Interesting article on the Sedin's Corsi Dominance in this series and our lack of depth

[oldnews]

LOL I had it on goals. The other way supports my argument even more. Vancouver was @ 19th and Calgary was @ 28th. Look at that.

EDIT: What a surprise, the #1 Corsi team in the NHL didn't even make the playoffs.

just a couple Cups in the past three years....

what exactly is your "argument"? you don't appear to have one, aside from not really knowing what you're talking about.

Boston, Chicago, LA,, St Louis, Detroit...

These are the best puck possession teams over the past five years. (Vancouver at the beginning of that 5 year span)

Datsyuk, Bergeron, Kopitar, Toews, the Sedins - among the best puck possession players over the past five years.

Clearly, corsi/puck possession is meaningless.

[The Magician]

just a couple Cups in the past three years....

what exactly is your "argument"? you don't appear to have one, aside from not really knowing what you're talking about.

My argument is that Corsi is useless. Their Corsi this year has nothing to do with what they've accomplished in the last few years. I think you're lost.

[EdgarM]

I think the Corsi Crowd are losing this argument.

[NuckleheadFan]

How would the Corsi account when the Canucks sometimes used to purposely lose on the FO (they would push the puck forward) and then would gain possession?

[oldnews]

How would the Corsi account when the Canucks sometimes used to purposely lose on the FO (they would push the puck forward) and then would gain possession?

Would not effect Corsi. Corsi is simply the plus/minus of shot attempts. It is not really a measure of actual (time of) puck possession - more accurately it should probably be referred to as shot attempt differential as opposed to underlying puck possessionm, which is not really tracked.

[oldnews]

My argument is that Corsi is useless. Their Corsi this year has nothing to do with what they've accomplished in the last few years. I think you're lost.

Have a look at the top 8 Corsi teams over the past five seasons, vs the bottom 8 Corsi teams over the past 5 seasons and puff your chest up a little more. You'll find a pretty consistent correlation between Stanley Cup Champions and some of the strongest underlying numbers in the NHL.

What you are mistaking are the limits of what Corsi indicates, and the relevance of exceptions - for which you substitute ignorance / "it's meaningless".

[khay]

How would the Corsi account when the Canucks sometimes used to purposely lose on the FO (they would push the puck forward) and then would gain possession?

I think the biggest problem with the people against Corsi is that, they don't know how the stat is counted. It's basically,

shots for - shots against when you are on the ice.

It's just like +/- stat:

goals for - goals against.

Everyone knows plus/minus is not the perfect indicator of player performance and yes, just like +/-, Corsi is imperfect. But it is better than +/- because unlike goals, shot events occur more frequently (than the goal events). Having larger sample size means the noise in the data, which would be things like a player who was just about to leave the ice gets +1 because their team score or the player that just stepped on the ice gets a -1 because of his teammate changing at a wrong time, would be washed out or have a very little impact.

So Corsi basically is a more reliable measure than +/- but having said that, everyone who uses Corsi knows that it is not the absolutely perfect measure of player performance.

For example, Jake Muzzin is top 10 in Corsi but this is mainly because he plays with Drew Doughty. Anyone playing with Doughty, even you or I, will be top 10 in Corsi. So there's one weakness of Corsi. Questions like, how much of Jake Muzzin's Corsi is due to him being that good and how much of it is because he is playing with a superior teammate? Corsi can't really answer this kind of question well (unless you break it down shift-by-shift).

Corsi, like any other statistics, if used properly can yield some good insight and just like any other statistics, if used improperly, will tell a lot of lies.

So in this case, we know that the Sedins are good players because no matter who they play with, they have high Corsi. This is in contrast to Jake Muzzin, who might not have such a high Corsi if he were to play with someone other than Doughty.

In other words, if we use Corsi to argue that Muzzin is as good as Doughty because they have equally high Corsi, that would be an improper use of Corsi. The article by Yost uses Corsi to break down the performance of the Sedins and the rest of the Canucks players so that wouldn't be a misuse.

[oldnews]

Arguing that Corsi is meaningless is the equivalent of claiming that the fact the Canucks outshot the Flames 43-21 in game 5 is meaningless. However, if you watched that game, the on-net shot differential (not the same as Corsi but of similar relevence) is a pretty good indicator of how slanted the ice was in Vancouver's favour.

But there's only 1 'meaningful' statistic, right. 2-1. That was the result. The shots don't determine the result.

If that's all that's "meaningful" to certain people, their input on a hockey discussion board, and more specifically in a thread regarding the Sedins' Corsi, is probably even more irrelevent.

[NuckleheadFan]

I think the biggest problem with the people against Corsi is that, they don't know how the stat is counted. It's basically,

shots for - shots against when you are on the ice.

It's just like +/- stat:

goals for - goals against.

Everyone knows plus/minus is not the perfect indicator of player performance and yes, just like +/-, Corsi is imperfect. But it is better than +/- because unlike goals, shot events occur more frequently (than the goal events). Having larger sample size means the noise in the data, which would be things like a player who was just about to leave the ice gets +1 because their team score or the player that just stepped on the ice gets a -1 because of his teammate changing at a wrong time, would be washed out or have a very little impact.

So Corsi basically is a more reliable measure than +/- but having said that, everyone who uses Corsi knows that it is not the absolutely perfect measure of player performance.

For example, Jake Muzzin is top 10 in Corsi but this is mainly because he plays with Drew Doughty. Anyone playing with Doughty, even you or I, will be top 10 in Corsi. So there's one weakness of Corsi. Questions like, how much of Jake Muzzin's Corsi is due to him being that good and how much of it is because he is playing with a superior teammate? Corsi can't really answer this kind of question well (unless you break it down shift-by-shift).

Corsi, like any other statistics, if used properly can yield some good insight and just like any other statistics, if used improperly, will tell a lot of lies.

So in this case, we know that the Sedins are good players because no matter who they play with, they have high Corsi. This is in contrast to Jake Muzzin, who might not have such a high Corsi if he were to play with someone other than Doughty.

In other words, if we use Corsi to argue that Muzzin is as good as Doughty because they have equally high Corsi, that would be an improper use of Corsi. The article by Yost uses Corsi to break down the performance of the Sedins and the rest of the Canucks players so that wouldn't be a misuse.

thanks, I'm not too familiar with Corsi other than a term that has being thrown around by the media (so I wasn't trying to come across as against it). So basically, the one stat I am interested in is the win / loss

[Goat James]

Corsi isn't bogus.

It's not full proof, but it's a good indicator.

Sedins have dominated all series but unfortunately haven't done the most important thing... Putting the puck in the net. Hopefully their fortunes turn around.

You're so god damn weird. Most of the time you sound like a drunk and high five year old with low IQ, and then sometimes you say perfectly normal and intelligent things...

[wallstreetamigo]

I get worked up, because anytime someone says anything about Bieksa that is even remotely positive, you feel compelled to post something negative.

For instance, this debate about a seeing eye shot. I prefaced that phrase with this: The only Canuck I've seen try it occasionally is Bieksa, probably because he knows his slapper isn't going to beat an NHL goalie...

I would have thought that the part about the slapper would have made it clear. In fact I think it does. I just think that you (as usual) saw a chance to bash a player that you hate (despite your protestations to the contrary) and took it.

BTW, excellent use of straw with the "Bieksa isn't as great as you think he is". I challenge you to find a single post of mine where I call him a great player. Just one.

Finally, it doesn't surprise me that you don't watch baseball. It's a thinking man's game, after all.

First, I don't watch baseball because I find it incredibly slow paced and boring to watch on tv. I played it for years right up to college so I would be willing to put my knowledge of the game against yours anytime. I still play for fun once in awhile but it is too slow for me to watch. Make sense?

Only a true Bieksa homer would suggest him missing the net with his below average shot would be on purpose. The fact is his shot as well as the accuracy of it simply suck. Once every long while one of our d including Bieksa tries it but I am not sure I have ever seen it work the way they expected it to.

Like I said, my hate is reserved for a few people who I actually personally know well enough to not like them as people. Hating a players yappiness in themedia, their half ass play style, and their rookie mistakes at the ripe old age of 33 does not equal hating them. It equals hating things about their game. Believe it or not it is different. I have met Bieksa twice and actually quite like him as a person.

[wallstreetamigo]

You're so god damn weird. Most of the time you sound like a drunk and high five year old with low IQ, and then sometimes you say perfectly normal and intelligent things...

I think his mom hacks his cdc account when the normal stuff gets posted.

Lol just kidding Apollo......you are cool

[EdgarM]

thanks, I'm not too familiar with Corsi other than a term that has being thrown around by the media (so I wasn't trying to come across as against it). So basically, the one stat I am interested in is the win / loss

+1