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

[dgibb10]

Isn't "best teams" dictated by points in regular season though? Going with that, many of the best teams this season didn't have good corsi at all, Jets & Capitals were very much middle of the pack both 5v5 & all strengths, while Toronto was one of the worse teams in the league.

Shockingly you named the 3 teams who got arguably the best goaltending in hockey this year.

 

[JaegerDice]

Shockingly you named the 3 teams who got arguably the best goaltending in hockey this year.

He also named three teams that nobody paying attention picked as favourites to go deep in the playoffs this year.

 

[bert]

The reason Dubas and Chayka sucked isn't because of analytics though.

Dubas sucked because everybody told him he was a genius (when all he is is very lucky) and Chayka was just, straight-up, a total scumbag.

They used analytics as their primary base and they did a terrible job. Thats what happened. Those other things maybe true but they still ran their teams terribly.

 

[bert]

He’s been GM 1 year and essentially traded Necas, who didn’t want to play in Carolina, for two 1st round picks and Stankoven. Looks good so far for me.

They got worse and are getting smoked what are you talking about..... Necas was 19th in the league in scoring..... HAHA unreal stuff here.

 

[Zarzh]

The thread title, this OP, and your subsequent posts in this thread must be your alter ego then I guess. Let me know when he/she wants to refute any of my previous points.

There you go again in the last post trying to claim Corsi is some big brain statistic that strongly predicts results and is vastly better than the silly eye test and actually watching the games. Again, 42% of the top 12 corsi teams missed the playoffs. So let's try this since previous examples and data don't seem to be getting through yet:

Do you honestly believe most people that watch and follow hockey religiously couldn't predict the top 12 contenders with better accuracy than Corsi? Who that watches hockey would say the Preds (11), Pens (10), Utah (6), Flames (7), or my Devs (8....play fell off pre injuries btw)...are top teams in this league? Or even above average? Who would say those teams are better than Corsi #29 Toronto or #18 Dallas? Who would say the Canes are completing their dynasty this year since they've far and away dominated corsi 3 straight years?

Hockey fans are below other sports in their understandings of their respective sports so no and this is simply an example of it. It's like groups of people aspiring to debate on the level of Skip Bayless or Stephen A Smith.

Carolina has greatly outperformed their talent level because of their system yet because they haven't won a cup they're used as an example of an idea not working.

 

[JFedol]

Hockey fans are below other sports in their understandings of their respective sports so no and this is simply an example of it. It's like groups of people aspiring to debate on the level of Skip Bayless or Stephen A Smith.

Carolina has greatly outperformed their talent level because of their system yet because they haven't won a cup they're used as an example of an idea not working.

Agreed!!!! Anybody with eyes can see why Carolina will probably never win a cup tbh.

 

[PoutineSniper]

Going further, my VERY advanced calculations (because I'm sooooo smart) tell me a whopping 42% of the top 12 Corsi teams missed the playoffs entirely this season. And, again, the team that is far and away #1 is getting its teeth kicked in yet again. Plus the #29 team in Corsi was wayyyy more competitive vs the Panthers than the #1 team.

Last year: 33%
2022: 33% (Cup winner #22 in Corsi. ECF/WCF #3 in Corsi torched #1, #22 beat #10)

When do the Corsi bros award the Carolina Hurricanes their dynasty Cup this year? I wanna be at the ceremony. 3 straight years of leading the league in Corsi by a mile and they haven't even sniffed a Cup finals appearance. Corsi on its own doesn't mean jackshit. It simply provides a minimum threshold teams GENERALLY need to be above to have a shot at the Cup (unless you have an elite goalie outlier and/or get impact roster players late via acquisition or return from injury). And it's ridiculous people needed some "advanced" stat to tell them that generally having more shot attempts than the other team is better than less. What a revelation. Yet people pat themselves on the back like they are geniuses.

A way more interesting convo would be why certain teams' actual success consistently drastically underperform their Corsi ranking year after year after year. Looking at you Canes, my Devs, Pens, Flames, etc. I already have my answers, but they involve the sin of actually watching the teams play, understanding playoff hockey, and then supplementing that with statistical analysis. Hint: it isn't simply goaltending.

I'm not surprised no one has dared to touch your posts.

When 42% of the top 12 corsi teams missed the playoffs, it isn't nearly as predictive as the stats nerds would like us to believe.

It's also not surprising that those who never played, Dubas, Chayka, ect rely the most on advanced stats and yet are awful at their jobs.

 

[Kamus]

Maybe someone here can explain this to me. I’m on moneypuck and am confused how they gave Dallas lone goal 0.19 on expected goals and McDavid 3-1 goal a 0.09 and Hymans breakaway a 0.09 as well. Comparing the three by far the Oilers chances were way more dangerous and lead to more goals…. Is this a flaw??? Or can someone explain it…

 

[PoutineSniper]

I will continue to wait for you to quote me saying that Corsi single-handedly predicts winners, or has a 1:1 correlation with success.

Until then, I don't know who you think you're winning over with this 'old man yells at clouds' schtick regarding analytics, but I'll leave you to it Grandpa Simpson.

Can you quote the poster saying that you claimed "corsi single handedly predicts winners or has a 1:1 correlation with winning"?

Just admit you can't argue any of Edmonton easts points.

You said "Crazy how predictive this stat continues to be."

When 42% of the top 12 corsi teams missed the playoffs entirely, the stat clearly isn't as predictive as you would like us to believe.

 

[PoutineSniper]

You've failed to present a single compelling argument for why a simple list of true statements is 'misleading'.

I have never alluded to Corsi being the only stat with any predictive value, I have simply stated the truth that it has the highest correlation to future goal differential and future wins than any single other hockey statistic and many traditional statistics combined. It is also less predictive than Expected Goals, which weights Corsi along with several other stats, both traditional and advanced.

You can present as many 'gotcha' attempts as you like, the R-squared for Corsi to future goal differential and future wins is higher than any other single statistic, proven again and again as the sample of NHL seasons since on-ice events were tracked grows. This is why Corsi continues to be weighted highly in every expected goals model, public and private.

If you want to have a conversation about the value of inputs vs outputs, or descriptive vs predictive value, then I'm open to it, bu tantruming over an argument that's already been decided is pointless. The hockey analytics 'debate' is over. Analytics won. That's why damn near every team is investing millions into it, 31 out of 32 NHL teams pay Sportlogiq for their analytics reports (which feature Corsi prominently), and why NHL teams are buying up every major 3rd party analytics site they can.

If you wholly believe in the eye test, the same test that 'proved' the Earth was flat and the Sun rotated around the Earth, then god be with you.

Finally, the idea that analytics can explain baseball but not hockey is a limitation of your imagination, not of math or statistics. Hockey is not magic. Rest assured if math and statistics could put man into space, they can certainly be used to understand and quantify whacking a rubber puck into a net with a stick.

Imagine equating astronomy with hockey

Tell me you have absolutely no idea how science works without telling me.

 

[PoutineSniper]

Maybe someone here can explain this to me. I’m on moneypuck and am confused how they gave Dallas lone goal 0.19 on expected goals and McDavid 3-1 goal a 0.09 and Hymans breakaway a 0.09 as well. Comparing the three by far the Oilers chances were way more dangerous and lead to more goals…. Is this a flaw??? Or can someone explain it…View attachment 1042130

Advanced stats nerds love to point out that the eye test is biased while completely ignoring that their "advanced stats" are also biased.

 

[MikeS24]

NHL teams have their own analytics

Most important to me is high danger chance generation and suppression.

Corsi also tells a story. A team who has a high corsi constantly, usually has the puck more, but then what do they do with the puck? Do they throw 100 muffins from the point at net?

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

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.

Both are important. The fact of the matter is, you cannot quantify everything with just your eyes, no matter how unbiased and fair you happen to be (Which let's be honest is almost impossible). There's also a ton of subjectivity when watching as well. I do agree, stats without context is flawed.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

They got worse and are getting smoked what are you talking about..... Necas was 19th in the league in scoring..... HAHA unreal stuff here.

Please point out anything fictitious in what you quoted.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Both are important. The fact of the matter is, you cannot quantify everything with just your eyes, no matter how unbiased and fair you happen to be (Which let's be honest is almost impossible). There's also a ton of subjectivity when watching as well. I do agree, stats without context is flawed.

You can’t quantify ANYTHING with your eyes.

And here’s a part everyone is missing. You can GAIN context from statistics. You want to talk about using your eyes? Proper statistical models will train your eyes on where to look. You can’t possibly watch every game out there, or even everything that occurs in one game. But you can use models to tell you where to look, so that you can prioritize what you are looking for/watching more efficiently. In order of operations, analytics first, eye test second.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Advanced stats nerds love to point out that the eye test is biased while completely ignoring that their "advanced stats" are also biased.

Wrong again. Advanced stats aren’t biased. They can be used improperly, like anything else in life, to only tell part of a story. But that’s user error.

 

[Pucklington]

Wrong again. Advanced stats aren’t biased. They can be used improperly, like anything else in life, to only tell part of a story. But that’s user error.

Actually advanced stats can be and are usually biased in some way. Whomever sets up the model, will inherently influence what advanced stats are modeled based on what they believe is correct.

Bias in statistics is a well known, and well understood phenomenon.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Maybe someone here can explain this to me. I’m on moneypuck and am confused how they gave Dallas lone goal 0.19 on expected goals and McDavid 3-1 goal a 0.09 and Hymans breakaway a 0.09 as well. Comparing the three by far the Oilers chances were way more dangerous and lead to more goals…. Is this a flaw??? Or can someone explain it…View attachment 1042130

There are a variety of expected goals models, and they are all constantly evolving. So to answer your question, we would need to understand how this expected goal model works. But essentially, whatever the input is into this model, it’s quantifying Robertson’s goal as ‘higher danger’ than the other opportunities. But this is where individual talent can play a role, too. Because a guy like McDavid is going to be a whole lot more likely to score on ‘lower danger’ opportunities than other players. So even if you add up the xG of all of McDavid’s scoring opportunities versus the average player and they are equal to the average player’s xG, he’s still going to score more ACTUAL goals. That’s where something like shooting percentage begins to matter, because it will create some variability from the norm.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Actually advanced stats can be and are usually biased in some way. Whomever sets up the model, will inherently influence what advanced stats are modeled based on what they believe is correct.

Bias in statistics is a well known, and well understood phenomenon.

And that’s a part of the user error I’m talking about.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

You can’t quantify ANYTHING with your eyes.

And here’s a part everyone is missing. You can GAIN context from statistics. You want to talk about using your eyes? Proper statistical models will train your eyes on where to look. You can’t possibly watch every game out there, or even everything that occurs in one game. But you can use models to tell you where to look, so that you can prioritize what you are looking for/watching more efficiently. In order of operations, analytics first, eye test second.

You do make a great point there. I'm a stats proponent, don't worry. I do think eye test matters, but stats helps influence eye test much more efficiently than vice versa.

 

[Pucklington]

Maybe someone here can explain this to me. I’m on moneypuck and am confused how they gave Dallas lone goal 0.19 on expected goals and McDavid 3-1 goal a 0.09 and Hymans breakaway a 0.09 as well. Comparing the three by far the Oilers chances were way more dangerous and lead to more goals…. Is this a flaw??? Or can someone explain it…View attachment 1042130

Yes - didn't agree on this either. There were 4 Grade A chances from Edmonton on these goals. Bouchard was stoppable, but he also has a 100mph shot...

Klingbergs was weak...

Also, there is a difference between guys like McDavid, Hyman, and Kane vs. average NHLers, which is certainly not modeled...

Dallas had more pressure, but gave up odd-man rushes and grade As all game when Edmonton countered. Edmonton had better scoring opportunities despite the shot difference.

I think if you had NHL Teams advanced stats, it would have told a different story.

1. Bouchard goal was stoppable, but also has one of the hardest most accurate shots in NHL.
2. McDavid was on a 3-1. That is a grade A chance.
3. McDavid 2nd was at top of hashmarks.
4. Hyman 2-1 (with Kane)
5. Hyman breakaway
6. Klingberg - weak goal.

 

[PoutineSniper]

Wrong again. Advanced stats aren’t biased. They can be used improperly, like anything else in life, to only tell part of a story. But that’s user error.

Once again, the advanced stats nerds clearly know nothing about statistics.

There are always biases.

 

[emptyNedder]

Once again, the advanced stats nerds clearly know nothing about statistics.

There are always biases.

Yes and no.
There is no bias in the most basic statistic--the score. The eye test may strongly favor team A with team B only getting an other-wordly performance from their goalie. If the score is 3-2 for team B, then that one statistic is all that matters.

With dozens, then hundreds, of games it is possible to find other measurements (statistics) that have a signficant correlation with score. Sports are probabilistic, so all measures will have much less than a 1.0 correlation.

For instance players' height is a statistic. You could likely predict 90% or more of the games if team X consisted of only the best players in the world <6 feet and team Y consisted of the best players >6 feet (In basketball it is likely 99.9%). That does not mean average height can predict the current playoffs. A statistic like height has minimal bias.

Other statistics like shot quality will have bias since one shot-quality model might weight velocity more than a similar model. Choices on what gets measured in multi-factor models can and do create biaes. But if the person/team using the model is truly seekiing to improve their knowledg of what leads to final score, then they will adjust when any bias is discovered.

I am fairly certain "advanced stat nerds" understand all this.

 

[PoutineSniper]

Yes and no.
There is no bias in the most basic statistic--the score. The eye test may strongly favor team A with team B only getting an other-wordly performance from their goalie. If the score is 3-2 for team B, then that one statistic is all that matters.

With dozens, then hundreds, of games it is possible to find other measurements (statistics) that have a signficant correlation with score. Sports are probabilistic, so all measures will have much less than a 1.0 correlation.

For instance players' height is a statistic. You could likely predict 90% or more of the games if team X consisted of only the best players in the world <6 feet and team Y consisted of the best players >6 feet (In basketball it is likely 99.9%). That does not mean average height can predict the current playoffs. A statistic like height has minimal bias.

Other statistics like shot quality will have bias since one shot-quality model might weight velocity more than a similar model. Choices on what gets measured in multi-factor models can and do create biaes. But if the person/team using the model is truly seekiing to improve their knowledg of what leads to final score, then they will adjust when any bias is discovered.

I am fairly certain "advanced stat nerds" understand all this.

It doesn't seem like the advanced stats nerds do.

They love pointing out how the eye test is biased while completely ignoring the fact that advanced stats are also biased.

They also tend to be the ones who understand hockey the least and require numbers to tell them what they are watching.

The one advanced stats nerd even said that "advanced stats teach your eyes what to watch"

Said the person who has no idea what they're watching.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

It doesn't seem like the advanced stats nerds do.

They love pointing out how the eye test is biased while completely ignoring the fact that advanced stats are also biased.

They also tend to be the ones who understand hockey the least and require numbers to tell them what they are watching.

The one advanced stats nerd even said that "advanced stats teach your eyes what to watch"

Said the person who has no idea what they're watching.

Once again, here is a person who insults useful
mechanisms to teach us things because they lack either the patience or intelligence to understand them.