Listen, I personally think that having the puck more, ups your chances of winning. But it is far from the only thing. And stating that the teams chances of making the playoffs is poor based on Corsi, Fenwick, or any other analytic is just another misuse of the statistic. And here is some examples of games where the Flyers got the pants beat off of them in Corsi and Fenwick, but yet won the game

Flyers beat the Red Wings 5-0. But they lost the CorsiFor and FenwickFor battle
CorsiFor was 41.4% and FenwickFor was 45.1%
Flyers beat the Kings 2-0
CorsiFor was 28.1% and FenwickFor was 27.9%. According to that, the Flyers got the snot beat out of them that game.
Flyers beat the Avalanche 3-1
CorsiFor was 44.8% and FenwickFor was 50.5%
Flyers beat Calgary 2-1
CorsiFor was 38.4% and Fenwick for was 37.8%

Bottom line is that I bet I can go back and find a lot of games that the Flyers won, where they lost the Corsi and Fenwick battle. Not going to decide whether the Flyers make the playoffs. Simple winning and losing is.

Now if you want to use it as a metric to see how dominant or not dominant the Flyers have been in games. Then I think it has merit.
- MJL

a lot of those statistics can be a little misleading in lopsided games especially, just because many times a team up 4 or 5 goals does ease off the pedal, allowing the other team to inflate possession numbers in meaningless times

im just viewing it as a matter of tense to qualify its determinant nature (or lack of), if that makes sense
- stayinthefnnet

If I'm following, I'm arguing that they are not an indicator of anything that will happen, simply a way to argumentatively quantify certain aspects of what has happened.

That's kind of my thing. All it proves is that one team had an advantage of some sort over another team. It takes no variables into consideration. You can have the puck and shoot all you want. But if you're not generating quality chances, and you can't beat the goalie, you won't win no matter how "dominant" you are.
- jmatchett383

Exactly. Tons of confusion and misunderstanding when it comes to analytics. And it's the same with a player. They just can't look at everything due to the mature of the game itself, to be that definitive. It's why Coaches look at video and break down scoring chances and rate players. If these stats were as good as some think they are, well then Coaches would have a lot more free time.

If I'm following, I'm arguing that they are not an indicator of anything that will happen, simply a way to argumentatively quantify certain aspects of what has happened.
- jmatchett383

that i agree on. however, in the absence of altering variables, what HAS happened is oftentimes likely to be (and the best imperfection that we have) indicator to predict what WILL happen.

a lot of those statistics can be a little misleading in lopsided games especially, just because many times a team up 4 or 5 goals does ease off the pedal, allowing the other team to inflate possession numbers in meaningless times
- stayinthefnnet

Absolutely of course. It's my entire argument with analytics. Requires context. Corsi and any of it's derivatives or relatives cannot determine that a player is playing well or poorly. Same for a team.

that i agree on. however, in the absence of altering variables, what HAS happened is oftentimes likely to be (and the best imperfection that we have) indicator to predict what WILL happen.
- stayinthefnnet

And how many times do we live in a world without altering variables?

God, are we actually beginning to get deep?

Absolutely of course. It's my entire argument with analytics. Requires context. Corsi and any of it's derivatives or relatives cannot determine that a player is playing well or poorly. Same for a team.
- MJL

They can determine that a team or player does a certain thing well (i.e. retain puck possession and/or generate shots). However, without any context or measure of quality, they are imperfect reflections, at best. Further, they are in no way a fully valid measure of the likeliehood of success of a player or team.

Absolutely of course. It's my entire argument with analytics. Requires context. Corsi and any of it's derivatives or relatives cannot determine that a player is playing well or poorly. Same for a team.
- MJL

just like anything else, without the lens of context things become useless in a hurry. but with the proper context and a liberal grain or two of salt, stats can be useful prognosticating tools

that i agree on. however, in the absence of altering variables, what HAS happened is oftentimes likely to be (and the best imperfection that we have) indicator to predict what WILL happen.
- stayinthefnnet

That's the point. The current analytics that are popular do a better job then more traditional stats. They attempt to paint a better picture. But the reality is that due to the nature of the game of Hockey, they fall way, way short of being definitive. And really, I don't think you have to be an advanced stats guru to understand that. Really just common sense.

just like anything else, without the lens of context things become useless in a hurry. but with the proper context and a liberal grain or two of salt, stats can be useful prognosticating tools
- stayinthefnnet

how about a conservative grain or two of salt?

And how many times do we live in a world without altering variables?

God, are we actually beginning to get deep?
- jmatchett383

i try my hardest to avoid it on here, as the rest of my day is full of it to the point of hurting my brain. but we may be on the verge here.

to answer your question, it depends on how broad a scope you are looking to apply.

They can determine that a team or player does a certain thing well (i.e. retain puck possession and/or generate shots). However, without any context or measure of quality, they are imperfect reflections, at best. Further, they are in no way a fully valid measure of the likeliehood of success of a player or team.
- jmatchett383

I agree completely! We're on the same page. But be careful, you're on dangerous ground here.

That's the point. The current analytics that are popular do a better job then more traditional stats. They attempt to paint a better picture. But the reality is that due to the nature of the game of Hockey, they fall way, way short of being definitive. And really, I don't think you have to be an advanced stats guru to understand that. Really just common sense.
- MJL

yup. the only issue is that common sense and perception seldom finds uniformity between multiple sets of eyes

i try my hardest to avoid it on here, as the rest of my day is full of it to the point of hurting my brain. but we may be on the verge here.

to answer your question, it depends on how broad a scope you are looking to apply.
- stayinthefnnet

Well, a hockey game. You can have as many shots, hits, takeaways, time of possession, etc. that you want. But if you have Michael Leighton in net, you're probably not going to be winning a Cup any time soon. And that's only one variable (degree of "Leightonness"). The you talk about the puck bouncing, a player having to leave to fix equipment, in-game injuries, redirected shots, etc.

I agree completely! We're on the same page. But be careful, you're on dangerous ground here.

- MJL

I know. I think the advanced stats themselves are fine. I really do. Would I prefer the Flyers to have the puck more and for them to generate more shots while allowing fewer? Yes, because on a broad scope, that is beneficial. But that's about as far as it goes, because those stats are viewed in a vacuum where everything else is equal. This is a game played by grown men on steel blades on a piece of ice using long sticks to move a piece of rubber back and forth.

Well, a hockey game. You can have as many shots, hits, takeaways, time of possession, etc. that you want. But if you have Michael Leighton in net, you're probably not going to be winning a Cup any time soon. And that's only one variable (degree of "Leightonness"). The you talk about the puck bouncing, a player having to leave to fix equipment, in-game injuries, redirected shots, etc.
- jmatchett383

Here's an example. At 5 on 5, the LA Kings are the best CorsiFor team in the League at 56.9%. Chicago is 2nd at 55.7%. So why has LA scored 45 goals at 5 on 5, and Chicago has scored 82? With similar CorsiFor percentages, why aren't the goals scored similar?

I got it, thanks. I sent a reply, did you get it?
- MJL

I did not, sir.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm out. Please remember to tip your bartender, let's welcome Trixie to the stage, and do not eat the red shoestring licorice.

I know. I think the advanced stats themselves are fine. I really do. Would I prefer the Flyers to have the puck more and for them to generate more shots while allowing fewer? Yes, because on a broad scope, that is beneficial. But that's about as far as it goes, because those stats are viewed in a vacuum where everything else is equal. This is a game played by grown men on steel blades on a piece of ice using long sticks to move a piece of rubber back and forth.
- jmatchett383

I don't think it's a difficult concept. But we see it time and again.

I did not, sir.
- BulliesPhan87

I will resend it!

Sorry,
this team is not going anywhere if they make the playoffs.
Defence will kill them.
Kimmo's too old, Coburn too sloppy, Grossman is one hit away from a concussion, Schenn has cement in his skates, Mez , well coach scratches him from games for a reason, Streit is just bad, Gus same as Mez.

I cant believe the trade of JVR for Schenn.
Did someone believe reuniting the Schenn brothers would drive Luke to be the next Shea Weber...someone is blind...and im actually interested in scouting report on Luke Schenn when he was drafted, he went number 5 i think, I dont know how, this was a sad sad trade.
Im upset when I watch this team play, I actually had to turn off many games this year earlier than later.
They are playing ok now, but just watch them, they are awful.

Well, a hockey game. You can have as many shots, hits, takeaways, time of possession, etc. that you want. But if you have Michael Leighton in net, you're probably not going to be winning a Cup any time soon. And that's only one variable (degree of "Leightonness"). The you talk about the puck bouncing, a player having to leave to fix equipment, in-game injuries, redirected shots, etc.
- jmatchett383

true. but its all relative. it can work the other way. goalie x has a lower save percentage on high glove side. its entirely plausible that he may be bested another spot, and stop the next 5 he faces that way. but over the grand scheme of things, if that is his demonstrated weak spot, shooters will look for it.

statistics show that coots was better able to slow malkin down than other defenders (hypothetical, i havent checked numbers, but that seems to be the consensus.) wouldnt it make sense to move malkin away from couturier if youre at home and youre bylsma (not that it would occur to him to do such a thing)

Flyers Fenwick-close on the season so far is at .477... making the PO's is going to be tough.

Not surprisingly, LA, CHI, SJ and BOS are between .540-.560... safe to say that one or more of those teams will probably be in the in the Finals again.

http://www.extraskater.co...t&sit=5v5close&type=total
- Tomahawk

I give you credit, but you'd have better luck moving an 18 wheeler by tying it to a 3 year old's tricycle than getting some of these people to admit they could be wrong or that statistical analysis is something more than voodoo or horsepoop. It's obvious you're not watching the games and just throwing numbers out there.

But hey, the last four teams to win the Stanley Cup admit they use analytics, and what do they know compared to a bunch of folks avoiding their jobs on a hockey website?

Sorry,
this team is not going anywhere if they make the playoffs.
Defence will kill them.
Kimmo's too old, Coburn too sloppy, Grossman is one hit away from a concussion, Schenn has cement in his skates, Mez , well coach scratches him from games for a reason, Streit is just bad, Gus same as Mez.

I cant believe the trade of JVR for Schenn.
Did someone believe reuniting the Schenn brothers would drive Luke to be the next Shea Weber...someone is blind...and im actually interested in scouting report on Luke Schenn when he was drafted, he went number 5 i think, I dont know how, this was a sad sad trade.
Im upset when I watch this team play, I actually had to turn off many games this year earlier than later.
They are playing ok now, but just watch them, they are awful.
- FlyerGuy1

Obviously, if our defenseman aren't Shea Weber they are awful.

I give you credit, but you'd have better luck moving an 18 wheeler by tying it to a 3 year old's tricycle than getting some of these people to admit they could be wrong or that statistical analysis is something more than voodoo or horsepoop. It's obvious you're not watching the games and just throwing numbers out there.

But hey, the last four teams to win the Stanley Cup admit they use analytics, and what do they know compared to a bunch of folks avoiding their jobs on a hockey website?
- Jsaquella

Hey, I resemble that last comment!