Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
That's not the point. The point is that the results are clear: being good at puck possession, building your team so that the roster you ice has a high Corsi%, is something that GMs should strive for, because teams that have a high Corsi% are more successful than others. Good possession teams make the playoffs, bad ones tend not to, so if you're running a team, you should probably try as hard as possible to fall into the former category.
I agree with this. For example, Justin Williams is consitently one of the best possession players in the league, but I'd still rather have Phil Kessel. However, it certainly is a strong attribute to have, and since there are only so many Phil Kessel level talents in the league, it's absolutely an important factor to consider when making personnel decisions.
|
I really don't want to get dragged into the stats debate, but I just couldn't let this quote go because it is so fundamental...
There is a difference between cause and correlation, which I am certain you understand, but you have erred here nonetheless.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that building your team to have a higher corsi will lead to success (that would be a causal relationship).
What seems clear from the evidence is that if you
build a better team, your corsi will go up (a correlative relationship).
GMs should focus on building better teams, not improving corsi.