How Screwed are the Flames?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by heep223

This post is exactly what discredits advanced stats. For some reason the majority of Corsi advocates think in terms of right vs. wrong and have this unwarranted defensive attitude. Why can't we just look at shot attempt differentials as another stat in the big conversation? It could be another useful stat in the big puzzle of stats, why does it have to be "if you don't care about Corsi than you don't have an intellectual interest in the game"? The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Good post. Nothing is ever black and white.

[Ryan Coke]

Agree with getbak's post.

I find the process of evaluating and interpreting data to explain current and future performance somewhat interesting. But it is amazing that some of the people who are most fanatical about this statistical analysis resort to explaining away something that doesn't match their expectation as 'luck'.

You'd think someone who loves a numerical analysis would want to find the data behind the unexpected results.

They also seem to forget the best statistic for determining whether a team is good or not already exists, and it is wins and losses. No new statistical measurement will ever replace that.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by Red John

Don't have twitter personally but if you do, follow him! It's like following Springs1. It's a must!

You and I have very different understandings of the term "must-follow"...

Seriously though-checked it out based on your post. It's beyond description horrible, both his posts and the attacks he receives...worse than reading jr high kids' online messaging (which I unfortunately HAVE to do periodically...)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by heep223

This post is exactly what discredits advanced stats. For some reason the majority of Corsi advocates think in terms of right vs. wrong and have this unwarranted defensive attitude. Why can't we just look at shot attempt differentials as another stat in the big conversation? It could be another useful stat in the big puzzle of stats, why does it have to be "if you don't care about Corsi than you don't have an intellectual interest in the game"? The truth is somewhere in the middle.

This isn't what I said. That may have come across as a false dilemma but it wasn't my intention.

My point is that you can enjoy watching hockey without giving a god damn whether your team is being outshot, outhit, outpossessed, or anything else, and just have fun watching the good things they do, getting pumped for wins and frustrated for losses and cheering them on without ever considering a single number besides, I guess, the score.

You can also enjoy hockey by meticulously obsessing over these details to a borderline crazy degree, watch each breakout ten times to determine what seems to produce controlled zone entries, then track the controlled zone entries and try to figure out how those are generally best transitioned into scoring chances, while mapping out shot locations for your team, etc etc etc.

Both are legitimate ways to enjoy watching hockey, and yes, there's plenty in between. The article Haynes is writing seems to me to dismiss the second as a legitimate way to enjoy the sport. At the end of the day it's guys on ice knocking a rubber disc around with sticks; get enjoyment out of it however you like.

It seems like certain members of one group or the other take the view that the other type of fan is somehow a worse hockey fan, and then everyone just generalizes about "corsi people" or the "watch the games" crowd. Realistically, the phrase "worse hockey fan" doesn't make any sense <insert Oilers / Canucks / Leafs fan joke at your leisure>.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This isn't what I said. That may have come across as a false dilemma but it wasn't my intention.

My point is that you can enjoy watching hockey without giving a god damn whether your team is being outshot, outhit, outpossessed, or anything else, and just have fun watching the good things they do, getting pumped for wins and frustrated for losses and cheering them on without ever considering a single number besides, I guess, the score.

You can also enjoy hockey by meticulously obsessing over these details to a borderline crazy degree, watch each breakout ten times to determine what seems to produce controlled zone entries, then track the controlled zone entries and try to figure out how those are generally best transitioned into scoring chances, while mapping out shot locations for your team, etc etc etc.

Both are legitimate ways to enjoy watching hockey, and yes, there's plenty in between. The article Haynes is writing seems to me to dismiss the second as a legitimate way to enjoy the sport. At the end of the day it's guys on ice knocking a rubber disc around with sticks; get enjoyment out of it however you like.

It seems like certain members of one group or the other take the view that the other type of fan is somehow a worse hockey fan, and then everyone just generalizes about "corsi people" or the "watch the games" crowd. Realistically, the phrase "worse hockey fan" doesn't make any sense <insert Oilers / Canucks / Leafs fan joke at your leisure>.

My read of Pro-Corsi writings is that they don't actually take shot locations and zone possession or rushes into account, and simply state more shots towards the net means you're better. That is the issue I have, as sure you can take 100 shots from the boards, and have great Corsi, or you can control the puck, pass it around and wait for a quality shot, and have a low Corsi, but score. Advanced stats don't seem to take the latter into account and rely on the former as gospel.

[Rerun]

Ryan Lambert Admits he was Wrong About the Red Wings

By Matthew Schultz  @Mattrick_Swayze on Mar 4, 2015, 4:21p

A lot of you hate Yahoo Puck Daddy blogger, Ryan Lambert. It could be for a range of reasons, but if you actually do dislike him, then, "He hates the Red Wings" is probably at or near the top of your list of reasons why. If that's the case, then boy do I have a treat for you.

Lambert is currently offering to author anything you'd like to see written about hockey in exchange for a donation of $50 or more to 826 Boston, a nonprofit tutoring and writing center he works with closely.

Well, I donated. But before I unleash Lambert to the wolves, I'd like to take the time to say that this really is a good cause and one that's worth any amount of money you can spare. I would also strongly recommend you read the other posts on the home page of his site. The three entries previous to mine are about why Jack Edwards is the best, Milan Lucic being worth every dollar he is paid, and the case for Sidney Crosby being a vampire. It's all good stuff, and if you too would like to make Lambert look like an asshat, then all you have to do is come up with a $50 tax-deductible donation to this charity.


Click here for more information about 826 Boston

Click here to donate

And click here to see Ryan Lambert eat crow

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/201...roit-red-wings

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

My read of Pro-Corsi writings is that they don't actually take shot locations and zone possession or rushes into account, and simply state more shots towards the net means you're better. That is the issue I have, as sure you can take 100 shots from the boards, and have great Corsi, or you can control the puck, pass it around and wait for a quality shot, and have a low Corsi, but score. Advanced stats don't seem to take the latter into account and rely on the former as gospel.

And I'll simply say that I've read that same argument a hundred times, as has anyone who takes analytics seriously, and it's not the case that these things are not taken into account. Here's an example: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/6/26/shot...nd-shot-totals

"you can control the puck, pass it around and wait for a quality shot, and have a low Corsi, but score"

This is also fundamentally untrue, by the way. You'd have a low CF, but even lower CA, if you're controlling the puck for that long. But this is also the sort of thing analytics can describe - a team that has high offensive time of possession would likely have low CF, low CA, a sky-high shooting percentage and the heat map for shot locations would probably indicate a lot of shots within home plate. In other words, if that's your theory of how X team is winning, you can make a pretty good analytics-based argument for it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Rerun

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/201...roit-red-wings

Oh my God I completely forgot that he was the guy from the Sidney Crosby is a Vampire podcast.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

My read of Pro-Corsi writings is that they don't actually take shot locations and zone possession or rushes into account, and simply state more shots towards the net means you're better. That is the issue I have, as sure you can take 100 shots from the boards, and have great Corsi, or you can control the puck, pass it around and wait for a quality shot, and have a low Corsi, but score. Advanced stats don't seem to take the latter into account and rely on the former as gospel.

I kind of disagree. Most of the better ones don't speak in terms of which team is "better", rather in terms of trends and what the mean. The opinion pieces are garbage, I'd agree. The interesting ones talk about which metric is better at determining what and don't wade into which team is a better team and which isn't.

They may state things like "x team has a poor corsi 5v5 and therefore is less likely to have success, which is a good and defensible position whether we at this site enjoy it or not.

Some talk about randomness and interchange it with luck. If corsi is truly predictive of success (and it generally is, that can't be disputed), if the flames of this year or Colorado of last year were "luck" or random, they would be one in many generations kind of "luck". Sustainability is another discussion altogether.

In my opinion Toronto and Colorado ate the worst things to happen to the analytics movement. They are the trump cats for those who don't understand analytics. That's two examples of regression that give blind faith where there's many others that disprove it. It's the "if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys" kind of logic.

High corsi is a hallmark of elite teams, and that can be proven until the views come home. Poor corsi is a hallmark of terrible teams and that can be proven. However, a good corsi team isn't necessarily an elite team and a terrible corsi team isn't necessarily terrible. THAT is where there's so much misinformation and misunderstanding. We aren't there yet and I'm not sure why some feel we've arrived at the end already

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

They also seem to forget the best statistic for determining whether a team is good or not already exists, and it is wins and losses. No new statistical measurement will ever replace that.

This x100.

GF/GA differential is a far better indicator than anything the analytics community has coked up as well.

Corsi has value, but it is, at best, the 3rd or 4th best stat to evaluate a teams success.

It's like +/- or SOG for individual players.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by RyZ

This x100.

GF/GA differential is a far better indicator than anything the analytics community has coked up as well.

Corsi has value, but it is, at best, the 3rd or 4th best stat to evaluate a teams success.

It's like +/- or SOG for individual players.

That's actually not true. Depending on the time of the season, Fenwick close is usually the predictor with the highest success

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is also fundamentally untrue, by the way. You'd have a low CF, but even lower CA, if you're controlling the puck for that long. But this is also the sort of thing analytics can describe - a team that has high offensive time of possession would likely have low CF, low CA, a sky-high shooting percentage and the heat map for shot locations would probably indicate a lot of shots within home plate. In other words, if that's your theory of how X team is winning, you can make a pretty good analytics-based argument for it.

NO, you don't necessarily have a low CA.
When they simply fire a wrister from the blueline in, after you have had puck possession but no shot for a 45 second shift, they get their useless corsi event for.

Analytics are excellent - but the measures aren't corsi or fenwick or PDO.
And it is foolish to suggest they are.

When advanced analytics are actually measured in some valuable way, they will be very useful.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

In my opinion Toronto and Colorado ate the worst things to happen to the analytics movement. They are the trump cats for those who don't understand analytics. That's two examples of regression that give blind faith where there's many others that disprove it. It's the "if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys" kind of logic.

This is an outstanding analogy. I haven't heard it used in this context but recall someone putting it similarly when people were s****ing all over Crosby for his playoffs production last year. "Best player in the world my a**", etc.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by Rerun

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/201...roit-red-wings

Lambert doesn't "eat crow" or admit he was wrong in anyway. He grudgingly writes first by stating "I'm only doing this because I have to" . He's still waiting for the wings to miss the playoffs so he finally say "see I told everyone this would happen". Lambert is currently offering to author anything you'd like to see written about hockey in exchange for a donation of $50 or more to 826 Boston, a nonprofit tutoring and writing center he works with closely. Seriously is he taking writing courses and getting tutoring because his articles just show him as a hack.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

They also seem to forget the best statistic for determining whether a team is good or not already exists, and it is wins and losses. No new statistical measurement will ever replace that.

Yes and no. I agree it's the best stat for determining who's good, but the purpose of the other statistics is to help predict who will win later and they do that better than wins/losses

[heep223]

My biggest issue is that "possession" stats don't actually track possession. A team could be holding the puck for 2 minutes cycling in the o-zone and have some great scoring chances that don't end up in actual shot attempts. Then the other team rushes back with a weak shot attempt from the outside and they are winning the Corsi battle.

I know this isn't a new criticism but that's my biggest issue. I will start paying way more attention when the technology arrives that actually tracks the amount of time the guys have the puck on their sticks and shot/scoring chance quality.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by heep223

My biggest issue is that "possession" stats don't actually track possession. A team could be holding the puck for 2 minutes cycling in the o-zone and have some great scoring chances that don't end up in actual shot attempts. Then the other team rushes back with a weak shot attempt from the outside and they are winning the Corsi battle.

I know this isn't a new criticism but that's my biggest issue. I will start paying way more attention when the technology arrives that actually tracks the amount of time the guys have the puck on their sticks and shot/scoring chance quality.

I agree and disagree here. While it may or may not track "possession" (small sample size says it's pretty close), it's really irrelevant. If it's predictive power (which is really the end value we're looking for) is good or bad, who really cares about actual possession?

[Walter Reed]

I wish the Oilers were as "screwed" as the Flames.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by heep223

My biggest issue is that "possession" stats don't actually track possession. A team could be holding the puck for 2 minutes cycling in the o-zone and have some great scoring chances that don't end up in actual shot attempts. Then the other team rushes back with a weak shot attempt from the outside and they are winning the Corsi battle.

I know this isn't a new criticism but that's my biggest issue. I will start paying way more attention when the technology arrives that actually tracks the amount of time the guys have the puck on their sticks and shot/scoring chance quality.

And the amusing part of that is that the 'analytics people' will reject this new technology that enables this... simply because it basically proves CF/CA as useless. Which they mostly are.
These new 'measures' will not be useless.

[White Out 403]

"not very" if you look at the standings. the kings have a lot of back to backs left and a lot of road games. san jose is finished. i think the standings are going to stay the same. calgary and vancouver 1st round match.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

And the amusing part of that is that the 'analytics people' will reject this new technology that enables this... simply because it basically proves CF/CA as useless. Which they mostly are.
These new 'measures' will not be useless.

the thing is though that historically, corsi has been a very good predictor of playoff teams. of course exceptions exist: its not perfect. no stat is. but its another great tool to determine whats going on with teams on the ice.