Click Here!
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 123
Like Tree161Likes

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

  1. #111
    devenir gris gescom's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    33,435
    Liked
    3141 times
    Karma
    1252516
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    578 Post(s)

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

    Didn't the first Penguin goal initially come as a result of Kopitar losing a defensive zone draw?

  2. #112
    Roadrunner Great/WHA MVP KINGS17's Avatar




    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    12,879
    Liked
    1772 times
    Karma
    1304051
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    561 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gescom View Post
    Didn't the first Penguin goal initially come as a result of Kopitar losing a defensive zone draw?
    Yup, I also thought Mitchell made a poor decision in leaving Malkin open at the side of the net to cover a player that had his back to the net and was on his backhand.
    Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young


  3. #113
    jom
    jom is offline
    Dorkus Malorkus jom's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    6,453
    Liked
    801 times
    Karma
    1050864
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    135 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salty Dog View Post
    I'm pretty sure you're doing your best Osprey imitation and being intentionally obtuse, but just in case -

    If a higher corsi rating = winning more games, (something you've conceded) and
    Winning more games = an increased chance of making the playoffs, and
    Making the playoffs = an increased chance of winning the Stanley Cup, then
    A higher corsi rating = a better chance of winning the Cup.

    Follow?

    Like I said previously though, it isn't the ONLY factor, and you can argue WHY there is a correlation and what causes it, but to say the sample size is 6 is just silly.
    +10 for the Osprey reference.

    jom

  4. #114
    I revoke Man Cards FishMonger's Avatar




    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    10,447
    Liked
    3572 times
    Karma
    2147483647
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    452 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by santiclaws View Post
    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.
    I understand that over the long term, it has trended that way over the last 5 or 6 seasons. And I would imagine it would continue to do so.

    I don't understand why people cannot see that there are aspects of it that are downright silly.

  5. #115
    Kalua Piggin Alosha27's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    919
    Liked
    392 times
    Karma
    2147483647
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    116 Post(s)

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

    Bogey is the only one who seems to grasp the concept. The key phrase here is "likelihood."
    Statistics can only attempt to predict an event.

    If I flipped a coin 9 times and each time it came up tails, we can assume that the likelihood that the next flip of the coin will produce "heads." The chances of getting heads on that particular coin flip will still be 1:2,1/2, or 50% ( probability = desired outcome/total possible outcomes) regardless of how many times you got tails before that.

  6. #116
    jom
    jom is offline
    Dorkus Malorkus jom's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    6,453
    Liked
    801 times
    Karma
    1050864
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    135 Post(s)

    Default

    The problem with most people trying to use statistics is that they have a tendency to manipulate the data to whatever they wish. It's similar to accounting. Besides that most people don't know what "correlation" means in in reference to stats and probability.

    I'm wondering though what part of Corsi takes into account the whole team having their head up their ass most of the game? Inquiring minds want to know!

    jom
    KINGS17 likes this.

  7. #117
    devenir gris gescom's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    33,435
    Liked
    3141 times
    Karma
    1252516
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    578 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gescom View Post
    Didn't the first Penguin goal initially come as a result of Kopitar losing a defensive zone draw?
    Yup, I also thought Mitchell made a poor decision in leaving Malkin open at the side of the net to cover a player that had his back to the net and was on his backhand.

    It was both he and Kopi on the rotation switch. both players didn't communicate, and half-assed it. Malkin should be Kopi's man by the time his defense switches his coverage.

    But what I was suggesting is that stats, even the nifty new ones, are subject to head scratches - when talking about O-zone starts vs. D-zone starts, FO %, etc. if I recall, Kopi won the ensuing faceoff against Malkin, which for that span puts him at 50% - good numbers, but...
    KINGS17 likes this.

  8. #118
    nki
    nki is offline
    1st Scoring Line




    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,613
    Liked
    511 times
    Karma
    1087700
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    103 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.
    Shot quality | Backhand Shelf | Blogs | theScore.com

  9. #119
    jom
    jom is offline
    Dorkus Malorkus jom's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    6,453
    Liked
    801 times
    Karma
    1050864
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    135 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alosha27 View Post
    If I flipped a coin 9 times and each time it came up tails, we can assume that the likelihood that the next flip of the coin will produce "heads." The chances of getting heads on that particular coin flip will still be 1:2,1/2, or 50% ( probability = desired outcome/total possible outcomes) regardless of how many times you got tails before that.
    You are entirely correct. That's kind of the different between the past (stats) and the future (probability). However, in you example there's probably a good chance the coin wasn't a "fair coin"....if you know what I mean.

    jom

  10. #120
    Kalua Piggin Alosha27's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    919
    Liked
    392 times
    Karma
    2147483647
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    116 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jom View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alosha27 View Post
    If I flipped a coin 9 times and each time it came up tails, we can assume that the likelihood that the next flip of the coin will produce "heads." The chances of getting heads on that particular coin flip will still be 1:2,1/2, or 50% ( probability = desired outcome/total possible outcomes) regardless of how many times you got tails before that.
    You are entirely correct. That's kind of the different between the past (stats) and the future (probability). However, in you example there's probably a good chance the coin wasn't a "fair coin"....if you know what I mean.

    jom
    Lol Jom, that is true.
    I teach education courses at the university level and occasionally we are forced to teach statistics because they can't fill that position. One of the first exercises that I do involves flipping a coin or rolling a die and recording the outcome.. You would be surprised how many times I've witnessed students getting 10 in a row with the coin flip. Of course the likelihood is not high but it happens.. It rarely works out 50/50.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82