Hartnells QoC was 29% also. The possession numbers of every top 6 forward on the flyers improved with Hartnell. It was the opposite with Umberger
- PhillySportsGuy

Exactly. Hartnell was helped by Giroux and Voracek, but he also elevated the possession numbers of others he played with, away from those two.

This is an example of how Corsi is misunderstood. What's more accurate is that the Flyers traded a player who benefited possession wise from playing with Giroux and Voracek. And when players change teams and change who they play with, that has an effect on the players possession stats. It's not static. So it remains to be seen.
- MJL

http://www.broadstreethoc...tually-its-steve-hartnell

It appears everyone in the top 6 benefitted from playing with Hartnell as well.

Please disregard the stats they are only factual information.

If your only counting guys listed as wingers, he's 18th in the league. I included O'Reilly and Mackinnon because they primarily played wing. I also miscounted, Jake was 20th in wingers in points.

He would be on the bottom third of league if all of those guys were on different teams, which they are not.

I don't look at it that way. Top lines have two wingers on them. If you do 2 per team, Jake is better than 2/3 of the wingers in the league, not the other way around.

As for the bold, I disagree entirely. I think Voracek puts up more point's with easier defensive match-ups playing with Schenn or Cooter while remaining with G on the PP.
- mochoson

Um. Who wouldn't put up more points playing against easier opponents?

He's on the top line because he can handle the hard assignments.

Got it, so those 2 count during the off season.
- jstross

They count in accordance to the off season cap accounting rules. For example, the Flyers have to carry $7,333 on the off season cap for Jason Akeson.

It was a bad matchup because the Rangers are much better at even strength than the Flyers were. The Flyers took a lot of penalties, but the Rangers didn't score many PPGs.

But the primary reason the Flyers couldn't score is that they got outplayed at 5 on 5 and didn't generate anywhere near as many chances as the Rangers. Even in the games they won, they got outshot at ES.

The only games they outshot the Rangers at ES were games 3 & 5, both losses where the extra shot came from score effects-in other words the Flyers being more aggressive on the attack due to being behind on the scoreboard
- Jsaquella

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just thinking the Flyers had a much better shot against a different match up. The Mason injury is another excuse. A lot of factors to consider.

http://www.broadstreethoc...tually-its-steve-hartnell

It appears everyone in the top 6 benefitted from playing with Hartnell as well.

Please disregard the stats they are only factual information.
- PhillySportsGuy

Avoid the bottomless pit; some of us are reading your posts and know what you are saying

This is an example of how Corsi is misunderstood. What's more accurate is that the Flyers traded a player who benefited possession wise from playing with Giroux and Voracek. And when players change teams and change who they play with, that has an effect on the players possession stats. It's not static. So it remains to be seen.
- MJL

When you have consistent high Corsi numbers against the hardest competition and your line does worse without you on it, it is very hard to try and make this case. I see what you are trying to say, but it doesn't really hold much ground when you look at hartnell's consistent good play (minus that one awful season).

http://www.broadstreethoc...tually-its-steve-hartnell

It appears everyone in the top 6 benefitted from playing with Hartnell as well.

Please disregard the stats they are only factual information.
- PhillySportsGuy

It's Corsi based, so it is impossible for it to be factual. As if Hartnell was responsible for every shot attempted for or against. It is a flawed stat. I have no idea why that is not grasped.

When you have consistent high Corsi numbers against the hardest competition and your line does worse without you on it, it is very hard to try and make this case. I see what you are trying to say, but it doesn't really hold much ground when you look at hartnell's consistent good play (minus that one awful season).
- FlyersSteve118

It holds ground because of the amount of false data involved. When players change lines other things change with it. Such as role, matchups, etc. Hartnell is a support player, and really a passenger in terms of possession.

In terms of Giroux and Voracek, let's not ignore that while Giroux was 3rd in the NHL in overall scoring, he drops to 17th in the NHL in ES scoring.

So while Voracek was his RW often at ES, on the power play, where Giroux put up a lot of points, Voracek was playing the point, not RW.

http://www.broadstreethoc...tually-its-steve-hartnell

It appears everyone in the top 6 benefitted from playing with Hartnell as well.

Please disregard the stats they are only factual information.
- PhillySportsGuy

You are also saying that he made lines better, when he was substituted in for Lecavalier who was an absolute albatross of a corsi player. It's kind of hard to use that argument as well.

I think a better argument is just his consistent high level of play over the years.

is there a stat that adjusts posession % for a player when he's in the penalty box? I would like to see how Hartnell would come out.

Avoid the bottomless pit; some of us are reading your posts and know what you are saying
- AllInForFlyers

My primary point is that the team wasn't a very strong possession team last year and it really hurt their 5v5 play. Trading a strong possession player (Hartnell) for a guy who struggled in that department (Umberger) is unlikely to help. I'm just being a realist.

You are also saying that he made lines better, when he was substituted in for Lecavalier who was an absolute albatross of a corsi player. It's kind of hard to use that argument as well.

I think a better argument is just his consistent high level of play over the years.
- FlyersSteve118

I think he is a consistent support player who has had the benefit of playing with some pretty good players over the years. And on some lines that gelled well.

In terms of Giroux and Voracek, let's not ignore that while Giroux was 3rd in the NHL in overall scoring, he drops to 17th in the NHL in ES scoring.

So while Voracek was his RW often at ES, on the power play, where Giroux put up a lot of points, Voracek was playing the point, not RW.
- Jsaquella

Giroux is interesting at even strength; I am curious to see what he does with another LW, at the very least, for the season

When you have consistent high Corsi numbers against the hardest competition and your line does worse without you on it, it is very hard to try and make this case. I see what you are trying to say, but it doesn't really hold much ground when you look at hartnell's consistent good play (minus that one awful season).
- FlyersSteve118

You are better off going to a church lady and telling her that Jesus isn't real. He doesn't feel that possession stats are valid or factual because they disagree with his opinions.

Rather than discuss the numbers, he attacks them & their validity.

Heading out to a barbecue. Happy 4th of July everyone. God bless America!

It holds ground because of the amount of false data involved. When players change lines other things change with it. Such as role, matchups, etc. Hartnell is a support player, and really a passenger in terms of possession.
- MJL

I dunno, Hartnell creates by driving the corners, taking defenders out of the play with big hits, drawing defenders by skating into the dangerous and painful areas of the ice and other things that don't actual involve him having possession of the puck on his stick. He creates space and in return, creates shot chances and scoring chances.

It's Corsi based, so it is impossible for it to be factual. As if Hartnell was responsible for every shot attempted for or against. It is a flawed stat. I have no idea why that is not grasped.
- MJL

I know. All stats are flawed. The only basis which we can rely on is your ability to watch the games and tell us how well each player played.

Giroux is interesting at even strength; I am curious to see what he does with another LW, at the very least, for the season
- AllInForFlyers

It'd be nice to see how he'd do with wingers more inclined to shoot. Voracek is a dynamic player, and while he has started to shoot more often, he's not a shoot first winger

My primary point is that the team wasn't a very strong possession team last year and it really hurt their 5v5 play. Trading a strong possession player (Hartnell) for a guy who struggled in that department (Umberger) is unlikely to help. I'm just being a realist.
- PhillySportsGuy

It's a fair point and fair question to ask

You are better off going to a church lady and telling her that Jesus isn't real. He doesn't feel that possession stats are valid or factual because they disagree with his opinions.

Rather than discuss the numbers, he attacks them & their validity.
- Jsaquella

This is wrong. I do more then attack their validity. I state why they aren't valid. If the data is flawed the numbers are flawed.

http://blogs.edmontonjour...-wrong-with-some-players/

You are better off going to a church lady and telling her that Jesus isn't real. He doesn't feel that possession stats are valid or factual because they disagree with his opinions.

Rather than discuss the numbers, he attacks them & their validity.
- Jsaquella

Cheap shot dude. If people disagree with you, you sulk and ignore.

I dunno, Hartnell creates by driving the corners, taking defenders out of the play with big hits, drawing defenders by skating into the dangerous and painful areas of the ice and other things that don't actual involve him having possession of the puck on his stick. He creates space and in return, creates shot chances and scoring chances.
- FlyersSteve118

I agree with all of this. I'm not saying he doesn't contribute. I'm just saying he isn't driving the bus. Late for burgers!

I think he is a consistent support player who has had the benefit of playing with some pretty good players over the years. And on some lines that gelled well.
- MJL

Yes, I agree with that. Hartnell needs good players to succeed. But he does his job admirably. He gets the hard stuff done. He is a true top line player that does the job that he needs to do, which in turn makes the players around him better.

Hartnell's style makes it easy to make a line that just "gels". But he is definitely not the driving force of the success of these lines.