Agreed that the failure to account for quality of competition and workload is the biggest current failing of advanced stats
But this doesn't render them useless.
You just have to acknowledge that the numbers work best when comparing players with similar roles and workloads - the easiest thing to look at here is pure minutes played, as it's harder and harder to sheltef someone the more they play.
So myself i always check workload before comparing players' possession numbers.
There is no good workload-adjusted corsi yet but for now you should always mentally asterisk somebody with great corsi numbers if they are not getting full frontline minutes.
just because a guy is putting up grewt numbers in a secondary or tertiary role doesn't mean he won't struggle in a primetime role. You might argue that the guy deserves a shot at getting more responsibility - but you can't conclude his better possesskon numbers make him a better possession player than someone with a significantly bigger role until he shows he can do it in that bigger role.
Good comment.
Basic problem is that how and what level a statistical apparatus (Corsi) that builds on the easily and relatively objectively countable, essentially quantitative stat - SOG - can be reduced back to the level of an individual player quality when it's and first hand scope to and primary application level to are constructed for measurements of team level relative (and to lesser extent in lineups level) possession performances relative to opponents.
Corsi loses near all relevancy as a measurement of player quality as the fundamental simple stat SOG where it's building from doesn't even itself take account such qualitative aspects related to the Shots on Goal. That kind qualitative data cannot be lost in Corsi stats as it not even brought to in as a premise.
A lone 4th line goon's half baked lucky (lucky in sense they are SOG) shots from neutral zone are equal with top-elite 1st line sniper's quality attempt preceded by excellent line combinatorics and great passes.
When trying to use Corsis in the context of an individual player quality, explanations, exceptions, circumstantial stuff relevant, and his team, lineup, style etc. contexts of the player takes that much written lines that among with the pure numerical statistical presentation for fully describing the player, that this itself should tell to a people the limits of Corsi stats applicability has exceeded.
Then... importantly, a player can easily start to try stat adjust his own Corsis by starting make numerous bad, low quality shots before trying make better plays and line combos for real, good quality scoring changes. No doubt an opponents' players can do that same.
Do statistical community think that such habit would increase likelihood of improved game play quality, higher proportion of good quality scoring changes, improved line up co-playing combinatorics for more high quality goal scoring changes, that more likely would result more goals, and via that - more wins?
Back to the start: SOGs. As a quantitative measurement it's good as it's clear and objective phenom of hockey yes, but if it's quantitative measure starts to be seen as an ultimate measure for a player's gameplaying quality we are lost pretty much from that what we've seen when we call something as 'Good hockey'?
SOG-Corsoistic stats-cultists will always feel uneasy when they watch hockey players whom performances on-ice doesn't comply with their Statistics off-ice.
All SOG-based "possession" is not "useful possession".
(There was some difficulties for me find good english words to say what I mean. Sorry.)
