We'll ignore date until you watch a game.

Looking at data is all you have.

I bet you think Jason Blake was good because he had a good corsi taking soft wristers from the top of the circle.
- jbold

Because someone looks into advanced statistics, it means they don't watch the games?



*cancels Center Ice subscription*

So what does that tell you? It tells me that when his shooting percentage was decent he was a very useful player. It also says that he stopped going to the tough areas with the puck to score his goals. In NY he did. Again, Corsi is useful in assessing the player, but its even more useful when combined with shooting percentage and graphs showing where the player goes to score his points.

Corsi, Fenwick etc all on their own are only a measurement/way to grade a player, they're at their best when they're used with other tools to measure.
- mykokes

Corsi is useless unless you watch the games and shouldnt be used as a decision maker.


He had good Corsi, but dear god he was extremely bad. So yeah.

The real Calder winner is The Janitor.
























in 2022.

2945 shots against = 256 goals against

2695 shots against = ??? goals against.


it's a pretty simple concept imho.
- Pecafan Fan

dammit peca I'm not doing math this early, just tell me the answer.

So what does that tell you? It tells me that when his shooting percentage was decent he was a very useful player. It also says that he stopped going to the tough areas with the puck to score his goals. In NY he did. Again, Corsi is useful in assessing the player, but its even more useful when combined with shooting percentage and graphs showing where the player goes to score his points.

Corsi, Fenwick etc all on their own are only a measurement/way to grade a player, they're at their best when they're used with other tools to measure.
- mykokes

well said.

more shots against is bad... stop trying to pretend they are all weak meaningless shots

you chose to think otherwise..thats fine... but trust me your thinking is much more flawed...and probably in line with RC
- senstroll

You can't see the flaws in your reasoning, that is what is pathetic. You assume that all the numbers are 100% correct. I'm pointing out it's flaws and not to take them as fact as you are doing, it is like analytic's are the NHL bible to you.

Because someone looks into advanced statistics, it means they don't watch the games?



*cancels Center Ice subscription*
- Pecafan Fan

No. But you can tell that he doesnt watch the games when saying things like "more shots against is bad... stop trying to pretend they are all weak meaningless shots", when the quality of shots werent that good.

He'd be upset if the Leafs gave up 40 soft shots that were easily stoppable, instead of being upset the Leafs gave up 25-30 extremely good shots. Why? Because adv stats says so..

dammit peca I'm not doing math this early, just tell me the answer.
- Yeti1181

Yeah, wtf..

dammit peca I'm not doing math this early, just tell me the answer.
- Yeti1181

234?





(I suck at Maths, btw)

IT was all coaching but its be pretty evident his systems work like crap, we gave up the most shots in NHL history that's not on the players that has to be a system problem as well.
- Yeti1181

you are assuming the players were actually playing to his system... which, according to his daily press conferences, there were not.

Now, gotta ask yourself why he didn't start benching players like crazy who wouldn't perform as asked, but they didn't have the depth for this.

there were maybe 5 games all year where the Leafs actually played the way Randy wanted them to play (according to his post-games...) The LA game they lost was one of them.

not saying RC didn't make mistakes, and obviously it's also his job to get the players to buy into the system, but he can't execute for them. There was an incredible lack of execution last season.

234?





(I suck at Maths, btw)
- Pecafan Fan

I had 666, wtf?

No. But you can tell that he doesnt watch the games when saying things like "more shots against is bad... stop trying to pretend they are all weak meaningless shots", when the quality of shots werent that good.

He'd be upset if the Leafs gave up 40 soft shots that were easily stoppable, instead of being upset the Leafs gave up 25-30 extremely good shots. Why? Because adv stats says so..
- jbold

Well the reality is, no teams allow 40 soft shots per game and miss the playoffs.

you are assuming the players were actually playing to his system... which, according to his daily press conferences, there were not.

Now, gotta ask yourself why he didn't start benching players like crazy who wouldn't perform as asked, but they didn't have the depth for this.

there were maybe 5 games all year where the Leafs actually played the way Randy wanted them to play (according to his post-games...) The LA game they lost was one of them.

not saying RC didn't make mistakes, and obviously it's also his job to get the players to buy into the system, but he can't execute for them. There was an incredible lack of execution last season.
- Badge

It was supposed to say not all coaching. Please adjust answer accordingly

Well the reality is, no teams allow 40 soft shots per game and miss the playoffs.
- Pecafan Fan

Reality is, you dont know whats a soft shot and whats a good shot when looking at daate because adv stats dont say so

What Leafman is trying to say. Its flawed.

You can't see the flaws in your reasoning, that is what is pathetic. You assume that all the numbers are 100% correct. I'm pointing out it's flaws and not to take them as fact as you are doing, it is like analytic's are the NHL bible to you.
- LeafMan

I think you just coined a new term: Fancy Stat Fundamentalist

Corsi is useless unless you watch the games and shouldnt be used as a decision maker.


He had good Corsi, but dear god he was extremely bad. So yeah.
- jbold

Again, I'm not an analytics guy JBold. And he was bad as a Leaf for most of his time here, though his 08/09 season wasn't that bad. He was the best of a poop team.

But again, I look at his shooting percentage....which hovered as low as 6%, and was as low as 4.5%, which on its own shouldn't tell you if a player is good or bad....and start to get a clearer picture that either he was robbed a lot by good goalies, or he was taking a lot of low percentage shots. Thats the thing you seem to be missing with Analytics guys, they don't just use one form of analytics (or statistics as they should be called) to draw their conclusions. And I think most of them are learning this----more and more you see guys turning to fenwick, corsi and whatever other fancy tool is at their disposal to get a clearer picture. And they actually do watch the games.

Reality is, you dont know whats a soft shot and whats a good shot because avd stats dont say so.

What Leafman is trying to say. Its flawed.
- jbold

Isn't there an advanced stat for quality of shot placement?

Reality is, you dont know whats a soft shot and whats a good shot when looking at daate because adv stats dont say so

What Leafman is trying to say. Its flawed.
- jbold

Anyone who denies the flaws in Corsi/Fenwick is a Fancy Stat Fundamentalist, but at the same time - these stats can be very useful.

Eg. Jesus Christ, if he ever existed, was not a God, but applying his teachings make the world a better place nonetheless.

Reality is, you dont know whats a soft shot and whats a good shot when looking at daate because adv stats dont say so

What Leafman is trying to say. Its flawed.
- jbold

Everything thing has flaws though including watching the game. How many times have we sat their and been like what a weak goal, then see the replay and see it bounced four times then went in. I think having a combination of both can be very useful and I don't follow advanced stats at all but can see how they are useful.

I'm sure you said the same glowing things about him while he was managing the Leafs.
- 1979AD

That's a whole different thing. Speaking of hype, do you remember all the commotion around him leaving the ducks to join the leafs? Ownership problems in Anaheim, NHL brass getting involved, TO media losing their minds about the possibility of burke coming to the leafs. Once again the machine started up and we were all forced to watch.

Saying that, I was looking forward to the gong show that I knew was going to follow. From experience, I knew Burke's personality was going to rub MLSE brass the wrong way.

I've always liked Burke but I think he has a shelf-life. He has a tendency (in the past) to trade away picks and prospects to fix the pro roster. Always worked short term but left the organizations with a future problem (well in Vancouver anyway).

I really thought Burke was going to improve the Leafs but the real question was how long he was going to last before alienating himself from MLSE suits.

I think you just coined a new term: Fancy Stat Fundamentalist
- 1979AD

Some take it to the extreme, yes adv. stats are useful but you cannot use it as a complete tool to judge a player, like I said, why have scouts if adv.stats are 100% correct? No middle ground with some.

That's a whole different thing. Speaking of hype, do you remember all the commotion around him leaving the ducks to join the leafs? Ownership problems in Anaheim, NHL brass getting involved, TO media losing their minds about the possibility of burke coming to the leafs. Once again the machine started up and we were all forced to watch.

Saying that, I was looking forward to the gong show that I knew was going to follow. From experience, I knew Burke's personality was going to rub MLSE brass the wrong way.

I've always liked Burke but I think he has a shelf-life. He has a tendency (in the past) to trade away picks and prospects to fix the pro roster. Always worked short term but left the organizations with a future problem (well in Vancouver anyway).

I really thought Burke was going to improve the Leafs but the real question was how long he was going to last before alienating himself from MLSE suits.
- bloatedmosquito

You lost me at "That's a whole different thing."

That is exactly what I have been saying. Will it help? Remains to be seen, it is a tool to be used but is not the be all and end all to the game of hockey, if it was, fire all the scouts.
- LeafMan

it will help the leafs in making smarter decisions.. like all these 1 year cheap deals

and staying away from Clarkson deals..and retaining players like Macarthur instead

Isn't there an advanced stat for quality of shot placement?
- AdamFrench

Not sure. Think so. But most adv stat guys ignore it. Simply to get their point across.


Also. Those that track adv stats for sites. Whats their definition of a good quality scoring chance, a good shot, ect?

It definitely varies.

A soft wrister from the op of the circle against isnt a good shot and its not big deal, but for Senstroll, its a shot, which apparently is bad thing...

No. But you can tell that he doesnt watch the games when saying things like "more shots against is bad... stop trying to pretend they are all weak meaningless shots", when the quality of shots werent that good.

He'd be upset if the Leafs gave up 40 soft shots that were easily stoppable, instead of being upset the Leafs gave up 25-30 extremely good shots. Why? Because adv stats says so..
- jbold

The fact Bernier and Reimer had such a high spct coupled with a high GAA facing those 40 soft shots tells me they weren't soft shots. Again to me the true definition of advanced stats is using all the stats at your disposal to draw out an opinion. The only thing black and white in hockey is wins and losses.....somehow that came across as racist.