at the draft party a couple of years ago, and under a considerable haze, i heard Birdman yell out the following (about 4 or 5 times, i think) - "don't marry yourselves to players!" he went on to reiterate that idea more than once on the boards, and i believe it to be absolutely sage.
I don't put a lot of stock into the stats they come up with, but you can not argue with success. I checked the Corsi stuff over the last few years and wouldn't you know, damn never every year the teams near the top were in the finals.
Not sure how to read them but it appeared to me that the 2010-2011 stats something about +/- 5 on 5 over 60 minutes or some thing like that..anyway it showed #1 Boston and # 2 Vancouver and they were in the finals together. Weird, so it seems to work.
I'm still reeling that the Kings are shooting at a 6.4%
Thought it would be much lower.........
Kinda sad how many people don't understand statistics. It should be required high school cirriculum, imo.
Yes, it continues to feel a little weird to me that a lazy unscreened shot from the point that sails 10 feet wide is counted equally as a quick one-timer from a cross-ice pass. Maybe the NHL will implement SportVU cameras and the higher quality data will lead to all kinds of new fancystats. 10 years from now, we might all be laughing at ourselves for relying on such primitive and flawed stats as Corsi and Fenwick. And that would be great. But 'til that happens Corsi and Fenwick are still pretty damn good.
*I am sometimes convinced that the Kings will be the team that breaks Corsi and Fenwick though. Stagnant, static offense with a high number of shots that aren't dangerous at all? It's a fancystat advocate's greatest nightmare.
I used to own a '66 Corvair Corsi. It was the 173 hp turbo-charged model and went like a bat out of hell until I had to turn a corner.
Last edited by Bogey; January 30th, 2014 at 12:03 PM.