with.).

My reply is the post you replied to. So instead of just reposting, just read my replies, it's a stalemate. LA had trouble scoring goals. Whether you want to blame it on the shootout or regulation time. THEY COULD NOT SCORE. Despite having the best corsi(not a good predictor huh?) and a Jennings and Conn Smyth Goalie winner in net. This is why they missed the playoffs. Corsi did not help them. You cannot claim possessing the puck(let's be accurate a proxy for possession) worked for them. They scored only 220 goals last year. That should tell us all we need to know. Maybe the quality of chances does not equal the corsi stats. The results would seem to indicate this was more so, than just blaming it on the shootout. One can argue if they could score 230 or 231 goals as the Wild and the Jets did, they would be in the playoffs. You play for a shootout, well that's your fault. No one else's.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Great outline Dasiey - and it demonstrates a pretty good reason to abolish the shootout.



Yes.

thank you.
And i think so too. The shootout as it is "exciting" for the fans, really screws the pooch for a lot of teams throughout the years. of course people will ignore this, to hold to their own arguments that this doesn't matter at all of course, they simply should have scored more goals in regulation. because you know that could have/would have made a difference.

if I knew where to find (or if I cared - again, i don't) how to find all the stats like how they did in 1 goal, games, or close games (like the Ducks were like amazing at being in 1 goal games on either side of the score, trailing or losing). most of this stuff I just remember based on whats said during the game.

 

[Daisy Jane]

My reply is the post you replied to. So instead of just reposting, just read my replies, it's a stalemate. LA had trouble scoring goals. Whether you want to blame it on the shootout or regulation time. THEY COULD NOT SCORE. Despite having the best corsi(not a good predictor huh?) and a Jennings and Conn Smyth Goalie winner in net. This is why they missed the playoffs. Corsi did not help them. You cannot claim possessing the puck(let's be accurate a proxy for possession) worked for them. They scored only 220 goals last year. That should tell us all we need to know. Maybe the quality of chances does not equal the corsi stats. The results would seem to indicate this was more so, than just blaming it on the shootout. One can argue if they could score 230 or 231 goals as the Wild and the Jets did, they would be in the playoffs. You play for a shootout, well that's your fault. No one else's.

if that's what you want to believe, than fine. because it is very obvious, that's what you want to plant your flag on and you and you are not even going to consider anything else, but what you want to believe in, which makes it very difficult to continue having a discussion. I showed you why, and how that is not the case, Durr explained why and how that's not the case, so quite frankly, i'm done.

in answer to this question. if the Sharks want Carlyle, good. but I don't think we'll get a pick (because I really think most teams aren't going to push for it because it's a stupid rule to begin with.

 

[gordonshumway]

If San Jose does end up hiring Carlyle does that mean the Leafs are entitled to a draft pick under these new compensation rules?

I wonder if Leafs were to hire McLellan and SJ hires Carlyle, what happens then? I guess no picks would be exchanged...