Maybe he meant it in the calling the fat guy "Slim" way
- Scoob

sigh....

It's far from the only way to measure a defenseman's worth to a team, but looking at the dmen with the worst CF% this season is still interesting. Lots of familiar names in the top 25 like:

5 - Bogosian
7 - Girardi
10 - Grossmann
16 - McDonagh
21 - Colaiacovo
22 - Schultz
24 - Streit

http://stats.hockeyanalys...orsi&sort=PCT&sortdir=ASC

Some of the numbers can be explained by many of these dmen getting punishingly difficult DZ starts, but only some.
- Feanor

Does CF% take into account the quality of shot it is i.e. the area of the ice the shot is generated?

Poor Hammarby
- Jsaquella

i know, right? what a Richard.

Does CF% take into account the quality of shot it is i.e. the area of the ice the shot is generated?
- KINGKENZO

No, I don't believe it does. It's not even shots on net, it's just shots attempted whether it hits the net, clanks off the glass, or goes into the crowd.

Does CF% take into account the quality of shot it is i.e. the area of the ice the shot is generated?
- KINGKENZO

No, nor does it take into account the speed/acceleration of the puck, whether the shot knuckles, whether it's redirected, or any spells placed upon the puck by wizards in attendance.

No, nor does it take into account the speed/acceleration of the puck, whether the shot knuckles, whether it's redirected, or any spells placed upon the puck by wizards in attendance.
- jmatchett383

Corgi For % has been steadily rising since Mason started using a tennis ball to warm up his reflex, and the stats show its been rising for the team ever since Rinaldo stopped eating the tennis balls cause he got traded

No, I don't believe it does. It's not even shots on net, it's just shots attempted whether it hits the net, clanks off the glass, or goes into the crowd.
- MJL

War-On-Ice has some interesting stats that attempt to calculate "scoring chances" and "high-danger scoring chances"

No, I don't believe it does. It's not even shots on net, it's just shots attempted whether it hits the net, clanks off the glass, or goes into the crowd.
- MJL

Ok, I didnt think so. I never really gave that stat much credence because of that. If you are doing a good job defensively, you are limiting the attempts from inside the box. I really dont care if a high # of shots are coming from low percentage areas of the ice, ill take that all game long. A guy like Grossmann gets killed in this stat but he also keeps the higher % of chances to the outside.

Is there a stat that tracks opponents attempts from High Quality areas?

sigh....
- hammarby31

Ok, I didnt think so. I never really gave that stat much credence because of that. If you are doing a good job defensively, you are limiting the attempts from inside the box. I really dont care if a high # of shots are coming from low percentage areas of the ice, ill take that all game long. A guy like Grossmann gets killed in this stat but he also keeps the higher % of chances to the outside.

Is there a stat that tracks opponents attempts from High Quality areas?
- KINGKENZO

Yes there is. The site War on Ice tracks that. Grossmann bled high scoring chances last year. So did Schultz. And he is this year too. It's just common sense: the more zone time and shots attempted the more likely you are to have a scoring chance opportunity develop. You can only contain for so long before the dam breaks is how I look at it. Slow d men who are butchers with the puck, even if their coverage skills are better than average or their board play, allow more chances for things to develop. While providing nothing when the puck leaves the zone (probably on an uncontrolled chip out). I think when someone like Ghost gives up a high chance it's more noticeable than someone like Schultz: we half expect it from him and defensive d men always get more leeway when they err in the d zone for some reason.

Cf is a small part of the pie tied in with usage, score effects, exit and entry data, possession with/without...but there's one reason people use Corsi and find it to be a good stat: there's a very high correlation between the best teams in hockey and CF%. Sure there will always be outliers, but go year by year and look at who the best and worst possession and best and worst points teams are. Eerily similar. It can help diagnose an over performing and an underperforming team. Bad Cf% is a symptom, not a diagnosis.

Ok, I didnt think so. I never really gave that stat much credence because of that. If you are doing a good job defensively, you are limiting the attempts from inside the box. I really dont care if a high # of shots are coming from low percentage areas of the ice, ill take that all game long. A guy like Grossmann gets killed in this stat but he also keeps the higher % of chances to the outside.

Is there a stat that tracks opponents attempts from High Quality areas?
- KINGKENZO

Not only that, but it takes what is essentially a team stat, because there are 5 skaters on the ice, and applies it to an individual. You could be out on the ice, playing your position perfectly, and a teammate makes a mistake, turns a puck over, and your -4 for CA for the shift. Vice versa for CF. It's a flawed stat with a lot of false data.

Yes there is. The site War on Ice tracks that. Grossmann bled high scoring chances last year. So did Schultz. And he is this year too. It's just common sense: the more zone time and shots attempted the more likely you are to have a scoring chance opportunity develop. You can only contain for so long before the dam breaks is how I look at it. Slow d men who are butchers with the puck, even if their coverage skills are better than average or their board play, allow more chances for things to develop. While providing nothing when the puck leaves the zone (probably on an uncontrolled chip out). I think when someone like Ghost gives up a high chance it's more noticeable than someone like Schultz: we half expect it from him and defensive d men always get more leeway when they err in the d zone for some reason.

Cf is a small part of the pie tied in with usage, score effects, exit and entry data, possession with/without...but there's one reason people use Corsi and find it to be a good stat: there's a very high correlation between the best teams in hockey and CF%. Sure there will always be outliers, but go year by year and look at who the best and worst possession and best and worst points teams are. Eerily similar.
- Mononoke

How does that stat determine which defenseman, or which player is responsible for giving up the scoring chance?

Not only that, but it takes what is essentially a team stat, because there are 5 skaters on the ice, and applies it to an individual. You could be out on the ice, playing your position perfectly, and a teammate makes a mistake, turns a puck over, and your -4 for CA for the shift. Vice versa for CF. It's a flawed stat with a lot of false data.
- MJL

A shift. And that gets balanced out. I'm sure an opponent could do the same. Over 40-82 games the outliers get diluted. That's statistics. And every player on the ice, while not each shift, over a game or half a season has an affect on possession. You don't have to touch the puck to be a good possession player.

In a single game you could be on the ice for 20-40 Corsi events. That increased sample size is what helps smooth outliers over unlike goal plus or minus which is based on singular or a few events. What you just described are the flaws of +/-.

I won't go any further down this rabbit hole because I've already done so enough.




EDIT: for your question above, real quick, it doesn't. In singular events it could not be their fault. But if they bleed chances at a rate much higher than everyone else...their own play has to be considered an overwhelming factor. To be fair you can also see who they play with to see if that explains anything away. Sometimes it does, a lot of times it doesn't.

HOLY poop......BASEBALL CONTRACTS ARE OUT OF CONTROL

A shift. And that gets balanced out. I'm sure an opponent could do the same. Over 40-82 games the outliers get diluted. That's statistics. And every player on the ice, while not each shift, over a game or half a season has an affect on possession. You don't have to touch the puck to be a good possession player.

In a single game you could be on the ice for 20-40 Corsi events. That increased sample size is what helps smooth outliers over unlike goal plus or minus which is based on singular or a few events. What you just described are the flaws of +/-.

I won't go any further down this rabbit hole because I've already done so enough.
- Mononoke

It is not a fact that it balances out. The more corsi events added, only adds to the pile up of false data. It's a good stat for looking at what happens when a player was on the ice, but a very poor one for showing what player is responsible. Unless they find a way to improve the data collection, that will never change. Most champions of analytics like corsi avoid that rabbit hole because they know it's true, and nothing can be done about it currently. In terms of individual players, should be used only to help determine what happened out on the ice, nothing more.

HOLY poop......BASEBALL CONTRACTS ARE OUT OF CONTROL
- KINGKENZO

Note to self: If I have a son, sign him up for baseball ASAP.

EDIT: for your question above, real quick, it doesn't. In singular events it could not be their fault. But if they bleed chances at a rate much higher than everyone else...their own play has to be considered an overwhelming factor. To be fair you can also see who they play with to see if that explains anything away. Sometimes it does, a lot of times it doesn't.
- Mononoke

Of course a players own play is a factor. The issue is what happens when other players are moved off of a line, away from a player, that clouds the issue. Players that you mentioned such as Grossmann and Schultz in their time with the Flyers, played in consistent situations, all season long. So if you're comparing them to players that don't and are moved around, it's not a fair evaluation. That's the issue using wowy with any stat base, whether it's corsi, or scoring chances, or whatever. Not reliable.

HOLY poop......BASEBALL CONTRACTS ARE OUT OF CONTROL
- KINGKENZO

Zimmerman?

Zimmerman?
- MJL

Price doe

Zimmerman?
- MJL

Price....7 years 217M for a guy that lost 7 straight playoff starts

Note to self: If I have a son, sign him up for baseball ASAP.
- Nucker101

Lefty reliever....can play forever

Lefty reliever....can play forever
- KINGKENZO

Pitch to one batter every other game and make millions! Good deal.

Pitch to one batter every other game and make millions! Good deal.
- MJL

Holmgren should be a baseball GM

Holmgren should be a baseball GM
- funmaster18

Good lord, no!
If Homer was GM, Ryan Howard would still have 5 years left at 40 million per.

Does CF% take into account the quality of shot it is i.e. the area of the ice the shot is generated?
- KINGKENZO

No. To be honest, it's not very useful without other statistics as well. I haven't checked the Rangers in a while, but I remember Girardi and McDunnuh getting incredibly tough assignments earlier this year, while Yandle got to consistently play around in the offensive zone against bottom 6 players.

I'm not a Girardi fan, but I have to imagine his usage is playing a pretty large role in why he's one of the worst in the league.