Granato might be a good hire: Played for the Rangers, asst. coach with the Pens, coaches in college now.
- dashripdot

yeah, I just haven't heard his name mentioned linked to Rangers, while these other three appear to definitely be on the NYR radar

(Quinn, Montgomery, Sandelin)

You're not helping, not at all
- MiloslavHorava

Corsi, wherw in the playoffs it's proving to be reliable. Vegas outshots LA, they won. Winnipeg on the Wild, Winnipeg up 3-1, Nashville over Colorado, based on shots. I could do this all day my man.
- tomburton99

Hold it a second with this Corsi being like the invention of the light bulb.
I will just take the series of the four in the West which you mentioned that has already ended. That's the Vegas sweep of the Kings, which was won due to the MVP playing of the likely current leader as playoff MVP through Wednesday, in Marc Andre Fleury outplaying Jonathan Quick in the net.

These were the scores & the official Shots On Goal counts:
Game #1: (1-0) ................. Vegas - 28 & L.A. - 30
Game #2: (2-1) (2 OT's) ..... Vegas - 56 & L.A. - 30
Game #3: (3-2) ................. Vegas - 26 & L.A. - 39
Game #4: (1-0) ................. Vegas - 21 & L.A. - 31
TOTALS: ...(7-3) ............... Vegas - 131 & L.A. - 130 For The Combined 4 Games

(1) Every game was a 1 goal game.
(2) L.A. out shot Vegas in every game except for being out shot badly in Game #2's Double Overtime Loss coming at 15:23 of the 2nd OT. But that was due in part to them missing 3 regular d'men from their lineup, in Doughty being suspended for that game by the NHL, and having 2 other regular d'men of their's out with injuries in Muzzin (42 pts. in 74 Reg. Season Games) missing the first 2 games, and Forbort (78 Reg. S. Games Played) missing the entire series.
(3) Vegas outscored L.A. by a "WHOLE" 7-3 total in their 4 games sweep.
(4) Vegas also OUT SHOT the Kings by a GRAND TOTAL OF 1 SHOT ON GOAL for their series sweep.

The series sweep was due in part, to those 2 key L.A. d'men's injuries above, along with Doughty being suspended for that Game #2 Double OT loss where they were out shot 56-30 by Vegas in playing without 3 regular d'men.
It was also due to the fact that L.A. has had trouble scoring goals the past 2 seasons.
But in key, it was PRIMARILY due to Fleury making 4 MORE SAVES than Quick on 1 less Total Shot On Goal faced in the 4 games, and having an unbelievable .977 Save% to Quick's great .946 Save%.
It was not due to your "CORSI" CRAZE.

You corsi does go up. That's the point.
- tomburton99

So, Corsi factors in plus/minus? Or assists? I still don't fully understand it, I guess. What I do know is that everything it tells you can be gleaned by watching the game and understanding when someone makes the right play and when they make a mistake.

Granato might be a good hire: Played for the Rangers, asst. coach with the Pens, coaches in college now.
- dashripdot

Didn't Granato coach the USA olympic team?

Hold it a second with this Corsi being like the invention of the light bulb.
I will just take the series of the four in the West which you mentioned that has already ended.
That's the Vegas sweep of the Kings, which was won due the likely current leader as playoff MVP through Wednesday, in Marc Andre Fleury outplaying Jonathan Quick in the net.

These were the scores & the official Shots On Goal counts:
Game #1: (1-0) ................. Vegas - 28 & L.A. - 30
Game #2: (2-1) (2 OT's) ..... Vegas - 56 & L.A. - 30
Game #3: (3-2) ................. Vegas - 26 & L.A. - 39
Game #4: (1-0) ................. Vegas - 21 & L.A. - 31

TOTALS: ...(7-3) ............... Vegas - 131 & L.A. - 130 For The Combined 4 Games

(1) Every game was a 1 goal game.

(2) L.A. out shot Vegas in every game except for being out shot badly in Game #2's Double Overtime Loss coming at 15:23 of the 2nd OT. But that was due in part to them missing 3 regular d'men from their lineup, in Doughty being suspended for that game by the NHL, and having 2 other regular d'men of their's out with injuries in Muzzin (42 pts. in 74 Reg. Season Games) missing the first 2 games, and Forbort (78 Reg. S. Games Played) missing the entire series.

(3) Vegas outscored L.A. by a "WHOLE" 7-3 total in their 4 games sweep
.
(4) Vegas also OUT SHOT the Kings by a GRAND TOTAL OF 1 SHOT ON GOAL for their series sweep.

The series sweep was not due to Vegas having the "CORSI" advantage you endure.
It was due in part, to injuries to two key every game L.A. defensemen, (Muzzin for Games 1 & 2, and Forbort for the entire series), along with Doughty being suspended for that Game #2 Double OT loss they were out shot 56-30 by Vegas in playing without 3 regular d'men.
It was also due to the fact that L.A. has had trouble scoring goals the past 2 seasons.
But in key, it was PRIMARILY due to Fleury making 4 MORE SAVES than Quick on 1 less Shot On Goal faced, and having an unbelievable .977 Save% to Quick's great .946 Save%.
It was not due to your "CORSI" CRAZE.
- RangerSaver

Corsi isn't registered shot on goals. It's shot attempts, at 5 on 5. The More you know.

Hayes knows this
- mdw7413

It was you're boy Hayes that got me started on this, as I said earlier. I enjoyed that article yesterday, but while reading it became apparent to me - EVERYTHING the guy was presenting about why Hayes should be kept and paid came directly from advanced metrics. And absolutely all of it was common knowledge to those of us here that watch the majority of the Rangers games. It really is as simple as that.

Corsi isn't registered shot on goals. It's shot attempts, at 5 on 5. The More you know.
- tomburton99

So, how does that account for my scenario of not taking the lower percentage shot in favour of finding the guy who can make the high percentage play?
I get that it is a recorded shot along with a goal, instead of just a shot. But that tells you nothing about why and how the goal was possible. Or, am I missing something else?

So, how does that account for my scenario of not taking the lower percentage shot in favour of finding the guy who can make the high percentage play?
I get that it is a recorded shot along with a goal, instead of just a shot. But that tells you nothing about why and how the goal was possible. Or, am I missing something else?
- Tonybere

Because the pass lead to a goal. The player who taps in the puck techically is credited with a shot, if it's 5 on 5.

So, how does that account for my scenario of not taking the lower percentage shot in favour of finding the guy who can make the high percentage play?
I get that it is a recorded shot along with a goal, instead of just a shot. But that tells you nothing about why and how the goal was possible. Or, am I missing something else?
- Tonybere

Actually the assits fairies made that goal possible, you and your mtyhical hockey got me!

Because the pass lead to a goal. The player who taps in the puck techically is credited with a shot, if it's 5 on 5.
- tomburton99

Ok, maybe I'm trying to look for flaws in something that is an indicator, not a story-teller.
How about this scenario, I don't remember who it was, but the other day some team hit 5 posts in one period. Not even counted as shots on goal. So, how does Corsi tell us that the players did everything right, controlled play and found the great scoring chance and then missed on a goal by a fraction of an inch? 5 times.

Actually the assits fairies made that goal possible, you and your mtyhical hockey got me!
- tomburton99

Don't be a Richard. I'm trying to engage in an actual conversation where I might learn something new. And, if you're not too engaged in making jokes or being superior, you might, too.

Ok, maybe I'm trying to look for flaws in something that is an indicator, not a story-teller.
How about this scenario, I don't remember who it was, but the other day some team hit 5 posts in one period. Not even counted as shots on goal. So, how does Corsi tell us that the players did everything right, controlled play and found the great scoring chance and then missed on a goal by a fraction of an inch? 5 times.
- Tonybere

That tells me nothing. Literally nothing.

Because the pass lead to a goal. The player who taps in the puck techically is credited with a shot, if it's 5 on 5.
- tomburton99

How does it show that it was the pass that created the goal? As opposed to an unassisted goal?

That tells me nothing. Literally nothing.
- tomburton99

Corsi tells us nothing? That is what I'm trying to figure out. Stats guys will tell us the if you have the better Corsi, than you didctated play and controlled the game. Well, that team was doing that and ended up being unlucky and got nothing to show for it.
The "eye test" tells you that they are on the verge of scoring and if nothing is done to change the way the game is going, they are bound to do it. And with remarkable regularity, that is exactly what will happen.

Corsi tells us nothing? That is what I'm trying to figure out. Stats guys will tell us the if you have the better Corsi, than you didctated play and controlled the game. Well, that team was doing that and ended up being unlucky and got nothing to show for it.
The "eye test" tells you that they are on the verge of scoring and if nothing is done to change the way the game is going, they are bound to do it. And with remarkable regularity, that is exactly what will happen.
- Tonybere

I think thats why you can't look at corsi game to game, to many variables. Its more of a longer term thing. But I really have no idea. I don't care enough about it

Corsi tells us nothing? That is what I'm trying to figure out. Stats guys will tell us the if you have the better Corsi, than you didctated play and controlled the game. Well, that team was doing that and ended up being unlucky and got nothing to show for it.
The "eye test" tells you that they are on the verge of scoring and if nothing is done to change the way the game is going, they are bound to do it. And with remarkable regularity, that is exactly what will happen.
- Tonybere

No that scenario. You just said of "I don't remember days or teams but somebody hit 5 posts." Tells me nothing.

I think thats why you can't look at corsi game to game, to many variables. Its more of a longer term thing. But I really have no idea. I don't care enough about it
- mdw7413

Yeah, yesterday I was close to swinging fully into the Stats Are BS camp. So, I just want to make sure I understand it properly before making up my mind. I get that they can give you information. I am just not convinced that they tell you anything you won't find out by watching the game...provided you understand what you're watching!

Yeah, yesterday I was close to swinging fully into the Stats Are BS camp. So, I just want to make sure I understand it properly before making up my mind. I get that they can give you information. I am just not convinced that they tell you anything you won't find out by watching the game...provided you understand what you're watching!
- Tonybere

Agreed. Much more enjoyable to just watch the game

@aj_ranger
4h4 hours ago

Filip Chytil anchoring the Czechs second line between Filip Zadina and Dmitrij Jaskin against Finland tonight. #NYR

Agreed. Much more enjoyable to just watch the game
- mdw7413

I do watch games. Then after I see what people much smarter than me have tracked shot totals wise. Sometimes the goalie stand on his head. Sometimes the other team gets a luck bounce. All part of the game. Gotta love people just saying shot attempts don't matter though.

@aj_ranger
4h4 hours ago

Filip Chytil anchoring the Czechs second line between Filip Zadina and Dmitrij Jaskin against Finland tonight. #NYR
- jimbo83

Corsi isn't registered shot on goals. It's shot attempts, at 5 on 5. The More you know.
- tomburton99

I know what the Corsi rating is based on total shot attempts with the total time on ice. I was just pointing out to you the breakouts in the end of the Shots on Goal, since you did not obviously watch all the games in full in that series. Had you done so, you would know the FACTS I TOLD YOU as to the dominating play of Fleury, the injury depleted L.A. defense, their non existent finishing offensively, although a great part due to Fleury's play, etc.
Had L.A. not been injury depleted on defense, along with the other PHYSICAL ON ICE FACTORS WHERE THE GAME IS PLAYED, as opposed to your personal stat booth, THOSE CORSI RATINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT, and in favor of L.A.
You next are going to say that should Pittsburgh, for one example, possibly lose some series due to Crosby, Malkin, & Kessel (let's assume), all out with injuries, that it would be the "CORSI" #'s that would have been the reason the opponent would have won if they were in that winning team's favor, instead of that with those 3 out of the lineup being the big reason, (which would have affected the CORSI #'s greatly in the first place)???
You are living in a fantasy world full of your fantasy hockey "viewing" & "tanks" that have spread toxins to your brain!

No that scenario. You just said of "I don't remember days or teams but somebody hit 5 posts." Tells me nothing.
- tomburton99

What difference does it make whether it was the Tampa Bay Lightning or my nephews Pee Wee team?
The team controlled play, created good scoring chances and came within inches of scoring 5 goals, but got no shots on net.
I want to know how Corsi followers would interpret what the "story of the game" would be in that scenario.

Because the pass lead to a goal. The player who taps in the puck techically is credited with a shot, if it's 5 on 5.
- tomburton99

So on shots taken from the lower % scoring areas in the zone, should one puck shot from the point, deflect off someone with the goalie completely screened, and find a puck hole's size of space to squeeze somehow into the net, that goal is due to CORSI, as opposed to luck???