Giordano #1 and Brodie #4 in all of league Corsi numbers

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by Freeway

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stati...52+53+54+55+56

Sorted by Corsi On (shot attempt differential); no Flames in top 20+.

LA
SJ
SJ
CHI
LA
CHI
CHI
CHI
LA
BOS
NYR
BOS
LA
LA
SJ

That's pretty much all I got out of that

[Aarongavey]

That stat literally has 5 Buffalo dmen in the top 81 in the NHL.

As a comparable a more inferior defensive team the LA Kings only has 3 dmen in the top 81. And the Blackhawks manage to survive having the 109th and 125th best dmen in the NHL in Keith and Seabrook although they may be able to trade those two straight up to the Hurricanes for Ron Hainsey (#7 in the NHL) and Brett Belemore (#30 in the NHL).

I sure hope the fancy advance stats guys have better stats to use than these Corsi/Fenwick ones because I have yet to see a version of these stats that actually correlates with what a consensus top NHL dman list would look like.

[Yrebmi]

Defense men play in pairs. If I understand this correctly, two players playing identical shifts should have identical corsi.
So Brodie's time while Gio was out injured should account for the majority of the difference between them.

If you pair two good defense men, the combined result should be greater than the sum of the parts as each improves the other. Similarly a poor defense man would pull down the corsi of a good one. I can see where interpreting these numbers could get very complex.

What do Brodie's numbers look like away from Gio? Without an extended time of Gio playing without Brodie can we even extrapolate Gio's numbers away from his partner?
Seems to me that these corsi numbers for defense men are better seen as the pairing rather than the individual.
How do our other pairs stack up?

[robbie111]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Looking at the top 100 on that list it seems like there are some good players and some awful players. I do not think there is a single hockey person who would put any of those Oiler dmen in the top 60 dmen in the league.

I agree there are a few awful defensemen listed in the top 60 and obviously any system that puts Chris Butler ahead of Ryan Suter has major flaws, but I wonder if there is a way to right it so you would see Suter and Keith who finished 109th much higher and not be punished for playing with excellent forwards. The stat needs to be less weighted for quality of teammates on the ice with you. That way if you have great players like Kane and Toews on the ice you aren't punished for it.

[BigBrodieFan]

http://thehockeywriters.com/underrat...lames-rebuild/

This is the article where I first saw the 'corsi' stats. I still really don't know what it means..

[Vulcan]

NHL about wage war against advanced stats sites?

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...190007978.html

[formulate]

The biggest problem with using relative corsi (measuring how much a team's possession rates improve when player x is on the ice) is that it favors the best players on bad teams. It's much easier to look good compared to a bad team like Calgary or Edmonton than it is a great team like LA or Boston. Hence guys like Gio, Brodie, Marincin, etc are near the top.

At the same time, pure corsi (a team's possession rate when player x is on the ice) favors players on good teams. It's much easier to maintain possession when playing with other great players than mediocre players. This is where Gio and Brodie separate from Marincin, who may have be the Oilers' best possession-wise, but was still below the break-even point.

The problem with throwing out random bits of advanced statistics is that there is no context. Aarongavey's list, for example, had a bunch of guys who played less than half the season. Small sample sizes can produce strange results. It's also very important to look at the context. Sure, Erik Karlsson dominates possession every time he is out there, but he starts in the offensive zone much more than the defensive zone. Shea Weber's possession numbers look awful until you consider he was playing against the best players consistently from his own zone.

The problem with advance stats in general (or at least the way many people use them currently) is that most people seem to think possession rates are the be-all-end-all, or mean absolutely nothing. I like to think of these numbers just as part of a certain player's or a certain team's game. For a team, maybe equate the importance of possession numbers to the importance of special teams. Having a bad powerplay doesn't mean you won't have a good team, but it's certainly a factor. The extreme opinions on advanced statistics really tend to take away from the information we can actually gain from them.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Jeff Petry is the 5th best dman in the NHL and Ryan Suter is the 201st best dman

Peter Harrold is better than Shea Weber

The thing I am worried about is how good will the Oilers defence be this year

Petry - 5th best in the NHL
Fayne - 28th best in the NHL
Marincin - 41st best in the NHL
Nikitin - 59th best in the NHL

When you have 4 dmen in the top 60 in the entire NHL you are stacked. That is a sick top 4 to be able to roll out against anyone.

Looking at the top 100 on that list it seems like there are some good players and some awful players. I do not think there is a single hockey person who would put any of those Oiler dmen in the top 60 dmen in the league.

Except this stat doesn't say someone is the best Dman, just that they have the best possession numbers which is a good thing but far from the only thing.

There's also an explanation for the Oiler D....they are so bad at D that their opponents only need one shot and so bad at O that they need so many shots to score - voila awesome Corsi

[Aarongavey]

So advance stats only work if you put them in context. I get that, plus minus only works if you put it in context. Not sure why advance stats represent some sort of massive leap forward.

As for edslunch does that explanation for the two Oilers explain why Brodie and Gio had good Corsi's as well? The main reason that posters here throw out to show that Brodie is a top two dman is Corsi. Since Petry also has a study Corsi does that mean Jeff Petry is a top two dman or is there some other factor that makes Brodie a top two dman but not Petry?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

So advance stats only work if you put them in context. I get that, plus minus only works if you put it in context. Not sure why advance stats represent some sort of massive leap forward.

As for edslunch does that explanation for the two Oilers explain why Brodie and Gio had good Corsi's as well? The main reason that posters here throw out to show that Brodie is a top two dman is Corsi. Since Petry also has a study Corsi does that mean Jeff Petry is a top two dman or is there some other factor that makes Brodie a top two dman but not Petry?

My Oiler example was purely tongue in cheek, but sure it could explain Brodie and Gio's numbers I suppose. In the case of Brodie most posters here seem pretty impressed with him by watching, advanced stats are just another data point that some use to support their opinions.

[formulate]

Plus minus can be a misleading stat because goals are a rare event in hockey, meaning there is a lot of random chance involved. Shot attempts provide a much larger sample size which can be used as a proxy for possession.

As for Petry vs Brodie, look at the numbers. Brodie is well ahead in a majority of conventional and advanced statistics, while playing a larger role against top competition.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

So advance stats only work if you put them in context. I get that, plus minus only works if you put it in context. Not sure why advance stats represent some sort of massive leap forward.

As for edslunch does that explanation for the two Oilers explain why Brodie and Gio had good Corsi's as well? The main reason that posters here throw out to show that Brodie is a top two dman is Corsi. Since Petry also has a study Corsi does that mean Jeff Petry is a top two dman or is there some other factor that makes Brodie a top two dman but not Petry?

Yes, Brodie is actually good at hockey.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, Brodie is actually good at hockey.

Brodie is obviously better than Petry, I am just pointing out that advance stats at best can partially assist one in determining whether someone is a good player. But I have yet to see an advance stat that has Keith or Weber as being better than Brodie at any level, yet I think you would not find a single hockey observer who thinks that Brodie is better than those guys. It just seems to me that advance stats get thrown out as some kinda proof point when they sure seem to be a feeble attempt to quantify a sport that does not lend itself to statistical analysis. Petry a top 5 dman, Fistric being a top 30 dman the year before, Pouliot being an advance stats guys wet dream, I think I will take good old fashioned scouting and observation over advance stats and leave the advance stats in the trash bin where they belong.

[Bingo]

I've dug into advanced stats a bit this summer, and they are interesting. In all fairness to stats guys the are trying to provide context by drilling down deeper and deeper to make sense of things.

Bottom line, goals, assists and plus minus just tell a really good picture of what's going on, and I'm glad the world is looking at other measures ... even simple ones like skill of opposition, and zone starts.

A good example is Backlund last year ... he was doing a lot of things right before he started scoring. A hockey fan could see it ... getting the puck deep, getting the puck out, backchecking, finding the open man, putting the puck on net ... all of this could be seen in his jump in advanced stats better than it could be seen in his goals and assists.

Hartley saw it too ... not sure if he saw the advanced stats or what I was seeing, and adjusted his role.

Also looks like Hartley got wind of the new NHL trend to playing a defense pair with a center as well, as Giordano, Brodie and Buckland started becoming advanced stats monsters after Christmas.

I don't know where these stats are going, but I'm really glad they are in the news right now with both Brodie and Backlund looking for contracts. Better to see their value and get them locked up now, rather than bridge contracting both and losing them to free agency.

[Erick Estrada]

The only stat that matters in hockey is team winning percentage. If your team is winning more games than it loses, poor possession stats mean nothing just like if you are losing with great possession stats. I don't mind the stats as another tool in scouting but if you build a team on advance stats overachievers only I'm willing to bet you would be disappointed with the results more times than not as stats will never be able to quantify the difference between a player that's a winner and a player that's a good player but not a winner.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Brodie is obviously better than Petry, I am just pointing out that advance stats at best can partially assist one in determining whether someone is a good player. But I have yet to see an advance stat that has Keith or Weber as being better than Brodie at any level, yet I think you would not find a single hockey observer who thinks that Brodie is better than those guys. It just seems to me that advance stats get thrown out as some kinda proof point when they sure seem to be a feeble attempt to quantify a sport that does not lend itself to statistical analysis. Petry a top 5 dman, Fistric being a top 30 dman the year before, Pouliot being an advance stats guys wet dream, I think I will take good old fashioned scouting and observation over advance stats and leave the advance stats in the trash bin where they belong.

I know. And I don't disagree with you.

That's why I said good at hockey (i.e. watch him play instead of throwing out stats).

Kind of on your side here (though I like any and all info/stats when used in proper context)

[Finger Cookin]

Advanced stats in hockey need a makeover. My understanding (which could well be wrong) is that stats like Corsi and Fenwick are named as such after the trailblazers who devised those measurements and ways of combining numbers. Which is all well and good -- except that as far as names go, they do absolutely nothing for any newcomer to describe what they are or what they're measuring.

I'm a casual baseball fan. I didn't play close attention to the stats analysis revolution that happened there. But as a kid, I understood batting average, ERA, W-L, Saves, etc. So when I started watching telecasts and saw things like Slugging Percentage and WHIP and WAR, I was confused. What are these? Slugging Percentage isn't obvious, but is easily defined. WHIP is Walks and Hits per Inning Pitched? Got it, that makes sense. WAR is Wins Above Replacement player? OK -- I don't get how you calculate it, or how you define a replacement player, but I get the concept of the final number.

If advanced hockey stats were given some straight forward names (Shot Differential Per Shift, or Per Game, for one example), it would help people embrace them. Which is probably something the advanced stats gurus are against. I think they like the air of esoteric wisdom and opacity the current names have.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

This is the problem with Corsi. If the Flames had two of the best defencemen in the league last year why did they finish 27th?

I get that splint of your post, but hockey isn't like basketball, which I know you know. The individual impact of a single player or in this case players, is not as significant.

BTW, did you watch the Bledisloe?

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The only stat that matters in hockey is team winning percentage. If your team is winning more games than it loses, poor possession stats mean nothing just like if you are losing with great possession stats. I don't mind the stats as another tool in scouting but if you build a team on advance stats overachievers only I'm willing to bet you would be disappointed with the results more times than not as stats will never be able to quantify the difference between a player that's a winner and a player that's a good player but not a winner.

Yeah, I pretty much think the exact opposite. Wins can be deceptive and stats have pointed to many teams with "inflated" winning percentages that were due to come back down to earth. I'd definitely rather have a GM that is active and looking to fix holes on our roster if we're being badly outperformed on possession and CORSI every game yet we're still managing to squeak out some wins. By no means do I think advanced stats are the be all end all, but to completely ignore them because winning percentage is all that matters is very short-sighted.

And you say that stats are useless cause they can't tell the difference between good players and winners - well, what makes someone a winner? That's not a trait you can build a team around as it's essentially meaningless. Is Tavares just a good player who's not a winner just because he doesn't have talented players around him? If Toews got traded to Florida and they missed the playoffs for the next 5 years, would you no longer consider him a winner? Yzerman and Sakic were losers for a very long time to start their careers before they were considered winners, just like many other great "winners". You make it sound like it's an intangible trait that someone is born with and can be identified. Winners are just a by-product of being on a winning team...and teams win based off their ability to create more scoring chances than the other team, outshoot their opponents, etc. And stats can HELP figure out how well a team is doing that...

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

http://thehockeywriters.com/underrat...lames-rebuild/

This is the article where I first saw the 'corsi' stats. I still really don't know what it means..

Quoted your post because of the link only. As soon as I read "and the upcoming Edmonton Oilers" I quit reading.

Thanks for posting it.