Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
And I never implied corsi is the "end-goal" just because it measures where teams are at. You made that up.
|
No, I got that from many, many people who talk as if the object of a hockey game were to get a good Corsi number. Most of the people who use Corsi as a criterion for anything, in my experience, fall into that category, so I thought it fair to assume that you did as well. Pardon me if I'm wrong.
Quote:
And those teams are:
Tukka Rask and a pretender
Semyon Varlamov and a pretender
Henrik Lundqvist and a pretender
|
Hold your horses there. The Rangers were a Stanley Cup finalist in 2014. They're substantially the same team today. Suddenly they're a pretender? Sorry, you don't get to dismiss data that easily.
In fact, there is no such statistical category as ‘pretender’. Unless you are making one up on the spot, in which case you had better define it and be prepared to defend it. As far as I can see, it's just an insult that allows you to casually dismiss data that do not fit your preconceptions. Well, in the real world, things don't stop existing just because you call them names.
Quote:
|
Roberto Luongo and a still rebuilding team
|
By your circular definition of ‘rebuilding’, this is tautologically true. It's true that the Panthers have a lot of young players on their roster. That does not mean that they are rebuilding in the generally accepted sense of the word. I suspect most observers would say they have finished the rebuild and are moving on to contender status, considering that they are now in first place in their division and 7th in the league as a whole.
The Red Wings (24th ranked PP, fulfil the corsi/fenwick criteria)
The Lightning (21st ranked PP, fulfil the corsi/fenwick criteria)[/QUOTE]
In other words, you dismiss three of the exceptions with an insult, one with a miscategorization, and fudge one of your criteria (PP ranking) to handwave the other two. That's some mighty fine moving of goalposts. Colour me unconvinced.