What Corsi really translates to (in numbers that are easy to grasp)

[necrobot]

How so?

Because you can teach teams to take a higher number of lower percentage shots and not have them score more goals.

 

[lindholmie]

man fowler is having a career year and yall are still *****ing lol you know those advanced stats hurt his feelings. let him have this year

 

[Machinehead]

man fowler is having a career year and yall are still *****ing lol you know those advanced stats hurt his feelings. let him have this year

Somebody just starred a Fowler crusade thread thinly veiled as an advanced stats thread, so don't blame us.

 

[Doctor No]

Because you can teach teams to take a higher number of lower percentage shots and not have them score more goals.

That doesn't mean that "shots" aren't correlated with "goals".

 

[urho]

I fail to see how individual corsi is better, more advanced stat than +/-.

 

[TT1]

Zone starts have almost zero impact on corsi, QOC a little but it tends to even out over any significant sample size.


Who you're playing with can make or break you though when it comes to corsi, especially defensive partners.

you're kidding right?

I fail to see how individual corsi is better, more advanced stat than +/-.

shots give a bigger, more consistent sample size

 

[aufheben]

I fail to see how individual corsi is better, more advanced stat than +/-.

One includes goalies, the other doesn't for starters.

 

[hohosaregood]

Fowler is having a career year even in terms of Corsi.

 

[urho]

One includes goalies, the other doesn't for starters.

Then again +/- also includes shots from dangerous areas (because they're more likely to turn into goals). Both are very dependent of other members of your team on the ice.

If members of the same team have signifant difference on +/- but not so in the corsi-department or vice versa, which stat do you look? Is the other number much more telling than the other?

 

[aufheben]

I couldn't say I don't really look at +/- because the Rangers always have insane goaltending.

 

[Machinehead]

you're kidding right?

He's not kidding. Zone starts have almost zero impact on corsi. Fact. Open and shut case.

Frankly, I'm not sure why everyone assumes there's an impact when there's never been evidence to suggest there's an impact.

 

[Machinehead]

Defensemen are the last guys to affect +/- because forwards score the most goals and goalies prevent the most goals.

Defensemen are by far the mostly likely to directly influence shot suppression and possession.

 

[TT1]

He's not kidding. Zone starts have almost zero impact on corsi. Fact. Open and shut case.

Frankly, I'm not sure why everyone assumes there's an impact when there's never been evidence to suggest there's an impact.

Then you should compare the Corsi of players who have low o-zone starts with ones who have high o-zone starts, you'll quickly notice that theres a correlation.

Of course there are other factors aswell that influence Corsi but zone starts is one of them aswell.

 

[Machinehead]

Then you should compare the Corsi of players who have low o-zone starts with ones who have high o-zone starts, you'll quickly notice that theres a correlation.

Of course there are other factors aswell that influence Corsi but zone starts is one of them aswell.

There absolutely is no correlation. It's a blind assumption that there's a correlation.

Almost everyone in the advanced stats community universally agrees on this at this point, but yet again, people are trying to educate the advanced stats community on how to use advanced stats.

 

[TT1]

There absolutely is no correlation. It's a blind assumption that there's a correlation.

You saying there's no correlation isnt gonna convince me of anything, i've been looking up numbers for the past 5 years. I've had numerous discussions with people in the advanced stats community about almost everything corsi related.

 

[Machinehead]

You saying there's no correlation isnt gonna convince me of anything, i've been looking up numbers for the past 5 years.

You can keep looking at numbers and apparently get it wrong until the cows come home. We've reached a consensus that there's no correlation. It's over. It's not an open discussion.

 

[TT1]

You can keep looking at numbers and apparently get it wrong until the cows come home. We've reached a consensus that there's no correlation. It's over. It's not an open discussion.

You realize for 1 that Corsi is a more relevant stat to evaluate forwards, right? High danger shots/chances is a more precise tool to evaluate d-man efficiency. Quality of shots is way more important when evaluating dman efficiency.

 

[Machinehead]

You realize for 1 that Corsi is a more relevant stat to evaluate forwards, right? High danger shots/chances is a more precise tool to evaluate d-man efficiency.

I don't agree with that. I think high-danger shots are a garbage stat. They're entirely based on vertical distance from the net, when all the evidence suggests that making goalies move horizontally drops save percentages like a rock.

But at least that's opinion and you're not trying to argue against a fact this time, so that's good.

 

[Machinehead]

According to the WarOnIce definitions, if you're in front of the net getting mauled by two defensemen, and you manage to slide the puck on net, that's a high-danger scoring chance, but if you have a 3-on-1 and take a shot from the circle, that's a medium-danger scoring chance. It's crap.

 

[Elvs]

If you really think there's no difference between 55% and 45%, I just don't know what to say about that.

You can keep reading things the way you want them, but this was never said. 55-45 is a big differance, but on a game-per-game basis it sounds less. Every game is a new game, that's what I'm saying. This becomes especially evident in the playoffs.

Mathematically it's the same as two players going up in the faceoff circle against eachother for a full season, and one player winning with 55% making the other guy only win 45%. Game per game it will sound less significant, but over time it adds up to a bigger differance.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

He's not kidding. Zone starts have almost zero impact on corsi. Fact. Open and shut case.

Frankly, I'm not sure why everyone assumes there's an impact when there's never been evidence to suggest there's an impact.

Why don't they matter though? Is it because zone starts imbalances tend to even out or do they really not matter at all? Consider this unrealistic example. A 52% top pairing D plays 1000 consecutive shifts that start in the D zone followed by 1000 consecutive shifts in the O zone. What would both % look like?

The data exists to look at such a situation too. Take a top pairing D who logs tons of minutes and shifts over the last 3-4 seasons. Ignore neutral zone starts. Then, only consider shifts that started in the off zone and then the shifts that started in the D zone.

Willing to bet significant difference.

 

[Ol' Jase]

There absolutely is no correlation. It's a blind assumption that there's a correlation.

Almost everyone in the advanced stats community universally agrees on this at this point, but yet again, people are trying to educate the advanced stats community on how to use advanced stats.

The "advanced stats" community have had to be educated more than once on other matters than just Zone Starts.

 

[TT1]

I don't agree with that. I think high-danger shots are a garbage stat. They're entirely based on vertical distance from the net, when all the evidence suggests that making goalies move horizontally drops save percentages like a rock.

But at least that's opinion and you're not trying to argue against a fact this time, so that's good.

What you say is not a fact, you're just some guy making a statement and you don't provide any factual evidence to backup your claims. That's not a fact.

Zone starts, team system, QoT etc etc etc are all factors that influence Corsi. There's a reason why the Kings are a Corsi powerhouse and they average the furthest shots (by far) in the league.

 

[Sojourn]

Why don't they matter though? Is it because zone starts imbalances tend to even out or do they really not matter at all? Consider this unrealistic example. A 52% top pairing D plays 1000 consecutive shifts that start in the D zone followed by 1000 consecutive shifts in the O zone. What would both % look like?

The data exists to look at such a situation too. Take a top pairing D who logs tons of minutes and shifts over the last 3-4 seasons. Ignore neutral zone starts. Then, only consider shifts that started in the off zone and then the shifts that started in the D zone.

Willing to bet significant difference.

The thing is, there not being enough information to say that zone starts has any significance is not the same as there not being any significance. Logic would suggest that it does matter. If you're starting 180 feet from your own net vs. 10 feet away, well, any one who has played can tell you that one situation is more likely to see a shot against your net than the other.

If the "advanced" stats community feels that it's a closed discussion, I think they are doing themselves a disservice. You shouldn't just be looking at what the numbers say. You should also ask why it is saying it, and if it makes sense. To me, that's the difference between someone who has a real understanding of numbers and how to use them, and someone who lets the numbers tell them what to think.

 

[Raspewtin]

I fail to see how individual corsi is better, more advanced stat than +/-.

You can't be serious.