Calgarypuck Advanced Stat Summary

[GioforPM]

Because I'm lazy and don't understand the stats very well anyway, can someone tell me - what did the Rangers' stats look like when they went to the Cup finals a couple years ago. Torts coached that team around a blocking strategy, no?

[Finger Cookin]

The Rangers never went to the Cup final under Tortorella. They made it there last season under Vigneault.

In 11-12, the Rangers made it to the Conference finals. During the regular season that year, the Rangers were ranked as follows in these possesion fancy stats:

5v5
CF%: 23rd (47.7%)
FF%: 16th (49.4%)

5v5 Close
CF%: 19th (48.5%)
FF%: 15th (49.7%)

All Situations
CF%: 23rd (48.2%)
FF%: 14th (49.7%)

Source: Puckalytics.com

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Because I'm lazy and don't understand the stats very well anyway, can someone tell me - what did the Rangers' stats look like when they went to the Cup finals a couple years ago. Torts coached that team around a blocking strategy, no?

They never made the cup finals with Torts. They made the conference finals in 11/12 with a 5v5 corsi% of 47.8

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

They never made the cup finals with Torts. They made the conference finals in 11/12 with a 5v5 corsi% of 47.8

Thanks, my bad - I did mean that year.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by polak

It's very possible to have a successful system that isn't driven by possession.

Indeed, the trap was one of the successful strategies employed for a long time and it revolved pretty much on giving the other team the puck and waiting for counter attacking oppourtunities when they missplayed it.

[FBI]

What's our Corsi against our own division?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by FBI

What's our Corsi against our own division?

44.04% ... 2nd worst record against any division. It's on the graphic.

[FBI]

Wow. 44% corsi for a 17-4-2 record.
I guess corsi means nothing in a 20 game segment.

[polak]

Originally Posted by FBI

Wow. 44% corsi for a 17-4-2 record.
I guess corsi means nothing in a 20 game segment.

It's just more evidence that the Flames have found a successful system that doesn't rely on possession.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by polak

It's just more evidence that the Flames have found a successful system that doesn't rely on posession.

Calgary actually possesses the puck quite well, they just don't shoot the puck as much.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FBI

Wow. 44% corsi for a 17-4-2 record.
I guess corsi means nothing in a 20 game segment.

20 games is a small sample size, but when the results are that one sided (.783 WP% and a 44% Corsi), it doesn't take all that many games for the numbers to be significant.

Either they are some kind of lucky in the division, or Corsi isn't capturing what's happening.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by polak

It's just more evidence that the Flames have found a successful system that doesn't rely on posession.

No, it is simply evidence that exceptions exist. But we already knew that.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, it is simply evidence that exceptions exist. But we already knew that.

Exactly.

A team that wins a lot with a system that doesn't rely on possession and shooting a lot is an exception to Corsi. Doesn't mean its unsustainable.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, it is simply evidence that exceptions exist. But we already knew that.

Not sure that everyone does (see Lambert)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by polak

Exactly.

A team that wins a lot with a system that doesn't rely on possession and shooting a lot is an exception to Corsi. Doesn't mean its unsustainable.

The system, basically, is to either outscore or outsave your possession stats.

Over the last four full (82-game) seasons, seven teams have made the playoffs with a CF% below 48. All but one did it through amazing goaltending, amazing shooting, or both:

Season  TM   CF%  Sv%  Rk   Sh%  Rk
2013-14 COL 46.9 .930 ( 6) 8.80 ( 2)
2013-14 MTL 46.7 .930 ( 5) 7.44 (21)
2011-12 NYR 47.7 .927 ( 8) 8.30 ( 8)
2011-12 NAS 46.6 .925 (12) 8.51 ( 6)
2010-11 ANA 44.4 .923 (16) 7.79 (20)
2009-10 MTL 47.2 .929 ( 3) 7.58 (25)
2009-10 COL 44.8 .926 ( 8) 8.84 ( 4)

2014-15 CGY 44.8 .922 (16) 8.88 ( 2)

(percentages and ranks at 5 on 5, per hockeyanalysis.com)

That Ducks team in 2010-11 had no business being anywhere near the post-season...

Montreal is the poster child for the system that defeats Corsi. It's called "Have a gold medal winning goaltender". The Habs are 21st in CF% this year at 49.4, 26th last year at 46.7, 7th in 2012-13 at 52.8, 22nd in 2011-12 at 48.0, 11th in 2010-11 at 51.6 and 27th in 2009-10 at 47.2%.

Goaltending is reasonably predictable from season to season, so it can consistently overcome poor possession. Calgary is in a playoff spot because of shooting percentage, and honestly, it is far more random. Washington, for instance, has ranged anywhere from 10.3% to 7.6% between 2009-10 and this season. And a 3% swing on 1800 shots is 54 goals. They are an extreme though.

[GranteedEV]

...So what you're saying, is that next year the Flames shoot 11% when Paul Byron finds his scoring touch?

[Itse]

nm

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

The Flames are exceeding expectations this season because of a 10-3 OT/shootout record. Those results are more variable and less repeatable, at least with any of the metrics currently being used. The weird OT results skew a lot of the other numbers being analysed.

The rest is just noise.

The Flames highly mobile D and team speed makes them an excellent 4 on 4 team, hence the good results. I disagree when Lambert calls OT a coin toss

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The Flames highly mobile D and team speed makes them an excellent 4 on 4 team, hence the good results. I disagree when Lambert calls OT a coin toss

OT isn't, however the shootout is. The stats have been run and as long as you put your best shooters out there all the time, over the long run the shootout is essentially a coin flip.

[Greybeard]

We are a very good third period team quite possibly due to speed and conditioning. I believe this translates to our OT success. It is not a fluke that we are better 4 on 4 with our speed.