lol you may wanna strap in for a long 5 years of Rangers suckage before commenting on other clubs broski.
- LordHumungous

I'll start worrying about the Rangers sucking once they actually do suck

Why even write about quality of 3rd line centers if you are going to discount some of the most important stats of a center. Then only to say it would have been too long. If you are not including face offs (which makes being a center very important), defensive zone starts ( which you would think affects a good deal of stats), and quality of opponent. Sure don't worry if the 3rd line center faces the other teams best players every night or the 4th line most nights. You seem high on your horse for completing things half a$$.
- cornnation

Quality of Competition does not matter (apparently).

Hey, did you know that Mike Zibbabinggegjihad is a much better player than Jonathan Toews. He (apparently) "drives more possession".

How come when I point out some very poor results when you rank players by CF%, I get told that there are "other" stats/analyses now that address some of the shortcomings. My response was to request that we don't use Corsi any more because it is obviously seriously flawed when ranking players.

What happens?... we get yet another opinion/analysis based largely on CF% and CF%RelTM.


2015-2016 season, minimum 1000 minutes played here are where some players rank CF%RelTM

Nino Neiderreiter - 2 (LOL!)
Kris Versteeg - 16
Patrick Kane - 49
Taylor Hall - 51
John Tavares - 64
Alex Ovechkin - 69
Brent Burns - 70
Jamie Benn - 71
Sidney Crosby - 83
Tarasenko - 86

... you get the idea.

Yes, I hand-picked a few questionable rankings here, but this list of very questionable rankings is far from complete... how about Anze Kopitar at 135? Corey Perry 161 or Jonathan Toews and 175, Stamkos at 191, or Seabrook at 245.

So, again I ask. What is this supposed to be telling me? I'll tell you what it does tell me is that the stat is an absolute pile of poop.

Why would I even use something this obviously flawed as even a small part of an assessment?
- Aetherial

Corsi, and any related corsi stats have always been flawed. There is tons of false data in it, that can never be overcome. The science of it is reasonably sound, but the data collection is where the issues are. Corsi is a team stat, not an individual player stat.

Quality of Competition does not matter (apparently).

Hey, did you know that Mike Zibbabinggegjihad is a much better player than Jonathan Toews. He (apparently) "drives more possession".
- Aetherial

Jake Gardiner is better than Duncan Keith!

Jake Gardiner is better than Duncan Keith!

- MJL

Unfortunately, knowing why corsi based stats may be flawed doesn't give me confidence in them. Telling me a car is bad only because the engine is a piece of crap that only works half the time isn't going to make me go out and buy it

Corsi, and any related corsi stats have always been flawed. There is tons of false data in it, that can never be overcome. The science of it is reasonably sound, but the data collection is where the issues are. Corsi is a team stat, not an individual player stat.
- MJL

The NHL is doing actual player tracking in the World Cup of Hockey. They will have technology that tracks actual possession time for each player in the offensive zone, amongst other things.

It will be interesting to see how the ACTUAL number compare to the "possession proxy" known as Corsi.

At the end of the day, no matter how big of a supporter of Corsi you are, there is no way to know the exact correlation between a player's CF% and their actual possession time without measuring a players real possession time for a large sample size and comparing it game over game along with over the large sample size.

The NHL is doing actual player tracking in the World Cup of Hockey. They will have technology that tracks actual possession time for each player in the offensive zone, amongst other things.

It will be interesting to see how the ACTUAL number compare to the "possession proxy" known as Corsi.

At the end of the day, no matter how big of a supporter of Corsi you are, there is no way to know the exact correlation between a player's CF% and their actual possession time without measuring a players real possession time for a large sample size and comparing it game over game along with over the large sample size.
- rangerdanger94

At some point, hopefully, there will be technology available to give the fans better stats due to better data collection. NHL teams already do this with the use of video and software to break down individual players. They also don't look at every shot as being equal. They breakdown shot data. For example they value defenseman who can limit and force bad low percentage shots as much as preventing shots altogether. I shouldn't have said never be overcome, but should've stated with the current data collection methods. NHL teams know exactly how much a player like David Runblad is contributing to his 55% CF.

At some point, hopefully, there will be technology available to give the fans better stats due to better data collection. NHL teams already do this with the use of video and software to break down individual players. They also don't look at every shot as being equal. They breakdown shot data. For example they value defenseman who can limit and force bad low percentage shots as much as preventing shots altogether.
- MJL

No doubt. Some teams thrive on the counter attack too, so to do what they do best, they actually need the opposing team to have possession of the puck in their own zone. The Rangers did this each year under AV until this most recent season when the defense all of a sudden couldn't string a breakout pass together all year long. Pitt did this to an extent too.

No doubt. Some teams thrive on the counter attack too, so to do what they do best, they actually need the opposing team to have possession of the puck in their own zone. The Rangers did this each year under AV until this most recent season when the defense all of a sudden couldn't string a breakout pass together all year long. Pitt did this to an extent too.
- rangerdanger94

That is another underestimated factor in some of these stats. How systems play can affect a player's stats.

The NHL is doing actual player tracking in the World Cup of Hockey. They will have technology that tracks actual possession time for each player in the offensive zone, amongst other things.

It will be interesting to see how the ACTUAL number compare to the "possession proxy" known as Corsi.

At the end of the day, no matter how big of a supporter of Corsi you are, there is no way to know the exact correlation between a player's CF% and their actual possession time without measuring a players real possession time for a large sample size and comparing it game over game along with over the large sample size.
- rangerdanger94

It will also be interesting to see if the numbers actually mean all that much?

If, for example, actual possession turns out to correlate 100% with CF%, then the player ranking will still look pretty stupid and at the end of the day we will be left with the same question... "What is this good for?".

That is another underestimated factor in some of these stats. How systems play can affect a player's stats.
- MJL

It has been one of my arguments all along.

When I see that 10 of the top 17 were Los Angeles Kings, I am forced to question why CF% is used to rank individuals.

It has been one of my argument all along.

When I see that 10 of the top 17 were Los Angeles Kings, I am forced to question why CF% is used to rank individuals.
- Aetherial

It's all about system.

I think Corsi is pretty telling stat when applied to teams. There is definitely a correlation between teams that rank towards the top of CF% and teams that succeed in the NHL. Team corsi even passes the eye test to me. When teams like LA, Pitt Dallas, Nashville, Anaheim, Tampa, and St. Louis are the top 7 teams in CF%, you know there's something to it. All those teams have a reputation of being skilled offensive teams.

And then when you have Buffalo NY Rangers, Vancouver, Arizona, NJ and Colorado at the bottom, you can also tell that there's something to it because all those teams struggled last season.

So Corsi for teams is pretty interesting to me. I don't think it is an accurate way of evaluating players though.

It has been one of my argument all along.

When I see that 10 of the top 17 were Los Angeles Kings, I am forced to question why CF% is used to rank individuals.
- Aetherial

It's not just about systems, it's also about the quality of the team, and who they play with. Not to keep harping on it, but it's why a player like Runblad can have a CF% of 55. It's a team stat, not an individual player stat. The analytics community has tried to isolate individual players as much as they can, but it's just not possible, with the game of hockey, with the data collection methods available. I don't care if we look a REL or WOWY's, the same issues are still there. I'm not saying it's not useful. I think it helps show you what happened in a game. Why it happened or who is responsible for it, takes analysis and context. Two proponents of analytics can look at the same player, and come up with a different analysis. Then there's the outliers of people who use analytics that think that Gardiner is better than Keith, that show a complete lack of understanding of analytics.

It's all about system.

I think Corsi is pretty telling stat when applied to teams. There is definitely a correlation between teams that rank towards the top of CF% and teams that succeed in the NHL. Team corsi even passes the eye test to me. When teams like LA, Pitt Dallas, Nashville, Anaheim, Tampa, and St. Louis are the top 7 teams in CF%, you know there's something to it. All those teams have a reputation of being skilled offensive teams.

And then when you have Buffalo NY Rangers, Vancouver, Arizona, NJ and Colorado at the bottom, you can also tell that there's something to it because all those teams struggled last season.

So Corsi for teams is pretty interesting to me. I don't think it is an accurate way of evaluating players though.
- rangerdanger94

No question. When using raw shot data as a proxy for possession for teams, the issue of false data is removed, making it a much better stat. Solid team stat. Suspect individual player stat.

I'll start worrying about the Rangers sucking once they actually do suck
- rangerdanger94

Rangers are there. Window closed.

It's all about system.

I think Corsi is pretty telling stat when applied to teams. There is definitely a correlation between teams that rank towards the top of CF% and teams that succeed in the NHL. Team corsi even passes the eye test to me. When teams like LA, Pitt Dallas, Nashville, Anaheim, Tampa, and St. Louis are the top 7 teams in CF%, you know there's something to it. All those teams have a reputation of being skilled offensive teams.

And then when you have Buffalo NY Rangers, Vancouver, Arizona, NJ and Colorado at the bottom, you can also tell that there's something to it because all those teams struggled last season.

So Corsi for teams is pretty interesting to me. I don't think it is an accurate way of evaluating players though.
- rangerdanger94

OK Great.

But what is Corsi bringing to the table? If I ask you to name the top and bottom teams, do you need Corsi to do it?.

Rangers are there. Window closed.
- LordHumungous

Who made you the franking window expert?

So in evaluating a position that usually plays a specific role. You decided to ignore specific stats and just go with goals and goal suppression. Have you seen today's nhl. Most third lines are match up lines. So for example not considering defensive zone starts makes a guy on a team that uses the third line defensively look terrible. But teams who roll three scoring lines guy looks way better. You might as well just used the video game rankings to see who's good.

Who made you the franking window expert?
- rangerdanger94

Reality. You'll be ok.

Why even write about quality of 3rd line centers if you are going to discount some of the most important stats of a center. Then only to say it would have been too long. If you are not including face offs (which makes being a center very important), defensive zone starts ( which you would think affects a good deal of stats), and quality of opponent. Sure don't worry if the 3rd line center faces the other teams best players every night or the 4th line most nights. You seem high on your horse for completing things half a$$.
- cornnation

First off all, couldn't you have asked this question without being an a jerk?

I have written about why I don't find these stats to be useful a bunch of times, so I can' t really rehash it every day. If you're curious, you can always (politely) ask or look up these stats on the internet.

xGF accounts for shot quality and zone stats - so that was used. I just don't like the raw zone start numbers because people over compensate for them. I've written about it several times (why I don't like these stats) but you're free to do your own research.

Quality of Competition is irrelevant over more than a few games because you generally can't get favorable matchups over the long term. Again, lots of literature out there on this.

Faceoffs to even matter, at all. Again, lots of research on this one.

How come when I point out some very poor results when you rank players by CF%, I get told that there are "other" stats/analyses now that address some of the shortcomings. My response was to request that we don't use Corsi any more because it is obviously seriously flawed when ranking players.

What happens?... we get yet another opinion/analysis based largely on CF% and CF%RelTM.


2015-2016 season, minimum 1000 minutes played here are where some players rank CF%RelTM

Nino Neiderreiter - 2 (LOL!)
Kris Versteeg - 16
Patrick Kane - 49
Taylor Hall - 51
John Tavares - 64
Alex Ovechkin - 69
Brent Burns - 70
Jamie Benn - 71
Sidney Crosby - 83
Tarasenko - 86

... you get the idea.

Yes, I hand-picked a few questionable rankings here, but this list of very questionable rankings is far from complete... how about Anze Kopitar at 135? Corey Perry 161 or Jonathan Toews and 175, Stamkos at 191, or Seabrook at 245.

So, again I ask. What is this supposed to be telling me? I'll tell you what it does tell me is that the stat is an absolute pile of poop.

Why would I even use something this obviously flawed as even a small part of an assessment?
- Aetherial

I don't even know what you're on about here. What are these numbers and what do they mean? I've seen CF% expressed as say 54% but what are these numbers you're using?

I can tell you two thins no one argues about though 1) Brett Seabrook sucks and 2) Nino Nieterieder is among the best defensive forwards in hockey.

Corsi, and any related corsi stats have always been flawed. There is tons of false data in it, that can never be overcome. The science of it is reasonably sound, but the data collection is where the issues are. Corsi is a team stat, not an individual player stat.
- MJL

Wrong again. Please answer me this just once and I'll leave you alone: Are you serious? Or are you like someone I know in real life just screwing with me on here?

I have seen you be wrong 99% of the time, ignore any thing anyone says to you and put forth arguments that are just embarrassing, but I've never, not even once, seen you make a cogent point.

Just let me in on the secret, even if it's by PM. I have to know if you're real or like some kind of satirical genious.

I don't even know what you're on about here. What are these numbers and what do they mean? I've seen CF% expressed as say 54% but what are these numbers you're using?

I can tell you two thins no one argues about though 1) Brett Seabrook sucks and 2) Nino Nieterieder is among the best defensive forwards in hockey.
- James_Tanner

*sigh*

Everytime you write it's hilarious. So if the third line center is playing against a number 1 line night in and night out, and another third line center is playing against mostly third and fourth lines, your saying that is not important? And if I stand corrected a face off in and offensive zone or defensive zone is insignificant to you? This is why I am not polite when I ask this question. You have let it be known how much hockey you see, how much hockey you know, how many hockey minds you talk to. Yet you leave out important stats for a center. If a face off is not important guess what a center is called... a winger. Unless your name is malkin. But don't come on here telling people level of competition, face offs and other important things aren't. It's embarrassing.

Wrong again. Please answer me this just once and I'll leave you alone: Are you serious? Or are you like someone I know in real life just screwing with me on here?

I have seen you be wrong 99% of the time, ignore any thing anyone says to you and put forth arguments that are just embarrassing, but I've never, not even once, seen you make a cogent point.

Just let me in on the secret, even if it's by PM. I have to know if you're real or like some kind of satirical genious.
- James_Tanner

That was an arrogant and inaccurate response.