So, if you wanted to make your CF% leader your Stanley Cup favourite it becomes difficult when that team fails to make the playoffs. So, pick your next favourite from the top 10 finisher of CF%.

1. Los Angeles
2. Boston
3. Montreal
4. Washington
5. Carolina
6. Nashville
7. Tampa Bay
8. San Jose
9. Philadelphia
10. Calgary

So, if you wanted to make your CF% leader your Stanley Cup favourite it becomes difficult when that team fails to make the playoffs. So, pick your next favourite from the top 10 finisher of CF%.

1. Los Angeles
2. Boston
3. Montreal
4. Washington
5. Carolina
6. Nashville
7. Tampa Bay
8. San Jose
9. Philadelphia
10. Calgary
- spatso

Well Washington may be struggling with the Leafs, but the Leafs are quickly becoming one of the top teams in the league, and Nashville just swept Chicago. So, those are two teams I'd pick as solid legit shots at the cup.

Part of what drives me nuts about the advanced stats crowd is that they think they have all the answers, and many think it boils down to one particular stat that can measure how good someone is defensively, or overall. It really isn't that simple, and it's stupid of those to think that it is.

How do you know that what you're definitively referring to as "randomness" is just something they haven't figured out how to measure just yet? How do you know that the deployment a player has, which many advanced stats people stupidly brush aside, actually plays a big portion of what you're referring to as "luck".

I mean, at it's base, using shot attempts vs shots, is just using bigger numbers, and I'm going to guess that if you were to compare CF vs team shots for, and CA vs team shots against, the number would come out reasonably close to what they are anyway. And really, it's not rocket science saying that if you outshoot a team, you'll win more often than lose. That's really not all that "advanced". It also ignores a lot of factors (which other stats attempt to address). It's common sense.

It's also common sense that a player primarily put in defensive situations will score less. And players put in offensive situations will score more. Statements like "a zone start only effects possession for the first 10 seconds, on average", are pretty silly, given that there are what, 60 faceoffs a game? By my math that means 10 minutes of every game, which is incredibly significant when it comes to CORSI. Then you get morons (not saying you) that brush aside the importance of faceoff guys. Tell that the vast majority of NHL teams who employ video guys to analyze other teams guys and how they take their faceoffs. Hell, they even analyze refs, and what side of the faceoff dot each ref is more likely to drop a puck closer to.

I think the first thing you need to do is stop assuming you can measure everything, already have all the stats to do so, and trying to explain anything you can't as "luck". And stop thinking you know better than everyone else. Especially those who think they know better than NHL teams....
- prock

Great post. I agree entirely.

My biggest problem is that I can accept that winning teams tend to have more shots on goal than losing teams. Teams that have more shots on goal usually score more than teams that have less shots on goal.

More important, if you give up a lot of shots you may give up a lot of goals.

Goaltenders make a huge difference on winning and losing and also on stye of play. Montreal's CF% is based on a style of play that assumes we can attack because we have a goalie who is capable of absorbing giving up high quality scoring chances from the other side.

Well Washington may be struggling with the Leafs, but the Leafs are quickly becoming one of the top teams in the league, and Nashville just swept Chicago. So, those are two teams I'd pick as solid legit shots at the cup.
- prock

But the Leafs were #20 on the CF% ranking.

But the Leafs were #20 on the CF% ranking.
- spatso

I'm guessing that improved significantly as the season progressed. I said they are quickly becoming, not that they're there yet. I'd bet they were top 10 (or close to it) for the second half of the season. From the all star break, I'd guarantee they were top 10.

They were a far better team at the end of the year than they started. Not surprising given they were icing so many rookies.

I'm guessing that improved significantly as the season progressed. I said they are quickly becoming, not that they're there yet. I'd bet they were top 10 (or close to it) for the second half of the season.

They were a far better team at the end of the year than they started. Not surprising given they were icing so many rookies.
- prock

Correct.

So, if you wanted to make your CF% leader your Stanley Cup favourite it becomes difficult when that team fails to make the playoffs. So, pick your next favourite from the top 10 finisher of CF%.

1. Los Angeles
2. Boston
3. Montreal
4. Washington
5. Carolina
6. Nashville
7. Tampa Bay
8. San Jose
9. Philadelphia
10. Calgary
- spatso

My favorite still at this point is Washington.

Boston is missing Good D, wont overcome that loss it looks like

Is the cup winner in that list? We will see

My favorite still at this point is Washington.

Boston is missing Good D, wont overcome that loss it looks like

Is the cup winner in that list? We will see
- senstroll

I agree, the question is more important than the answer.

But the Leafs were #20 on the CF% ranking.
- spatso

They were 13th by Corsica
6th is you use adjusted

But the Leafs were #20 on the CF% ranking.
- spatso

You might want to look at that again.

https://puckalytics.com/#...erby=CFPct&sortorder=true

You might want to look at that again.

https://puckalytics.com/#...erby=CFPct&sortorder=true
- Feeling Glucky?

yes I just checked and saw that

yes I just checked and saw that
- spatso

Maybe you should do research before you hit reply?

Maybe you should do research before you hit reply?
- Feeling Glucky?

I did, not sure how I misread it

I'm guessing that improved significantly as the season progressed. I said they are quickly becoming, not that they're there yet. I'd bet they were top 10 (or close to it) for the second half of the season. From the all star break, I'd guarantee they were top 10.

They were a far better team at the end of the year than they started. Not surprising given they were icing so many rookies.
- prock

http://www.nhl.com/stats/...te,&sort=shotAttemptsPctg

10th exactly

19th in corsi close though

- D0PPELGANGER

probably won't go past 6 games

probably won't go past 6 games
- daeth

I still got the Bruins in 5

I still got the Bruins in 5
- senstroll

habs in 4 here

Sens in tough vs NHL's #1 PK ............Boston can still pull this off.

If you want to look at a statistic that matters look at Save % for starting goalies. It comes close to mirroring standings if adjusted for the number of games started.

Look at the CF% leaders (Los Angeles and Boston). Now look at the goaltender save per centage and you will see the difference explained in the standings.

habs in 4 here
- daeth

My prediction was kind of wimpy. I said Leafs would steal one in Washington and hold one at home and the winner of game 5 would win the series.

I thought Leaf chances were good going into series and think they are even stronger for game 5

If you want to look at a statistic that matters look at Save % for starting goalies. It comes close to mirroring standings if adjusted for the number of games started.

Look at the CF% leaders (Los Angeles and Boston). Now look at the goaltender save per centage and you will see the difference explained in the standings.
- spatso

finally you’re getting somewhere, dumb-dumb. With average goaltending, those teams would have performed a lot better.

Part of what drives me nuts about the advanced stats crowd is that they think they have all the answers, and many think it boils down to one particular stat that can measure how good someone is defensively, or overall. It really isn't that simple, and it's stupid of those to think that it is.

How do you know that what you're definitively referring to as "randomness" is just something they haven't figured out how to measure just yet? How do you know that the deployment a player has, which many advanced stats people stupidly brush aside, actually plays a big portion of what you're referring to as "luck".

I mean, at it's base, using shot attempts vs shots, is just using bigger numbers, and I'm going to guess that if you were to compare CF vs team shots for, and CA vs team shots against, the number would come out reasonably close to what they are anyway. And really, it's not rocket science saying that if you outshoot a team, you'll win more often than lose. That's really not all that "advanced". It also ignores a lot of factors (which other stats attempt to address). It's common sense.

It's also common sense that a player primarily put in defensive situations will score less. And players put in offensive situations will score more. Statements like "a zone start only effects possession for the first 10 seconds, on average", are pretty silly, given that there are what, 60 faceoffs a game? By my math that means 10 minutes of every game, which is incredibly significant when it comes to CORSI. Then you get morons (not saying you) that brush aside the importance of faceoff guys. Tell that the vast majority of NHL teams who employ video guys to analyze other teams guys and how they take their faceoffs. Hell, they even analyze refs, and what side of the faceoff dot each ref is more likely to drop a puck closer to.

I think the first thing you need to do is stop assuming you can measure everything, already have all the stats to do so, and trying to explain anything you can't as "luck". And stop thinking you know better than everyone else. Especially those who think they know better than NHL teams....
- prock

Pretty much this.

I use advanced stats for more information. Not to find exact answers. I also question a lot of the underlying assumptions used in some of the models. and i believe many nhl teams are far ahead of the public on this.

But overtime, these models can and should be improved.

They were 13th by Corsica
6th is you use adjusted
- senstroll

hockeyanalysis.com has them 20th.

Why would different sites have different Corsi numbers??? They use NHL stats, dont they? i.e. for shot attempts and blocks.

If you want to look at a statistic that matters look at Save % for starting goalies. It comes close to mirroring standings if adjusted for the number of games started.

Look at the CF% leaders (Los Angeles and Boston). Now look at the goaltender save per centage and you will see the difference explained in the standings.
- spatso

I am not looking to see what has already happened. I want to see how my team has really preformed and how likley they are to be successful going forward.

Also I find it odd how you say 1 stat cant explain everything and then try to use 1 stat to explain it.