Has countering puck possession been successfully figured out?

[CorgisPer60]

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

So, all NHL teams? They all use metrics and analytics to varying degrees.

 

[authentic]

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)

True say, well said.

 

[authentic]

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

That's the thing, there are no perfect stats. You have to combine as many as possible with what you see to come up with a reasonable conclusion.

 

[4thline]

Over the past several years my stance has put me on both sides of the corsi argument (depending on who was grinding the axe). Here is that stance:

Hockey is this.

Defensive
A. Ability to stop pucks (goaltending)
B. Ability to prevent and limit high quality chances
C. Ability to limit and prevent all shots against while in own zone
D. Ability limit the oppositions time in zone and regain possession of the puck

Transition
E. Ability to prevent the opposition from entering and gaining possession (starts in their end)
F. Ability to transition the puck out of your zone
G. Ability to enter the opposition zone

Offense
H.Ability to gain/retain possession of the puck in the opposition zone
I. Ability togenerate shots while in the opposition zone
J. Ability to generate high quality/ dangerous shots/ chances
K. Ability to convert/score

Shot stats are the aggregate result of a team's performance in the bolded against their competition. Nothing more, nothing less.

As OP pointed out the range in performance in the bolded as narrowed, primarily due to teams being aware of its importance and how how to measure it. A and K have always been understood, now the emphasis/ grey area/ differentiation is on B&J. The game evolves as we understand it better.

 

[Atas2000]

Advanced stats fanatics really beloeve their fancy stats are the reason for changes in the league? Lol

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.

 

[Daximus]

It's not about just getting pucks to the net. It's about getting quality chances now. High danger shots are the new trend.

 

[MessierII]

Shot quality > shot quantity I’ve been debating this since 2009.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Yes and Randy Carlyle is an expert at it

 

[DJJones]

It's not about just getting pucks to the net. It's about getting quality chances now. High danger shots are the new trend.

Also bullshit because they just use positional shooting.

You pretty much need someone judging each shot independently and rate how dangerous it was

 

[Shaffer]

Look at corsi and then look beyond it. You can’t use just one stat to describe play. Now, of course teams get “lucky” and win games.

 

[oobga]

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.

No one proved this point more than Dallas Eakins. Gaming Corsi was all he cared about in Edmonton. He got >50% and was so proud, while the oilers had 20 losses in 21 games or some crap like that.

 

[ballofhate13]

It's not about just getting pucks to the net. It's about getting quality chances now. High danger shots are the new trend.

Kind of like the Red Army back in 72 and 76. same applied for how Detroit became with Federvov and the Russian Red Wings.

 

[oobga]

It's not about just getting pucks to the net. It's about getting quality chances now. High danger shots are the new trend.

That has always been the goal though. Create high quality chances and prevent them against. The focus shifted away from that for some when people started to show them that just shot attempts can correlate to success. Created a guy like Eakins that decided it was more valuable to prevent low quality long range shot attempts than the more rare ones right in the slot. Preventing 3 corsi's with a 0.1% chance of going in and allowing only 1 with a 25% shot of going in is a net +2 in Corsi-land.

And...now we're back to just hockey, trying to create and prevent high quality chances. The value in the stats is seeing who can and can't accomplish that, which couldn't be dissected before to the degree it is now.

 

[Machinehead]

Corsi has limitations and nobody has ever seriously argued otherwise.

However, you can still count the Cup Champions who were legitimately bad at corsi on one hand.

Good teams and teams who win the Cup don't get horribly outshot on a nightly basis. That's all corsi has ever told us and we all should have known that already. I don't know why it's so contentious.

 

[Machinehead]

No one proved this point more than Dallas Eakins. Gaming Corsi was all he cared about in Edmonton. He got >50% and was so proud, while the oilers had 20 losses in 21 games or some crap like that.

Never understood the Eakins example. The Dallas Eakins Oilers posted a CF% of 46.5 over his tenure, good for 26th in the league.

If there's a good example of a coach whose teams just spammed corsi, it's Daryl Sutter. He's got two Cups.

Again, "shooting is good" shouldn't be a crazy idea.

 

[Machinehead]

Also, quality is very much a thing, but people overrate it. Look at this garbage...





Some of these are high-quality chances. Most of them are screens, tips, rebounds, and broken plays.

Again, I'm not saying quality doesn't exist, but being near the top in quality means f*** all if you're near the bottom in quantity.

The 2012 ECF between the Devils and Rangers is a pitch perfect example of what happens to a quality team when they play a team that can do both.

 

[oobga]

Never understood the Eakins example. The Dallas Eakins Oilers posted a CF% of 46.5 over his tenure, good for 26th in the league.

If there's a good example of a coach whose teams just spammed corsi, it's Daryl Sutter. He's got two Cups.

Again, "shooting is good" shouldn't be a crazy idea.

Eakins' second season the Oilers were actually 50% when he was fired. He bragged that he cracked the code on Corsi after he was fired.

Multiple OIlers complained after he was fired about his "shoot from anywhere" game plan. His swarm to try to reduce marginal shot attempts against at the cost of properly defending the dangerous areas was well known by all.

 

[Machinehead]

Eakins' second season the Oilers were actually 50% when he was fired.

Multiple OIlers complained after he was fired about his "shoot from anywhere" game plan. And his swarm to try to reduce marginal shot attempts against at the cost of defending the dangerous areas was well known by all.

If your strategy is "shoot everything" and your corsi is 50%, you just suck as a coach regardless of your stance on analytics.

 

[oobga]

If your strategy is "shoot everything" and your corsi is 50%, you just suck as a coach regardless of your stance on analytics.

For sure, he was bad. Just an example of a guy that horribly misinterpreted the value of analytics. After he was fired he bragged about how he cracked the code on Corsi, and insisted again that >50% corsi should mean a >70% shot at playoffs. He was out of his element and gave a good example of what can go wrong when a coach shifts his game plan from creating high quality chances for and eliminating them against, and instead decides success can be had by just gaming corsi stats and coaching gimmicky ways to inflate your corsi %.

 

[aufheben]

Pittsburgh didn't systematically counter Washington, Fleury just played out of his f***ing mind.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Pittsburgh didn't systematically counter Washington, Fleury just played out of his ****ing mind.

Pens were on their way to taking a dominating 3-0 lead in the series until Crosby got hit in the head. From that point in game 3 until game 7 they were in hang on for dear life mode. But i think the pens had the caps figured out pretty well early on in the series.

 

[lomiller1]

It's kind of a tenuous proxy measurement though.

It's the other way round. Time of possession is an ok proxy for shot attempts, that's the only reason to be interested in it.

I don't understand why hockey doesn't measure actual possession like soccer. Or zone time.

In soccer those things have been found to be the most useful. In hockey shot attempts have proved to be more useful.

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.

Think it though a bit farther. If you lose possession that way the other team starts getting shot attempts and yours stops. The end result is a lower shot total for your team and a higher shot total for theirs. When you look at the big picture you ad bad shot attempt like this does just what's you want and lowers the Corsi score of the team that took the shot.

 

[lomiller1]

It's not about just getting pucks to the net. It's about getting quality chances now. High danger shots are the new trend.

High danger changes are in vogue in the media, but the math doesn't support using high danger shots over Corsi.

 

[lomiller1]

Pittsburgh didn't systematically counter Washington, Fleury just played out of his ****ing mind.

And Holtby crapped the bed at the same time.

 

[PunkRockLocke]

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)

I think you're spot on.

It's crazy that right now guys with high shot attempts and low shooting percentage are praised, whereas guys with high shooting percentage are slandered...being a good, accurate shooter is a good thing, people....