Click Here!
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 123
Like Tree161Likes

Thread: Stat geeks, take heart. Everyone else, keep panicing

  1. #101
    devenir gris gescom's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    33,435
    Liked
    3142 times
    Karma
    1252516
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    578 Post(s)

    Default Stat geeks, take heart. Everyone else, keep panicing

    Frickin Wolvie

  2. #102
    Schadenfreude ryan's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    1,442
    Liked
    140 times
    Karma
    1021024
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    43 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jammer06 View Post
    Thus far it does seem to correlate to on-field success, we'll see how long it remains relevant.
    I suppose so.

    If I'm remembering correctly, every single player mentioned and lauded in that Moneyball book for their On-Base Percentage skills flamed out. And the one player talked about that enjoyed on-field success was a guy Oakland never even managed to acquire -- Kevin Youkilis, the Greek God of Walks.

    I think I read an article where it said Oakland has since moved on to other derived stats that they didn't want to divulge.
    jammer06 likes this.

  3. #103
    Win it again..for Tanner! nosoupforyou's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,662
    Liked
    1285 times
    Karma
    2147483647
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    173 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FishMonger View Post
    Edit: Nevermind.
    Some people here want to believe missing an open net from 2 feet away improves a legit stat. I would argue that a stat improved by such an action is ****ing stupid, but to each their own.

    God bless America
    missing a wide open net doesn't change corsi. nor does a blocked shot iirc. Isn't all about shots on net? neither of your examples would count.
    Be the Match! www.bethematch.org

    2011 - 2012, we believed, they delivered!
    2012 - 2013, be the best 7th man in the league! and do it again for Tanner!
    http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=100755849966783

  4. #104
    Iím sicka the high hat!! santiclaws's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    13,847
    Liked
    16810 times
    Karma
    1661409
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    575 Post(s)

    Default

    OK, I've changed my mind. Everyone panic!
    gescom, taz42, VCRW and 4 others like this.

  5. #105
    2nd Scoring Line LAKings24's Avatar




    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    502
    Liked
    149 times
    Karma
    1144044
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    365 Post(s)

    Default

    I bet Brown had an amazing Corsi tonight after shooting it directly into the crowd... from about 10 feet away from the net.

  6. #106
    Classic player VCRW's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,423
    Liked
    8402 times
    Karma
    675518277
    Images
    15
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1380 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nosoupforyou View Post
    missing a wide open net doesn't change corsi. nor does a blocked shot iirc. Isn't all about shots on net? neither of your examples would count.
    As I understand it, the stat is about all shots directed at the net.

  7. #107
    I revoke Man Cards FishMonger's Avatar




    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    10,452
    Liked
    3575 times
    Karma
    2147483647
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    452 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nosoupforyou View Post
    missing a wide open net doesn't change corsi. nor does a blocked shot iirc. Isn't all about shots on net? neither of your examples would count.
    Quote Originally Posted by VCRW View Post
    As I understand it, the stat is about all shots directed at the net.
    VCRW is correct. It's about shots attempted towards the net.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helvetica View Post
    The problem is that you don't understand the argument to begin with. A shot is simply an event. An event that requires a team to be in possession of the puck. A shot cannot be taken without possession of the puck. What's more, and while not required per se, it suggests possession of the puck in the opposition's zone. The stat actually says more about the play before the shot, than the shot itself. Being able to take a shot is an indication that you're team possesses the puck, and controls play well enough to enter the offensive zone and take a shot. It doesn't matter if the shot is high, wide, deflected, blocked, or missed. What matters is your team controlled play to begin with.

    With that info, it has been demonstrated that, over the long term (like an 82 game season), strong possession numbers correlates highly with winning %. It's not, and never will be 100% accurate. But there is a very high correlation level, not causation. Teams don't necessarily win because they have high possession numbers. The stat doesnt try to explain why. All it says is that teams that win usually also have a high possession %.

    So, a team with high possession numbers and a low shooting percentage, is likely to see future success as the shooting % regresses to the expected average. Again, no attempt to answer the why. The why could be luck. It could be injuries. It could be ****ty play. Maybe a trade sparks the team. The why answers are only relevant in the short term. Why did this team play poorly for 10 games? How will they turn it around. Nobody knows.

    All that we know is that their possession numbers are still high and their shooting percentages are low. Based on the numbers, we expect them to finish the season strong.
    I have understood this the entire time. If you actually go back and read the thread, my issue was never an understanding of stats, or correlation, or what comprises Corsi. My issues has, and always will be, the fact that people point to it and say "the Kings are fine, they have a good Corsi, they'll bounce back" and the fact that it rewards bad plays. That's no different to me than saying the Kings are fine, they have a lot of shots on goal... into the goalies chest. You just added something thing that kind of ties possession to shots to make Corsi.
    Eventually the Kings will score if they hit the goalie's chest enough, because in order to shoot into the goalies chest, they have to have possession and get a shot off. Every time they shoot into the goalie's chest, the other team isn't scoring. But to me, tying success with a team's ability to shoot into a goalie's chest, or miss a wide open net, or get a shot blocked, is ****ing stupid.

    But all of those things raise a team's Corsi. So to me, Corsi is ****ing stupid.
    I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

    Case and point: If done correctly, Browns shot way-the-**** over the net should have improved their Corsi. There is a ridiculousness about that which seems to go over some people's heads... just like the puck did to Zatkoff.
    Henry1515 likes this.

  8. #108
    I revoke Man Cards FishMonger's Avatar




    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    10,452
    Liked
    3575 times
    Karma
    2147483647
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    452 Post(s)

    Default

    All that being said, I think the Kings will pull their heads out of their asses after the Olympics.

  9. #109
    It's all good man Bogey's Avatar




    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    25,822
    Liked
    4946 times
    Karma
    6000000
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1415 Post(s)

    Default

    What's so hard to understand?

    The point is, as I see it, the higher the number, the more possession, the more shots, the more likelihood you'll get goals and the opponent will have less opportunity.

    True, if you have a high number and you continually shoot wide or into the goalie, then that is a major problem and that is what the Kings are experiencing now.

    You would think, over time, with so many opportunitues, things would start going your way. Not the case with the Kings lately.

  10. #110
    Iím sicka the high hat!! santiclaws's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    13,847
    Liked
    16810 times
    Karma
    1661409
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    575 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FishMonger View Post
    VCRW is correct. It's about shots attempted towards the net.



    I have understood this the entire time. If you actually go back and read the thread, my issue was never an understanding of stats, or correlation, or what comprises Corsi. My issues has, and always will be, the fact that people point to it and say "the Kings are fine, they have a good Corsi, they'll bounce back" and the fact that it rewards bad plays. That's no different to me than saying the Kings are fine, they have a lot of shots on goal... into the goalies chest. You just added something thing that kind of ties possession to shots to make Corsi.
    Eventually the Kings will score if they hit the goalie's chest enough, because in order to shoot into the goalies chest, they have to have possession and get a shot off. Every time they shoot into the goalie's chest, the other team isn't scoring. But to me, tying success with a team's ability to shoot into a goalie's chest, or miss a wide open net, or get a shot blocked, is ****ing stupid.

    But all of those things raise a team's Corsi. So to me, Corsi is ****ing stupid.
    I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

    Case and point: If done correctly, Browns shot way-the-**** over the net should have improved their Corsi. There is a ridiculousness about that which seems to go over some people's heads... just like the puck did to Zatkoff.
    If you look at the links people posted in the thread, you'll see that people have done stat analysis on shot quality and that shot quality is not a good predictor of success - far, far less useful that the stats used by Corsi. You will also note that the first goal Pittsburgh scored yesterday came as a result of a blocked shot, if you're such a big proponent of anecdotal evidence. Some of the shots that hit a goalie's chest, or go wide, or are blocked end up in quality shots on the follow up. A significant advantage in "bad" shots results, over the long run, in an advantage in good shots. You keep looking at individual plays in isolation and we're talking about thousands of events over the course of an entire season.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28