I find that he's trying to catch up on the game frequently because he's been bloviating about some minor uninteresting fact about a 4th line player. When he's actually calling the game, he's really good.

I feel like I remember a few people in here pining for Gary Thorne recently. I hated that guy. I feel like he deliberately botched very easy to pronounce foreign names. Lazy.
- ThirdEye

I didn't really catch the Thorne era, so I'm indifferent. He reminds me of the NHL games, which I haven't been a big fan of since NHL96.

ANALOGY (and/or simile) ALERT
- Giroux_Is_God

At least it's not a Stral man.

At least it's not a Stral man.
- Tomahawk

Quit Jokin(en) around

edit: i'm sorry this is a bad post

I didn't really catch the Thorne era, so I'm indifferent. He reminds me of the NHL games, which I haven't been a big fan of since NHL96.
- BulliesPhan87

There's merit to the name thing...he'd miss a lot of easy names. I didn;t really like him that much, until Versus got the games and I was subjected to Joe Benninnatti...then I missed Thorne

Basically that entire false positive/negative narrative was constructed by Staples because he's hawking his own set of "advanced" stats and he's admitted in the past that he digs into Corsi as means to draw attention to his own stuff.

And, as you've mentioned, and as Dellow showed, Neilson numbers are much more problematic... like a sludgy pot of subjectivity.
- Tomahawk

No I think the issue of false data was brought up long before he was trying to hawk his own advanced stats. The issue is real. And I think each individual team can take steps using the principles of Corsi, to make it more reliable for looking at individual players. But I don't see how it could be done for the entire league to a point where it would be comparable or accurate between teams. But it can probably be done to some degree internally with each individual team. And I believe that is what they're trying to do. Both numbers are problematic. Just a different set of problems.

Can I say its garbage?


- flyer_nutter

Do you have an extra seat on this boat? I'm tired of seeing this sheeit

At least it's not a Stral man.
- Tomahawk

Stralman argument in 3....2....

The issue is real.
- MJL

It exists, but it doesn't spoil the data on the individual level like you're fond of insisting.

If the data was so poor, why has it been proven to be so darned predictive?

You know.

One time I was engaging in intercourse and accidently went into the wrong insertion area.

This feels exactly the same.

It exists, but it doesn't spoil the data on the individual level like you're fond of insisting.

If the data was so poor, why has it been proven to be so darned predictive?
- Tomahawk

It does spoil the data for sure. And it's not that predictive. Even on the team level. Maybe again, the best stat found so far for predicting an outcome. But not not to the point of being reliable.

I want to ask you an honest question, and I hope I get an honest answer. If Corsi or Fenwick didn't exist. Would you rely on +/- to rate a player?

You know.

One time I was engaging in intercourse and accidently went into the wrong insertion area.

This feels exactly the same.
- flyer_nutter

I can only imagine OBs reaction when he sees this

I can only imagine OBs reaction when he sees this
- PhillySportsGuy

Its only a bit of fun. I bring a brand of lunacy when I can.

Do you have an extra seat on this boat? I'm tired of seeing this sheeit
- Giroux_Is_God

I think the truth is that these advanced stats are fine for arguments but you couldn't pull me into one. Think about it this way: There are 82 games per team per yr, 750+ players each participating in an average of let's say an average of 15 minutes a game. He'll be involved in loosely an statistical occurrence every 3 seconds. What average person can wade through that much information and stand on a soap box and make a salient argument.

Each team is doing it for their individual players and adjusting the statistics via video views but think of the number of people you would need to do it for a whole league. And let me tell you that those teams aren't sharing so it doesn't exist.

You know.

One time I was engaging in intercourse and accidently went into the wrong insertion area.

This feels exactly the same.
- flyer_nutter

Pud stub.

is that a thing?

I want to ask you an honest question, and I hope I get an honest answer. If Corsi or Fenwick didn't exist. Would you rely on +/- to rate a player?
- MJL

No... but it's not because of "false data" concerns... it's because the sample size of goals scored is too small to tell us anything definitive.

You know.

One time I was engaging in intercourse and accidently went into the wrong insertion area.

This feels exactly the same.
- flyer_nutter

+1 zone entry

I think the truth is that these advanced stats are fine for arguments but you couldn't pull me into one. Think about it this way: There are 82 games per team per yr, 750+ players each participating in an average of let's say an average of 15 minutes a game. He'll be involved in loosely an statistical occurrence every 3 seconds. What average person can wade through that much information and stand on a soap box and make a salient argument.

Each team is doing it for their individual players and adjusting the statistics via video views but think of the number of people you would need to do it for a whole league. And let me tell you that those teams aren't sharing so it doesn't exist.
- mayorofangrytown

Amen! It's all subjective. And you can use them to say whatever you want about a player. And that's the issue.

isn't that a simile?
- wilsonecho91

No... but it's not because of "false data" concerns... it's because the sample size of goals scored is too small to tell us anything definitive.
- Tomahawk

Definitely sample size is a big issue! And one of the main problems that Corsi tries to correct. You may not be concerned about the false data issue, but it does exist with +/-. But that is neither here nor there. But here is my point. You wouldn't rely on standard +/- stats for looking at a player, because of the flaws in the stat. But if Corsi or Fenwick didn't exist. +/- would then take the mantle of the best stat we got. And when it was first developed, it became gospel among fans and around the League. It was the new thing that wasn't going away, and the Hockey world is on board! Sound familiar? Well why the double standard? Just as the flaws in +/- can't be ignored, neither can the flaws in Corsi and Fenwick be ignored. And certainly can't be ignored just because it's the best thing we got right now, and the Hockey world is on board. It's no different. And somewhere down the road, something else is going to come along that improves upon Corsi, and that will be the new thing that the Hockey World is on board with now. While Corsi gets dumped off the train, because of it's inherent flaws. And as MOAT theorizes, and I agree with him. NHL teams internally are already trying to improve upon it, to get a more accurate view of players.

Can't ignore the flaws of Corsi because "it's the best stat we got" anymore then you could with +/-.

The struggle is real.
- MJL

Fixed

Fixed
- Giroux_Is_God

When they say no.

It means yes.

- tangent_man

I feel shame.

When they say no.

It means yes.
- flyer_nutter

No means yes

Woof means woof

+1 zone entry
- feelingkettle

lol

+1 zone entry
- feelingkettle