Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
Ok. Semantics then. My point is completely unaffected by your lesson.
These "advanced stats" (which is a stupid term, they're simple stats) can at most, point to what is likely to happen.
Again, nothing is on absolutes. Can a team with a bad corsi win and make the playoffs? Yes. Can a team keep a high PDO all year? Absolutely.
Are either of those likely? No.
Totally off topic, but holy man Principe looks gross with that mullet and stash
|
Regarding the first part, it absolutely makes a difference what the definition of probability and statistics is and you do touch on it in the second part.
That is illustrated with the 80% of teams with a corsi of +50% make the playoffs study mentioned a couple of pages back.
Do the Flames need to have a corsi of +50% to make the playoffs? No
Will there be any teams that make the playoffs this season with a corsi of less than 50%? Well the probabilities say that 4 out of the 16 teams will.
Can the Flames be one of those teams? Yes.
There's nothing "unsustainable" about statistics. The fact that it's being done means that it can be done. That's what people don't get about stats. Stats are just numbers that quantify certain things they don't predict anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
In light of the fact that there's no correlation between the volume of shots and a team's shooting percentage, why are you more interested in possession time than attempted shots? Possession time without producing shot attempts is pretty meaningless because it doesn't lead to offense whereas a higher volume of shot attempts does generally lead to more offense.
|
Because shot attempt stats like corsi and fenwick quantify shot attempts and not possession. Is there a correlation between shot attempts and possession? Yes. However, it's just a correlation based on some assumptions. The model to make that correlation can be broken and that's what makes such an assumption flawed.
For example say a team holds on to the puck for 95% of the time, taking only 10 shots on net the entire game and scoring on all 10 shot attempts. The opponents, during the 5% they have the puck always quickly get the puck to the red line and fire the puck at the general direction of the net. They end up with 20 shot attempts and 0 goals.
The losing team's fenwick and corsi numbers would be off the charts in this game, even though they barely controlled the puck.
While this example is extremely exaggerated, it's not an "impossible" scenario. Go watch a beer league game where one team should clearly be 3 divisions higher and you might see something similar to this.
Anyone that has watched the team this year will tell you that the Flames have been dominant in most games (other than last night and against Chicago), yet for some reason their Fenwick and Corsi numbers say otherwise. So why is it that the Flames can't break this model?