A little validation at least.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I wonder if some teams buy into the Corsi thing too much though. A good team will naturally have a good Corsi rating as their systems and skill level will produce more shots and scoring chances.

If a poor or mediocre team is trying to increase their Corsi by simply taking more shots without the skill or system in place to capitalize, then the Corsi just become a mirage and even a hindrance as it puts the carriage before the horse.

Corsi should be the result, not the goal. This is why I feel the focus on analytics is missing the point.

I'm surprised that so many people liked this post. I just find it really hard to believe that coaches and players are chasing a good Corsi rather than scoring goals. I don't doubt that coaches likely encourage more shooting since so many shots are blocked these days, but I have to think they aren't patting players on the back for long wristers from the blue line with no chance of going in.

Do this many people think that teams are chasing Corsi only these days?

[Larry David]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

I'm surprised that so many people liked this post. I just find it really hard to believe that coaches and players are chasing a good Corsi rather than scoring goals. I don't doubt that coaches likely encourage more shooting since so many shots are blocked these days, but I have to think they aren't patting players on the back for long wristers from the blue line with no chance of going in.

Do this many people think that teams are chasing Corsi only these days?

Have a cup of coffee, re-read the post.

[Red]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

I'm surprised that so many people liked this post. I just find it really hard to believe that coaches and players are chasing a good Corsi rather than scoring goals. I don't doubt that coaches likely encourage more shooting since so many shots are blocked these days, but I have to think they aren't patting players on the back for long wristers from the blue line with no chance of going in.

Do this many people think that teams are chasing Corsi only these days?

Some coaches may believe that shooting more gives you a better chance to score. There is a reason that we keep hearing "put pucks on net and good things will happen".

[Itse]

Just because good teams have good corsi does not mean teams with good corsi are good teams.

[Bingo]

My watershed moment on this was Kris Russell.

The guy was a warrior, consummate team player and able to play up the roster in a pinch. He had value, but carried this weight as a corsi anchor when with the Flames. The analytics community giggled when he was dealt to Dallas for a big package, and then of course Steinberg took on Loubardias in that infamous shout down.

I started digging and it was impossible to find a reason why a very good player could have a very bad corsi stat.

If you're getting shot at more than you and your linemates are shooting there's a problem. So you assume it's a bad team and they all have bad stats, but then you dig into relative corsi and you see he's the worse player on a bad team, and they all fare better without him in those WOWY stats.

At that point I wouldn't say I was converted, because I'm still an eye test guy. But now the numbers either prove what I'm seeing or they don't. When they don't I certainly have pause.

The Flames five on five out play teams. They don't finish very well and because of that their five on five play isn't good enough to save their powerplay woes.

However the powerplay isn't much different than five on five in some regards; once again they can't finish.

PP CF% ranked 14th
PP Scoring Chance slit ranked 10th
PP shooting percentage ranked 21st

When Treliving said goal scoring kept him up at night I assumed the team would have trouble generating chances. They don't. They just can't finish.

[GioforPM]

I'm not a Corsi hater. In fact I think it's a really useful tool and, in the long run, generally a good predictor of success. But I think the article isn't very persuasive by saying "look, here are a bunch of great teams Corsi-wise and they are all outside looking in right now".

I agree, however, with the article's premise that a short term setback is no reason to dismiss Corsi. He just doesn't expand on this enough.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

My watershed moment on this was Kris Russell.

The guy was a warrior, consummate team player and able to play up the roster in a pinch. He had value, but carried this weight as a corsi anchor when with the Flames. The analytics community giggled when he was dealt to Dallas for a big package, and then of course Steinberg took on Loubardias in that infamous shout down.

I started digging and it was impossible to find a reason why a very good player could have a very bad corsi stat.

If you're getting shot at more than you and your linemates are shooting there's a problem. So you assume it's a bad team and they all have bad stats, but then you dig into relative corsi and you see he's the worse player on a bad team, and they all fare better without him in those WOWY stats.

At that point I wouldn't say I was converted, because I'm still an eye test guy. But now the numbers either prove what I'm seeing or they don't. When they don't I certainly have pause.

The Flames five on five out play teams. They don't finish very well and because of that their five on five play isn't good enough to save their powerplay woes.

However the powerplay isn't much different than five on five in some regards; once again they can't finish.

PP CF% ranked 14th
PP Scoring Chance slit ranked 10th
PP shooting percentage ranked 21st

When Treliving said goal scoring kept him up at night I assumed the team would have trouble generating chances. They don't. They just can't finish.

Great post.

I suppose one issue i have with these great stats, is the conclusions drawn. Is it just luck, and eventually the team will "regress to the mean" and start scoring more?

Or is there another layer of the onion that needs to be peeled to get to the root of the issue (skilled playmakers but not enough guys with poise/finish, guys who are getting the high danger chances are wrong handedness based on how most plays are getting setup, etc, etc). Perhaps there is something to be said about a line, a player, a team "clicking" and playing with confidence. Perhaps the stats should bias for a player/line/team that has scored recently (ie. within the last X periods) vs not.

I just have trouble with the notion that the stats indicate a team is playing well, and that means that eventually their poor shooting %'s will even out. Especially as we increase the data set past the first 20 games of a season, for example. We're 50 games in now.

[Bingo]

The article should really say "everything else held equal"

The teams have different issues ... Carolina has weak goaltending, Pittsburgh can't finish at all. Edmonton has had a huge shift to shots from the point which keep corsi up but chances down.

The only team of those five that stay top five in high danger scoring chances (split as a %) is Calgary though. (2nd)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Great post.

I suppose one issue i have with these great stats, is the conclusions drawn. Is it just luck, and eventually the team will "regress to the mean" and start scoring more?

Or is there another layer of the onion that needs to be peeled to get to the root of the issue (skilled playmakers but not enough guys with poise/finish, guys who are getting the high danger chances are wrong handedness based on how most plays are getting setup, etc, etc). Perhaps there is something to be said about a line, a player, a team "clicking" and playing with confidence. Perhaps the stats should bias for a player/line/team that has scored recently (ie. within the last X periods) vs not.

I just have trouble with the notion that the stats indicate a team is playing well, and that means that eventually their poor shooting %'s will even out. Especially as we increase the data set past the first 20 games of a season, for example. We're 50 games in now.

I wrestle with this too.

So the Flames generate chances at an elite rate, and prevent them enough to be 2nd in the league in five on five scoring chance splits. That is the definition of hockey success when you script it.

But they can't finish.

So they lack skill? OK ... but in my mind it takes more skill to get the puck into a high danger chance than it does to finish it, so I'm not there on that excuse.

I hear the "all high danger chances are not created equally" argument, but it's tough to quantify, and I don't tend to jump down rabbit holes with an assumption that large on the backs of hard data.

There was that study that had the Flames last in the league in passes into the high danger zone for shot attempts ... and I think there's something to that.

Additionally they are first in the league in missed shots which points to players trying to be too perfect, which I think is a huge issue as well.

[getbak]

Back after Eakins was fired in Edmonton, Eberle confirmed that they were being coached to shoot from anywhere to boost their Corsi numbers under Eakins.

In the 31 games Eakins coached that year, their 5-on-5 Corsi was 50.92%. In the 51 games that Nelson coached, their 5-on-5 Corsi was 46.44%.

Their goals per game was 2.10 under Eakins and 2.51 under Nelson. They had 19 points in 31 games under Eakins (0.306) and 43 points in 51 games under Nelson (0.422).


To answer the question, yes, bad, poorly-coached teams can absolutely try to boost their Corsi at the expense of actually trying to generate good scoring chances.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I wrestle with this too.

So the Flames generate chances at an elite rate, and prevent them enough to be 2nd in the league in five on five scoring chance splits. That is the definition of hockey success when you script it.

But they can't finish.

So they lack skill? OK ... but in my mind it takes more skill to get the puck into a high danger chance than it does to finish it, so I'm not there on that excuse.

I hear the "all high danger chances are not created equally" argument, but it's tough to quantify, and I don't tend to jump down rabbit holes with an assumption that large on the backs of hard data.

There was that study that had the Flames last in the league in passes into the high danger zone for shot attempts ... and I think there's something to that.

Additionally they are first in the league in missed shots which points to players trying to be too perfect, which I think is a huge issue as well.

The lack of passes into the high danger zone is so odd. That's where Monahan and Ferland live. That where Stajan scores from, when he scores.

It's funny, I don't mind Monahan's misses as much, because I know he scores a lot because he's aiming for the corners. Jankowski's bug me. I am being inconsistent, I know.

[Toonage]

Players being taught/instructed to shoot high that are having troubles picking those spots or directing their shots?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The lack of passes into the high danger zone is so odd. That's where Monahan and Ferland live. That where Stajan scores from, when he scores.

If you think of the pp though it actually makes sense.

Passes around the home plate and then someone steps into it and shoots (wide).

Monahan gets a rebound in the home plate and buries it but it wasn't a pass to get there.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you think of the pp though it actually makes sense.

Passes around the home plate and then someone steps into it and shoots (wide).

Monahan gets a rebound in the home plate and buries it but it wasn't a pass to get there.

I wasn't clear. I agree there's a lack of passes into the home plate. I think it's odd they don't do it more. Especially on the power play. Look at the last PP goal. It works (way more than a one timer from the faceoff dot IMO). The best one is a pass from behind or near the goal line into the slot, because the goalie has to stay deep.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I wrestle with this too.

So the Flames generate chances at an elite rate, and prevent them enough to be 2nd in the league in five on five scoring chance splits. That is the definition of hockey success when you script it.

But they can't finish.

So they lack skill? OK ... but in my mind it takes more skill to get the puck into a high danger chance than it does to finish it, so I'm not there on that excuse.

I hear the "all high danger chances are not created equally" argument, but it's tough to quantify, and I don't tend to jump down rabbit holes with an assumption that large on the backs of hard data.

There was that study that had the Flames last in the league in passes into the high danger zone for shot attempts ... and I think there's something to that.

Additionally they are first in the league in missed shots which points to players trying to be too perfect, which I think is a huge issue as well.

Who are the league's top High Danger Scoring % shooters? Are they the obvious top end guys, or are there "less skilled" guys sprinkled in there?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

That bad special teams can kill a team's record?

This, and lack of high end talent depth.

This is why the coach says keep doing what you are doing. And why that pisses people off when the results aren't there.

Going back to Brouwer signing and following up with Hamonic trade, the assets the Flames had (in cap space and draft picks) could have been used differently. I think we know Treliving was wrong with Brouwer. I guess time will tell on Hamonic.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

This, and lack of high end talent depth.

This is why the coach says keep doing what you are doing. And why that pisses people off when the results aren't there.

Going back to Brouwer signing and following up with Hamonic trade, the assets the Flames had (in cap space and draft picks) could have been used differently. I think we know Treliving was wrong with Brouwer. I guess time will tell on Hamonic.

I'm already quite happy with Hamonic. He got off to a rough start but I think he's clearly the second best defensive defenceman on the team. I rarely see a mistake by him any more, and he's a good transitioner as well. Quite underrated by Calgary fans IMO.

[Erick Estrada]

Every team misses the net a lot. Goaltenders are bigger, better and the nets haven't changed so the need to hit corners is as big as it's ever been. That said this team really misses the net a lot. This team wastes more high quality scoring chances than any team I have ever seen as whether they are missing the net or not even getting shots on net out of odd man rushes they really make their job difficult.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm already quite happy with Hamonic. He got off to a rough start but I think he's clearly the second best defensive defenceman on the team. I rarely see a mistake by him any more, and he's a good transitioner as well. Quite underrated by Calgary fans IMO.

I get that. I agree with you. I think he has been really good. And they always say you can't have enough defensive depth in the playoffs because you can't have enough. But the pipeline is also full of defensive depth and I think 1 more high end shooter might have meant 3 or 4 more wins for this team. Which seems to be the difference between home ice and fighting for your playoff lives.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

If conventional medical treatments had working correlations on par with hockey's advanced stats, no one would ever visit a doctor.