Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan
Don't apply it just to the Flames. Go look at some other teams and see how their eye test matches to their advanced stats. More often than not you'll see that there is a correlation. What we're arguing here is the chicken and the egg scenario where it's uncertain whether advanced stats lead to winning hockey, or winning hockey leads to strong advanced stats. I'm leaning more to the latter in that discussion.
|
My pet peeve with corsi is the idea that it's so strongly connected to winning and can be used to predict winning.
No stat like corsi, which tracks a small subsection of what a team does, can be predictive of overall team success. This I think SHOULD be obvious. Corsi just isn't a predictive tool. It's an analytical tool. Stats like corsi are useful for analyzing what the team is doing wrong or what it's doing right, not how it's going to do in the future.
What ever a teams current success is, the secondary stats (including corsi) that they have were what got them there. The same corsi is not likely to produce different results for the same team. There's just no reason why it should. It's like saying that the same shooting percentage is going to produce more goals in the future. It's just not a proper way to use stats.
But, when wondering something like "why did the Flames have such a low shot percentage and missed the net a lot", secondary stats can help. As Bingo pointed out in this thread,
using secondary stats like they should be used, we can rule out "shooting from too far away" as a problem. What ever the problem was, that wasn't it. It's not a super helpful piece of information on it's own, but it's clearly better to have it than not to have it.