James,

I know you fully understand the argument I am making. Address my comments about the efficacy of this stat at a player level, or don't, but please don't veer off of the target of my statements. I was very specific and I didn't stutter.


Re: the bolded. No, you haven't because the list would be ridiculed. So, if a ranking list (as you admit) would never be used to make such a suggestion... then what does that say about the ranking? What can you actually conclude about the use of the stat?

The rest of your response has not addressed my point. In fact, your last paragraph, you are now talking about teams. The debate is clearly about individual rankings based on a stat you used to support your assessment of an individual.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether or not you chose 5 things. I did not challenge your overall assessment of him or any of the other 4 things. In fact, I specifically quoted one of your "red flags".

My point is simple. If you judge a player, and use a statistic to support your judgement, you have to be certain that statistic is meaningful at a player level. In this case, we discover that 27 of the top 28 are from 2 teams, and there are literally hundreds of rankings that belie what we know about these players talent level, effectiveness and value to their organizations.

Clearly there is something very wrong with using this stat to assess individuals.
- Aetherial

As to the rest of this, there is so much you could go online and read. I'm not going to defend corsi at this late date. If you don't understand it's usefulness, go read up on it because I assure you that it is useful.

Uh, try doing that with any stat - goals, points whatever, and it won't work. Does this mean they aren't good stats. I can't believe you don't see how bad of an argument you are making here.
- james_tanner1

Come on, really?

You stating my argument is bad, is typical, boring and not constructive. I am trying to rationally engage you in a debate about a statement you made that I believe to be without justification, based on a stat YOU chose to use, apparently without being prepared to defend the use of the stat for the purpose in which you used it.

You are failing so far, miserably, and nobody here is fooled.

I will not argue that the numbers are "good" or "bad" and have not made any judgement of a number without putting context to my judgement.

What I will say is that a statistic measuring an individual's performance is only meaningful when compared to the individual's peers.

I can say Player A has 500 points, but that sucks if that is 857th out of 900 players in the league,

We can only judge these numbers on the purpose for which they are used. You used this stat to support the "con" side of case against Burmistrov. I have shown, clearly, that the stat falls apart when assessing individual's performance because, simply, when you rank players on that stat, the list is dumb.

I'll make this easy for you. (be careful here James)

Is it a measure of how well their teammates perform when they are on the ice?
Is it a measure of how well the players "drives possession"?

Oh, and don't come back with "it is just a number, it can't be wrong or right". I am arguing the USE of the number, and whether the number is suitable for the arguement YOU supported with its use.

As to the rest of this, there is so much you could go online and read. I'm not going to defend corsi at this late date. If you don't understand it's usefulness, go read up on it because I assure you that it is useful.
- james_tanner1

How is it useful?

Seriously.

"Go read" is such a lame argument, typical of you advanced stats guys.

The only thing worse than ignorance, is willful ignorance backed up with nothing more than extreme arrogance.

This is, in fact, a perfect description of Donald Trump.

You should think on that. You are EXACTLY him, in a different, less scary, more sad, context.

How is it useful?

Seriously.

"Go read" is such a lame argument, typical of you advanced stats guys.

The only thing worse than ignorance, is willful ignorance backed up with nothing more than extreme arrogance.

This is, in fact, a perfect description of Donald Trump.

You should think on that. You are EXACTLY him, in a different, less scary, more sad, context.
- Aetherial

You haven't made any sense, and then when I pointed that out you attempted to be condescending. I honestly haven't seen an argument this poorly constructed since MLJ got banned. (I assume he got banned, as he hasn't been insessantly trolling me for a few days now).

Corsi is a very useful stat, as has been widely known for years. If you don't believe me, educate yourself. I gave this way more than it deserved. You clearly aren't interested in learning, just hearing yourself talk.

To be honest, the worst thing about the internet is it gives people who have no interest in learning a voice. You can't even write a coherent argument, so you resort to pretending I'm the one being "Trump like" or that "no one is fooled"?

I hope no one read any of this, let alone was "fooled" by it. You literally said that if you can't rank players based the order they are ranked by one stat, that it's a bad stat. If that isn't what you meant, try to be a better writer - don't blame me.

Three years doing this, possibly the most inane argument and definitely the worst attempt to condescend yourself into looking good. It didn't work.

You haven't made any sense, and then when I pointed that out you attempted to be condescending. I honestly haven't seen an argument this poorly constructed since MLJ got banned. (I assume he got banned, as he hasn't been insessantly trolling me for a few days now).

Corsi is a very useful stat, as has been widely known for years. If you don't believe me, educate yourself. I gave this way more than it deserved. You clearly aren't interested in learning, just hearing yourself talk.

To be honest, the worst thing about the internet is it gives people who have no interest in learning a voice. You can't even write a coherent argument, so you resort to pretending I'm the one being "Trump like" or that "no one is fooled"?

I hope no one read any of this, let alone was "fooled" by it. You literally said that if you can't rank players based the order they are ranked by one stat, that it's a bad stat. If that isn't what you meant, try to be a better writer - don't blame me.

Three years doing this, possibly the most inane argument and definitely the worst attempt to condescend yourself into looking good. It didn't work.
- James_Tanner

How many replies in a row with nothing approaching An actual counterpoint? Not one actual point, do you honestly think anyone is fooled.

This is your MO; devolve the discussion to a pissing match to deflect away from the fact that you can't even defend the simplest challenge. It's weak transparent and predictable

Don't worry I'll be back next time you use one of these stupid stats, to expose you for the troll blogger you are. Did you really believe you were the first?

How many replies in a row with nothing approaching An actual counterpoint? Not one actual point, do you honestly think anyone is fooled.

This is your MO; devolve the discussion to a pissing match to deflect away from the fact that you can't even defend the simplest challenge. It's weak transparent and predictable

Don't worry I'll be back next time you use one of these stupid stats, to expose you for the troll blogger you are. Did you really believe you were the first?
- Aetherial

If you ever write an argument that I have to defend against, I'll be more than happy to do so. Step one is to make it cogent. I am not trying to be a jerk here, you just haven't made any sense.

If you ever write an argument that I have to defend against, I'll be more than happy to do so. Step one is to make it cogent. I am not trying to be a jerk here, you just haven't made any sense.
- James_Tanner

I have made perfect sense.

I showed that the stat in question falls apart when used to assess individual players, because, very simply, the rankings of players based on that stat are demonstrably ridiculous.

That is a perfectly cogent argument. It is easily demonstrated, as I have done.

My case was stated, proven and is now closed. What don't you understand?


You have yet to actually make one counter-argument. You lost without even putting up a reasonable fight. You are now 0-2 in defending someone else's use of your stats... and you haven't really even been close.

You are Donald Trump. He argues the way you do. He has his own world of alternative facts, just like you do.