[Trade] Elias Lindholm + Noah Hanifin to Flames for D. Hamilton, Micheal Ferland, & Adam Fox

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Yrebmi

Theoretically a club might coach their players to hold off shooting until they had a teammate in good position to regain possession in event of a miss.
Such a practice would allow defenders and goalie time to get in the way - which would in turn force the shooter to aim more to the edges and increase likelihood of a miss.

So not saying that happened - just answering how a team could "fake" corsi.

Holding off of shooting would be the opposite of faking corsi.

[neo45]

One Oiler revealed they were coached specifically to direct everything at the net to increase possession stats under Eakins I believe. I think it was Eberle, WHILE Eakings was still coach.

I think they also purposely manipulate the shots on net stars up north. There was one game against on last year where the announcers called out the stats for being way off.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by neo45

One Oiler revealed they were coached specifically to direct everything at the net to increase possession stats under Eakins I believe. I think it was Eberle, WHILE Eakings was still coach.

I think they also purposely manipulate the shots on net stars up north. There was one game against on last year where the announcers called out the stats for being way off.

Well they finished 28th in his one full season, so that my prove my point!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'll well aware of what corsi is thanks.

How do you ever get the puck enough to get a high corsi counts if you just get rid of it when you get it?

You have to have the puck to run up shot attempts.

I think that it misses the mark to suggest that others are arguing that the Flames were simply shooting from everywhere (which you then - correctly - argue leads to turning over possession).

I think what people are trying to argue here is that the Flames had an ineffective attack. They moved it around a lot, and they had lots of possession, but they failed to 'break down' the D often enough, and as a result didn't generate the quality chances that their corsi stats suggested they did. Yes, I know the shot location was there, but the goalie was set too often. And I think this explains the missed nets as well.

So a team can maintain possession, and generate a lot of shots, without being overly effective.

Conversely, transitional play can generate quality shots without a lot of corsi possession. And I think the Flames were very susceptible to that last year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well they finished 28th in his one full season, so that my prove my point!

But they had great corsi stats, so I am not sure that it does.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Holding off of shooting would be the opposite of faking corsi.

Only if the shot was never taken as opposed to just delayed a moment.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But they had great corsi stats, so I am not sure that it does.

No they were ranked 28th and 29th in corsi that year. I should have been more clear.

They may have aimed for high corsi but did a face plant.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think that it misses the mark to suggest that others are arguing that the Flames were simply shooting from everywhere (which you then - correctly - argue leads to turning over possession).

I think what people are trying to argue here is that the Flames had an ineffective attack. They moved it around a lot, and they had lots of possession, but they failed to 'break down' the D often enough, and as a result didn't generate the quality chances that their corsi stats suggested they did. Yes, I know the shot location was there, but the goalie was set too often. And I think this explains the missed nets as well.

So a team can maintain possession, and generate a lot of shots, without being overly effective.

Conversely, transitional play can generate quality shots without a lot of corsi possession. And I think the Flames were very susceptible to that last year.

Couldn't agree more.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Old man rant: Listening to Peters this morning...the nicknames are cringeworthy. Johnny, Monny, Lindy, Hanny...

Why can't players have any nickname but their last name with a y or er.

Even if they were lame, but related to guys family or name like Lindholm = couch and Hannifin =boat, it would be far less painful on the ears...

Clearly it's July 24th...

Doug Gilmour was Killer. That was a good name. Now he'd be Killy.

MacInnis was Chopper, now he'd be Choppy.

Macoun was Cooner. Now he'd be Cooney.

Am I doing this right?

[Yrebmi]

I really don't get the "y" ending nicknames hate. Obviously it is uninspired, cliche, and maybe outright lazy, but the sound doesn't cause me anger issues.
Is it just because it sounds infantile?

Seems to be on the same line as several posters who hated Mr. Hamilton being called Dougie.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well they finished 28th in his one full season, so that my prove my point!

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But they had great corsi stats, so I am not sure that it does.

I still think we are all pretty well arguing the same thing. But it's July

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

No they were ranked 28th and 29th in corsi that year. I should have been more clear.

They may have aimed for high corsi but did a face plant.

my mistake

[Calgary4LIfe]

Didn't the Oilers specifically speak to 'playing for CORSI' a few seasons ago? I remember Eberle talking about it, and describing it a bit with what Eakins wanted. There was a lot of low perimeter shots, but you aren't necessarily throwing the puck away each time. As long as your team is skating well, you should pick up some of those loose pucks (the goalie isn't going swallow those pucks every time, even if they are low-percentage shots). Conversely, the other team may in turn have a tonne more possession and be way more of a threat to score, but they may not get off as many shots. Over-passing, missing the net, etc. I think there are times when you watch a team in the offensive zone and they look menacing, but sometimes they didn't even get a shot on net. Look at the PP for instance - even with the man advantage and ample zone time, the shot counts are often low for the PP. Sometimes they are really high, but sometimes they are low even with abundant possession time.


Eakins definitely got caught 'playing for CORSI' - unless you think Eberle (and I believe Hall as well, though I might be misremembering here) were flat-out lying. I remember Eberle specifically stating that they were told to shoot at the net regardless of how they felt about the stats, and that they were trying to get their CORSI numbers up.


Did the Flames do this? Hmm.. I don't think so. I do think that at times, their shot selection was questionable, but I do think this was more a symptom borne out of frustration more than an implementation of anything systemic.



I do think that Itse does have a point there. I do think that a team can indeed have a higher CORSI without actually having more actual possession. Does it happen often? I don't know, but that is the risk with counting stats that infer something. CORSI SHOULD directly align with possession, and now with the widespread and accepted use, it is synonymous with possession.



It would actually be interesting to see how closely that it actually aligns. My bet is that confidence rate here is pretty high with actual possession, but just from the simple fact that it is NOT directly measuring possession, there are bound to be instances where it is not only misleading, but also wrong.



Is the game too fast to really use stop watches to count possession like they do in soccer? I think you end up with ambiguous times as well as puck battles play into the equation, but you can eliminate those and other common plays from the counted time. Maybe use both CORSI and actual timed possession together?



There has to be instances where CORSI is not indicative of actual possession. We have seen it not be indicative of actual pressure at times. It is what it is - shot attempts that has a summary and an inference made that is (probably) very highly tied to actual possession. I would be really interested to see how closely those numbers follow an actual timed possession stat, however. If anything, it will help to prove or disprove certain notions. I would actually love for someone to go back in time and measure Edmonton's "playing for CORSI" and see how off it was.


I don't think CORSI is a garbage stat, but I also don't see it as infallible either. It is an indirect inference of possession by using a stat that SHOULD be higher with actual possession, so of course the less direct you are measuring something, the less accurate that measurement is going to be, right?

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Bottom line you have to have the puck a lot ot consistently out corsi the opposition. What you do with the puck though is where things can differ. If you just shoot from everywhere I don't think you get the corsi up because you're always getting rid of it. But that doesn't say you're getting quality chances with your owning the puck.

Wasn’t the plan to shoot even from bad angle? Funnel pucks to the net and get follow up chances/rebounds, thus the high level shots and lots of high danger shots. But in the end we didn’t convert. Where did I read this?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Wasn’t the plan to shoot even from bad angle? Funnel pucks to the net and get follow up chances/rebounds, thus the high level shots and lots of high danger shots. But in the end we didn’t convert. Where did I read this?

Glen Gulutzan's Diary?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by neo45

One Oiler revealed they were coached specifically to direct everything at the net to increase possession stats under Eakins I believe. I think it was Eberle, WHILE Eakings was still coach.

I think they also purposely manipulate the shots on net stars up north. There was one game against on last year where the announcers called out the stats for being way off.

Yes, it was Eberle but it was after Eakins was fired. After Nelson took over, their record had significantly improved (they were still garbage, but they weren't hot garbage anymore) and someone asked Eberle about it and he said that Eakins had told them to shoot from anywhere but Nelson was focused on taking higher-quality shots.


Their stats that season:

Eakins:

31 GP | 7-19-5 | 19P | 0.306 P% | Corsi: 50.92% (14th overall)

Nelson:

51GP | 17-25-9 | 43P | 0.422 P% | Corsi: 46.44% (26th overall)

Under Nelson, their Corsi got significantly worse, but their record got significantly better.

That was also the season where the Oilers hired Dellow to be their Analytics expert, reporting directly to Eakins, which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and value of analytics.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Eakins definitely got caught 'playing for CORSI' - unless you think Eberle (and I believe Hall as well, though I might be misremembering here) were flat-out lying. I remember Eberle specifically stating that they were told to shoot at the net regardless of how they felt about the stats, and that they were trying to get their CORSI numbers up.

I'm not saying they lied or didn't attempt this. Just saying they were miserable at it if that was their plan. They were 28th in the standings and 28th in CF% that season.

[Samonadreau]

A simple way to look at it is

Good Corsi could/should be a byproduct of being a good team. A good team is not necessarily a byproduct of having good Corsi.

[monkeyman]

The Flames were such a slow puck moving team, which would increase possession time but also allowed for opposition players and goalies to set up and defend much easier. That was clear from their low shooting percentage. Sure other teams had the puck les, but they moved the puck much quicker and generated better scoring chances.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think that it misses the mark to suggest that others are arguing that the Flames were simply shooting from everywhere (which you then - correctly - argue leads to turning over possession).

Bingo was replying to this in particular:

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

GG’s shoot from anywhere approach would be one. Very few scoring opportunities compared with shots