The Playoff Chase | CGY, WPG, LA

[saillias]

Why did Vancouver suddenly become Corsi-central in 2015?

I miss the old days when they would have interesting trash talk like "Bertuzzi and Naslund > Iginla" or "Jovanovski > Regehr" and you have a debate about that. At least you could have a discussion from that. Now they just post corsi stats. Guys, you're like 5 years late.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

If you're predicting which team makes the playoffs, do you pick the team who control the play against their opponent, or do you pick the team who is continually in the minus column for corsi events?

This seems pretty cut and dry to me.

You are absolutely right, Corsi all the way, just ask Eakins and the Oil, in his tenure one of the best Corsi teams in NHL. Shoot from anywhere and then cry about low PDO.

This seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[terminator]

Originally Posted by Jbo

Every single one of your posts is about Corsi and stats and how the Flames will falter. Yet here we are with 3 games left. What will happen the next 3 games will not be about advanced stats.

Your a Canuck fan that loves to drive by. Seriously get lost with that crap

The Corsi has lead the Canucks to so many Stanley Cups!

Well no, I guess its lead them to a few riots!

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

The Canucks, Wild, Kings, and Jets will all finish ahead of Calgary. The Flames are stumbling to the finish line which is a function of the underlying stats catching up to them.

And what underlying stats are those?
The stats I look at, are wins and losses, as well as goals for and against.
in the last 5 games:
Kings are: 3-2-0, with 16 goals for and 13 against, this includes the 8-2 drudging against the Oilers. A +3 goal differential over 5 games.
Jets are: 2-3-0, with 17 goals for, and 18 against, a -1 over the last 5.
Canucks are 2-2-1, with 17 goals for, and 17 against.
Flames are 3-2-0, with 17 goals for, and 13 against. a +4.

Kings have a +17 goal differntial on the season, Jets a +14, canucks a +13, Flames a +26..... seems the stats tell the same story still

So if stumbling means staying at the top in both pace of winning percentage, and scoring, and differential, I will happily watch them stumble through the last 3 games, and still make the playoffs.

[Jbo]

No point replying. He came in did a drive by comment and left.

But "Corsi"!... See Ya

[Quincy Egg]

Originally Posted by wretched34

And what underlying stats are those?
The stats I look at, are wins and losses, as well as goals for and against.
in the last 5 games:
Kings are: 3-2-0, with 16 goals for and 13 against, this includes the 8-2 drudging against the Oilers. A +3 goal differential over 5 games.
Jets are: 2-3-0, with 17 goals for, and 18 against, a -1 over the last 5.
Canucks are 2-2-1, with 17 goals for, and 17 against.
Flames are 3-2-0, with 17 goals for, and 13 against. a +4.

Kings have a +17 goal differntial on the season, Jets a +14, canucks a +13, Flames a +26..... seems the stats tell the same story still

So if stumbling means staying at the top in both pace of winning percentage, and scoring, and differential, I will happily watch them stumble through the last 3 games, and still make the playoffs.

It appears you do not understand what underlying stats mean.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

It appears you do not understand what underlying stats mean.

No. The ball is in your court. Please explain for the rest of us too so you aren't just seen as some drive-by hack.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

It appears you do not understand what underlying stats mean.

Ah, I thought I recognized you.

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

I'm curious to see some people's reasoning as to why these type of percentages are sustainable.

I'm assuming that your reference to underlying stats is that the Flames top players have unsustainable shooting %, as you were questioning this in that other thread a while back. Well, here were the explanations you were looking for (since you disappeared and have now reappeared with the exact same troll job, I'll assume that you missed them):

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Sean Monahan:
13/14: 15.6%
14/15: 16.7%

Jiri Hudler:
08/09: 14.8%
09/10: KHL
10/11: 9.5%
11/12: 19.7%
12/13: 17.9
13/14: 15.6%
14/15: 18.8%

It's sustainable because it IS sustainable.

And from yours truly:

Originally Posted by heep223

Reasoning:

Using a generalized "reversion to the mean" theory (which I'm assuming you're alluding to re: shooting %) doesn't work if the mean is persistently high. And the mean should be defined as that player's mean, not the league mean. I don't believe that every player in the league will revert to the league average in shooting percentage. Some guys take a lot of low quality shots and barely score (think of Bollig's snap shots from the blue line ), some guys take fewer high quality shots and score a lot.

Much more useful (as poster looks at above) to compare a player's shooting percentage to his career/previous seasons shooting percentage. If Hudler was scoring on 25% of his shots, I'd agree that he's scoring on more shots than he has in the past and in all likelihood it wouldn't be sustainable.

Though it's really easy to say "look at those unsustainable percentages wow!"

For example, take Alex Ovechkin's career shooting percentages since 2009:

2009: 13.6
League: 9.1

2010: 8.7
League: 9.0

2011: 12.5
League: 8.9

2012: 14.6
League: 9.1

2013: 13.2
League: 8.9

2014: 13.6
League: 9.0

Another example is Ryan Getzlaf's 11/12 season. Too lazy to type it out but very similar to above.

Good players consistently have better shooting percentages than the league average. Would you say that Ovie or Getzlaf;s percentages are unsustainable? The one outlier is in 2010 when his average was considerably lower than his career averages. To me that is unsustainable.

Now I'm not comparing our guys to those super stars. I'm just using them as an example of guys with persistently high shooting percentages.

Also, position should be a factor. The league average is dragged WAY down by defensemen, who have far lower shooting percentages. Maybe take a look at the average for forwards?

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articl...n-the-nhl.aspx

Also:

Originally Posted by saillias

THey are magical wizards.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

It appears you do not understand what underlying stats mean.

It appears you (and most of the advanced stats crowd) do not understand that Calgary's success is not tied to Corsi.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

It appears you (and most of the advanced stats crowd) do not understand that Calgary's success is not tied to Corsi.

And its really boring and nerdy

[pylon]

Honestly, I truly believe that guys like Quincy wish the Stanley Cup was awarded based on the team with the best Corsi spreadsheet, not game scores. These stupid advanced stats dorks are killing the passion of the game.

I can honestly see these guys huddled around a 1337 gaming PC as it is compiling stats waiting for it to calculate the winner, while they ignore a emotional, bloody, game 7 SCF game between an 8th and 6th seed playing in the background.

Seriously advanced stats, EAD.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

And its really boring and nerdy

This. I don't hate advanced stats because there's no merit to them, I hate advanced stats because conversations about them are boring, long to read about, and usually conducted between extremists who refuse to believe each side has valid points.

Advanced stats may be the worst thing to happen to hockey. They've ruined many conversations I've had.

[terminator]

Corsi walks results talk.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

It appears you do not understand what underlying stats mean.

Please enlighten me all mighty "Underlying" stats guru. Tell me how the Flames are not fighting for a playoff spot with less than a week remaining in the regular season because of unsustainable shooting percentages and corsi...

The only thing that your "underlying" stats have proven this year with the Flames, is that they aren't always right. What has been proven, is that the Flames play a style of hockey, right now, that has them battling for a playoff spot, and that's what matters.

[mrdonkey]

Oh good, it's the advanced stats thread again. Hello, old friend!

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

It appears you do not understand what underlying stats mean.

It appears you do not understand that all those wonderful counts of attempted shots have the Carolina Hurricanes and Dallas Stars among the favorites for the playoffs over the Canucks, Rangers, Blues, Wild, Ducks, and Habs.

[hockey.modern]

Not to sure if my math is right but can we clinch the playoffs if LA loses their next two games and we win our next two? (Doubt it considering kings play the oilers)

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

This. I don't hate advanced stats because there's no merit to them, I hate advanced stats because conversations about them are boring, long to read about, and usually conducted between extremists who refuse to believe each side has valid points.

Advanced stats may be the worst thing to happen to hockey. They've ruined many conversations I've had.

The beauty of advanced stats is that you don't actually have to watch hockey anymore. You can just get all the data, load it into some Excel tables and figure out who should have won. This can be done in minutes, whereas a game takes 2.5 hours to watch.

You can then compare who should have won to actually won. This is where it gets fun. You can take credit for all the teams that won based on your spreadsheet. If a result doesn't go as plan, you can just call it luck, and know that one day that team will lose. At this point, you can say "See. I told you so". Isn't that way more fun that watching the skill and beauty of the actual game. It will likely free up way more time as well.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

If you're predicting which team makes the playoffs, do you pick the team who control the play against their opponent, or do you pick the team who is continually in the minus column for corsi events?

This seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I truly truly hope we meet your loser Canucks team in the playoffs and beat the loving crap out of them with a worse corsi/fenwick/advanced stats/underlying stats not only because I love the Flames and hate the Canucks, but I'm also curious to see what excuses you and your ilk make for losing despite better stats.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

It appears you do not understand what underlying stats mean.

Are you certain enough in your stats faith to make a pube bet?