casualty Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Has anyone taken into consideration the hot dog or beer corsi? Last home game when kenins scored over 850 hot dogs were sold with 10 minutes. When Kassian got his second assist against boston over 1100 beers were sold in a 5 minute span. These stats are sure to draw the eye of ownership and are gonna get put to good use on who should be playing or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 Bieksa deserves more credit than that. He played more minutes and against tougher competition than all of them except the top 3. Not to mention the other things he brings, which can't really be measured via stats. Hence advanced stats are merely one of many tools in the tool box to judge a hockey player It tells you something and depending on the information given, you may want to keep in mind, but you can just as easily shrug it off when the information given by it contradicts all other evidence - for example, when it tells you that Chris Tanev is better than Shea Weber Advanced stats say that players like Stanton and Sbisa aren't good, but they play defensive minutes so of course they will be outshot. Besides, goals against is more important than shots against. Look at Stanton's plus/minus, despite playing many games in the top 4 (or getting top 4 minutes) as a 3rd pair D-man in his sophomore season. IMO, advanced stats are only sometimes relevant. No QoC ? Thanks, guys. 1. I think we all agree that advanced stats are not the whole story. It is true that they do not take into account the physical game, which does matter as it wears down the opponents. Guys like Bieksa and Sbisa and Dorsett (and Shea Weber) are more valuable than their advanced stats indicate, and guys like Tanev and Vey are less valuable. 2. Advanced stats also do not say much about quality of shots taken. A shot from Shea Weber is a lot more dangerous than a shot from Chris Tanev, but that does not taken into account. 3. Several comments relate to quality of competition. I was disappointed to see that the NHL does not yet have quality of competition. This is, by the way, the main reason that plus/minus is misleading. So, yes, Stanton has a good plus minus, but that is because he plays primarily against the other team's bottom 6 forwards. Edler and Tanev, on the other hand, pretty much always play against the other team's top line. This makes a huge difference. The fact that Edler and Tanev have a good plus/minus despite this effect means they are playing very well. 4. But, no matter how we slice it, any reasonable view of the numbers indicates that a few inescapable facts. First, Kassian is not that bad. Yes he is inconsistent. He has some really good shifts and some pretty weak shifts. But Kassian on a bad shift is just as good as McMillan on a good shift. Second, the Sedins are playing well and so are Edler and Tanev. Third, some young guys (Horvat, Clendenning, Kennins) are playing well, and that is encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TACIC Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Points per 20 minutes also needs to take into account the situation the players are put in - PP, PK, limemates, opponents. How to factor those things into stats is still a challenge for hockey I think.points per 20 or 60 depending in nhl.com or the other sites is points per even strengh 60 or 20 mins. They have stats also for points per 20 pp mins and probably per pk minutes too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new look 'nucks Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 People only like Corsi when it agrees with them on how they personally feel about a player... Advanced stats certainly don't tell the whole story, but it does tell part of it. Just don't let Billy Beane run a hockey team, cause I don't think his theory works quite as well in hockey as it does baseball. The part that bugs me the most about it is the talk about it being used in contract negotiations. Like, don't get me wrong, I like Chris Tanev and all, but I am not going to take him over Shea Weber if givin the chance. But he should make more money cause his Corsi is better? I don't think so.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicky Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Hold the phone - is this another, albeit cleverly disguised, Kassian thread? Well played, OP, well played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 With regard to JamesB's observations (which in general I agree with, except for Dorsett-see below) and adding a few of my own -I've been watching on various sites as the season has gone on. Horvat's possession stats started out the season really, really badly and remained that way through December. Not surprisingly, they've been improving. At one stage in, I think, early January I remember looking and he had a CFRelTM of -7.8 on stats.hockeyanalysis.com, which was a truly horrible figure, easily the worst among regular forwards. A fairly short time ago it was still -7.3, but he's brought it up rapidly lately. His season-long figure is now up to -5.1, still poor but to get it up there in a short time means he's been much better than that recently. Part of that improvement is probably replacing Dorsett with Kenins on Horvat's line, part a real improvement in Horvat's play. -Kassian's possession stats have been ok all season, even when he wasn't scoring and even while he was most criticized. They haven't been better, in general, during his recent scoring spurt, though they were much higher on Friday against the Devils. -For Dorsett I think the oririnal poster was generous in referring to his possession numbers are not bad. On the NHL site, his SAT of -144 is much worse than any other forward (next lowest is -82), his SAT% (under skater percentages) beats only Sestito and McMillan and is SAT/60 under Skater Shooting/Time On Ice is -13.41, ahead of only McMillan and Sestito who are imo easily worse than replacement level. Then again, imo Dorsett is in the lineup because he bring some essential grit to the lineup while not being a bad hockey player, not for being a good hockey player. All of this is without reference to zone starts, strength of linemates or strength of opposition. Sestito has a better corsi than half of our roster Sestito is ahead of others if one chooses absolute stats so that his small playing time keeps the negative numbers from piling up. If he can have a -17 SAT in 3 games with limited action, think how large a negative figure he'd get playing a full season with more ice time. If one chooses skater percentages on the Stats page of nhl.com, one sees Sestito's CF% (SAT%) at 28.21, 17th among 18 forwards who have played for the Canucks this season, ahead of only Brandon McMillan and way, way behind Dorsett who has the lowest figure among regular Canuck forwads at 42.84. If one instead chooses Skatershooting/timeonice Sestito's SAT60 (essentially, CF% per 60 minutes played) is a remarkable -54.50, worst among the team's forwards by a large margin, even well below Brandon McMillan. The lowest among Canuck forward regulars is Dorsett at -13.41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time Lord Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 People only like Corsi when it agrees with them on how they personally feel about a player... Advanced stats certainly don't tell the whole story, but it does tell part of it. Just don't let Billy Beane run a hockey team, cause I don't think his theory works quite as well in hockey as it does baseball. The part that bugs me the most about it is the talk about it being used in contract negotiations. Like, don't get me wrong, I like Chris Tanev and all, but I am not going to take him over Shea Weber if givin the chance. But he should make more money cause his Corsi is better? I don't think so.. This. If the "eye test" and Corsi both say the same thing about a player, it can be helpful in determining if a player is playing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Corsi sucks and is for nerds to split the atom over.Nah, corsi nerds aren't nearly smart enough for nuclear physics. Einstein would be all "bah, zeeze stats mean nussing uzza zan za elephants ability at climbing ze trees, ya" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Sestito Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 My Sestito post was not serious, since it clearly was not obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 People only like Corsi when it agrees with them on how they personally feel about a player... Advanced stats certainly don't tell the whole story, but it does tell part of it. Just don't let Billy Beane run a hockey team, cause I don't think his theory works quite as well in hockey as it does baseball. The part that bugs me the most about it is the talk about it being used in contract negotiations. Like, don't get me wrong, I like Chris Tanev and all, but I am not going to take him over Shea Weber if givin the chance. But he should make more money cause his Corsi is better? I don't think so.. Individual stats in a team game are tricky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.