In some of the interviews I listened to there was a lot of mention about pass attempts/completed, quality of turn overs leading the way in possession time so they would steer possession analytics away from Corsi and Fenwick numbers.

Just what I heard more than once.

Hey, at least I don't glaze over now.
- mayorofangrytown

Considering that an advanced stats site like www.extraskater.com and www.stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ track many stats and not just Corsi & Fenwick, I'd say that it's a natural progression for the stats community to incorporate more stats into the picture.

The second site I mentioned has over 90 definitions of different stats in it's glossary. The folks who used and refined these tools are the ones that are going to embrace and try to make any new measurements as good as possible.

It's not worth it, people want to dismiss stats, let them.

There's no stats advocate that says they are perfect, no stats advocate that feels the numbers can replace watching the games, no stats advocate that feels they are 100% fool proof.

The only people that seem to feel something has to be flawless to be effective are the ones that bad mouth the stats. It sucks, but if somebody wants to engage in the endless debate, why bother?
- Jsaquella

It's not about being perfect. It's about being definitive to measure an individual player. And due to the flaws in the stat, and the high percentage of false data, it is not definitive to measure an individual player enough to come to a positive conclusion. That's just the data issue. Then there is the context and other issues such as confirmation bias. There's a reason why the current reply to the flaws of the stat is attack the messenger, rather then to attack the message. And that's because the issue of false data can't be refuted. It's a fact. And it's also false to state that if someone understands the stat and the issues with it, and brings it to the forefront, that they are dismissing the stat. They aren't. I could say the same thing about +/-. Anyone who understands the flaws of +/- and speaks about it, is just dismissing it. And can say well it doesn't have to be fool proof. The real issue is with those who turn a blind eye to the flaws and disregard it, as a factor of why they aren't definitive for individual player. That's the real crime here. And how they were poorly use to criticize players such as Nick Grossmann.

I was at the forefront on this forum, and the Flyers thread, of understanding why it is a flawed stat, and how teams are using the principles of Corsi. Rather then just using the raw numbers available on public websites.

Considering that an advanced stats site like www.extraskater.com and www.stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ track many stats and not just Corsi & Fenwick, I'd say that it's a natural progression for the stats community to incorporate more stats into the picture.

The second site I mentioned has over 90 definitions of different stats in it's glossary. The folks who used and refined these tools are the ones that are going to embrace and try to make any new measurements as good as possible.
- Jsaquella

They can incorporate all the stats they want into the picture. Until they get better data, it's not going to matter.

The truth is Corsi and Fenwick will be gone in 3 to 5 years when they get the tracking system in place. SportVU or something like it will make the guesstimating of Corsi and Fenwick obsolete. Why do you need something that approximates possession if you have actual possession statistics right in front of you?

That's why I try to steer clear of these kind of discussions. No NHL team uses the raw Corsi and Fanwick numbers the schmoos like us on the internet use because at best they're trends. Are they useful. Maybe when they started but they're already out dated and will be easily pushed aside like +/- in just a few seasons. It's really a fruitless discussion, analytics aren't going away, they're going to change. They already have. What they're offering us with Corsi and Fenwick are glorified plus minus numbers.
- mayorofangrytown

Yeah, the shot stuff will probably get decoupled from the idea of possession for sure. Probably just go by pure puck-on-stick times for possession... and then all the cool ancillary stuff like shot attempts, passing accuracy/distance/reception, entries/exits, etc will follow that.

Fun time to be a (nerdy/obsessive) fan.
- Tomahawk

I think it's going to be really good stuff when we get to that point. As long as it doesn't dominate the analysis of players and the game.

It's not about being perfect. It's about being definitive to measure an individual player. And due to the flaws in the stat, and the high percentage of false data, it is not definitive to measure an individual player enough to come to a positive conclusion. That's just the data issue. Then there is the context and other issues such as confirmation bias. There's a reason why the current reply to the flaws of the stat is attack the messenger, rather then to attack the message. And that's because the issue of false data can't be refuted. It's a fact. And it's also false to state that if someone understands the stat and the issues with it, and brings it to the forefront, that they are dismissing the stat. They aren't. I could say the same thing about +/-. Anyone who understands the flaws of +/- and speaks about it, is just dismissing it. And can say well it doesn't have to be fool proof. The real issue is with those who turn a blind eye to the flaws and disregard it, as a factor of why they aren't definitive for individual player. That's the real crime here. And how they were poorly use to criticize players such as Nick Grossmann.

I was at the forefront on this forum, and the Flyers thread, of understanding why it is a flawed stat, and how teams are using the principles of Corsi. Rather then just using the raw numbers available on public websites.
- MJL

Again, your opinion means less to me than the milk I spilled last week. I couldn't care less what you think about anything, be it hockey or how to patch drywall.

Considering that an advanced stats site like www.extraskater.com and www.stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ track many stats and not just Corsi & Fenwick, I'd say that it's a natural progression for the stats community to incorporate more stats into the picture.

The second site I mentioned has over 90 definitions of different stats in it's glossary. The folks who used and refined these tools are the ones that are going to embrace and try to make any new measurements as good as possible.
- Jsaquella

The first thing I noticed was how basic Corsi and Fenwick were on the surface. I wondered why it was such a big deal to people that they'd be arguing over it. I still don't get the argument and I see it going on all the time.

I'll be honest, I spend very little time worrying about someone's plus minus unless it sticks out like a sore thumb so while I'll keep up with it a little now I'm not going to be quoting it often. Thanks for the links.

“With the help of the plus/minus contracts can be obtained. Once our defenseman Jeff Schultz was plus-50. He was plus-5 in the last game. And he signed a contract for four years averaging $2.75 million. And then his contract was bought out, and he signed for only $700,000 a year. Jeff is a good guy. But these plus/minus stats say very little about a player himself or the game as a whole.”

Alex Ovechkin

Agents probably love using these in contract talks.

Again, your opinion means less to me than the milk I spilled last week. I couldn't care less what you think about anything, be it hockey or how to patch drywall.
- Jsaquella

I hope you got to sop up that milk with a nice cookie... you know, unless it was on the floor.

The first thing I noticed was how basic Corsi and Fenwick were on the surface. I wondered why it was such a big deal to people that they'd be arguing over it. I still don't get the argument and I see it going on all the time.

I'll be honest, I spend very little time worrying about someone's plus minus unless it sticks out like a sore thumb so while I'll keep up with it a little now. Thanks for the links.



Agents probably love using these in contract talks.
- mayorofangrytown

That's fine. The stats are what they are. If you don't like them, ignore them. I enjoyed watching games long before I ever heard of Corsi or Fenwick, and I enjoy watching the games just as much now. I don't watch with a calculator in hand and a spreadsheet open, I watch with a beer and a sandwich.

I hope you got to sop up that milk with a nice cookie... you know, unless it was on the floor.
- mayorofangrytown

Nah, I wasn't paying attention and missed the coffee cup. Splashed a bit on the counter.

- Tomahawk

Ohhhh, playmaker, eh?

That's fine. The stats are what they are. If you don't like them, ignore them. I enjoyed watching games long before I ever heard of Corsi or Fenwick, and I enjoy watching the games just as much now. I don't watch with a calculator in hand and a spreadsheet open, I watch with a beer and a sandwich.
- Jsaquella

Yeah, I've seen you post enough to know where you're coming from. I've certainly never dismissed them and I won't now that I'm more informed but as you know, they are what they are. The arguments, as always, stem from the people at the extreme ends and a whole bunch of short sightedness with a touch of ego and anger.

I'm glad I took the time to at least be able to discuss it with a sprinkling of intelligence. There are still things I need to figure out but it'll get done when it gets done.

Nah, I wasn't paying attention and missed the coffee cup. Splashed a bit on the counter.
- Jsaquella

Smooth

There are still things I need to figure out but it'll get done when it gets done.
- mayorofangrytown

Bleh just fake it... that's what the rest of us have been doing:

http://grantland.com/the-...dvanced-stats-in-the-nhl/

Ohhhh, playmaker, eh?
- Jsaquella

Laughton...

Yeah, I've seen you post enough to know where you're coming from. I've certainly never dismissed them and I won't now that I'm more informed but as you know, they are what they are. The arguments, as always, stem from the people at the extreme ends and a whole bunch of short sightedness with a touch of ego and anger.

I'm glad I took the time to at least be able to discuss it with a sprinkling of intelligence. There are still things I need to figure out but it'll get done when it gets done.
- mayorofangrytown

I only started using them because they seemed to correspond to a lot of my own thoughts when watching a game. I'd see a guy like Carle get trashed and say, what the Hell are people watching? Then I'd see the stats blogs and say, Wow, that's what I saw during the game and it's reflected in the numbers. There's value there, but I total get not wanting to dive into that pool.

Smooth
- ob18

It was a behind the back pour, damnit

Laughton...
- mayorofangrytown

I think he could make the team and be a top 9 forward. Might not be as a center, but he can move there in time, if not immediately.

That's fine. The stats are what they are. If you don't like them, ignore them. I enjoyed watching games long before I ever heard of Corsi or Fenwick, and I enjoy watching the games just as much now. I don't watch with a calculator in hand and a spreadsheet open, I watch with a beer and a sandwich.
- Jsaquella

I just don't understand why those who don't use them want to fight about it.

People use whatever methods they are comfortable with to determine how they feel about players. I use them, and it helps me.

It will never make sense -- ever -- that I can say I don't like Geoff Sanderson because he doesn't play with heart and intensity, but I can't say I don't like Geoff Sanderson because he is an awful possession player who gets outshot consistently when he is on the ice.

That makes no damn sense whatsoever.

I just don't understand why those who don't use them want to fight about it.

People use whatever methods they are comfortable with to determine how they feel about players. I use them, and it helps me.

It will never make sense -- ever -- that I can say I don't like Geoff Sanderson because he doesn't play with heart and intensity, but I can't say I don't like Geoff Sanderson because he is an awful possession player who gets outshot consistently when he is on the ice.

That makes no damn sense whatsoever.
- AllInForFlyers

Got me. I'd use both arguments, personally

I just don't understand why those who don't use them want to fight about it.

People use whatever methods they are comfortable with to determine how they feel about players. I use them, and it helps me.

It will never make sense -- ever -- that I can say I don't like Geoff Sanderson because he doesn't play with heart and intensity, but I can't say I don't like Geoff Sanderson because he is an awful possession player who gets outshot consistently when he is on the ice.

That makes no damn sense whatsoever.
- AllInForFlyers

The problem that comes in is that Geoff Sanderson isn't the only player on the ice, so how can you say he get's out shot consistently when he is on the ice?

Now if instead of just having team data, there was a function that could accurately measure actual data that Geoff Sanderson was responsible and liable for, then it would make sense, and would be a reliable indicator.

Got me. I'd use both arguments, personally
- Jsaquella

Exactly -- because no matter how you got there, you made the determination that you didn't like the player.

It's your opinion, supported by the metrics you deem useful in the context you understand.

Bleh just fake it... that's what the rest of us have been doing:

http://grantland.com/the-...dvanced-stats-in-the-nhl/


- Tomahawk

Oh, well crap, I'm done then.

Exactly -- because no matter how you got there, you made the determination that you didn't like the player.

It's your opinion, supported by the metrics you deem useful in the context you understand.
- AllInForFlyers

Yep. There's not a single player that I dislike based on stats alone. Hell there's even guys who have horrible advanced stats I've defended because I felt I saw them play well.