CheersMan Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Granddad used to tell me, “son, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quakes like a duck, then gol darn it……….it’s a dam DUCK son”! He also told me that the team with the most goals at the 60 min mark wins the hockey game every single time. He’d say, “son, it don’t matter how you score’m, just score’m, but be sure to score more of’m than the utter guys”! Granddad never cared about how many times a dumb old dman put a slapper into the defenders shin pads or how many times the same dumb dman shot the puck a mile wide of the net. If Granddad was still here, I’m pretty sure the “Corsi Event” would not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Granddad used to tell me, “son, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quakes like a duck, then gol darn it……….it’s a dam DUCK son”! He also told me that the team with the most goals at the 60 min mark wins the hockey game every single time. He’d say, “son, it don’t matter how you score’m, just score’m, but be sure to score more of’m than the utter guys”! Granddad never cared about how many times a dumb old dman put a slapper into the defenders shin pads or how many times the same dumb dman shot the puck a mile wide of the net. If Granddad was still here, I’m pretty sure the “Corsi Event” would not be. He probably wouldn't use the Internet either or own a smart phone. It's called progress son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Granddad used to tell me, “son, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quakes like a duck, then gol darn it……….it’s a dam DUCK son”! He also told me that the team with the most goals at the 60 min mark wins the hockey game every single time. He’d say, “son, it don’t matter how you score’m, just score’m, but be sure to score more of’m than the utter guys”! Granddad never cared about how many times a dumb old dman put a slapper into the defenders shin pads or how many times the same dumb dman shot the puck a mile wide of the net. If Granddad was still here, I’m pretty sure the “Corsi Event” would not be. Good one, he's right. Bottom line score one more than the others. But even so along the way we can learn a few things.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Granddad used to tell me, “son, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then gol darn it……….it’s a dam DUCK son”! He also told me that the team with the most goals at the 60 min mark wins the hockey game every single time. He’d say, “son, it don’t matter how you score’m, just score’m, but be sure to score more of’m than the utter guys”! Granddad never cared about how many times a dumb old dman put a slapper into the defenders shin pads or how many times the same dumb dman shot the puck a mile wide of the net. If Granddad was still here, I’m pretty sure the “Corsi Event” would not be. So I'm not the only grumpy old coot that sees it as scoring the most goals = win? "Advanced" stats fans can play their gameboy SC. I like the 1 that features real people & happens in real time. The 1 where the Gnome awards the real Stanley Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 He probably wouldn't use the Internet either or own a smart phone. It's called progress son. Probably not. How good are you @ plowing or raising any form of food? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Probably not. How good are you @ plowing or raising any form of food? Don't really need to. Science and statistics have made farming much more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Don't really need to. Science and statistics have made farming much more efficient. So you couldn't survive. The guy without internet could. Producer > consumer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Don't really need to. Science and statistics have made farming much more efficient. Farming is much more efficient, but ya still got to get out there and do the time in the fields and then pray everything works out with the weather... Glad we got mostly doubters in here. A little realism never hurts. Later tonight I'll add a few more thoughts and stats and we can see where it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_jones Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Bottom line: Corsi is a PRETTY DUMB way to evaluate a hockey game or team for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmac70 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 So you couldn't survive. The guy without internet could. Producer > consumer LMAO, that's good, truth hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 So you couldn't survive. The guy without internet could. Producer > consumer Agreed. Just like goals are more important then advanced stats. The advanced stats just let you build a more efficient scoring team. Not sure why every analytics discussion needs the "well in my day" crowd. I don't bring my CORSI into the bandwagon thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessemadnote39 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 The case that I find really puts a twist on things is the Avalanche last season. People who believe teams live and die by advanced stats point to the Avalanche and use them as an example "see they regressed." In fact they did not regress, they won 52 games and nearly made it to the second round. The "regression" is actually more akin to them losing their number one centre to free agency and trying to replace him with Iginla. I think that advanced stats are very very useful, but often the assumption is a one-size fits all approach. Teams won't always play a possession game, sometimes they run and gun and then collapse in their own slot. (Maybe part of the reason flames lead the league in blocked shots.) At any rate, from Colorado last year to Edmonton this year, some teams don't fit the LA, Boston, Chicago mold. No matter how bad we want them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 The case that I find really puts a twist on things is the Avalanche last season. People who believe teams live and die by advanced stats point to the Avalanche and use them as an example "see they regressed." In fact they did not regress, they won 52 games and nearly made it to the second round. The "regression" is actually more akin to them losing their number one centre to free agency and trying to replace him with Iginla. I think that advanced stats are very very useful, but often the assumption is a one-size fits all approach. Teams won't always play a possession game, sometimes they run and gun and then collapse in their own slot. (Maybe part of the reason flames lead the league in blocked shots.) At any rate, from Colorado last year to Edmonton this year, some teams don't fit the LA, Boston, Chicago mold. No matter how bad we want them to. That's a very good point, that when looking at advanced stats the assumption is often made the make-up of the team is the same, whereas in reality, and with the Avalanche last year to this there are some significant changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted January 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Me eye's are burn'in and starting to water. How's LA (defending SC champ and favored to repeat) doing according to Corsi? Here's the next layer of the onion, so to speak... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted January 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 He probably wouldn't use the Internet either or own a smart phone. It's called progress son. Just imagine if Einstein, Newton and Galileo had a computer or smart phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 The case that I find really puts a twist on things is the Avalanche last season. People who believe teams live and die by advanced stats point to the Avalanche and use them as an example "see they regressed." In fact they did not regress, they won 52 games and nearly made it to the second round. The "regression" is actually more akin to them losing their number one centre to free agency and trying to replace him with Iginla. I think that advanced stats are very very useful, but often the assumption is a one-size fits all approach. Teams won't always play a possession game, sometimes they run and gun and then collapse in their own slot. (Maybe part of the reason flames lead the league in blocked shots.) At any rate, from Colorado last year to Edmonton this year, some teams don't fit the LA, Boston, Chicago mold. No matter how bad we want them to. And yet the team that won a tough division last season is sitting out of the playoffs this season. They did regress. It is the heart of the debate. Many are pointing out that results (such as goals) are all that matters. But how many times have we seen a player put up big numbers, get signed to a huge contract, and then flounder? Most of the times the metrics clearly told us that this would happen. How many times have we seen a team do well in a season, make incorrect decisions based on that success, and then fail to get results the following season? Once again, it was entirely predictable. It is staggering how often the metrics correctly predict future results. It is why nearly every team is expanding their metrics and analytic departments. But some fans refuse to acknowledge the results and immediately criticize the metrics without really understanding what they are criticizing. Which would be fine, except that it is almost impossible for those interested to have this type of conversation on the forums because that group feels the need to trash every post. I get that it isn't the be all end all. It is part of a complicated puzzle and it is part of evaluating results and building a team. But I think there is room to evaluate context (i.e. zone starts) or shot differentials when evaluating a player. I also think there is a discussion around how "real" a teams success or lack of success is over time. Whether your a fan and just having a conversation. Or a GM and trying to figure out where the real issues and opportunities are on your team. Or whether your a coach and trying to figure out if what your doing is sustainable or if you need to make tweaks to stay successful (or stay the course if you aren't having success). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 We've seen how adding 1 player @/near the deadline changes the fortunes of that team. 2 examples from recent years are the Kings adding Carter in 2012 & Gaborik in 2014. Both resulted in winning the SC. Does adding 1 player that buys into the coach's system change the dynamic of that team?Did the Kings Corsi #s go up each time they added an offensive forward? If 1 of you that lives by the #s cares to look up pre-Carter vs with Carter &/or pre-Gaborik vs with Gaborik in those specific years it could be interesting. ********************************************* How much did the Hawks Corsi drop from 2010 to 2011? You might remember that an oops ended up resulting in Chicago needing to trade many players off the SC winner due to salary cap concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s4xon Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Good Ol' Hockey Guy - "This team needs to score more goals. That way they win more." Fancy Stats Guy - "Yeah, but if we dive in to some of the advanced stats, we can see how to win better!" Good Ol' Hockey Guy - "....................................................................I'm fine with just a W." Fancy Stats Guy - "Yeah, but imagine taking that W and making it a W. Here let me show you..............(3 hours later)..........so you see, by my calculations, if we look at the numbers, the team can execute a much better gameplan in comparison to before if they follow this algorithm." Good Ol' Hockey Guy - "So, what you're saying is they need to score more goals." Fancy Stats Guy - "Essentially, yes." Good Ol' Hockey Guy - "...........(sips beer)............gotcha." ~ Fin. ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 Love it s4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 And yet the team that won a tough division last season is sitting out of the playoffs this season. They did regress. It is the heart of the debate. Many are pointing out that results (such as goals) are all that matters. But how many times have we seen a player put up big numbers, get signed to a huge contract, and then flounder? Most of the times the metrics clearly told us that this would happen. How many times have we seen a team do well in a season, make incorrect decisions based on that success, and then fail to get results the following season? Once again, it was entirely predictable. It is staggering how often the metrics correctly predict future results. It is why nearly every team is expanding their metrics and analytic departments. But some fans refuse to acknowledge the results and immediately criticize the metrics without really understanding what they are criticizing. Which would be fine, except that it is almost impossible for those interested to have this type of conversation on the forums because that group feels the need to trash every post. I get that it isn't the be all end all. It is part of a complicated puzzle and it is part of evaluating results and building a team. But I think there is room to evaluate context (i.e. zone starts) or shot differentials when evaluating a player. I also think there is a discussion around how "real" a teams success or lack of success is over time. Whether your a fan and just having a conversation. Or a GM and trying to figure out where the real issues and opportunities are on your team. Or whether your a coach and trying to figure out if what your doing is sustainable or if you need to make tweaks to stay successful (or stay the course if you aren't having success). So what do you consider a "real" team success and how do you evaluate it over time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulstad Posted January 16, 2015 Report Share Posted January 16, 2015 If I can be a bit of a Debbie Downer here..... We've had the arguments (for and against) the need/use of CORSI numbers for the general public before (right this way, ladies and gentlemen --> http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/topic/21186-so-we-are-just-lucky). I'm no fan of new-fangled stats either, but this topic is still a valid one for those who enjoy it. If you wish to poke fun at/argue about/rage against the existence of CORSI, may I suggest we take it to the other forum, and leave this one for the "stats geeks". * hides the rotten fruits and vegetables baskets * * departs, stage left * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted January 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 Good Ol' Hockey Guy - "This team needs to score more goals. That way they win more." Fancy Stats Guy - "Yeah, but if we dive in to some of the advanced stats, we can see how to win better!" Good Ol' Hockey Guy - "....................................................................I'm fine with just a W." Fancy Stats Guy - "Yeah, but imagine taking that W and making it a W. Here let me show you..............(3 hours later)..........so you see, by my calculations, if we look at the numbers, the team can execute a much better gameplan in comparison to before if they follow this algorithm." Good Ol' Hockey Guy - "So, what you're saying is they need to score more goals." Fancy Stats Guy - "Essentially, yes." Good Ol' Hockey Guy - "...........(sips beer)............gotcha." ~ Fin. ~ Awe.......looks like the fun is over......... quack, QUACK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 So what do you consider a "real" team success and how do you evaluate it over time? I probably shouldn't have called it "real" success. 2 points is 2 points regardless of how well you played. A better term would be sustainable success. PDO is the measure of your team shooting percentage versus the teams save percentage. On an average team with average luck that should equal to 100. If you have a particularly elite team in terms of goal tending or shooting percentage you might move slightly higher then 100. Or vise versa. Last season Boston had the highest PDO in the league with 102.5. Considering the season that Rask had that isn't a surprise. Buffalo was at the bottom with 98.2. Considering how bad they were and their inability to score that also isn't surprising. Shooting metrics like CORSI provide a differential of shots for versus shots against. It is usually measured as a relative number. So a team with a CF of 50% is getting the same number of shots as they give up. Sure there are higher quality shots and there are higher quality goalies. But over time the team that gets more shots usually wins. Take Calgary over the first month. We had the fourth highest PDO in the league with 103.1. Meanwhile we had the third worst CF% of 42.9%. The veterans that were riding those high shooting percentages and save percentages didn't have a history of those numbers. It wasn't sustainable. Since then our PDO has regressed (as goal tending returned to earth) but our CF% has stayed near the bottom. Predictably our winning percentage went down. Did the numbers guarantee the Flames to get worse? Absolutely not. They just said we would start losing (at some point) if we continued to get out shot every night. The information is important. If Treliving believes in the success he could end up trading futures for short term players to help us make the playoffs. He might start to believe we are farther along the rebuild then we are and make decisions that negatively effect the franchise. But I doubt he will. He at least believes in the power of analytic. Listening to him speak he is very aware of the stats and he isn't going to be fooled by the success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 If I can be a bit of a Debbie Downer here..... We've had the arguments (for and against) the need/use of CORSI numbers for the general public before (right this way, ladies and gentlemen --> http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/topic/21186-so-we-are-just-lucky). I'm no fan of new-fangled stats either, but this topic is still a valid one for those who enjoy it. If you wish to poke fun at/argue about/rage against the existence of CORSI, may I suggest we take it to the other forum, and leave this one for the "stats geeks". * hides the rotten fruits and vegetables baskets * * departs, stage left * I figured that since they keep starting threads about how valuable stats are I (& others) can rebut/ridiclule. I think those of us that are the "Good Ol' Hockey Guy" are taking it with more than 1 grain of salt (better for a Margarita, lol). If the thread is only for advanced stats afficionados I wish that was mentioned in the OP. Henceforth I'll avoid this 1. ************************************************* Now can I have my basket back? I need those for other threads (sometimes on other boards ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted January 17, 2015 Report Share Posted January 17, 2015 If I can be a bit of a Debbie Downer here..... We've had the arguments (for and against) the need/use of CORSI numbers for the general public before (right this way, ladies and gentlemen --> http://fans.flames.nhl.com/community/topic/21186-so-we-are-just-lucky). I'm no fan of new-fangled stats either, but this topic is still a valid one for those who enjoy it. If you wish to poke fun at/argue about/rage against the existence of CORSI, may I suggest we take it to the other forum, and leave this one for the "stats geeks". * hides the rotten fruits and vegetables baskets * * departs, stage left * So does this mean that if I start a thread stating that my opinion is Sasha Lakovic was the best player to ever wear a Flames jersey that no one can post otherwise in that thread or argue against it?... Have we hit a Lowe point here on the forums? Wow, this could be fun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.