Have at it...

Some people just have to be right.

Right "Socrates"?

Here's some interesting quotes.

From Brad Marsh.

"At the risk of co-opting what Paul Stewart wrote yesterday, I am not a huge fan of all the new-age statistics that have taken over the game. Too many folks base their opinions on stats and now there is a stat for everything and many of these new stats obscure the picture TEAM picture of what's going on in a game.

Really, the only stat that means anything -- especially this time of year -- is wins and losses.

I get that the fan base needs to vent and the media has to sell newspapers or generate clicks for their Web sites. I enjoy participating in the debates, too. But you will never get me to buy into an argument that the Senators won't make the playoffs (and this just a hypothetical example) specifically because of where Chris Phillips or some other player or two fall on some statistical spreadsheet chart that takes their job on the ice out of context."

And from Paul Stewart

"As for the "advanced stats revolution" in hockey, I admit I am still proudly old-school in my beliefs. Until the end result of a hockey game -- right up to the deciding game of the Stanley Cup Finals -- is measured by puck possession time rather than which team actually converts more scoring chances and lets fewer pucks into their own net, the so-called revolution will always be of secondary importance. "

Here's some interesting quotes.

From Brad Marsh.

"At the risk of co-opting what Paul Stewart wrote yesterday, I am not a huge fan of all the new-age statistics that have taken over the game. Too many folks base their opinions on stats and now there is a stat for everything and many of these new stats obscure the picture TEAM picture of what's going on in a game.

Really, the only stat that means anything -- especially this time of year -- is wins and losses.

I get that the fan base needs to vent and the media has to sell newspapers or generate clicks for their Web sites. I enjoy participating in the debates, too. But you will never get me to buy into an argument that the Senators won't make the playoffs (and this just a hypothetical example) specifically because of where Chris Phillips or some other player or two fall on some statistical spreadsheet chart that takes their job on the ice out of context."

And from Paul Stewart

"As for the "advanced stats revolution" in hockey, I admit I am still proudly old-school in my beliefs. Until the end result of a hockey game -- right up to the deciding game of the Stanley Cup Finals -- is measured by puck possession time rather than which team actually converts more scoring chances and lets fewer pucks into their own net, the so-called revolution will always be of secondary importance. "
- MJL

In the 13/14 NHL Season, according to extraskater.com, the LA Kings were the best possession team in the NHL. The Flyers were ranked in the top of the bottom 1/3 in the League, ranked 20th overall.

So let's look at some numbers.

LA had 3,890 Corsi events for, and 2,956 Corsi events against.

The Flyers had 3,512 Corsi events for, and 3,516 Corsi events against.

Let's break that down to a per game, and per period basis.

LA registered 5 more Corsi events for, and gave up 6 less Corsi events against, per game then the Flyers have.

Broken down per period, LA registered 1.6 more Corsi events for then the Flyers, and gave up 2 less Corsi events against, then the Flyers did. Per period

That's not shots on goal. It's shots attempted. Whether the shot missed the net, was blocked, hit the net, etc.

That's the miniscule difference between the top Corsi team in the League, LA, and the Flyers, ranked 20th.

While I think these stats have value looking at entire teams, I'm a bit more guarded inferring whether individual players are "good" or not based on them. I can't go into details exactly why it can't be done, but it just seems "iffy" to me.

While I think these stats have value looking at entire teams, I'm a bit more guarded inferring whether individual players are "good" or not based on them. I can't go into details exactly why it can't be done, but it just seems "iffy" to me.
- eayost

You're correct, they can't be used to rate a player a good or bad player. But yet they frequently are. And that's a misuse of the stats.

You're correct, they can't be used to rate a player a good or bad player. But yet they frequently are. And that's a misuse of the stats.
- MJL

I do understand though that it doesn't look good when your individual Corsi is not good with a number of different players, and it hasn't been good for a couple years with many teammates. If that much begins to amass, I can at least understand the temptation to draw conclusions. I don't know I would personally draw them, but I understand why some would. It could mean he's a lousy player. It could also mean a guy hasn't found chemistry with teammates, been playing with injury, etc. etc.

Everytime I read Corsi I see it as Corgi so thats definitely a pro because then Im thinking about Corgis. May be due to that I am dyslexic....

Have at it...
- tangent_man

This looks more like an "Advanced Stats: Cons" page.

This looks more like an "Advanced Stats: Cons" page.
- bradleyc4

Feel free to educate us.

Feel free to educate us.
- MJL

There are plenty of resources on the subject matter throughout the interwebs.

You can choose to believe that puck possession is better indicative and more predictive of a team's play than goals for and against; or choose not to.

There are plenty of resources on the subject matter throughout the interwebs.

You can choose to believe that puck possession is better indicative and more predictive of a team's play than goals for and against; or choose not to.
- bradleyc4

I've read extensively many resources on the subject. Well versed in it all.

You can choose to beleive what you want to also. Goals for and against are what wins and loses games. Here's what I know. A team can lose the possesion battle and still win the game. A team cannot lose the goals battle and still win the game. There are no moral victories in Hockey. The playoffs show that.

I've read extensively many resources on the subject. Well versed in it all.

You can choose to beleive what you want to also. Goals for and against are what wins and loses games. Here's what I know. A team can lose the possesion battle and still win the game. A team cannot lose the goals battle and still win the game. There are no moral victories in Hockey. The playoffs show that.
- MJL

No one doubts this at all. Goals are what determines the winner and loser of a hockey game.

The issue, to me, is that goals are so few and far between and subject to a lot of variance and luck - that they do not always reflect who the better team is.

That's where possession comes in. To me, it helps decipher between the good and the bad, the lucky and the unlucky.

No one doubts this at all. Goals are what determines the winner and loser of a hockey game.

The issue, to me, is that goals are so few and far between and subject to a lot of variance and luck - that they do not always reflect who the better team is.

That's where possession comes in. To me, it helps decipher between the good and the bad, the lucky and the unlucky.
- bradleyc4

That depends on what the definition of who is the better team is. How can the team that scored more goals not be considered the better team in that game? The metric that should carry the most weight for deciding who was the better team, is the metric that matters the most. And that metric is goals.
Here's where the confusion comes in for many advanced stats disciples. They think that possesion was the reason why a team won the game, or is a good team. It is not. It's just a byproduct of a good team.

What decides who or wins games, especially in the playoffs, is who makes plays at key moments in a game. Who makes a key defensive play, or a key save. Who executes a pass or a shot at a key moment in a game. Those singular plays are what it comes down to many times. Not a small quantity of shots attempted that are the difference between one team or another in a game. Where a lot of those shot attempts aren't even high quality.

There is so much more to the game, then possession stats.

That depends on what the definition of who is the better team is. How can the team that scored more goals not be considered the better team in that game? The metric that should carry the most weight for deciding who was the better team, is the metric that matters the most. And that metric is goals.
Here's where the confusion comes in for many advanced stats disciples. They think that possesion was the reason why a team won the game, or is a good team. It is not. It's just a byproduct of a good team.

What decides who or wins games, especially in the playoffs, is who makes plays at key moments in a game. Who makes a key defensive play, or a key save. Who executes a pass or a shot at a key moment in a game. Those singular plays are what it comes down to many times. Not a small quantity of shots attempted that are the difference between one team or another in a game. Where a lot of those shot attempts aren't even high quality.

There is so much more to the game, then possession stats.
- MJL

Yes, that is an incorrect assumption.

Possession doesn't determine the winner of a hockey game. It is merely insight into the probability of a team winning a hockey game.

Yes, that is an incorrect assumption.

Possession doesn't determine the winner of a hockey game. It is merely insight into the probability of a team winning a hockey game.
- bradleyc4

It's not an incorrect assumption. It's how many use Corsi and it's derivatives to rate teams. Such as using the numbers to state that the Rangers are a better 5 on 5 team then the Flyers. And it also rears it's ugly head in rating players. Such as this player has bad possession numbers, so therefore he is not a good player. Happens all the time.

It's not an incorrect assumption. It's how many use Corsi and it's derivatives to rate teams. Such as using the numbers to state that the Rangers are a better 5 on 5 team then the Flyers. And it also rears it's ugly head in rating players. Such as this player has bad possession numbers, so therefore he is not a good player. Happens all the time.
- MJL

I was agreeing with you that there is a lot of misuse with the numbers.

Hextall on analytics: "That's where we're going. It's going to be a huge part of what we do going forward."

..

"Analytics is where we’re going. I’m very interested in it. It’s very intriguing. Why I have an analytical mind I have no idea, but I do. You can’t overvalue it, but in my mind it’s going to become more and more and more valuable, I think in all sports. It’s another tool. Why not use every tool available? You still need eyes on hockey players. You need that. I don’t think that will ever change, but the analytics – I wouldn’t say it’s a huge part – but it’s going to get bigger and bigger. I’m interested. It intrigues me.”

Lets all be clear on this:

Clarkson was a good player based on advanced stats two years ago.

"Analytics is where we’re going. I’m very interested in it. It’s very intriguing. Why I have an analytical mind I have no idea, but I do. You can’t overvalue it, but in my mind it’s going to become more and more and more valuable, I think in all sports. It’s another tool. Why not use every tool available? You still need eyes on hockey players. You need that. I don’t think that will ever change, but the analytics – I wouldn’t say it’s a huge part – but it’s going to get bigger and bigger. I’m interested. It intrigues me.”
- Crimsoninja

+1

Another fine take on the subject by Paul Stewart

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...read_id=117204&forum_id=1