Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Some interesting numbers underlying this Canucks/Sharks series...


oldnews

Recommended Posts

You really honestly believe that the Canucks played a better series than the Sharks did?

Seriously, go back and determine just what Corsi does and does not represent and measure and then take another look at the totality of the series and situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strangest case of being "dominated" I've ever seen.

http://www.behindthe...5 46 63 67#sort

The only other series with numbers that resemble these is the Chicago/Minnesota series...

The likeness of Vancouver to Chicago's numbers....Bizarre.

Powerplays may give the impression that San Jose played the better series, but the underlying reality wasn't as the highlight reels appeared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then formulate an argument about why we lost and why the Sharks won that demonstrates the limitations of corsi (we're using corsi as an umbrella term to include Corsi Rel et al); because the numbers say we were the better team. I'm all for qualitative interpretation of the factors that may skew the numbers but I'm pretty damn well-trained with statistics and I don't see any systematic error here except for one: you can't win if the refs don't want you to.

You have the floor...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts. Corsi is fact-based - nothing to do with excuses.

Facts that are every bit as relevent as the endless blame game taking place on these boards...fire AV, fire Gillis, trade the Sedins, trade Edler, Schneider isn't who we thought he was, etc, etc ad infinitum.

This team is nowhere near as bad as the complainers are suggesting, and the results are nowhere near as simple as 'the Canucks have no heart' blah blah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the statistics you guys are throwing around account for the level of compete on this team on a consistent basis though. The fact that the Sharks won almost all the puck battles along the boards and in the corners. That when push came to shove this team did not show up for long stretches of time.

There are teams and players who use adversity as a tool to motivate themselves to leave it all on the ice and prove that they can overcome. And even if they lose they can take some pride in the fact that they attempted to do so. That is not the Canucks though. They (and fans like you) prefer to focus on things like sample sizes that are far too small to be deemed reliable in any statistical analysis to somehow suggest they were the better team.

Trying to suggest the Canucks were the better team is the most ridiculous suggestion I have seen on here in a long time. Not everything fits into a statistical system.

Was the officiating a factor in the outcome? Of course it was. Did the Canucks deserve to win based on their level of play (including a crap PK that could not kill any of those penalties)? Absolutely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this mystical quality you can view from the TV called "compete level" had anything to do with winning puck battles, then the Sharks would have been beating us up 5-on-5 because they would have been controlling possession and getting pucks on net. Corsi is an analog for that because you need the puck to shoot it. Since the Sharks all had crap Corsi On stats, I can safely say that what you claim is entirely crap. The Sharks did indeed get beat plenty in puck battles in both ends of the ice.

I agree the sample size is low, and if numbers fluctuated wildly, then the Corsi values would have not been representative of the series. However within each game the same story was reflected in the Corsi numbers. Essentially the teams were playing at their mean values and over a longer period, there would have been little regression and nothing close to a total reversal.

From all that you're saying, the big message I'm getting is that you don't like advanced stats because you don't understand them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sharks - 4 wins, Canucks - 0 wins. Does anyone really give a flying frack about what CORSI suggested the better team was anyway?

Go ahead and keep blaming the refs solely and pretending the Canucks are a great team. The Canucks lost because their core players did not show up to play and their coaching staff could not get them in the mode to compete for a full game or adjust to the Sharks game plan.

Crossing the blue line and hitting the crest with a weak shot may make them Corsi champions but in reality it just means they can't actually generate any offense. I think the result of the series showed that, didn't it? Same as against LA and Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really honestly believe that the Canucks played a better series than the Sharks did?

Seriously, go back and determine just what Corsi does and does not represent and measure and then take another look at the totality of the series and situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As opposed to the facts as interpreted by genius armchairs with a thousand shades of colour to their glasses.

Some things can be quantified with relative accuracy. For example, there are five Sharks on the ice and there are five Canucks on the ice. The puck is in a particular zone. A member of a particular team took a shot on goal...

Some folks may like to pretend that their perspective is more accurate - personally I'll take my own observations and see what the numbers say over the opinions of a thousand hotheads on this site anyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I care if you respond at all actually?

Corsi measures some very specific things based on very specific assumptions (that can be argued are not exactly foolproof). Based on the way the Canucks actually played on the ice Corsi is not at all an accurate reflection of the best team in this series if you are suggesting that team is the Canucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some predictable stuff on this page...

"The Canucks were outplayed!"

"Uh, the numbers actually don't support that..."

"Numbers, shmumbers. I watched the games!"

"Uh, so did I. I saw things differently than you. What I saw supports what the numbers say..."

"Well obviously, you know nothing about hockey. My expert opinion and keen powers of observation, trump any analysis that is supported by mere statistics! Stats are only relevant when they support my argument! Otherwise, they're overrated and pale in comparison to my opinion!"

"The Canucks are garbage and need to fire the coach and replace him with someone who'll put Keith Ballard on the first PP unit! Then the Cup is ours!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some predictable stuff on this page...

"The Canucks were outplayed!"

"Uh, the numbers actually don't support that..."

"Numbers, shmumbers. I watched the games!"

"Uh, so did I. I saw things differently than you. What I saw supports what the numbers say..."

"Well obviously, you know nothing about hockey. My expert opinion and keen powers of observation, trump any analysis that is supported by mere statistics! Stats are only relevant when they support my argument! Otherwise, they're overrated and pale in comparison to my opinion!"

"The Canucks are garbage and need to fire the coach and replace him with someone who'll put Keith Ballard on the first PP unit! Then the Cup is ours!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking a shot that actually has a reasonable chance of going in vs a perimeter shot with no chance to go in are two different things. And that is why your basis for analysis is flawed. The argument is that all shots and shot attempts are equal and mean that the team taking the shots is controlling the flow of the play. Those are nothing more than assumptions though.

Considering that the Canucks could not actually score on any of those chances would suggest that maybe they need to do more to generate offense.

As to your last sentence, so will I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...