Has countering puck possession been successfully figured out?

[OvermanKingGainer]

When "corsi" became a buzz word in hockey, there was definitely a revolution in the types of players teams would employ. Gone were the lumbering defensive defensemen who couldn't move the puck - it was adapt or get out. Gone were many floating goal scorers who let their linemates do all the work.

But it seems that we've hit a point where the league has "homogenized" in those aspects. In 2008, the best possession team in the league had a CF% of 58.84% and the worst had 42.85%. This was about a 16% swing from top to bottom and nearly 9% swing from top to middle - which makes sense because some teams were oblivious to how they were handicapping their rosters. This year, the best team is at 53.84% and the worst at 45.71%. That cuts those previous numbers in half. What this also means is that teams have isolated the pure handicap players and these possession numbers seem more to do with coaching styles than anything. Players who can drive possession are still important - but it isn't an advantage because everyone has them on most lines.

If you look at the last two years and there just doesn't seem to be any real advantage to being a so-called possession team.

In last year's playoffs:

- Pittsburgh had a playoff CF% of 47.23% yet won the cup. Without Kris Letang they just had no puck possession but countered their way through.
- St. Louis out defeated the wild 4-1 by being outcorsied 39-61
- Ottawa had a playoff CF% of 48.45% and a regular season CF% of 48.35%, yet made the ECF, toppling the league's corsi leading Bruins en route
- NYR had a first round CF% of 47.77% and a regular season CF% of 47.96% yet advanced to the second round
- Edmonton had a playoff CF% of 48.03$ yet made the second round and even won some games there.
- Anaheim was outcorsied 49-51 yet converted that into a series sweep


Okay, so those are ALL small sample sizes. This year seems to be more of the same carrying right through into the regular season though. Carolina, Calgary, Chicago, and Dallas are the #2,#3, #4, and #9 possession teams in the NHL yet all are about to miss the playoffs with similar issues of being unable to score. What really stands out is that it seems rush scoring is far more dependable these days with the emphasis on pure speed, while all these teams appear overly focused on cycle-based "half-court" offense.

I'm not saying possession is irrelevant because it clearly is not either in terms of overall correlation to ES goal differentials, but I am wondering if it's been successfully countered by possession-parity and coaching strategy.

Click to read more...

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Goodhart's Law

"Goodhart's law is an adage named after economist Charles Goodhart, which has been phrased by Marilyn Strathern as: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."[1] One way in which this can occur is individuals trying to anticipate the effect of a policy and then taking actions which alter its outcome."

Seems like teams started 'gaming' corsi when it's 'value' was revealved.

 

[rent free]

corsi is stupid. i think we all know that

 

[Freudian]

Shot attempts aren't the same thing as puck possession and even then it completely ignores goaltending and special teams.

I do think there is a trend to put pucks on net in the league that has developed lately. It's not strange that coaches and players focus on what's being measured. It's human nature.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

I've been saying for years. Corsi is nice. And it tells you some things. But it is hardly better than plus minus IMO. People take it for gospel. It is not..

Growing up playing hockey, a shot from outside the scoring zone was not a bad play defensively. It is the goalies job to stop those. Thekey to hockey is preventing the golden chances. Preventing the tap in.

I think Dennis Wideman was the perfect example. COmpare him with someone like Kris Rusell. Stats communities' opinion on Wideman a few years ago (he isn't that bad; his possession number are not bad). Their opinion on Russell (just an awful hockey player because shots).

However, with the eyeball test. Dennis Wideman prevented shots, but he would make stupid plays and give up 4 or 5 glorious chances a game. Where as Russell almost never makes a purely bonehead move.

ALL SHOTS ARE NOT EQUAL. IT ISN'T THAT HARD PEOPLE.

Hockey is about converting your chances. And stopping the other team. That's why players like Monahan, Laine Etc. are so underrated. They may not have the greatest corsi, but they need half the amount of shots to score as the average NHLer.

You can take as many jump shots as you want, but if you don't have the guys with the high FG%, it doesn't matter. You are going to lose anyway. Get beat by the teams that convert their chances (ie Steph Curry and the GSW)

 

[CorgisPer60]

Look - the simple truth is the team that possess the puck more tends to outscore their opponents. Corsi is a baseline structure that measures shot attempts for versus shot attempts against. Anything can happen in a seven-game series, and the two teams from last year, Pittsburgh and Ottawa, both rode impressive goaltending to their postseason positions. Both teams are nowhere near as dominant this season. Every other team in your short sample size is languishing respectively this season.

You say that number 2, 3, 4, and 9 in possession metrics won't make the playoffs this season. That means everybody else in the top 10 are making the playoffs, as well as several in the teens. Given that fully half the NHL makes the playoffs, your odds are relatively good to make the playoffs. Not everyone with a top 10 possession metric will make the playoffs. That's just how it goes. That those teams are currently out of the playoff picture speaks of underlying issues beyond their metrics. The only thing anybody said about corsi was that it was a probability, not a certainty.

Take last night's Jets game, for instance. The Jets absolutely crushed Anaheim in possession time. It's not even close. Same with LA the previous game. They outshot and out possessed both teams by a ridiculous margin, yet needed overtime in both games to win it. That's just the way sample sizes go.

The team that possesses the puck more tends to outscore their opponent. It's just the simple truth. That's all corsi is a quantifier of.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

Corsi is still a nice stat but it's hardly a be all and end all. Finding out that a stat isn't perfect is no reason to dismiss it completely though

 

[Hoek]

The team that possesses the puck more tends to outscore their opponent. It's just the simple truth. That's all corsi is a quantifier of.

It's kind of a tenuous proxy measurement though. You could shoot the second you cross the blue line every time and it would be counted as "possession" even though that would mean you never had the puck in your control in the offensive zone. I don't understand why hockey doesn't measure actual possession like soccer. Or zone time.

 

[Seanaconda]

When "corsi" became a buzz word in hockey, there was definitely a revolution in the types of players teams would employ. Gone were the lumbering defensive defensemen who couldn't move the puck - it was adapt or get out. Gone were many floating goal scorers who let their linemates do all the work.

But it seems that we've hit a point where the league has "homogenized" in those aspects. In 2008, the best possession team in the league had a CF% of 58.84% and the worst had 42.85%. This was about a 16% swing from top to bottom and nearly 9% swing from top to middle - which makes sense because some teams were oblivious to how they were handicapping their rosters. This year, the best team is at 53.84% and the worst at 45.71%. That cuts those previous numbers in half. What this also means is that teams have isolated the pure handicap players and these possession numbers seem more to do with coaching styles than anything. Players who can drive possession are still important - but it isn't an advantage because everyone has them on most lines.

If you look at the last two years and there just doesn't seem to be any real advantage to being a so-called possession team.

In last year's playoffs:

- Pittsburgh had a playoff CF% of 47.23% yet won the cup. Without Kris Letang they just had no puck possession but countered their way through.
- St. Louis out defeated the wild 4-1 by being outcorsied 39-61
- Ottawa had a playoff CF% of 48.45% and a regular season CF% of 48.35%, yet made the ECF, toppling the league's corsi leading Bruins en route
- NYR had a first round CF% of 47.77% and a regular season CF% of 47.96% yet advanced to the second round
- Edmonton had a playoff CF% of 48.03$ yet made the second round and even won some games there.
- Anaheim was outcorsied 49-51 yet converted that into a series sweep


Okay, so those are ALL small sample sizes. This year seems to be more of the same carrying right through into the regular season though. Carolina, Calgary, Chicago, and Dallas are the #2,#3, #4, and #9 possession teams in the NHL yet all are about to miss the playoffs with similar issues of being unable to score. What really stands out is that it seems rush scoring is far more dependable these days with the emphasis on pure speed, while all these teams appear overly focused on cycle-based "half-court" offense.

I'm not saying possession is irrelevant because it clearly is not either in terms of overall correlation to ES goal differentials, but I am wondering if it's been successfully countered by possession-parity and coaching strategy.

Meh it keeps getting better but the quality of chances is subjective to whoever is watching so thats a problem still.

Plus u have teams that play a cycle game vs counterattack teams .

Both strategies can work.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

It's kind of a tenuous proxy measurement though. You could shoot the second you cross the blue line every time and it would be counted as "possession" even though that would mean you never had the puck in your control in the offensive zone. I don't understand why hockey doesn't measure actual possession like soccer. Or zone time.

But if you do that then the other team easily gets the puck back and likely gets a shot attempt on your net, and you don't actually end up ahead

 

[maacoshark]

It's kind of a tenuous proxy measurement though. You could shoot the second you cross the blue line every time and it would be counted as "possession" even though that would mean you never had the puck in your control in the offensive zone. I don't understand why hockey doesn't measure actual possession like soccer. Or zone time.

They need to come up with a true possession stat. Corsi is a joke.

 

[Seanaconda]

They need to come up with a true possession stat. Corsi is a joke.

Dont they measure time with the puck ? Im sure u got some money puck guys doing it

 

[maacoshark]

Dont they measure time with the puck ? Im sure u got some money puck guys doing it

The only stat anyone uses is corsi

 

[Seanaconda]

The only stat anyone uses is corsi

Most popular sure but its going out of style anyways because everyone knows its flaws. High scoring chances are becoming the more popular stat is it not?

Eakins kinda killed corsi for me

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

The only stat anyone uses is corsi

Well, xGF% is a stat with higher correlation to future goals than CF%. But it's still a puck possession proxy and this isn't a thread about corsi so much as possession as a whole. The Kings are a team who saw their puck possession fall off the map compared to the Darryl Sutter years yet they just seem much better this year.

 

[Apotheosis]

I wish people understood the nature of Corsi better. The premise is -> possessing the puck longer gives you longer to generate chances and your opponent NOT to. It doesn't account for player talent, random luck etc. Corsi is used as a predictive measure, not an absolute measure. That's why, typically if a team has a high CF% over a stretch but they're not getting puck luck, it would be a good bet to say they'll explode sooner or later because their actual chance generation has/had been elite in the prior stretch.

 

[BruinLVGA]

When "corsi" became a buzz word in hockey, there was definitely a revolution in the types of players teams would employ. Gone were the lumbering defensive defensemen who couldn't move the puck - it was adapt or get out. Gone were many floating goal scorers who let their linemates do all the work.

But it seems that we've hit a point where the league has "homogenized" in those aspects. In 2008, the best possession team in the league had a CF% of 58.84% and the worst had 42.85%. This was about a 16% swing from top to bottom and nearly 9% swing from top to middle - which makes sense because some teams were oblivious to how they were handicapping their rosters. This year, the best team is at 53.84% and the worst at 45.71%. That cuts those previous numbers in half. What this also means is that teams have isolated the pure handicap players and these possession numbers seem more to do with coaching styles than anything. Players who can drive possession are still important - but it isn't an advantage because everyone has them on most lines.

If you look at the last two years and there just doesn't seem to be any real advantage to being a so-called possession team.

In last year's playoffs:

- Pittsburgh had a playoff CF% of 47.23% yet won the cup. Without Kris Letang they just had no puck possession but countered their way through.
- St. Louis out defeated the wild 4-1 by being outcorsied 39-61
- Ottawa had a playoff CF% of 48.45% and a regular season CF% of 48.35%, yet made the ECF, toppling the league's corsi leading Bruins en route
- NYR had a first round CF% of 47.77% and a regular season CF% of 47.96% yet advanced to the second round
- Edmonton had a playoff CF% of 48.03$ yet made the second round and even won some games there.
- Anaheim was outcorsied 49-51 yet converted that into a series sweep


Okay, so those are ALL small sample sizes. This year seems to be more of the same carrying right through into the regular season though. Carolina, Calgary, Chicago, and Dallas are the #2,#3, #4, and #9 possession teams in the NHL yet all are about to miss the playoffs with similar issues of being unable to score. What really stands out is that it seems rush scoring is far more dependable these days with the emphasis on pure speed, while all these teams appear overly focused on cycle-based "half-court" offense.

I'm not saying possession is irrelevant because it clearly is not either in terms of overall correlation to ES goal differentials, but I am wondering if it's been successfully countered by possession-parity and coaching strategy.

"League's Corsi leading" doesn't cancel the absence due to injury of 4 of the top 6 D & one's #2C.

 

[Seanaconda]

I wish people understood the nature of Corsi better. The premise is -> possessing the puck longer gives you longer to generate chances and your opponent NOT to. It doesn't account for player talent, random luck etc. Corsi is used as a predictive measure, not an absolute measure. That's why, typically if a team has a high CF% over a stretch but they're not getting puck luck, it would be a good bet to say they'll explode sooner or later because their actual chance generation has/had been elite in the prior stretch.

Debatable if the teams strategy is just shoot the puck from anywhere. Its a good stat for teams that play a possessin/ cycle game like the kings teams that made it popular.

Pens won last year mostly playing counter attack hockey so that will probably be the style for a bit.

 

[Nithoniniel]

It's kind of a tenuous proxy measurement though. You could shoot the second you cross the blue line every time and it would be counted as "possession" even though that would mean you never had the puck in your control in the offensive zone. I don't understand why hockey doesn't measure actual possession like soccer. Or zone time.

That's a bad example. For one, corsi is a proxy by how closely matched it is to measured possession time. This is because there is a correlation having the puck and getting the chance to shoot. Even in your example, that team would give the puck over on every successful transition, so they would never sustain pressure and the opposition would have the puck (and most of the shot attempts) anyway.

As for actual possession, it's important to realize that corsi might be a proxy for possession, but that's not exactly it's purpose. Corsi is not used because people desperately want to know possession times, it's used because they have functioned as a better predictive measurement for future success than any alternative at that point. And it's left behind because there are alternatives that are better now.

Debatable if the teams strategy is just shoot the puck from anywhere. Its a good stat for teams that play a possession/ cycle game like the kings who made it popular.

Which is why newer alternatives take contextual factors like this into account.

 

[maacoshark]

I wish people understood the nature of Corsi better. The premise is -> possessing the puck longer gives you longer to generate chances and your opponent NOT to. It doesn't account for player talent, random luck etc. Corsi is used as a predictive measure, not an absolute measure. That's why, typically if a team has a high CF% over a stretch but they're not getting puck luck, it would be a good bet to say they'll explode sooner or later because their actual chance generation has/had been elite in the prior stretch.

But corsi isn't an actual possession stat

 

[CorgisPer60]

Dont they measure time with the puck ? Im sure u got some money puck guys doing it

Places are tracking how much each team is spending in their respective zones. There are also things like heat maps, illustrated here:



Corsi was the progenitor, but like all stat models, they're always evolving and seeking to get better.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I've been saying for years. Corsi is nice. And it tells you some things. But it is hardly better than plus minus IMO. People take it for gospel. It is not..

Corsi is more reliable because typically you see 100 to 130 or so shot attempts per game, while you'll only see 5-7 goals per game.

Growing up playing hockey, a shot from outside the scoring zone was not a bad play defensively. It is the goalies job to stop those. Thekey to hockey is preventing the golden chances. Preventing the tap in.

The difference between good defense and bad defense is actually the number of low danger chances allowed, and NOT the number of high danger chances allowed, because every team actually allows roughly the same number of high danger chances which is between 10 and 13 high danger chances per 60 minutes.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but the data doesn't lie.

I think Dennis Wideman was the perfect example. COmpare him with someone like Kris Rusell. Stats communities' opinion on Wideman a few years ago (he isn't that bad; his possession number are not bad). Their opinion on Russell (just an awful hockey player because shots).

Individual players are typically at the mercy of their coaches and teammates. So yes looking at raw Corsi data to compare individual players is in fact flawed.

However, with the eyeball test. Dennis Wideman prevented shots, but he would make stupid plays and give up 4 or 5 glorious chances a game. Where as Russell almost never makes a purely bonehead move.

ALL SHOTS ARE NOT EQUAL. IT ISN'T THAT HARD PEOPLE.

The eye test only works if you actually watch every game of every team and physically compare every team and player. Even then the eye test has a bias, and becomes completely unreliable.

Hockey is about converting your chances. And stopping the other team. That's why players like Monahan, Laine Etc. are so underrated. They may not have the greatest corsi, but they need half the amount of shots to score as the average NHLer.

You can take as many jump shots as you want, but if you don't have the guys with the high FG%, it doesn't matter. You are going to lose anyway. Get beat by the teams that convert their chances (ie Steph Curry and the GSW)

While this is entirely true, Corsi serves as a great foundation. Without that foundation of having good Corsi, the whole structure can collapse quite quickly.

 

[Mickey Marner]

I think corsi peaked as a sought after commodity and now teams are putting a greater emphasis on generating quality scoring chances. Corsi is just step one of the method for winning. Generate shot attempts > generate scoring chances > finishes the scoring chances you create. Or, for defense, supress shot attempts > supress scoring chances > save the chances you allow.

At the NHL level, corsi is the easiest for a coaching staff to implement/impact, generating scoring chances less so and finishing/saving not at all. So, everyone made the adjustments they could and the advantage of being a "corsi team" is far less than it was a decade ago.

 

[Seanaconda]

Places are tracking how much each team is spending in their respective zones. There are also things like heat maps, illustrated here:



Corsi was the progenitor, but like all stat models, they're always evolving and seeking to get better.

Would be interesting to see what models teams are using

 

[Super Hans]

Corsi has always been a meme stat. It lost its usefulness when normies started to use it.