Holy crap, you missed the point about as badly as Ryan Howard misses a curve ball from a decent lefty pitcher.

Nowhere do I say that Corsi is perfect, nowhere do I say that people should rely totally on Corsi. In fact, I go out of my way to state that watching the games is vital. You lock onto Corsi, when I'm talking about the entire gamut of stats. Of course, in your reply you cut that entire part of my post out, which is pretty typical for you.
- Jsaquella

No I didn't miss the point at all. And no where did I say that you said Corsi is perfect. What I did say, and what I refuted was this false idea that the flaws of Corsi when used with individual players, should be overlooked because, other stats also have some false data. Such as sometimes a goal is scored on a lucky bounce when a puck bounces off of a foot to paraphrase. I completely addressed the entire point you made, and didn't cut anything out. Honestly, is that the only argument that can be made to refute the false data issue of Corsi? That other stats have flaws also? Comparing odd goals and small amounts of false data when it comes to goals and assists, to the large amount of false data that is compiled with Corsi data for individual players is a bad comparison. There is a huge difference between the two. As I pointed out, and used to refute against that point is that one of the claims of why Corsi is so much better then +/- is because of the big difference in sample size. But yet the false data of goals and assists is compared to false shot data for individual players? But what we really see in your reply is dancing around the issue, and more importantly, not answering the simple question of why the double standard when looking at +/- and it's validity? Why call +/- a bad stat when Corsi for individual players shares the same exact issue? And I don't really need it answered. It answers itself.

No I didn't miss the point at all. And no where did I say that you said Corsi is perfect. What I did say, and what I refuted was this false idea that the flaws of Corsi when used with individual players, should be overlooked because, other stats also have some false data. Such as sometimes a goal is scored on a lucky bounce when a puck bounces off of a foot to paraphrase. I completely addressed the entire point you made, and didn't cut anything out. Honestly, is that the only argument that can be made to refute the false data issue of Corsi? That other stats have flaws also? Comparing odd goals and small amounts of false data when it comes to goals and assists, to the large amount of false data that is compiled with Corsi data for individual players is a bad comparison. There is a huge difference between the two. As I pointed out, and used to refute against that point is that one of the claims of why Corsi is so much better then +/- is because of the big difference in sample size. But yet the fals data of goals and assists is compared to false shot data for individual players? But what we really see in your reply is dancing around the issue, and more importantly, not answering the simple question of why the double standard when looking at +/- and it's validity? Why call +/- a bad stat when Corsi for individual players shares the same exact issue? And I don't really need it answered. It answers itself.
- MJL

Strike two. Nowhere did I say the flaws in Corsi should be overlooked. Acknowledging does not mean overlooking.

Keep trying, slugger

Yep, thats the one. I think the other folks here may be be at a generational disadvantage in this reference. It was strange hearing that stuff on the radio when it was brand new.

Pleasant dreams to you
- Steelmanpa

I never realized it was a song, I've read the poem before, but never heard the song.

Strike two. Nowhere did I say the flaws in Corsi should be overlooked. Acknowledging does not mean overlooking.

Keep trying, slugger
- Jsaquella

The key sentence in this earlier post you made is the last sentence.


"Corsi = Shot Attempts = Shots + Missed Shots + Blocks

Fenwick = Shots + Missed Shots

That's it. If a player is on the ice for any event, his Corsi reflects it. Again, it's a statistic that shows trends, which is why any serious stats person will caution against small sample sizes and uses other things like zone starts and entries and quality of both teammates & competition to get a fuller picture.

But a guy being on the ice for a shot for or against is pretty cut and dried."

"Corsi = Shot Attempts = Shots + Missed Shots + Blocked Shots

Fenwick = Shots + Missed Shots

Yep. There's just a (frank)ing Everest of false data in there. It's incredible, because who actually tracks those sorts of things during a game? "
- MJL

This has nothing to do with Mount Everest

This is still happening. Very nice work guys

The key sentence in this earlier post you made is the last sentence.


"Corsi = Shot Attempts = Shots + Missed Shots + Blocks

Fenwick = Shots + Missed Shots

That's it. If a player is on the ice for any event, his Corsi reflects it. Again, it's a statistic that shows trends, which is why any serious stats person will caution against small sample sizes and uses other things like zone starts and entries and quality of both teammates & competition to get a fuller picture.

But a guy being on the ice for a shot for or against is pretty cut and dried."
- MJL

Yep. It's very cut and dried. Which is why most people who use stats don't just use Corsi & Fenwick. They use it to track trends and as a predictive tool. They also know that possession isn't 100% of the game, which is why stat geeks are constantly trying to refine the stats, to make them better.

EDIT: In other words, they acknowledge the shortcomings of a stat and look for ways to make it more effective

This is still happening. Very nice work guys
- Giroux_Is_God

I was watching a movie and made the mistake of logging back on

Yep. It's very cut and dried. Which is why most people who use stats don't just use Corsi & Fenwick. They use it to track trends and as a predictive tool. They also know that possession isn't 100% of the game, which is why stat geeks are constantly trying to refine the stats, to make them better.
- Jsaquella

Makes my point. It's not cut and dry. Just because a player is on the ice for a Corsi event for or against, does not mean that player is responsible for it. Stating that it's cut and dry is doing exactly what you said you don't do. Which is overlooking false data. It's that simple. There is no way around it. And it's used for far more then tracking trends and as a predictive tool. It's used to rate individual players. And in my view it's used incorrectly and in poor context many times. And we see that on here on a regular basis.

EDIT: In other words, they acknowledge the shortcomings of a stat and look for ways to make it more effective
- Jsaquella

My issue is not with the developers of the stats and how they use it. Most of them tend to apply the stat in the proper context.

Yep, I agree, why use a tool if it's not 100 percent foolproof? I mean, I can just use unflawed numbers like goals and assists.

I mean, sure there's some weak goals allowed, or scored into empty nets, but hey there's no false data there. And assists, they're fine as they are. Nobody's ever gotten an assist when a puck hits a random skate and takes a lucky bounce. Absolutely flawless, without deviation whatsoever.

Of course you don't ignore goals and assists because some of them are weak or empty netters, you acknowledge the inherent flaws and look deeper at the story they tell. Any statistic in sports has some degree of flawed data that comprises it.

Yes, I can look and see if a player is good or bad with my eye. Most people do, especially stats advocates. The stats advocate generally sees something that happens and decides to dig a bit deeper, because they want to have a deeper understanding of the game and the impact a particular guy has on his team.

I can watch a highlight video of a guy like Nikolai Zherdev or Alexandre Daigle scoring goals and come away thinking he's the greatest player ever. But do I have the access and time to view the raw video of every shift they've taken? If all I can see is what the broadcast shows, how can I accurately judge his play away from the puck? Especially since broadcasts tend to follow the puck, and most replays focus on penalties or hits away from the puck and not the mundane regular shifts taken by a particular player.

Personally, I watch a lot of games. A guy's Corsi or Fenwick rating is the last thing on my mind when the game is on. However, after the game, if I feel a guy played particularly well or particularly poor, I'll go back and look and see what the stats say. If I'm discussing a player, I'm going to look at available video and I'm going to look at his stats-traditional ones and advanced ones-to arm myself with as much data as possible. I'm going to read other's opinions of that player, especially those who watch him often. I'll go on twitter and ask scouts who are there what they think. Most are happy to reply.

Ignore the stats if you want to dismiss them. Me, I want to get as much info as I can-using my eyes, the numbers and hearing what others have to say. I'm far more likely to agree with a point if it's clear the person making it can support it with more than opinions.
- Jsaquella

This is a very long post

jesus (frank)ing christ. it's about 6 hours later, and still, predictably this stupid (frank)ing argument continues.

no proponent of advanced stats thinks they're perfect or the only tool to be relied upon when analyzing players, but a tool but to utilized in a bigger picture. why is this so hard to understand?

goals, assists, +/-; all don't tell the whole story, just like gaa and sv. pctg.

i can't (frank)ing take this anymore.

This is a very long post
- Giroux_Is_God

Yep

jesus (frank)ing christ. it's about 6 hours later, and still, predictably this stupid (frank)ing argument continues.

no proponent of advanced stats thinks they're perfect or the only tool to be relied upon when analyzing players, but a tool but to utilized in a bigger picture. why is this so hard to understand?

goals, assists, +/-; all don't tell the whole story, just like gaa and sv. pctg.

i can't (frank)ing take this anymore.
- hammarby31

Got me. I thought I explained it fairly clearly.

jesus (frank)ing christ. it's about 6 hours later, and still, predictably this stupid (frank)ing argument continues.
- hammarby31

Same discussions as the last twenty seven times, too, I will assume (since I'm not gonna backread all of it).

So, the Mrs got a new used car tonight. I looked at the mpg, suggested tire pressures, and fluid capacities and thought of all of you. So there.

jesus (frank)ing christ. it's about 6 hours later, and still, predictably this stupid (frank)ing argument continues.

no proponent of advanced stats thinks they're perfect or the only tool to be relied upon when analyzing players, but a tool but to utilized in a bigger picture. why is this so hard to understand?

goals, assists, +/-; all don't tell the whole story, just like gaa and sv. pctg.

i can't (frank)ing take this anymore.
- hammarby31

Yayyyyyyyyyyy

And in my view it's used incorrectly and in poor context many times. And we see that on here on a regular basis.
- MJL

Do you ever get tired of playing the role of Thought Police? It's really getting excessive. Just the mere link to an article and you incite pages and pages of this crap.

So...........AIRLINE FOOD

What's the deal with that? Right boys?

Do you ever get tired of playing the role of Thought Police? It's really getting excessive. Just the mere link to an article and you incite pages and pages of this crap.
- Tomahawk

Well I've obviously been having this discussion with myself!


One thing is abundantly clear. Some sources will eventually move the conversation away from the actual discussion, towards a personal angle. Simply because they can't refute the opinion being offered! For instance, what does the above post have to do with the subject of Corsi and the false data issue? Nothing!

Same discussions as the last twenty seven times, too, I will assume (since I'm not gonna backread all of it).

So, the Mrs got a new used car tonight. I looked at the mpg, suggested tire pressures, and fluid capacities and thought of all of you. So there.
- tangent_man

So, what did she get?

So...........AIRLINE FOOD

What's the deal with that? Right boys?
- Giroux_Is_God

What else ya gonna eat? Not like there's a 7-11 or Wawa at 35,000 feet

So...........AIRLINE FOOD

What's the deal with that? Right boys?
- Giroux_Is_God

I haven't seen a meal on a domestic flight since... the 90's?

Food on int'l is pretty decent... especially if you're on an Asian airline.

What else ya gonna eat? Not like there's a 7-11 or Wawa at 35,000 feet
- Jsaquella

I just had an idea.

A wawa. 35,000 feet in the air.

I'm gonna be rich.

I haven't seen a meal on a domestic flight since... the 90's?

Food on int'l is pretty decent... especially if you're on an Asian airline.
- Tomahawk

Yeah, good point. The last time we got a meal on a plane was a trip to San Diego. Even when we went to Aruba the food was limited to the bag of nuts

I haven't seen a meal on a domestic flight since... the 90's?

Food on int'l is pretty decent... especially if you're on an Asian airline.
- Tomahawk

From what I've heard it's pretty much either fish or steak

I just had an idea.

A wawa. 35,000 feet in the air.

I'm gonna be rich.
- Giroux_Is_God

Sounds like the Jetsons