Others may disagree, but I find Edler's Corsi numbers far less convincing than his scoring chance F/A numbers which are pretty bleak. Over the last 5 seasons:
09-10: 49.2%
10-11: 49.2%
11-12: 45.3%
12-13: 45.4%
13-14: 45.3%
Pretty awful considering that he has generally played softer minutes mostly with the Canucks' best forwards. Compare that to a guy like Hamhuis who has played tough minutes against elite competition but still has had a positive scoring chance differential every year as a Canuck.
Or to do another comparison, in 10-11 Ehrhoff (despite playing most of the year with Edler) managed a 52.4% scoring chance ratio.
Edler has his uses. He's good offensively and was part of a lethal PP, but he's not the type of defenseman who can tilt the ice in your team's favor, regardless of what Corsi numbers he has.
Exactly.
So don't respond.
Too much is emphasized but these metrics. Too much weight is given to them and too much of what one person can do on the ice is reflected on others.
That's my belief.
Corsi doesn't show you when people make brain dead choices and saunter around the ice like they don't care.
Pretty much. Corsi and other advanced stats can help paint a picture but they're not a be-all and end-all.
In the case of Edler, we have:
a) the eye test telling us that he's absolutely bleeding odd-man rushes and scoring chances with terrible positioning, decisions and defensive play.
b) this is borne out by traditional stats, which again tell us he's bleeding goals at an alarming rate for several seasons now. Terrible +/- relative to the team around him, outscored by a nearly 2:1 rate last year, awful GA/60 for three straight seasons.
c) this is again borne out by the advanced stats quoted by opendoor above, which again indicate that he's bleeding scoring chances at a high rate relative to creating them, despite not-overly-difficult minutes with good players and lots of offensive zone starts.
But his corsi isn't terrible! Frankly, who cares. Corsi is a tool that is a decent predictor of effectiveness because in most cases players who generate more shots than they allow are effective players. But there are cases that aren't and Edler is clearly one of them. When every metric surrounding goals and chances tells you Edler sucks, it's irrelevant that we get a decent amount of shots when he's on the ice.
I really, really wish the NHL kept track of a stat listing 'odd man rushes caused' because I'm reasonably sure Edler would be lapping the field in 1980s Gretzky like fashion.
Interested to know where one poster got scoring chance data. At any rate Edler's underlying numbers are still pretty decent. His GA/60 is basically the same as his career average. It's the PDO that got drilled. He's going to bounce back. I'd put money on 40 points next season from him if healthy.
I don't have a doubt in my mind that he'll score 40 points next year. He's going to be force-fed #1 unit PP minutes all year because we have no other options, and he'll score 20 points there by default.
It doesn't mean he doesn't suck.
Edler's "40 points" is like Dan Cloutier's "30-win seasons" from back in the day. A nice-looking statistic created by favourable circumstances ... that means jack squat.
