Thread: Statistically speaking, the Kings are still the Kings

Originally Posted by ChiKingFan

Is there an origin post for this? I'm wondering where the "Fenwick" name comes from. There's a fairly prestigious high school here in Chicago (Oak Park) called Fenwick that has produced NHLers Joe Corvo and Bates Battaglia, and NBAer Corey Maggette (and a couple of my less famous friends). Wondering if there's any connection.

Fenwick the name of the guy that came up with the stat. Ditto for Corsi.

Originally Posted by rcc

whats the name of the stat that measures how effective a player is?

You are thinking of Corsi, which is the same as Fenwick except that it doesn't subtract out blocked shots. Once the sample size gets to greater than 20 games, Fenwick is considered a more accurate indicator.

If you want to see the raw numbers, this chart will show the breakdown by game situation.

As for a players effectiveness, what you are looking for is <Corsi relative>, which is the measure of a team's corsi with the player on the ice, vs the corsi of the team without the player on the ice.
As seen here

Originally Posted by santiclaws

It ain't as complicated as it sounds. Whether a team consistently shoots more than its opponents is a good predictor of the team's success, which is essentially what Fenwick measures (it includes shots that are not included in the official "shots on goal" stat). One weakness of the Fenwick stat is that teams tend to go into a defensive shell when leading and thus get outshot (and obviously, the opposite happens when they are behind). If a team is behind often, the regular Fenwick would tend to overrate it and would tend to underrate teams that are usually leading. The "Score Adjusted Fenwick" stat attempts to account for that by giving more weight to shot differential when teams are tied and less to shot differential when the team is ahead or behind - hence "score adjusted." This statistic, over the long term, has a high rate of success in predicting how teams will do over the course of 82 games.

Thanks for the translation.

On the weakness you mention... Really good teams don't go into that shell and keep their foot on the pedal which maintains their possession ratio (and shots). I think. Certainly the Hawks do and the Kings.

Originally Posted by pumpernicholl

Can someone please provide me with a cliff note version of the cliff note version?

Puck control = more shots. More shots (usually) = more goals. More goals = more wins.

Originally Posted by RagBone

Thanks for the translation.

On the weakness you mention... Really good teams don't go into that shell and keep their foot on the pedal which maintains their possession ratio (and shots). I think. Certainly the Hawks do and the Kings.

Actually, the Kings and the Hawks both tend to put their foot on the pedal AFTER they take the lead.

In other notes, I just checked the power rankings on ESPN, the Kings are now 10th, after winning three in a rowm, you have to love how THE sport channel keeps up with hockey.

On the one hand, I like the results as a Kings fan -- that over time, the Kings would figure to come out ahead in a long, 82-game season.

On the other hand, we don't have a long season to reduce the volatility of this predictor. Worse yet, in a short playoff season, there will even be more volatility not to mention other factors that the Score-Adjusted Fenwick do not account for, such as the effect of having a red-hot goalie.

Originally Posted by pumpernicholl

On the one hand, I like the results as a Kings fan -- that over time, the Kings would figure to come out ahead in a long, 82-game season.

On the other hand, we don't have a long season to reduce the volatility of this predictor. Worse yet, in a short playoff season, there will even be more volatility not to mention other factors that the Score-Adjusted Fenwick do not account for, such as the effect of having a red-hot goalie.

Or injuries, or teams playing completely out of their minds, such as Chicago currently. It's not a perfect stat or a perfect predictor, but it is about the best we've got. Stats like this one is a reason that stat geeks were yelling "Watch out for the KINGS!!!" before the playoffs last season.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

Or injuries, or teams playing completely out of their minds, such as Chicago currently. It's not a perfect stat or a perfect predictor, but it is about the best we've got. Stats like this one is a reason that stat geeks were yelling "Watch out for the KINGS!!!" before the playoffs last season.

Very true. Plus, we've got Quick, who's demonstrated the capacity to TAKE OVER which, as has already been mentioned, isn't accounted for by this predictor. Finally, there's the fact that the Kings have "been there before", an intangible that also may tilt the advantage even more toward the Kings than this predictor might suggest.

Santi,
If you are a betting man, you can still get 18/1 on the LAK to win the Stanley Cup.