How did the Kings miss the playoffs?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GGG

It's more like saying all teams regress to the same shooting percentage.

There are a few players with the ability to maintain higher shooting percentages year over year. Most average out overtime. And when you take 22 players over multiple seasons it starts to average out as well.

Corsi also assumes that shot selection is equal among all teams and thus far any analysis to prove otherwise has fallen short. But there are some neat concepts like the royal road that suggest otherwise.

I think Corsi works because the league in general adopted Mike Babcocks possession based style of play. So if all teams play a similar style the measuring Corsi works as the base assumption that over time all teams take the same quality of shots plays out to be true.

Thank you. I appreciate the response itself, and the tone of it. Often we who question legitimately get a you are dumb response.
I am very interested in the Royal road work, I expect it will prove the point in question, to some degree.
Also honed in on your 'play the same game' statement. This rings true. The Oilers were a great example. A swarm defence that gives up golden chances plus a coaching strategy to shoot from everywhere (because all chances are equal in the end) created a situation that left you with underlying numbers suggesting improvement that was obviously not going to happen, because they weren't playing 'the right way'. But what we got from most was 'bad luck' - when it was nothing of the sort.
The Flames don't play nice either. It doesn't predict them well. Yes, they need to improve. A lot. But it's clearly more sustainable than the model would have us believe.
That's only my opinion

[Geeoff]

What's there to fool about Corsi as a stat? It's a stat that measures a specific thing: shot attempts. It's about as subjective as any other stat based on shots. The idea that corsi should have a 1:1 relationship with the standings is what is foolhardy.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, on a single-game scale, it can make a huge difference. So too can a goalie standing on his head or fumbling the puck like an idiot.

But over 82 games, those largely smooth out.

I think you mis-read my post. I was referring to the Flames' season not a single game.

The Flames have been doing the same thing for a year and a half. If you break it down into 20-game segments, they have been surprisingly consistent from segment to segment. There is not only a large sample size to observe, the data is all very robust (consistent).

What they are doing, offensively and defensively, they have been doing for more than 100 games. Corsi, shooting percentage, shot blocking, everything.

To continue to argue that it is unsustainable and due for regression is to simply ignore the evidence. Pure cognitive dissonance.

[AcGold]

No it's not cognitive dissonance, it's ignorance. Big difference.

[Regorium]

@ Resolute 14. I'm not arguing effectively because I used to be a huge Corsi supporter (early this year), and that side frustrates the hell out of me. That's fair and I deserve to be called out on it.

I posed 3 questions in my previous post:
- Why does Corsi assume that PP-PK has to be consistent for all teams, and thus remove PP/PK from its analysis? (one of the biggest arguments for the Flames being "lucky" this year despite their bad Corsi numbers, they've been lucky with officiating)
- Why are 4 on 4 results are reduced to luck?
- Does having the NHL's best shot blocker on your team induce enough of a change that shot blocking becomes a net positive? Can shot-blocking itself be a net positive?

There are so many things about the current Flames team that the standard Corsi base of assumptions just does not take into account. However, from the pro-Corsi side, it's purely luck and variance, and regression is inevitable. There's no analysis as to why the Flames have been successful - it's all just luck. That's why it's so frustrating.

The fact that LA had so many one goal games, rather than just dominating their opposition (which they should've been, based on their CF%) shows that perhaps LA wasn't as good of a team as their CF% suggested. Over the last 3 years, this has happened every time (246 game sample), yet we ignore that data set and only focus on the ~65 games of the playoffs. Maybe there's something else at play.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Thank you. I appreciate the response itself, and the tone of it. Often we who question legitimately get a you are dumb response.
I am very interested in the Royal road work, I expect it will prove the point in question, to some degree.
Also honed in on your 'play the same game' statement. This rings true. The Oilers were a great example. A swarm defence that gives up golden chances plus a coaching strategy to shoot from everywhere (because all chances are equal in the end) created a situation that left you with underlying numbers suggesting improvement that was obviously not going to happen, because they weren't playing 'the right way'. But what we got from most was 'bad luck' - when it was nothing of the sort.
The Flames don't play nice either. It doesn't predict them well. Yes, they need to improve. A lot. But it's clearly more sustainable than the model would have us believe.
That's only my opinion

I agree with you that the flames style does not fit what Corsi models based on the eye test. The flames have also maintained a 96 point pace for 110 games so at some point it has to mean something. They weren't a team like Minnisota, Toronto, or Nashville that got off to really hot starts and then faded to the back of the pack. So the question is why? What's funny if next year they finish in 9th you will have people proclaim that they regressed when really it would be the same result.

I think where the discussion around advance stats breaks down is that people try to create a black and white approach. So people who like advance stats characterize the other group as idiots and people who dislike them use any deviation from 100% predictive value to try to discredit the whole thing.

People respond to the worst comments instead of the well thought out discussion you get a mess.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Is this an example of a Straw man argument that should be banned?

Look up "straw man".

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Regorium

@ Resolute 14. I'm not arguing effectively because I used to be a huge Corsi supporter (early this year), and that side frustrates the hell out of me. That's fair and I deserve to be called out on it.

Fair enough, and thanks. I can, of course, only answer your questions with both what knowledge I hold, and my own (hopefully logical) considerations:

I posed 3 questions in my previous post:
- Why does Corsi assume that PP-PK has to be consistent for all teams, and thus remove PP/PK from its analysis? (one of the biggest arguments for the Flames being "lucky" this year despite their bad Corsi numbers, they've been lucky with officiating)

I think you are assuming too much here. To the best of my knowledge, special teams aren't typically excluded because of an assumption that they are constant for all teams, but that they make up such a relatively small percentage of the game and the very nature of a man (dis)advantage skews the intent of trying to compare teams in relatively equal situations.

Remember that Corsi is basically an "advanced plus/minus", which likewise excludes PP scoring.

- Why are 4 on 4 results are reduced to luck?

I'm not sure it is reduced to luck, but rather has such a small sample size that it is basically just statistical noise. i.e.: We've played 3822 minutes at 5 on 5, but only 139 at 4 on 4. Also, I presume that the "luck" argument is more likely a belief that 4 on 4 success generally has not been demonstrated as consistently repeatable. Much like OT/SO.

- Does having the NHL's best shot blocker on your team induce enough of a change that shot blocking becomes a net positive? Can shot-blocking itself be a net positive?

Depends on your view, I think. Personally, I do find shot blocking to be a positive - you can't score on shots that don't reach the net - but since Corsi is only attempting to measure shot attempts, the argument about blocking isn't a flaw in the stat itself.

There are so many things about the current Flames team that the standard Corsi base of assumptions just does not take into account. However, from the pro-Corsi side, it's purely luck and variance, and regression is inevitable. There's no analysis as to why the Flames have been successful - it's all just luck. That's why it's so frustrating.

If you've read my posts in the past, you would find that I have consistently noted the idiocy of relying too much on one stat. Or even one stat in one context - thus my rebuttal of showing Gaudreau's Corsi relative to his teammates. And yes, many analytics proponents tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees. That is not a flaw in the statistic itself, but in the humans creating the predictions.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think you mis-read my post. I was referring to the Flames' season not a single game.

The Flames have been doing the same thing for a year and a half. If you break it down into 20-game segments, they have been surprisingly consistent from segment to segment. There is not only a large sample size to observe, the data is all very robust (consistent).

What they are doing, offensively and defensively, they have been doing for more than 100 games. Corsi, shooting percentage, shot blocking, everything.

To continue to argue that it is unsustainable and due for regression is to simply ignore the evidence. Pure cognitive dissonance.

Fair enough, I did misread the intent of your post. But while we consider that the Flames have been doing well for about 100 games, lets not forget that for how well we have played, we are still only barely a playoff team. We need to get better still, and that will reflect in a myriad of statistical areas, including Corsi.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Fair enough, I did misread the intent of your post. But while we consider that the Flames have been doing well for about 100 games, lets not forget that for how well we have played, we are still only barely a playoff team. We need to get better still, and that will reflect in a myriad of statistical areas, including Corsi.

no question

[PugnaciousIntern]

Oh look, another discussion about corsi!

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Look up "straw man".

It is when you take an argument. Make it more extreme and stupid but the same premise and then prove your right by saying the extreme case is wrong.

Datsyuk playing with 12yr olds seems like a extreme case when it was used to argue gaudreau with other nhlers.

Please explain if it is wrong

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

We need to get better still, and that will reflect in a myriad of statistical areas, including Corsi.

And the nice part is that the Flames are in year 2 of a rebuild. It's a fair assumption that the team will get better.

[Red]

Here is what I don't get.

You have to score more goals than the opposition to win.
If corsi is correct, then high possession = lots of goals. So all good corsi teams should be high scoring and have wins to show for it.

How do we explain NJ, Cgy, LA etc? LA never scored a lot yet they always had great corsi. Flames are one of the highest scoring teams this year. NJ has good corsi but is the 3rd lowest scoring team. Isn't Dallas also a Corsi darling? Scores a ton, but can't win.
It just doesn't add up.

[EldrickOnIce]

The go to response is PDO (luck).

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Red

Here is what I don't get.

You have to score more goals than the opposition to win.
If corsi is correct, then high possession = lots of goals. So all good corsi teams should be high scoring and have wins to show for it.

How do we explain NJ, Cgy, LA etc? LA never scored a lot yet they always had great corsi. Flames are one of the highest scoring teams this year. NJ has good corsi but is the 3rd lowest scoring team. Isn't Dallas also a Corsi darling? Scores a ton, but can't win.
It just doesn't add up.

Those who believe in Corsi would tell you that Calgary has an extremely high shooting percentage (i.e. shots that turn into goals) that is unsustainable. In other words, luck. They would argue that eventually the shooting percentage will fall and goals scored would drop.

[Vinny01]

They played 50+ playoff games over the past 3 years this team has to be gassed. Voynov was a huge loss. Richards continuing his decent to pure garbage, prized deadline pickup Sekera getting hurt all big factors.

Also I got the impression is the Kings thought they would get in no matter how bad they were playing. Get in and go far was their mindset but they were more often out than in. They didn't have that extra gear this year and it really showed in their recent 3 game western Canadian swing.

[transplant99]

It's pretty simple why the Kings missed this year.

They are gassed as a collective.

The Kings have played 65 more games the last 3 seasons than the Flames as an example. Those games are also among the hardest played typically both mentally and physically. That's almost an entire season when you tack on Olympics for many of them.

The human body can only take so much before it simply can't respond like it wants. It's like any of us if we worked day after day and week after week of overtime. At some point you just start to burn out and are not as effective as you can be.

It really is as simple as that....Corsi and PDO and all the other fluffy explanations aside.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

They played 50+ playoff games over the past 3 years this team has to be gassed. Voynov was a huge loss. Richards continuing his decent to pure garbage, prized deadline pickup Sekera getting hurt all big factors.

Also I got the impression is the Kings thought they would get in no matter how bad they were playing. Get in and go far was their mindset but they were more often out than in. They didn't have that extra gear this year and it really showed in their recent 3 game western Canadian swing.

The way they had played on their previous road trip, one might have expected 4-6 points.
They did look gassed, and got 1.

[dieHARDflameZ]

In my opinion they've just played way too much hockey over the past few seasons. I don't think they had enough left in the gas tank.

Make no mistake, this team should be back in the playoffs next season contending for another cup.