Corsi stats are often used by hockey bloggers but not so much by NHL hockey professionals.
Directing more pucks towards an opponents goal, whether they are blocked or even when they do not hit the net, than allowing them on your own net is a precarious stat at best.
Open to a wide interpretation. View them with sceptism.
While new light has been made on neutral zone play, which can improve our understanding of player performance, I would say right now Corsi/Fenwick are better measures to assess players than, say, +/-.
We dont really have a bad contract in the system minus Komisarek.
I think Burke has done a great job with giving only short-term contracts out to players.
Komi is the only one tying us down a bit. Lombardi and Connolly are done after this season.
Agreed, I think we fans listen to other HF fans too much, they'll have you believe Connolly for one more year is some kind of crippling "must be a cap dump" contract when it simply isn't
And Lombardi played last season unexpectedly after a major concussion, there's no way he was game fit
When you see the contracts given to se poor defence men nowadays even Komi isn't THAT bad
While new light has been made on neutral zone play, which can improve our understanding of player performance, I would say right now Corsi/Fenwick are better measures to assess players than, say, +/-.
They are an interesting subject on hockey boards, but as with plus-minus stats they need to be used in context, I am not sold on them. I read somewhere Sid Crosby was 8th on the Pens with much lesser players having better Corsi numbers. Obviously having the best player in the game 8th on his own team is not a true indicator of a player with this stat.
So while stats are great on hockey boards to discuss and debate over, you still have to use hockey opinion when coming to a conclusion. I don't think anyone here would say Crosby is the 8th best player on the Pens, when he is the best hockey player in the world.
While new light has been made on neutral zone play, which can improve our understanding of player performance, I would say right now Corsi/Fenwick are better measures to assess players than, say, +/-.
^This might be the quote of the year.
"Stats, You are not the General Manager"
Don't forget that one.
Are we going to have Corsi/Fenwick analysis from now on? I'm really not looking forward to that. I think people are going to be acting out their 'Moneyball' fantasies where a Internerd comes up with the secret formula on how to build a NHL hockey team based on on base percentage analysis.
Don't forget people that in 'Moneyball' they did more than just look at stats. They actually managed players, made shrewd/bold decisions, pressured the manager, etc.
Call me old school, but I still think that Chara's +33 is a reflection of what kind of an impact he can have in a game.
They are an interesting subject on hockey boards, but as with plus-minus stats they need to be used in context, I am not sold on them. I read somewhere Sid Crosby was 8th on the Pens with much lesser players having better Corsi numbers. Obviously having the best player in the game 8th on his own team is not a true indicator of a player with this stat.
So while stats are great on hockey boards to discuss and debate over, you still have to use hockey opinion when coming to a conclusion. I don't think anyone here would say Crosby is the 8th best player on the Pens, when he is the best hockey player in the world.
While I won't say it's 100% certain, it's possible that Crosby isn't as good of a defensive player as people give him credit. I never found him to be a good defensive player when I watched him play, but I found his offensive skills more than made up for his issues in the defensive end.
While new light has been made on neutral zone play, which can improve our understanding of player performance, I would say right now Corsi/Fenwick are better measures to assess players than, say, +/-.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForSpareParts
^This might be the quote of the year.
"Stats, You are not the General Manager"
Don't forget that one.
Are we going to have Corsi/Fenwick analysis from now on? I'm really not looking forward to that. I think people are going to be acting out their 'Moneyball' fantasies where a Internerd comes up with the secret formula on how to build a NHL hockey team based on on base percentage analysis.
Don't forget people that in 'Moneyball' they did more than just look at stats. They actually managed players, made shrewd/bold decisions, pressured the manager, etc.
Call me old school, but I still think that Chara's +33 is a reflection of what kind of an impact he can have in a game.
You continue to always contradict yourself.
First you say Mauve's comment is worthy of post of the year when he/she cites that Corsi/Fenwick measures may be more useful in assessing players, but then go on to say you think Chara's +33 is a better measure.
First you say Mauve's comment is worthy of post of the year when he/she cites that Corsi/Fenwick measures may be more useful in assessing players, but then go on to say you think Chara's +33 is a better measure.
Do I have to emoticon the entire post so that everybody understands that I am criticizing Corsi/Fenwick? When I say "post of the year" I am not being complimentary.
Do I have to emoticon the entire post so that everybody understands that I am criticizing Corsi/Fenwick? When I say "post of the year" I am not being complimentary.
were in good shape contract wise. none if our players are a major headache contract wise.
Well, we simply don't have many players with long term contracts, period. The only players on the team signed for 3+ seasons are Grabo, JVR and Liles, everyone else is signed for 1-2 years. In terms of our 1-2 year deals, we definitely have some bad ones (Komi, Lombardi, Connolly, and we have 2 years of buyout penalties left for Army and Tucker).
I'd say we're among the worst in the league for having a lot of salary tied up in useless players in the short term ($14.75 mil of our cap hit this year is tied up in Komi, Lombardi, Connolly and our buyouts, and we get essentially nothing from those players), but long term we are indeed more-or-less commitment free.
What is heart? Hard work? Work ethic? Dedication? Playing through injuries? All those attributes will have an impact on all the usual statistics in some way.
What is heart? Hard work? Work ethic? Dedication? Playing through injuries? All those attributes will have an impact on all the usual statistics in some way.
Thiiiis. Numbers don't lie and although people hate when you analyze the game with statistics, it really does wonders for eliminating bias. There were a lot of people who thought that Kulemin was going to have a bad year last year because of his high shooting percentage in 2011. None of those people seemed to be Leafs fans though and they thought(myself included I think) "He'll be fine" just because they wanted him to be.
I love looking at advanced statistics. Although I do think they have more relevance in baseball because of wide variance in hockey, in all sports they certainly have their place.
What is heart? Hard work? Work ethic? Dedication? Playing through injuries? All those attributes will have an impact on all the usual statistics in some way.
what about coach killer stats?
Jagr was considered a "coach killer" in his 2003-2004 season yet his stats are good:
Jagr was considered a "coach killer" in his 2003-2004 season yet his stats are good:
74 points in 77 games .94 PPG.
Semin?
Kulemin?
hard to say who had heart in these scenarios...
Because obviously stats don't measure how nice a guy someone is. Corsi rating (as I understand it) would factor in defensive play which would include some of the "coach killer" problems.
Besides, nicknames like that are entirely subjective. Jagr being a coach killer is just hearsay.
Because obviously stats don't measure how nice a guy someone is. Corsi rating (as I understand it) would factor in defensive play which would include some of the "coach killer" problems.
Besides, nicknames like that are entirely subjective. Jagr being a coach killer is just hearsay.
So if Jeff Finger signed for 3 mil instead it would have been a good contract?
Finger wasn't worth 3.5 but if he was as proven as liles (which he wasn't) then absolutely. If Liles somehow regressed then yeah we can revisit but at this point claiming his contract as bad is frankly embarrassing.
