Advanced stats have been proven to be wrong time and time again. We have a few teams defying them every season. In 30 years we should be able to have a good chunk of data to support the notion that X% of teams defy Corsi every year :-) Can we then ask what good corsi does to predict results?
Goal differential is a much better way to tell if a team is going places. How many top 10 teams in the NHL have had poor goal differential at the end of the season in the last 20 years?
Point is that you get a good goal differential by cutting your goals against because no team is scoring 400 goals in a season. And that is statistically proven.
So although we did beat Philly in a high scoring game, chances of repeating that time and time again are very slim. We got lucky.
So you can choose to give GG credit for good Corsi while ignoring goal differential, but how much will that really mean come April?
I got scolded for criticizing GG during a winning streak, but I still think I have a case here. GG's team was winning by playing like a Hartley team. The Washington game was great, but we have only played a few of those this years. GG was brought in to make this team defensively dominant. We added so much D depth and skill to help him achieve that.
Seeing that the Flames are bottom 10 in GAA, he gets an F.
|