Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
This is not the case. Over time, goal differential approaches possession in terms of predictive value, but to say goal differential is better and possession stats are "not even close" will require that you provide some link to somewhere where that's been demonstrated, or you could demonstrate it yourself.
|
For instance:
http://rinkstats.blogspot.ca/2013/10...key-games.html
Money quote:
What surprised me is that the statistic that I would have guess correlates most strongly with winning (shots on goal) is highly correlated with winning, but in the wrong direction. That's to say, the team that takes more shots in a game is, on average, less likely to win the game.
The article goes on to describe the methodology used to minimize score effects in the data. Even with score effects eliminated, the negative correlation persists.
Now remember, Fenwick and Corsi measure shots on goal (or shots attempted), NOT puck possession. We actually have no good numbers for puck possession. If SOG are negatively correlated with winning, that pretty much eliminates the possibility that Corsi or Fenwick could be positively correlated. I suspect that may be too much to say based on the analysis given, but it certainly calls into question the idea that there is a strong correlation.
Meanwhile, the correlation between goal differential and winning percentage is exceptionally strong – R ~ 0.96, R^2 ~ 0.93:
http://hockeyanalytics.com/2008/01/t...key-analytics/
(See Law #4.)
Now, how about you demonstrate the reverse?
Quote:
|
If literally everyone on CP is dismissive of possession as a useful predictive measure (see the guy immediately above me) then they deserve it. Or, if you don't like the anti-vaccination comparison, try flat-earthers. Not even worth talking about hockey with.
|
Boy, you just love making friends, don't you? First you insult everyone, then you double down on the insult. And you have done absolutely nothing to make your case, except to insult people for not agreeing with you.