3 of the top 4 Corsi teams in the league are in the Final Four.

[PuckG]

Nah, you and some other Corsi bros were doing the typical "eye test" mockery nonsense. As if those people are too stupid to understand big brain "analytics" like shot attempts. That's the problem. And this thread, including the title, framed the data in a way that was completely disingenuous and misleading...as I already proved. But people that are lazy and/or fake "smart" guys will buy it I guess.

Yes, your eye test is subject to bias that objective stats are not. Common sense.

Again, your inability to isolate those two things and understand that stats paint an objective picture of anecdotal evidence is a FAULT of your own.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Nah, people like yourselves that blindly cherry pick "advanced" stats without context when they support your argument are the problem and a detriment to the analytics community. The same type of people that fanboyed over the Chayka Coyotes for YEARS.

Let's take this silly thread as a great example. It's pathetically misleading. Sure, 3 of top 4 Corsi teams are in finals....who would have thought generally having more shot attempts is better than less??? Duh. But does it matter THAT much? Is it the end all be all? Is it that predictive? Nope.

The Canes are far and away the top Corsi team. They are a fraud and not remotely competitive. Is that pro your silly argument? How about that the #3 and #5 teams in Corsi lost in the 1st round? Or that the #6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 teams MISSED THE PLAYOFFS ALL TOGETHER??

This thread is dumb. Objective data my ass. Context is everything.

Yeah you’re just showing a complete lack of understanding for the value and purpose of statistical analyses. You’re the marketing guy in corporate who says he doesn’t need finance support and then gets fired next year because his margins tanked.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Nah, you and some other Corsi bros were doing the typical "eye test" mockery nonsense. As if those people are too stupid to understand big brain "analytics" like shot attempts. That's the problem. And this thread, including the title, framed the data in a way that was completely disingenuous and misleading...as I already proved. But people that are lazy and/or fake "smart" guys will buy it I guess.

OP posts a topic that is interesting to them on a message board, then gets insulted by people who hate quantitative analysis and it’s somehow the OP’s fault because he was somehow mocking everyone with math.

 

[Edmonton East]

Yes, your eye test is subject to bias that objective stats are not. Common sense.

Again, your inability to isolate those two things and understand that stats paint an objective picture of anecdotal evidence is a FAULT of your own.

It's adorable you still think you have the intellectual high ground here when you haven't refuted a single one of my statements. Thanks for proving my point(s). Again, this is exactly what's wrong with people that pretend to understand "analytics" and it gives the hockey analytics community as a whole a bad name (fairly so tbh). The arrogance at which some folks spew cherry picked stats or over glorify a single statistic without understanding the context or how it can be manipulated/misinterpreted is frustrating.

Still waiting for ya to explain why 42% of the top 12 Corsi teams missed the playoffs if it's SO PREDICTIVE. Or why the far and away #1 Corsi team pretty much never wins a Cup (or even rarely gets there) over the last decade. Or why the #29 team this year played wayyyy better vs Florida than the #1. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. But keep acting like it's some profound statement to say it's generally better to have more shot attempts than less. Again, duh.

Last 10 Cup winners reg season Corsi: 2, 22, 7, 9, 5, 10, 24, 16, 2, 2

So yea, again and for the last time because this is apparently an effort in futility: Corsi simply provides a minimum threshold teams (very) generally need to be above to have a shot at the Cup....which is pretty meaningless by itself because everyone knows you'd rather have more shot attempts than less, all things being equal. Example: I hand you NHL or NBA team A and team B over multiple seasons. All you can see is games played and shot attempts. Everyone picks the team with more shot attempts every time. This is common sense. But that doesn't mean the team you chose actually performed better overall....as literally shown by several examples I've pointed out as recently as this very season.

TL;DR - Corsi, like most stats, is pretty much meaningless by itself and it's ridiculous this is a thread. Folks masquerading as genius statisticians love to cherry pick / disingenuously present basic stats like this as if it's some profound, highly predictive big brain revelation....condescendingly mocking the "eye test" and actually watching games. It's annoying, but kinda funny at least.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Yes, your eye test is subject to bias that objective stats are not. Common sense.

Again, your inability to isolate those two things and understand that stats paint an objective picture of anecdotal evidence is a FAULT of your own.

It is like with tech, the problem isn't the stats, it is people.

People like you, who clearly don't understand how stats work and pretend like they do while looking foolish.

Corsi is a data point. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Edmonton East]

OP posts a topic that is interesting to them on a message board, then gets insulted by people who hate quantitative analysis and it’s somehow the OP’s fault because he was somehow mocking everyone with math.

Nah. Again, 2 issues:

1) The OP intentionally (or lazily) misled folks with the very title of this thread. Very convenient to ignore 42% of the top 12 Corsi teams didn't even make the playoffs. Or that far and away the #1 Corsi team is getting dog piled (AGAIN) by a team that nearly lost to the #29 team.
2) Folks like yourself keep acting like wanting more shot attempts than your opponent is like cracking nuclear fission.

Basic Corsi is some deep quantitative analysis??

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Nah. Again, 2 issues:

1) The OP intentionally (or lazily) misled folks with the very title of this thread. Very convenient to ignore 42% of the top 12 Corsi teams didn't even make the playoffs. Or that far and away the #1 Corsi team is getting dog piled (AGAIN) by a team that nearly lost to the #29 team.
2) Folks like yourself keep acting like wanting more shot attempts than your opponent is like cracking nuclear fission.

Basic Corsi is some deep quantitative analysis??

You’re trashing Corsi as if it’s worthless. It’s not. But it is useful with context. Nobody here suggested that it was the be all end all.

And Corsi is a good means of turning something anecdotal into something measurable. You can tell me all you want that x or y team gets more shot attempts than their opponents. I want measurable evidence.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Last season the 2nd best and 3rd best teams met in the Final.

If there's a rematch this year, it will again be a meeting between the 2nd best and 3rd best team.

Crazy how predictive this stat continues to be.

Can you post a bigger sample size,
Ie what has it been during the cap era.

To see if it actually is predictave.

 

[PuckG]

It's adorable you still think you have the intellectual high ground here when you haven't refuted a single one of my statements. Thanks for proving my point(s). Again, this is exactly what's wrong with people that pretend to understand "analytics" and it gives the hockey analytics community as a whole a bad name (fairly so tbh). The arrogance at which some folks spew cherry picked stats or over glorify a single statistic without understanding the context or how it can be manipulated/misinterpreted is frustrating.

Still waiting for ya to explain why 42% of the top 12 Corsi teams missed the playoffs if it's SO PREDICTIVE. Or why the far and away #1 Corsi team pretty much never wins a Cup (or even rarely gets there) over the last decade. Or why the #29 team this year played wayyyy better vs Florida than the #1. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. But keep acting like it's some profound statement to say it's generally better to have more shot attempts than less. Again, duh.

Last 10 Cup winners reg season Corsi: 2, 22, 7, 9, 5, 10, 24, 16, 2, 2

So yea, again and for the last time because this is apparently an effort in futility: Corsi simply provides a minimum threshold teams (very) generally need to be above to have a shot at the Cup....which is pretty meaningless by itself because everyone knows you'd rather have more shot attempts than less, all things being equal. Example: I hand you NHL or NBA team A and team B over multiple seasons. All you can see is games played and shot attempts. Everyone picks the team with more shot attempts every time. This is common sense. But that doesn't mean the team you chose actually performed better overall....as literally shown by several examples I've pointed out as recently as this very season.

TL;DR - Corsi, like most stats, is pretty much meaningless by itself and it's ridiculous this is a thread. Folks masquerading as genius statisticians love to cherry pick / disingenuously present basic stats like this as if it's some profound, highly predictive big brain revelation....condescendingly mocking the "eye test" and actually watching games. It's annoying, but kinda funny at least.

You’re not even arguing with the right person. I never made the point that corsi is the be and end all. I made the point that statistics it is more meaningful than your eye test, which is true.

I made the point that objective data is more meaningful than whatever you feel or observe.

Both the eye test and stats in conjunction with one another paint a good picture of what has happened and may happen. Between the two, your eye test is far more unreliable than objective data points.

It is like with tech, the problem isn't the stats, it is people.

People like you, who clearly don't understand how stats work and pretend like they do while looking foolish.

Corsi is a data point. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not reading is even more foolish on your part. What point of mine are you refuting?

That the eye test is subject to bias?

That objective data points or stats is more meaningful than your feelings?

Both of those are true whether you can interpret them or not.

 

[Golden_Jet]

You’re not even arguing with the right person. I never made the point that corsi is the be and end all. I made the point that statistics it is more meaningful than your eye test, which is true.

I made the point that objective data is more meaningful than whatever you feel or observe.

Both the eye test and stats in conjunction with one another paint a good picture of what has happened and may happen. Between the two, your eye test is far more unreliable than objective data points.



Not reading is even more foolish on your part. What point of mine are you refuting?

That the eye test is subject to bias?

That objective data points or stats is more meaningful than your feelings?

Both of those are true whether you can interpret them or not.

For me it’s eye test, and eye test means seeing it live vs on TV.
Stats help confirm your eye test, or show you something you might have have overlooked.

 

[PuckG]

For me it’s eye test, and eye test means seeing it live vs on TV.
Stats help confirm your eye test, or show you something you might have have overlooked.

Most people’s eye test is marred by bias is my point. The eye test is completely subjective. Someone then stating that “stats don’t matter” is nonsensical.

I agree, stats used in conjunction with the eye test can corroborate what you see and feel. They can also completely dispute them.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Most people’s eye test is marred by bias is my point. The eye test is completely subjective. Someone then stating that “stats don’t matter” is nonsensical.

I agree, stats used in conjunction with the eye test can corroborate what you see and feel. They can also completely dispute them.

When you set goals, you need to set goals which are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound. That’s where analytics become valuable. You can’t do that shit with an eye test.

You know what an eye test does? It creates a grey space for subjectivity to overwhelm facts and data so that you don’t have to be held accountable to goals and expectations, never have to be introspective, or spin narratives that aren’t fact checked. It’s the kind of world that the vast majority like to live in, because it’s an easier place to live.

 

[bert]

Last season the 2nd best and 3rd best teams met in the Final.

If there's a rematch this year, it will again be a meeting between the 2nd best and 3rd best team.

Crazy how predictive this stat continues to be.

Yet the two GM's that have been Analytic driven first and foremost are 2 of the worst if not the 2 worst in the last 2 decades.

 

[bert]

When you set goals, you need to set goals which are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound. That’s where analytics become valuable. You can’t do that shit with an eye test.

You know what an eye test does? It creates a grey space for subjectivity to overwhelm facts and data so that you don’t have to be held accountable to goals and expectations, never have to be introspective, or spin narratives that aren’t fact checked. It’s the kind of world that the vast majority like to live in, because it’s an easier place to live.

Ok Kyle

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Ok Kyle

And my point gets made again.

 

[JaegerDice]

Yet the two GM's that have been Analytic driven first and foremost are 2 of the worst if not the 2 worst in the last 2 decades.

Most GMs these days use analytics.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Most GMs these days use analytics.

He says “the two” and completely ignores Tulsky.

 

[bert]

And my point gets made again.

Dubas and Chayka are the two worst GM's of the last decade. Eye test matters the most. Using advanced data only works if you can use it as a tool to reinforce what a smart hockey mind is watching.

 

[bert]

He says “the two” and completely ignores Tulsky.

How's it going for him right now? internet hockey fans that never played or were coached in the sport at a high level LOVE advanced metrics. Wonder why.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Dubas and Chayka are the two worst GM's of the last decade. Eye test matters the most. Using advanced data only works if you can use it as a tool to reinforce what a smart hockey mind is watching.

Eye test isn’t measurable and repeatable. It’s anecdotal.

And again classic misrepresentation of how statistical analysis is used.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

How's it going for him right now?

He’s one of the last 4 GMs standing. Looks like it’s going pretty well.

 

[isles55]

Time to replace points with corsi as a means of determining the standings?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

So a perimeter team launching pucks into shin pads all night would be considered potentially an elite corsi team? I don't buy it.

What are these teams ranking by high danger chances for and against? I bet those are all top 5

A totally false premise.

Shooting into shin pads almost always results in a turnover and often a good chance the other way. So that would just improve the opposition’s corsi if anything

 

[JaegerDice]

Dubas and Chayka are the two worst GM's of the last decade. Eye test matters the most. Using advanced data only works if you can use it as a tool to reinforce what a smart hockey mind is watching.

You sound like Pierre Mcguire.

Three out of four of the teams DEFINITELY use analytics extensively, including Florida.

Not sure about Edmonton. They used to be pretty actively against analytics, but that was before the new President. Hard to believe he would hire Bowman as GM if he was against analytics, since Bowman was always very pro analytics.

Time to replace points with corsi as a means of determining the standings?

In fairness, standings points have proven to be a pretty poor way of measuring team quality at the end of the day.

There's no other major sport where the 'best' team by points fails to win the championship more regularly.

 

[bert]

He’s one of the last 4 GMs standing. Looks like it’s going pretty well.

Did next to nothing to improve a team he inherited.