[ernie]

I'm sure it's been said over and over again but advanced stats aren't the be all and end all. Nor should they be ignored. They do show general trends that better "advanced stats" teams tend to be, well, the better teams when all is said and done. Not always. there are always exceptions and outliers etc. But if one were to build a team you are going to want to be a better advanced team than a lesser one.

Sample size is also important. It may not mean a whole heck of a lot over a game or handful of games. Over 82 regular season games and the playoffs, however, those trends certainly exist. For last night, I'd wager a team that is down 3-0 2 minutes into the second period may come out looking pretty good on Corsi because the opposition is going to pull back and protect the lead.

First and foremost the advanced stats are a piece of information that can cause you to look at things make you ask why? The stats don't look good but a team is winning over a pretty significant stretch of games...well why? For example, the advanced stats crowd weren't saying the Leafs would come back down to earth last year because the advanced stats were bad. It was because the advanced stats were bad AND after asking why it was thought the goaltending and shooting percentage were unsustainable. Far Far Far above career averages. Now if it was a situation where the goaltending was simply outstanding but they had Vezina performing Hasek between the pipes you might say it is sustainable because you have the proven guy between the pipes that more than compensates for those possession troubles.