So we are back to CORSI? Grossmann as well?
- Deasr1

We're determining the effect or using advanced stats to determine how calm MAF has to be to win. Or something.

Flyers Fenwick-close on the season so far is at .477... making the PO's is going to be tough.

Not surprisingly, LA, CHI, SJ and BOS are between .540-.560... safe to say that one or more of those teams will probably be in the in the Finals again.

http://www.extraskater.co...t&sit=5v5close&type=total
- Tomahawk

I don't believe that Fenwick-close or any other Corsi related analytic is going to determine if the Flyers make the playoffs or not. Wins or losses will. Look at the Corsi and Fenwick numbers from the Flyers most recent win against Calgary. The Flyers won 2-1.

https://www.extraskater.c.../2014-02-08-flames-flyers

I left that part out, it was integral to my post. I'm sure Fenwick says that the Oilers won't make the playoffs.

I actually kind of like Corsi and Fenwick, I think they're good in context. They beat the pants off +/-, and look a little closer than shots on goal. But they're still just stats. Nothing more, nothing less.
- BulliesPhan87

Nothing about CORSI is legitimate. MAF is actually the poster child for that. You can have all the puck possession and shots you want. If the other team's goalie/defenders limit chances and goals, and your goalie leaks, then you'll lose. Just ask the 94/95, 99/00, and 02/03 NJ Devils.
- jmatchett383

ill also put forth MAF for the fact that goalie stats can be very misleading as well. okay yeah, last 2 playoffs he has been a little farce. but before that, there were plenty of times in which he was actually playing fantastic, but his stats would look pretty crummy because of the way the team in front of him was playing. id use mason as an example too when the flyers just want to play the give up an odd man rush every other minute game.

ill also put forth MAF for the fact that goalie stats can be very misleading as well. okay yeah, last 2 playoffs he has been a little farce. but before that, there were plenty of times in which he was actually playing fantastic, but his stats would look pretty crummy because of the way the team in front of him was playing. id use mason as an example too when the flyers just want to play the give up an odd man rush every other minute game.
- stayinthefnnet

Oh, come on now; the Flyers only play that style 80, maybe 81-82 times a season.

But no, that's the thing; stats are just a reflection of play, they don't determine a damn thing. I'm talking about goals/assists/etc. too. Stats are an indication of probability over a certain sample. Nothing in them determines actual level of play on the ice or the outcome of a game.

We're determining the effect or using advanced stats to determine how calm MAF has to be to win. Or something.
- jmatchett383

im just daydreaming of a postseason in which the bruins get knocked out first round, and MAF isnt covering himself in bodily fluids. its probably the fact that im getting dreary via the gas fumes emanating from my being.

Oh, come on now; the Flyers only play that style 80, maybe 81-82 times a season.
- jmatchett383

yeah. i wouldnt mind the pens keep trying to keep things somewhat disciplined this year. its okay to win a game 3 to 1.

Oh, come on now; the Flyers only play that style 80, maybe 81-82 times a season.

But no, that's the thing; stats are just a reflection of play, they don't determine a damn thing. I'm talking about goals/assists/etc. too. Stats are an indication of probability over a certain sample. Nothing in them determines actual level of play on the ice or the outcome of a game.
- jmatchett383

eh. thats a little much of a stretch for me to fully subscribe to.

Did the Penguins have a good CORSI back then?
- jmatchett383

According to that chart, they were sub .500 Fenwick Close when they won the cup. At least, I think that's what it's saying.

im just daydreaming of a postseason in which the bruins get knocked out first round, and MAF isnt covering himself in bodily fluids. its probably the fact that im getting dreary via the gas fumes emanating from my being.
- stayinthefnnet

I gotta tell you...that emanating fumes makes me kinda hot. So hot that, we my loins near you, we'd probably both burst into the most intense fireball since the Hines Ward block on Ed Reed.

According to that chart, they were sub .500 Fenwick Close when they won the cup. At least, I think that's what it's saying.
- BulliesPhan87

OUTLIER! OUTLIER!

Oh, come on now; the Flyers only play that style 80, maybe 81-82 times a season.

But no, that's the thing; stats are just a reflection of play, they don't determine a damn thing. I'm talking about goals/assists/etc. too. Stats are an indication of probability over a certain sample. Nothing in them determines actual level of play on the ice or the outcome of a game.
- jmatchett383

i may be misconstruing your argument a tad. stats are the result of something that has occurred. they are not a determinant, regardless of how you look at them. they are a product of happening.

We're determining the effect or using advanced stats to determine how calm MAF has to be to win. Or something.
- jmatchett383

So what you're saying is...there is a chance? I read ya.

eh. thats a little much of a stretch for me to fully subscribe to.
- stayinthefnnet

Well, let's take Ovechkin as an example. He has scored 40 goals this season, the most in the league. That stat would make you predict that he will score more goals than any other player because, based on the current season as a sample, that is true. He may go on to score 20 more, or he may score 3. Much like the Flyers being a bad possession team, all it says is that they have been so far. Nothing dictates that the trend will continue, only that it is likely. However, it has no effect on their ability to win or lose a game, because things like goaltending, quality of shots, opposition goaltending, bounces off of the boards, redirected shots, etc. all throw the numbers out the window.

i may be misconstruing your argument a tad. stats are the result of something that has occurred. they are not a determinant, regardless of how you look at them. they are a product of happening.
- stayinthefnnet

See my other post.

OUTLIER! OUTLIER!
- jmatchett383

No no, they're an in-lier. See, their logo is inside the cup. That's a clear indicator.

- MJL

Sent you a PM, btw. No need to respond if it's not a concern.

Well, let's take Ovechkin as an example. He has scored 40 goals this season, the most in the league. That stat would make you predict that he will score more goals than any other player because, based on the current season as a sample, that is true. He may go on to score 20 more, or he may score 3. Much like the Flyers being a bad possession team, all it says is that they have been so far. Nothing dictates that the trend will continue, only that it is likely. However, it has no effect on their ability to win or lose a game, because things like goaltending, quality of shots, opposition goaltending, bounces off of the boards, redirected shots, etc. all throw the numbers out the window.
- jmatchett383

true. but not to be all david hume-ian here, but i mean if thats the level of scrutiny we are going to apply, what do we know for certain about anything?

over a large enough sample size, probability is one of the only predictors we have.

true. but not to be all david hume-ian here, but i mean if thats the level of scrutiny we are going to apply, what do we know for certain about anything?

over a large enough sample size, probability is one of the only predictors we have.
- stayinthefnnet

Oh, I won't argue that. I mean, advanced physics states that, a some point, you can walk right through a wall due to particle alignment. I'm just stating that statistics do not actually determine anything, only that certain things have happened in the past, and that they are probable (to a degree) to behave similarly in the future. However, when it comes to sports, there are so many things that determine a game which goes beyond any measure of stats.

Oh, come on now; the Flyers only play that style 80, maybe 81-82 times a season.

But no, that's the thing; stats are just a reflection of play, they don't determine a damn thing. I'm talking about goals/assists/etc. too. Stats are an indication of probability over a certain sample. Nothing in them determines actual level of play on the ice or the outcome of a game.
- jmatchett383

Listen, I personally think that having the puck more, ups your chances of winning. But it is far from the only thing. And stating that the teams chances of making the playoffs is poor based on Corsi, Fenwick, or any other analytic is just another misuse of the statistic. And here is some examples of games where the Flyers got the pants beat off of them in Corsi and Fenwick, but yet won the game

Flyers beat the Red Wings 5-0. But they lost the CorsiFor and FenwickFor battle
CorsiFor was 41.4% and FenwickFor was 45.1%
Flyers beat the Kings 2-0
CorsiFor was 28.1% and FenwickFor was 27.9%. According to that, the Flyers got the snot beat out of them that game.
Flyers beat the Avalanche 3-1
CorsiFor was 44.8% and FenwickFor was 50.5%
Flyers beat Calgary 2-1
CorsiFor was 38.4% and Fenwick for was 37.8%

Bottom line is that I bet I can go back and find a lot of games that the Flyers won, where they lost the Corsi and Fenwick battle. Not going to decide whether the Flyers make the playoffs. Simple winning and losing is.

Now if you want to use it as a metric to see how dominant or not dominant the Flyers have been in games. Then I think it has merit.

Sent you a PM, btw. No need to respond if it's not a concern.
- BulliesPhan87

I got it, thanks. I sent a reply, did you get it?

Oh, I won't argue that. I mean, advanced physics states that, a some point, you can walk right through a wall due to particle alignment. I'm just stating that statistics do not actually determine anything, only that certain things have happened in the past, and that they are probable (to a degree) to behave similarly in the future. However, when it comes to sports, there are so many things that determine a game which goes beyond any measure of stats.
- jmatchett383

im just viewing it as a matter of tense to qualify its determinant nature (or lack of), if that makes sense

i may be misconstruing your argument a tad. stats are the result of something that has occurred. they are not a determinant, regardless of how you look at them. they are a product of happening.
- stayinthefnnet

That's a bullseye!

Now if you want to use it as a metric to see how dominant or not dominant the Flyers have been in games. Then I think it has merit.
- MJL

That's kind of my thing. All it proves is that one team had an advantage of some sort over another team. It takes no variables into consideration. You can have the puck and shoot all you want. But if you're not generating quality chances, and you can't beat the goalie, you won't win no matter how "dominant" you are.

Well, let's take Ovechkin as an example. He has scored 40 goals this season, the most in the league. That stat would make you predict that he will score more goals than any other player because, based on the current season as a sample, that is true. He may go on to score 20 more, or he may score 3. Much like the Flyers being a bad possession team, all it says is that they have been so far. Nothing dictates that the trend will continue, only that it is likely. However, it has no effect on their ability to win or lose a game, because things like goaltending, quality of shots, opposition goaltending, bounces off of the boards, redirected shots, etc. all throw the numbers out the window.
- jmatchett383

Refreshing to read someone who gets it!