At the end of the day goals win games, possession is nice but if it doesn't translate to goals then your team doesn't win and the other guy across the ice who is still driving possession, but maybe not as well as you, scores more goals then he has probably helped his team win more.
- Dangles13

Does anyone else find it odd that its referred to as "possession" when shooting usually results in a change of possession or faceoff? I remember Detroit used to be called a puck-possession team but thats because they didnt dump and chase like other teams

But that's just a statistical anomaly and eventually we will see LA at the top of the standings and Calgary at the bottom...

Goals don't win games, imprecise statistical measures of probability do...
- RonPielep

Very true... you are wise sir. Anybody think maybe Muzzin has above average confidence because he knows he has Quick to bail him out and Doughty and Kopitar to cover for him if he (frank)s up? I know I have more confidence when I play with better players.

I know you're being sarcastic, but the data is irrefutable.
- James_Tanner

No it isnt.

Does anyone else find it odd that its referred to as "possession" when shooting usually results in a change of possession or faceoff? I remember Detroit used to be called a puck-possession team but thats because they didnt dump and chase like other teams
- WhiteLie

It's a proxy for possession because in order to shoot you need to possess the puck. That's why NHL should call them shots and shots on goal when they put them on their site and get away from potentially confusing terminology.

Does anyone else find it odd that its referred to as "possession" when shooting usually results in a change of possession or faceoff? I remember Detroit used to be called a puck-possession team but thats because they didnt dump and chase like other teams
- WhiteLie

Its a proxy stat. More shots means you have the puck more.

Very true... you are wise sir. Anybody think maybe Muzzin has above average confidence because he knows he has Quick to bail him out and Doughty and Kopitar to cover for him if he (frank)s up? I know I have more confidence when I play with better players.
- Dangles13

That is entirely possible, but isn't at least also possible that Muzzin is just an amazing player in his own right? I swear, the name brand bias in NHL conversations is insane.

There are roughly 5 goals in an NHL game and 50 shots, so you get 10x the data. I am not confused. You ought to just Google it.
- James_Tanner

What's your point? All of the fundamental criticisms are still the exact same. Sure the volume of shots results in a scaling of the effect of these errors. That doesn't change the fact that both stats are subject to a lot of the same flaws. But for some reason corsi is pretty much your most important stat and +/- is meaningless. I mean seriously you need to think about how you evaluate stats before you run your mouth about something like that.

And Google what? Talk about a well thought out response...

That is entirely possible, but isn't at least also possible that Muzzin is just an amazing player in his own right? I swear, the name brand bias in NHL conversations is insane.
- James_Tanner

I do think Muzzin is a great player but to argue he is better than Weber because of one stat is short sighted in my opinion. If Corsi was the only thing needed for determining who the best players are then I highly doubt NHL teams would be employing as many scouts as they currently do.

I do think Muzzin is a great player but to argue he is better than Weber because of one stat is short sighted in my opinion. If Corsi was the only thing needed for determining who the best players are then I highly doubt NHL teams would be employing as many scouts as they currently do.
- Dangles13

Jake Muzzin and TJ Brodie rank 1st and 3rd respectively for "avg dCorsi Impact" over the last 7 seasons -entering their 3rd and 4th yrs now.

— Stephen Burtch (@SteveBurtch) July 30, 2014

Many of the most advanced advanced statters say that DCorsi is THE most important stat for a defenseman.

I do think Muzzin is a great player but to argue he is better than Weber because of one stat is short sighted in my opinion. If Corsi was the only thing needed for determining who the best players are then I highly doubt NHL teams would be employing as many scouts as they currently do.
- Dangles13

100% bubba....tells a portion of the story....that is all.

It's a proxy for possession because in order to shoot you need to possess the puck. That's why NHL should call them shots and shots on goal when they put them on their site and get away from potentially confusing terminology.
- Dangles13

Its a proxy stat. More shots means you have the puck more.
- James_Tanner

Thanks, it makes some sense but has anyone ever tested the theory? I would be really interested to see time of possession stats and see the relation between it and Corsi. Hockey fans know that you can be chasing the puck all game and generate quick shots off turnovers which is a good thing for Corsi but doesnt actually reflect you didnt have the puck much. I see it with 4th lines forechecking well and generating a few good shots but dont have the hands to handle the puck for very long

Jake Muzzin and TJ Brodie rank 1st and 3rd respectively for "avg dCorsi Impact" over the last 7 seasons -entering their 3rd and 4th yrs now.

— Stephen Burtch (@SteveBurtch) July 30, 2014

Many of the most advanced advanced statters say that DCorsi is THE most important stat for a defenseman.
- James_Tanner

THE most important stat and THE ONLY stat are two different things.

No it isnt.
- Jeropotato

This Tanner... If you wanna use statistics to form educated opinions about the world you need to do AT LEAST these two things:
i) Learn about statistics in general
ii) Learn about the statistics you are using

Especially before making statements like "the statistics are irrefutable"... I mean this has to be a joke right? None of the statistics in hockey are irrefutable because you are attempting to measure a very complex stochastic process with some very old school measurement techniques and some very classical statistical analysis methods (which you apparently aren't even aware of).

Thanks, it makes some sense but has anyone ever tested the theory? I would be really interested to see time of possession stats and see the relation between it and Corsi. Hockey fans know that you can be chasing the puck all game and generate quick shots off turnovers which is a good thing for Corsi but doesnt actually reflect you didnt have the puck much. I see it with 4th lines forechecking well and generating a few good shots but dont have the hands to handle the puck for very long
- WhiteLie

augh....I just hate Corsi because it doesnt take into account quality of shots....otherwise its useful.

This Tanner... If you wanna use statistics to form educated opinions about the world you need to do AT LEAST these two things:
i) Learn about statistics in general
ii) Learn about the statistics you are using

Especially before making statements like "the statistics are irrefutable"... I mean this has to be a joke right? None of the statistics in hockey are irrefutable because you are attempting to measure a very complex stochastic process with some very old school measurement techniques and some very classical statistical analysis methods (which you apparently aren't even aware of).
- RonPielep

THIS.

Corsi lovers basically beleive that HE has the puck more, HE is better. Not true.

What's your point? All of the fundamental criticisms are still the exact same. Sure the volume of shots results in a scaling of the effect of these errors. That doesn't change the fact that both stats are subject to a lot of the same flaws. But for some reason corsi is pretty much your most important stat and +/- is meaningless. I mean seriously you need to think about how you evaluate stats before you run your mouth about something like that.

And Google what? Talk about a well thought out response...
- RonPielep

No, the fundamental criticisms are not the same at all. You would need need ten games of goal data to get one game of shot data. Also, over enough time, all shots are equal in quality, where as, until you have thousands upon thousands of goals you can't say the same thing. So, if you track goals - like plus minus does - you get skewed and unusable data that is mostly garbage.

If you think this sounds crazy, keep in mind that virtually all NHL teams now have analytics departments and the correlations and accuracy of the claims have been vetted by math professionals.

I can "run my mouth" about this all day because its true, accurate and factual.

Plus, by Google it, I meant that you should pull up a search engine and type your queery in there because then you could read one of the thousands upon thousands of posts fully and thoroughly discrediting plus minus and save me the hassle.

Hate to break it to you dude, but there are a lot of good hockey people who think that. I really wish it was ok to have my own opinion.

State it as a fact: called an arrogant ass
Take the trouble to make it clear its my opinion only : get told its meaningless
Use factual data to make an analysis: told it's stoopid by people who "just know" but never come back with actual data to back up their claims.
Post the same thing as everyone else: don't know what would happen here actually, since when my opinion is the same as whats being published I usually don't bother since it would be pointless.
Attempt to offer thought provoking original ideas: Told I'm making them up just to "get hits"

Side note: If I wrote MUZZIN BETTER THAN WEBER in the headline, maybe you'd have a point, but I said that in the comment section and anyone seeing already clicked.

Write perhaps the most original and well written hockey blog of all time: get compared to some wierdo with subpar writting skills.

Basically I can't win no matter what with you guys. But honestly, that's OK with me. I am happy to be your punching bag and I am sure deep down you'd just prefer someone to tell you exactly what you want to hear anyways. know what I'm saying?


- James_Tanner

Well considering you normally get very few hits with the exception of once in awhile you write some garbage like this in which you know people will respond because your full of it. So yeah I would say your looking for hits so kudos. Corsi is also not facts. It's a made up meaningless thing ( I won't call it a stat) that means poop and does not determine how good or bad a player is.

Thanks, it makes some sense but has anyone ever tested the theory? I would be really interested to see time of possession stats and see the relation between it and Corsi. Hockey fans know that you can be chasing the puck all game and generate quick shots off turnovers which is a good thing for Corsi but doesnt actually reflect you didnt have the puck much. I see it with 4th lines forechecking well and generating a few good shots but dont have the hands to handle the puck for very long
- WhiteLie

That's why it's only a useful tool and not the foundation upon which to base all your arguments. Even a team with strong forechecking will still have a good Corsi because they are backing off the other team and forcing turnovers, that hardworking team will still look like they played good on paper vs a team that constantly has the puck and cycles but likes to pick their shots.

augh....I just hate Corsi because it doesnt take into account quality of shots....otherwise its useful.
- Jeropotato

I don't know people have such a problem with averaging data, it's a very useful and mathematically sound concept.

Plus, by Google it, I meant that you should pull up a search engine and type your queery in there because then you could read one of the thousands upon thousands of posts fully and thoroughly discrediting plus minus and save me the hassle.
- James_Tanner

I detest when you say that. If it's YOUR argument then it is up to YOU to provide the evidence and not on the second party.

No, the fundamental criticisms are not the same at all. You would need need ten games of goal data to get one game of shot data. Also, over enough time, all shots are equal in quality, where as, until you have thousands upon thousands of goals you can't say the same thing. So, if you track goals - like plus minus does - you get skewed and unusable data that is mostly garbage.

If you think this sounds crazy, keep in mind that virtually all NHL teams now have analytics departments and the correlations and accuracy of the claims have been vetted by math professionals.

I can "run my mouth" about this all day because its true, accurate and factual.

Plus, by Google it, I meant that you should pull up a search engine and type your queery in there because then you could read one of the thousands upon thousands of posts fully and thoroughly discrediting plus minus and save me the hassle.
- James_Tanner

over a period of time, all shots are equal in quality? This is absolutely not true. This is a weak way of avoiding the fact that the quality of shots are damn near immeasurable and therefore are ignored. Have you watched an Oilers game this year?

I don't know people have such a problem with averaging data, it's a very useful and mathematically sound concept.
- James_Tanner

Shut the (frank) up. It's horse poop. You know it and so does every real hockey fan.

I detest when you say that. If it's YOUR argument then it is up to YOU to provide the evidence and not on the second party.
- Dangles13

Google it suckah!

I don't know people have such a problem with averaging data, it's a very useful and mathematically sound concept.
- James_Tanner

no, it isnt. there are strong corsi teams that shoot a poopload of uncontested beachballs from the blue line.

I know you like the "scientific" shots are all the same theory but wouldn't a stat that rewards points based on shot quality be an extremely useful tool when evaluating a player? .5 points for a wrist shot from the slot, .25 for a wrist shot from the blueline or something similar to that.