Yep, I agree, why use a tool if it's not 100 percent foolproof? I mean, I can just use unflawed numbers like goals and assists.

I mean, sure there's some weak goals allowed, or scored into empty nets, but hey there's no false data there. And assists, they're fine as they are. Nobody's ever gotten an assist when a puck hits a random skate and takes a lucky bounce. Absolutely flawless, without deviation whatsoever.

Of course you don't ignore goals and assists because some of them are weak or empty netters, you acknowledge the inherent flaws and look deeper at the story they tell. Any statistic in sports has some degree of flawed data that comprises it.

Yes, I can look and see if a player is good or bad with my eye. Most people do, especially stats advocates. The stats advocate generally sees something that happens and decides to dig a bit deeper, because they want to have a deeper understanding of the game and the impact a particular guy has on his team.

I can watch a highlight video of a guy like Nikolai Zherdev or Alexandre Daigle scoring goals and come away thinking he's the greatest player ever. But do I have the access and time to view the raw video of every shift they've taken? If all I can see is what the broadcast shows, how can I accurately judge his play away from the puck? Especially since broadcasts tend to follow the puck, and most replays focus on penalties or hits away from the puck and not the mundane regular shifts taken by a particular player.

Personally, I watch a lot of games. A guy's Corsi or Fenwick rating is the last thing on my mind when the game is on. However, after the game, if I feel a guy played particularly well or particularly poor, I'll go back and look and see what the stats say. If I'm discussing a player, I'm going to look at available video and I'm going to look at his stats-traditional ones and advanced ones-to arm myself with as much data as possible. I'm going to read other's opinions of that player, especially those who watch him often. I'll go on twitter and ask scouts who are there what they think. Most are happy to reply.

Ignore the stats if you want to dismiss them. Me, I want to get as much info as I can-using my eyes, the numbers and hearing what others have to say. I'm far more likely to agree with a point if it's clear the person making it can support it with more than opinions.

Gene Hart- Simply.The.Best.

Lauren Hart ‏@LaurenHartMusic 12m
Thank you @billmeltzer for the beautiful tribute to my Dad. Add to your list great father, he was the best. I sing in his honor every nite.

Lauren Hart ‏@LaurenHartMusic 12m
Thank you @billmeltzer for the beautiful tribute to my Dad. Add to your list great father, he was the best. I sing in his honor every nite.


- PhillySportsGuy

Yep, I agree, why use a tool if it's not 100 percent foolproof? I mean, I can just use unflawed numbers like goals and assists.

I mean, sure there's some weak goals allowed, or scored into empty nets, but hey there's no false data there. And assists, they're fine as they are. Nobody's ever gotten an assist when a puck hits a random skate and takes a lucky bounce. Absolutely flawless, without deviation whatsoever.

Of course you don't ignore goals and assists because some of them are weak or empty netters, you acknowledge the inherent flaws and look deeper at the story they tell. Any statistic in sports has some degree of flawed data that comprises it.

Yes, I can look and see if a player is good or bad with my eye. Most people do, especially stats advocates. The stats advocate generally sees something that happens and decides to dig a bit deeper, because they want to have a deeper understanding of the game and the impact a particular guy has on his team.

I can watch a highlight video of a guy like Nikolai Zherdev or Alexandre Daigle scoring goals and come away thinking he's the greatest player ever. But do I have the access and time to view the raw video of every shift they've taken? If all I can see is what the broadcast shows, how can I accurately judge his play away from the puck? Especially since broadcasts tend to follow the puck, and most replays focus on penalties or hits away from the puck and not the mundane regular shifts taken by a particular player.

Personally, I watch a lot of games. A guy's Corsi or Fenwick rating is the last thing on my mind when the game is on. However, after the game, if I feel a guy played particularly well or particularly poor, I'll go back and look and see what the stats say. If I'm discussing a player, I'm going to look at available video and I'm going to look at his stats-traditional ones and advanced ones-to arm myself with as much data as possible. I'm going to read other's opinions of that player, especially those who watch him often. I'll go on twitter and ask scouts who are there what they think. Most are happy to reply.

Ignore the stats if you want to dismiss them. Me, I want to get as much info as I can-using my eyes, the numbers and hearing what others have to say. I'm far more likely to agree with a point if it's clear the person making it can support it with more than opinions.
- Jsaquella

Find the best you can of both and use them but never one more over the other

Find the best you can of both and use them but never one more over the other
- ob18

What happens if you use one 51% and the other 49%?

What happens if you use one 51% and the other 49%?
- feelingkettle

It's all down hill.

I've got something that ain't fancy

Whose our 2nd line center this year?

Try and Fancy that!

Find the best you can of both and use them but never one more over the other
- ob18

Absolutely. Statistical analysis is just one part of it.

Take Zherdev. He scores goals. His possession numbers are generally good to very good over his career. But I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. Watching him I saw a guy who was disinterested far too often. Looking at his history, 5 teams in the NHL & KHL kicked him to the curb. That speaks a lot louder to me than his good possession stats.

When I reference a guy's advanced stats in a discussion, it's to provide some sort of basis to give weight to a point. I'd rather see somebody say, "This guy looked good when I watched the game & here's the stats(traditional or otherwise) that quantify what I saw" than somebody just tossing opinions

I've got something that ain't fancy

Whose our 2nd line center this year?

Try and Fancy that!
- Just5

Sean Couturier.

I've got something that ain't fancy

Whose our 2nd line center this year?

Try and Fancy that!
- Just5

sixers have 2 #1 centers

sixers have 2 #1 centers
- Crimsoninja

And half of them are almost healthy

Actally, Embiid is worth it just for his twitter feed

I've got something that ain't fancy

Whose our 2nd line center this year?

Try and Fancy that!
- Just5

Vinny

sixers have 2 #1 centers
- Crimsoninja

Where is the scoring going to come from?

Where is the scoring going to come from?
- Pelle31Forever

if you mean this year, the answer is hopefully nowhere. gotta make sure to not make the playoffs and lose next year's 1st rounder.

if you mean in 2 years - MCW, Saric, Embiid and whoever the shooting guard ends up being.

Lauren Hart ‏@LaurenHartMusic 12m
Thank you @billmeltzer for the beautiful tribute to my Dad. Add to your list great father, he was the best. I sing in his honor every nite.


- PhillySportsGuy

so she sings the national anthem every night?

Yep, I agree, why use a tool if it's not 100 percent foolproof? I mean, I can just use unflawed numbers like goals and assists.

I mean, sure there's some weak goals allowed, or scored into empty nets, but hey there's no false data there. And assists, they're fine as they are. Nobody's ever gotten an assist when a puck hits a random skate and takes a lucky bounce. Absolutely flawless, without deviation whatsoever.

Of course you don't ignore goals and assists because some of them are weak or empty netters, you acknowledge the inherent flaws and look deeper at the story they tell. Any statistic in sports has some degree of flawed data that comprises it.


- Jsaquella

There are degrees and different level of amounts of flawed data. And as much as 30-40% of Corsi data is false data. It's comparing apples and oranges. Name me one player which goal scoring or assists statistics, label a good goal scorer or playmaker due to false data attributed to them? It's night and day. Comparing the very small amount of empty net goals, or lucky deflection goals, or even "own goals" pales in comparison to the amount of false data accumulated with Corsi game after game, shift after shift for individual players. And really this flies in the face of what part of Corsi is all about. Sample sizes. Corsi is supposed to be so much better because of the large difference in sample sizes. But yet you offer that as a comparable situation. There is no comparison. It's a weak argument. And it's been offered and refuted before. Other stats have some flaws also, so we should just ignore the flaws of Corsi! Well we should do the same for +/- also and ignore it's flaws. But how many times have you yourself argued that +/- isn't a good stat? Why the double standard?

The people who talk stats on here tend to do it in a very thoughtful and informed manner... Mr "Pundit" included.
- Tomahawk

I think that Corsi is badly misused in a large number of situations with the fanbase. And there have been plenty of examples of that on here.

i prefer a spirited discourse
- -davies-

I prefer the spirits, clear, made in Holland, Ketel One thank you and good night

Will any phantoms games be televised?

the revolution will not be televised

the revolution will not be televised
- -davies-

Whiteys on the moon


I dont know if anyone else here ever heard the whole thing by Gil Scott Heron.....

There are degrees and different level of amounts of flawed data. And as much as 30-40% of Corsi data is false data. It's comparing apples and oranges. Name me one player which goal scoring or assists statistics, label a good goal scorer or playmaker due to false data attributed to them? It's night and day. Comparing the very small amount of empty net goals, or lucky deflection goals, or even "own goals" pales in comparison to the amount of false data accumulated with Corsi game after game, shift after shift for individual players. And really this flies in the face of what part of Corsi is all about. Sample sizes. Corsi is supposed to be so much better because of the large difference in sample sizes. But yet you offer that as a comparable situation. There is no comparison. It's a weak argument. And it's been offered and refuted before. Other stats have some flaws also, so we should just ignore the flaws of Corsi! Well we should do the same for +/- also and ignore it's flaws. But how many times have you yourself argued that +/- isn't a good stat? Why the double standard?
- MJL

Holy crap, you missed the point about as badly as Ryan Howard misses a curve ball from a decent lefty pitcher.

Nowhere do I say that Corsi is perfect, nowhere do I say that people should rely totally on Corsi. In fact, I go out of my way to state that watching the games is vital. You lock onto Corsi, when I'm talking about the entire gamut of stats. Of course, in your reply you cut that entire part of my post out, which is pretty typical for you.

Here's a more appropriate avatar for you & your strawman arguments than Darth Vader

Whiteys on the moon


I dont know if anyone else here ever heard the whole thing by Gil Scott Heron.....
- Steelmanpa

a rat done bit my sister

a rat done bit my sister
- -davies-

Yep, thats the one. I think the other folks here may be be at a generational disadvantage in this reference. It was strange hearing that stuff on the radio when it was brand new.

Pleasant dreams to you