Shanny gets “puck possessedâ€

[TheProspector]

Just read this absolutely fantastic piece about the origins of puck possession, and how Shanahan learnt it.

This is actually one of my favourite hockey pieces ever.

Click to read more...

 

[Liminality]

That was actually a really awesome read, thanks a lot for that!

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Good article. Thanks.

 

[Joey Hoser]

INB4 people try to argue that having the puck and taking shots isn't better than not having the puck and allowing shots against.

 

[mcleex]

Having the puck and taking shots isn't better than not having the puck and allowing shots against.
There's just no way

 

[highslot]

while it's a great aspect, it also takes a great coach who not only understands it, but can adjust quickly. for example, look at detroit stats now, compared to when they had babcock and they are still a puck possession team. bowman and babcock are a large part of that success.

 

[A1LeafNation]

LOL chesfuk

 

[Rogie]

What's going on in Detroit, they have the 4th worst Corsi and the worst Fenwick 5v5 ES in the league.

Surprisingly, the Rangers have the 2nd worst Corsi in the league.

A better predictor is the CF%5v5 ES close, and in this case the Rangers move up to 15th in the rankings, but the Wings are 5th last overall in CF% 5v5ES close.

 

[A1LeafNation]

Corsi + Fenwick + Talent = Contender!

 

[burpsalot]

Just read this absolutely fantastic piece about the origins of puck possession, and how Shanahan learnt it.

This is actually one of my favourite hockey pieces ever.

Good article, Brave Chesfuk, lol.

It's funny when people all talk of puck possession like it's a new thing. I remember an ex-Minnesota North Star player talking to me in the stands at a game about maintaining control of the puck & complaining of Junior coaches "teaching players to give up control" for no reason.

Shanahan also comes from a family of lacrosse players & ball possession & retrieving loose balls (which is a stat they keep) is vital to the game.

 

[saltming]

Great read! Thanks for the share.
I've been arguing with a buddy of mine since Shanny got here about him following this 'trend'. I've said Shanny came from the roots of the puck possession era and he is building an updated version here. I just sent him that link! Double thanks for that.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Good article, Brave Chesfuk, lol.

It's funny when people all talk of puck possession like it's a new thing. I remember an ex-Minnesota North Star player talking to me in the stands at a game about maintaining control of the puck & complaining of Junior coaches "teaching players to give up control" for no reason.

Shanahan also comes from a family of lacrosse players & ball possession & retrieving loose balls (which is a stat they keep) is vital to the game.

The only thing new is that we are starting to create better and better metrics to try and measure it.

 

[hockeyes]

I liked the article but I hate that quasi Shatner/Twitter hybrid presentation. I feel like I've developed ADHD after reading.

 

[indigobuffalo]

Brilliant article and I'm a new fan of the author, read some more of his stuff, very intelligent and exactly the kind of stuff that fuels my interest.

Kudos for posting this.

 

[Territory]

Same author of that awesome Timashov article right?

Great talent.

 

[Unbiased]

Corsi + Fenwick + Talent = Contender!

You could make the argument that goaltending talent is the only metric needed. If you have great Corsi/Fenwick numbers and good goaltending you're gonna win some games.

 

[BeleafInShanaplan]

Really good read

 

[Pookie]

You could make the argument that goaltending talent is the only metric needed. If you have great Corsi/Fenwick numbers and good goaltending you're gonna win some games.

Yep.

Corsi is too simple a stat to hang one's hat on. It's something to consider but there are more things to consider.

Yes, outshooting your opponent should lead to wins. And having the puck more should lead to outshooting your opponent. Good theory.

We think of LA as a great Corsi team because of a positive 322 in shot differential. That led to points right?

But in looking at LA, last year's Corsi champs, they lost 27 games all season. 16 of those losses came in games in which they outshot their opponents by a combined 173 shots.

Close to 60% of their losses came in games where they outshot their opponents.

Similarly, the wins gives you a picture you wouldn't expect. 1 in 4 games that they won, they were actually outshot.

And of the 15 games that they dropped in OT, they outshot their opponents 9 times.

Folks will talk about small sample sizes and mistakenly think that refers to Corsi's predictive ability over time vs a single game. What I am highlighting above is a large sample size.

If "Corsi" is outshooting your opponents by way of possession, it's pretty clear that it was negated in a significant number of regular season games. Other variables, such as goaltending and conversion of opportunities seems to be more important.

 

[Menzinger]

Good article.

Good article, Brave Chesfuk, lol.

It's funny when people all talk of puck possession like it's a new thing. I remember an ex-Minnesota North Star player talking to me in the stands at a game about maintaining control of the puck & complaining of Junior coaches "teaching players to give up control" for no reason.

Shanahan also comes from a family of lacrosse players & ball possession & retrieving loose balls (which is a stat they keep) is vital to the game.

Yep - which is why I find it so perplexing why some are so opposed to advanced stats use.

All Corsi does is quantify the "old school" hockey logic of the team who controls the puck longer is likely to succeed.

 

[91Kadri91*]

What's going on in Detroit, they have the 4th worst Corsi and the worst Fenwick 5v5 ES in the league.

Surprisingly, the Rangers have the 2nd worst Corsi in the league.

A better predictor is the CF%5v5 ES close, and in this case the Rangers move up to 15th in the rankings, but the Wings are 5th last overall in CF% 5v5ES close.

A better predictor than 5v5 ES Close is Score-Adjusted Corsi.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Yep.

Corsi is too simple a stat to hang one's hat on. It's something to consider but there are more things to consider.

Yes, outshooting your opponent should lead to wins. And having the puck more should lead to outshooting your opponent. Good theory.

We think of LA as a great Corsi team because of a positive 322 in shot differential. That led to points right?

But in looking at LA, last year's Corsi champs, they lost 27 games all season. 16 of those losses came in games in which they outshot their opponents by a combined 173 shots.

You're using the L.A. Kings, a team with two cups in the last five years, as a point against puck possession? Great argument, kid.

You don't strive for great process with the expectation of perfect results; you want to give yourself the best opportunity to win, and there's a distinct correlation between winning games and CF% (it's also relatively reliable). You can't build a team around outscoring your opponents, because goal differential is volatile, so you build a team around a factor that is fairly repeatable.

Nobody is saying it's a perfect statistic, but it's vastly superior to the oft-mentioned box-score statistics like giveaways, takeaways, hits, blocked shots, FO% etc.

If "Corsi" is outshooting your opponents by way of possession, it's pretty clear that it was negated in a significant number of regular season games. Other variables, such as goaltending and conversion of opportunities seems to be more important.

You know you can verify (or dispute) these 'theories', right? You can calculate their correlation to Win/Pt% (it's very simple). Thankfully, someone already did it for you- well, thankfully for me, at least.

5v5 SV% has an 'r' (correlation with Pt%) of 0.483; 5v5 Sh% has an 'r' of 0.267; 5v5 CF% has an 'r' of 0.532 (increases to 0.584 when score situation is 'Close').

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2013/7/10/4508094/what-statistics-are-meaningful-in-a-given-season-corsi-fenwick-PDO-hits-fights-blocked-shots

 

[Menzinger]

Has anyone ever claimed that Corsi/Fenwick is ALL that matters?

Most analytics proponents would be the first to claim you need to take other factors into account.

Possession is just something that is necessary but not sufficient to understand long term team success

 

[Pookie]

You're using the L.A. Kings, a team with two cups in the last five years, as a point against puck possession? Great argument, kid.

You don't strive for great process with the expectation of perfect results; you want to give yourself the best opportunity to win, and there's a distinct correlation between winning games and CF% (it's also relatively reliable). You can't build a team around outscoring your opponents, because goal differential is volatile, so you build a team around a factor that is fairly repeatable.

Nobody is saying it's a perfect statistic, but it's vastly superior to the oft-mentioned box-score statistics like giveaways, takeaways, hits, blocked shots, FO% etc.



You know you can verify (or dispute) these 'theories', right? You can calculate their correlation to Win/Pt% (it's very simple). Thankfully, someone already did it for you- well, thankfully for me, at least.

5v5 SV% has an 'r' (correlation with Pt%) of 0.483; 5v5 Sh% has an 'r' of 0.267; 5v5 CF% has an 'r' of 0.532 (increases to 0.584 when score situation is 'Close').

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2013/7/10/4508094/what-statistics-are-meaningful-in-a-given-season-corsi-fenwick-PDO-hits-fights-blocked-shots

Brilliant discussion, i am sure others love the condescending tone.

If your argument is that Outshooting your opponent is correlated to wins, LA is exactly the example I would use.

Very successful team. Did you see that they win 1 of 4 despite the fact that they were outshot. If Outshooting is the variable, then 25% is a big discrepancy. Further, 40% of their losses came when they actually held the Outshooting advantage.

This is a massive challenge in the face of this "useful than most other" stats.

The outcome doesn't fit the theory.

Now we can get into outliers or small sample sizes but the numbers above reflect the whole season.

If this is a genuine academic exercise, I haven't even touched on the need to adjust their swaps. Season long possession metrics for games in which they beat up on weak teams. 20 shots to the positive per game would skew a team's data if you played a weak team(s) 5 to 10 times a season don't you think?

 

[dimi78]

Yep.

Corsi is too simple a stat to hang one's hat on. It's something to consider but there are more things to consider.

Yes, outshooting your opponent should lead to wins. And having the puck more should lead to outshooting your opponent. Good theory.

We think of LA as a great Corsi team because of a positive 322 in shot differential. That led to points right?

But in looking at LA, last year's Corsi champs, they lost 27 games all season. 16 of those losses came in games in which they outshot their opponents by a combined 173 shots.

Close to 60% of their losses came in games where they outshot their opponents.

Similarly, the wins gives you a picture you wouldn't expect. 1 in 4 games that they won, they were actually outshot.

And of the 15 games that they dropped in OT, they outshot their opponents 9 times.

Folks will talk about small sample sizes and mistakenly think that refers to Corsi's predictive ability over time vs a single game. What I am highlighting above is a large sample size.

If "Corsi" is outshooting your opponents by way of possession, it's pretty clear that it was negated in a significant number of regular season games. Other variables, such as goaltending and conversion of opportunities seems to be more important.

I'm not a big fan of corsi saying anything about puck possesion and the tink to it's armour is from my own studies of learning the old red army soviet hockey as to why that is. Those Russian teams would get out shot every game do to they wouldn't shoot unless there was a a scoring chance but they had the puck in the offensive zone forcing you to play defense for the majority of a game.

This is what Bowman had happen to him a long time ago as the article pointed out and they got spanked bad by puck possession hockey to create offensive scoring chances.... You can't score if you don't have the puck but you also wont score often if all your shots on goal are of the get it on net look for tips, rebounds variety which is LA hockey and Boston Bruin hockey. They have strong corsi numbers but actual poor scoring chances attempts which is why they've never been strong offensive teams. They'r strong at puck possession but again not by the means to create offense. They're puck possession hockey is the new defense. Hold on to pucks, grind the wall on the cycle tire the opponent with safe shots on net looking for tips rebounds. A big chunk of the NHL play this way that's why scoring is down not because of goalies and there equipment as many think. This is why the game has got boring.

Russian puck possession hockey is what the greatest of all time played Wayne Gretzky. There was nothing boring about that individual and his ability to what you call play keep away hockey (puck possession hockey) that you describe as boring.

What is boring is the Don Cherry love for grind hockey that has plagued the league leading to Lemieux calling the NHL a garage league many years ago and it has progressively gotten worst. Lest grind more skill & vision in the team game will increase scoring chances league wide. That is what needs to change for the better of the game to increase scoring and the entertainment value of the game.

When this rebuild is over it will not only be a strong puck possession team that would make them strong defensively in result but also one of the most entertaining teams in the league do to skill & creativity playing fast paced keep away hockey and scoring goals in result.... Detroit Red Wings hockey, Chicago Black Hawks Hockey... Ron Wilson hockey that we stupidly let Don Cherry manipulate as a problem with the Leafs that lead to his replacement Randy Carlyle and why this team went backwards not forward with him in many ways even to the point killing young players in the process.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Brilliant discussion, i am sure others love the condescending tone.

I am sure others don't care, since the tone was directed at you.

If your argument is that Outshooting your opponent is correlated to wins, LA is exactly the example I would use.

TWO CUPS IN FIVE YEARS.

Very successful team. Did you see that they win 1 of 4 despite the fact that they were outshot. If Outshooting is the variable, then 25% is a big discrepancy. Further, 40% of their losses came when they actually held the Outshooting advantage.

This is a massive challenge in the face of this "useful than most other" stats.

No, it's not: you're not comparing their shot attempt statistics to their 'other statistics', and shots are not 'possession'. I've provided an article that uses a six year sample of possession statistics (Corsi, not SF) relation to Pt%, and how the two areas you (incorrectly) assumed were more important to winning a hockey game were not, in fact, more important.

The outcome doesn't fit the theory.

Let's try this again:

5v5 SV% has an 'r' (correlation with Pt%) of 0.483; 5v5 Sh% has an 'r' of 0.267; 5v5 CF% has an 'r' of 0.532 (increases to 0.584 when score situation is 'Close').

Now we can get into outliers or small sample sizes but the numbers above reflect the whole season.

And the data sample I referenced reflects six seasons with 30 teams.

If this is a genuine academic exercise, I haven't even touched on the need to adjust their swaps. Season long possession metrics for games in which they beat up on weak teams. 20 shots to the positive per game would skew a team's data if you played a weak team(s) 5 to 10 times a season don't you think?

Well, according to you, shots aren't an indicator- it should be noted that we're meant to be arguing possession, not shots, since that is the primary concept of the original article- of a 'weak' or 'strong' team so, using your argument, no that wouldn't skew the data.

Of course, the reasonable answer is yes, but the difference between the results that don't adjust for competition and those that do over a single season is negligible, and over six seasons is practically non-existent. Not that it really matters, since the lack of adjustment would also affect the statistics that you (erroneously) claim are more indicative of a successful team.