Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
No they're not all equal... but they all say one thing equally, that your team had the puck. Goals say that to but they only say it relatively few times a year while shots and shot attempts say it frequently enough that you can glean insight from it's measurement.
Hense why +/- stinks. It doesn't say anything meaningful. It says you were on the ice when a goal happened... not whether you meaningfully contributed to that goal just that you were somewhere in the vacinity... whoopty-doo.
|
Umm, the exact same thing is true for shots and CORSI.
Yes, you are right that sample size is an issue for goals, and that shots, having the advantage of more events, means that the data is less muffled by noise.
But that is where it ends, and that is the problem that gets left undiscussed.
CORSI has more data points (shots), therefore we can have more confidence in the
consistency, or
quality of the statistics - i.e., less affected by noise.
True. Great.
The problem is that it is more confident information about a
less useful item.
Shots are mostly meaningless. The object of the game is not to get shots.
The problem with CORSI is that it (more accurately) tracks the wrong thing.
Because goals don't happen enough, shots are tracked as a proxy for goals.
But they are not a very good proxy. That's the problem.