Five things: I guess I knew it was coming

Ryan Lambert
December 18 2014 08:40AM

1. Well well well

Since the last publication in this space here, the Flames have gone 0-fer in five straight games, running their losing streak to six.

In reading the comments here on the site and in other Flames-related destinations around the internet, from people who swore up and down that all the winning the team did early on was 100 percent feasible, I've been shocked to see that people are more or less fine with this. Well, maybe "fine with this" is not the right term, because no one likes to lose any games — let alone six straight — but it seems to be a grudging acceptance.

This team has quickly plummeted down the Western Conference standings, going from a sterling 17-8-2 to a far less impressive 17-14-2. And all of a sudden everything that they seemed to be doing right, by virtue of what Flames fans considered to be hard work rather than good luck, they are now doing wrong.

2. Any analog?

You could say that in a lot of ways, what's gone wrong in Edmonton for the whole season has also gone wrong for the Flames these last six games. They're getting subpar goaltending, and they're not scoring anywhere near enough. This should ring very, very true in Edmonton, and Flames will also recognize this as the team's actual talent level.

But what's more interesting to me than kicking through the wreckage in Edmonton and watching the Flames continue to plummet into the still-smoldering crater they've left on the league this year, is to examine what's happening in Toronto right this second.

The Leafs are 10-1-1. They are winning a ton and they're doing it in a very Flames-y way (or rather, the Flames were winning earlier this year in a very 2013-Leaf-y way): They've scored nearly 4.1 goals per game, because they're shooting 14.2 percent. And they're also doing it despite the fact that their possession rate is only 42.7 percent.

Which is to say that this success is unsustainable. Now let's compare and contrast the reactions of coaches and management to those runs of success. One of these quotes is from Randy Carlyle, and the other is from Brian Burke before the Flames descended into this tailspin:

Option 1: 

"Now I feel that we are slipping. ... I don't think you could say we're going to bottle that and take that to the bank tomorrow and say, 'Hey, we felt good about ourselves.' From an execeution standpoint and a defensive standpoint, we didn't seem to have any energy in our forecheck. We were receiving, and we stopped skating. But we won."

Option 2:

"We built a foundation of hard work and tenacity. ... I think we've overachieved above what anyone would have expected. If [we] can keep winning games, we want to keep winning games. You know, we said it last year: Our goal is to win as many games as we can. That's never going to change. Every night when they drop the puck your goal has to be to win that game, and if that creates some runaway expectations, then we'll live with that."

You of course understand that Option 1 is Carlyle speaking after the Leafs beat the Ducks 6-2 Tuesday night, and Option 2 is Burke speaking ahead of the Leafs' win over Calgary a little more than a week ago. That's so interesting to me.

3. What's the problem?

The first reason that's interesting is because it shows what a 180 Carlyle and the entire Leafs management has done since Brendan Shanahan brought Kyle Dubas and the team's analytics department aboard this summer. Where before Carlyle would have attributed every win to Hard Work and Sticking To The Systems, and every loss to Not Executing. Every win was also validation of his coaching genius, and every loss the result of a terrible effort from his players.

And now Randy Carlyle is saying he's not happy to blow out one of the best teams in the league. What a difference a year and a missed playoff make, eh? All the "fancy stats" mumbo jumbo people only don't like hearing about when their team is on the wrong side of them really does work over the course of a year, and all it takes is a seemingly-baffling collapse to do it. So about that...

Burke's reaction to the winning the team did to start the year is vintage boilerplate Leafs positive affirmations that everything you do is right all the time.

I think the thing he says about raised expectations is particularly worrisome, because while in and of themselves, higher expectations among the fanbase is to be expected. Fans generally always think a team is going to be better at everything — drafting, developing, playing, etc. — than it is in reality, and that's evidenced by just how many Flames fans sat mouths agape at the smoke-and-mirrors trickery Calgary spent the first two months of the season pulling off. WOW THEY CAN DO THIS ALL YEAR BECAUSE THEY WORK HARD and so on.

Burke buys into that to some extent: That results reflect anything in particular that can be attributed to hard work, even in the short term. But we're seeing now just how wrong that line of thinking is.

4. Will it continue?

So obviously the Flames will win some games, probably even a few of them in a row, here in a little while. Unless you are truly, Oilers-level unlucky, you don't just go around losing six in a row with regularity. But the thing is, and I've said this before, there shouldn't really be any great surprise here if the Flames win four of their next 20 or something like that.

The thing is that these results actually came as the possession has improved. Kari Ramo and Jonas Hiller have stopped just 86.1 percent of the shots they've faced in all situations during this six-game skid, and the Flames have only shot 5.1 percent. This is a shocking low in terms of bad luck, but when you rode good luck for so long, maybe you should come to expect that the tables will turn.

The Flames' corsi-for in this stretch is 52.9 percent at evens, which is better than anyone should have reasonably expected, and people will point to that as signs of growth, or success, or whatever you'd like to call it. They'll say the results don't follow.

But when the score is tied, the Flames are actually still below sea level at 48.5 percent. And when they're leading (which obviously hasn't been often) they're only at 41.7 percent. 

And when they're trailing, that's where they pick up the steam: 57.5 percent corsi-for. But what that ignores is that even in pressing as they have for to come from behind in these six games, they actually have a rather middling possession share in comparison with other teams that have also trailed in the same period (they're just 12th in the league in trailing 5v5 CF% since Dec. 6). Likewise, when the game is within a goal in either direction, the Flames are 10th in possession at 52.4 percent, and here again you have to understand that they've trailed by one a lot more often than they've either been tied or ahead by one during that stretch.

So even when the puck's going the right way for them, they're not really going the right way. They aren't leaning on teams when they're ahead, and they're not pressing effectively enough when they're behind. I'd bank on more losses coming down the pike relatively soon, though not in the volume seen of late.

Those all-too-common frantic third-period comebacks are almost certainly a thing of the past.

5. Should of worked harder

I've been told that hard work is enough to overcome bad possession numbers. So when the team posts good possession numbers (because they're losing all the time now!) they are working so not-hard that it makes you wonder whether hard work was ever the reason they were winning at all!

686dfac3780611cb7acad6ce5166c6c1
Yer ol' buddy Lambert is handsome and great and everyone loves him. Also you can visit his regular blog at The Two-Line Pass or follow him on Twitter. Lucky you!
Avatar
#51 TheCalgaryJames
December 18 2014, 01:17PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
6
props

@Burnward

It would have to be the right buy tho...

I'm not selling any of our blue chip prospects or a draft pick of any significance unless I'm getting a player (preferably a 3/4 Dman) who can drive possession for the next 5+ years.

Avatar
#52 Burnward
December 18 2014, 01:23PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
5
props

@TheCalgaryJames

Agreed. Interesting conversation guys. Thanks for having it.

Avatar
#53 Derzie
December 18 2014, 01:33PM
Trash it!
17
trashes
Props
20
props

The stats crowd have predicted nothing here. Claiming how you could see it coming is a fools game. Everyone knew the wave would go the other way but the whole possession argument is bunk. Possession has never been better but the Flames played 6 teams in a row that have only each lost 1 or 2 games in their last 10. Hot teams, hot goalies, close losses. A smart person analyses stats and watches the game. A less than smart person draws false conclusions about regression and luck and starts articles with "Well well well". Pseudo-intellect run rampant. File under: "a little knowledge is dangerous."

Avatar
#54 TheCalgaryJames
December 18 2014, 01:35PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
6
props

@Burnward

beats reading the article, that's for sure!

Avatar
#55 ChinookArchYYC
December 18 2014, 02:46PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
4
props
TheCalgaryJames wrote:

I know Kent can explain it better than I could but the regression argument is purely a discussion of PDO. The Flames shooting percentage was too high and their Save percentage was at near Vezina quality. Those two things were destined to regress and when they did we would see exactly what we are seeing now.

I find it useful to think of low possession metrics coupled with high PDO as a 'red flag' pointing towards regression. The low possession stats showed that the team was simply not good enough to maintain this high PDO. The Flames low possession stats pointed to a team that simply wasn't creating enough offence to maintain their astronomical shooting percentage. They were also 'playing with fire' to a certain extent by ceding possession routinely to their opponents and the stats community saw that as a red flag as well.

If we use this same logic in the inverse with what is going on with the Flames now we can also see that their losing is also not sustainable. Their possession points to the team improving it's systems and therefore due for a few bounces.

Context is everything with PDO and it's relationship to possession.

Great description! This is bang on.

Player and Team PDO helps answer the question are they what we think they are? Are they actually good, or are they getting the bounces?

Calgary has no elite level shooters and average goalies, so supporting a 104% PDO over a entire season was going to be a ridiculous assertion for them. The answer: as the Northen Pike put it, She ain't pretty, she just looks that way.

Avatar
#56 cccsberg
December 18 2014, 04:07PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
11
props
Greg wrote:

I hear what you are saying about there seeming to be "too many outs" but I think that just comes from a people misunderstanding what advanced stats can and can't tell you. People hear predictions based on advanced stats, then say "see the advanced stats don't work" when the predictions are wrong, then feel like there's some always some cop-out explanation given by the stat-heads.

The problem is they are never a "guaranteed prediction", just an indicator of probability, or what's "likely to happen". It's percentages, and you have to take them like that, not black and white sure-things.

That said, they are very useful for predictions, and if you play the percentages, you'll still be wrong sometimes, but right far more often. It's all about the sample size "cop-out". :) You can't point to high corsi for a 6 game losing streak as evidence that it doesn't work. Or low corsi for a great 27 game run either. It tends to even out over much longer stretches.

The stats crowd would have predicted the flames PDO would regress from 104+, and it has. They wouldn't have meant the Corsi would also regress, because it doesn't regress to any specific number like PDO does. But, the predictions I remember were the flames Corsi wouldn't stay below 42%, because very few teams are ever truly that bad over an entire season. The "likely" scenario is corsi would eventually move up over 45%, PDO would come back to earth, and their place in the standings would end up in line with both of those.

That seems to be exactly what's happening.

The biggest problem with "Advanced Stats" is that they are not advanced at all, yet people tend to treat them as if they are without realizing or admitting their limitations.

In statistics and analysis one of the truly most important and critical sayings goes like this: "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Garbage is truly the current state of advanced statistical analysis because frankly we're not getting quality inputs and are thereby unable to provide quality outputs.

Let me explain further... Here's a simplified but pretty good overall explanation on this website, http://www.secondcityhockey.com/2013/12/4/5167404/nhl-stats-made-simple-part-1-corsi-fenwick. To start discussion of a few examples lets start with this:

Corsi = shots on goal + missed shots + blocked shots Fenwick = shots on goal + missed shots

Simple. Let's give an extreme. In a game with 100 events we have 10 positive Corsi events, all either breakaways, odd-man rushes or back door tap-ins. Since the percentage success of these events is, let's say 50% and all %s hold true in my scenarios(for illustration purposes), we score 5 goals for. Of the other 90 Corsi events against, since Calgary prides itself in giving their all and that means at least in part blocking shots, we block 30 of the Corsi events against, leaving just 60 making it to net level. Since we also guard the blue paint fairly well and don't give up any odd-man rushes or breakaways most of those 60 are from mid-far out and half miss the net, leaving just 30 that hit the net. Since the average percentage success of these events is, let's be generous, 10% the opposition scores 3 goals and ends up losing 5-3 to the Flames. The Advance Stats crowd, Lambert among them will cry and declare that "the team that was massacred on Corsi", "its unsustainable" and "we got totally dominated and played a terrible game", but best of all "Just wait for the 'inevitable' regression".

Now the thing is, it was a victory, a strategic victory. If the team fully realized what it did and could duplicate it, it would continue to do so and never lose a game all season, or a small handful at most. Why? Advanced stats, truly advanced stats.

Of course this is an exaggerated example, but it is illustrative. In Corsi, blocked shots and missed shots are NEVER (rarely-crazy bounces aside) going to end up as goals, so why include them? Good question. From what I've heard the only reason is to get more events to try and populate the dataset and therefore 'validate' it better than with shots on net alone. They are looking for a proxy ("possession") to try to explain something (wins) far removed from what the keys really are.

Look, bottom line is Corsi is populated by mostly junk (SHOTS=garbage), but if we had quality inputs we could start discriminating some truly useful data. Some of these useful things are: Breakaway shots, Odd-man rush shots, Back door tap-in shots, flip shots on goalie for a whistle, shoot-ins from centre ice for a line change, screened shots, double-screened shots, shots from the blue line, shots from the slot, rebound shots, 2nd rebound shots, shots into the chest of the goalie, shots off the iron and in and I'm sure so much more... Now, do you think if you had quality data on all these things we might see some very interesting things that we COULD correlate with actual success? I have no doubt we could. But at this time, we don't so we end up arguing endlessly about Garbage inputs and Garbage outputs as if they actually meant something.

And its another reason why the "Eye Test" is so important. Its because we intrinsically know, and can see what's truly dangerous while Corsi is basically BLIND to anything quality related.

Using stats can be illuminating and useful, but until we start getting a lot better inputs its just blowing smoke up you know where to get too attached to any opinion using the garbage we now have.

Anybody got any brilliant ideas about what it would take to get that data? Or seen any systems out that might truly be an advance? Now THAT would be worth seeing!

Avatar
#57 redricardo
December 18 2014, 04:15PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
9
props

Everyone needs to stop thinking of the advanced stats crowd as being smug, or know it alls, or meaning that if you know advanced stats it means you ignore the eye test.

I'm a huge proponent of advanced stats, I found when I was getting into it that the way Kent explained them made sense, and they added to the way I watch hockey. Note, I said added... Not replaced.

If you're tremendously opposed to advanced stats, then in your head stop thinking of them as stats. Call it "information". It's something else to think about in addition to what your eyes are seeing. It isn't one or the other, and if either side (stats v eye test crowds) claims that, then you're ignoring a huge chunk of hockey.

Avatar
#58 redricardo
December 18 2014, 04:16PM
Trash it!
18
trashes
Props
7
props

Also, love Lambert's articles. Keep it up!

Just don't wait for the apologies several people here owe you.

Avatar
#59 the-wolf
December 18 2014, 04:28PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
9
props

The point of this article was essentially, "I told you so." Fair enough, lots of folks either keeping quiet or subtly changing their stance rather than admit wrong.

That said, Derzie raises an interesting point in that the team is now losing despite better possession numbers, in contrast to when they we're winning.

Stats are really only predictive over a large sample size (fair enough) and do not explain the anomalies. Still, when used in conjunction with the eye test, they are invaluable. Again, it reminds me of Burke's famous quote regarding support vs illumination.

It'd be interesting to know stats-wise, outside of the 'luck' explanation, why Calgary has lost six in a row with superior possession numbers to when they were winning.

Avatar
#60 Burnward
December 18 2014, 06:02PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
5
props

@redricardo

Not sure if you're referring to me, but I think there's a chance. I don't see them as know it alls. I just think the stats should be used as data, not as weapons to prove ones knowledge about the game. Sometimes I think that line gets crossed.

Avatar
#61 cccsberg
December 18 2014, 06:51PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props
redricardo wrote:

Everyone needs to stop thinking of the advanced stats crowd as being smug, or know it alls, or meaning that if you know advanced stats it means you ignore the eye test.

I'm a huge proponent of advanced stats, I found when I was getting into it that the way Kent explained them made sense, and they added to the way I watch hockey. Note, I said added... Not replaced.

If you're tremendously opposed to advanced stats, then in your head stop thinking of them as stats. Call it "information". It's something else to think about in addition to what your eyes are seeing. It isn't one or the other, and if either side (stats v eye test crowds) claims that, then you're ignoring a huge chunk of hockey.

Well said, I agree 100%

Avatar
#62 redricardo
December 18 2014, 06:57PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
4
props
Burnward wrote:

Not sure if you're referring to me, but I think there's a chance. I don't see them as know it alls. I just think the stats should be used as data, not as weapons to prove ones knowledge about the game. Sometimes I think that line gets crossed.

Absolutely not referring to you buddy. I find your comments mostly insightful. Lol.

Just trying to steer the conversation a bit. I've noticed an influx of "us vs them" recently. If I come on here and point out stats, I'm told to just enjoy the ride, trust my eyes. Like... It has to be one or the other, mutually exclusive. As soon as one is pro-stats they're automatically con-common sense.

Like I said, just trying to steer the conversation a bit. Too much negativity recently.

Avatar
#63 cccsberg
December 18 2014, 07:00PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props
the-wolf wrote:

The point of this article was essentially, "I told you so." Fair enough, lots of folks either keeping quiet or subtly changing their stance rather than admit wrong.

That said, Derzie raises an interesting point in that the team is now losing despite better possession numbers, in contrast to when they we're winning.

Stats are really only predictive over a large sample size (fair enough) and do not explain the anomalies. Still, when used in conjunction with the eye test, they are invaluable. Again, it reminds me of Burke's famous quote regarding support vs illumination.

It'd be interesting to know stats-wise, outside of the 'luck' explanation, why Calgary has lost six in a row with superior possession numbers to when they were winning.

Not sure if this gets any traction here, but a splice out of a comment I made on the NYR Post-game thread... speaking about these very things.

....Rather than say its the "Hockey Gods" or some karmic correction, or "Regression to the Mean", however, I've got to disagree and would go with Derbies' comment that the "Vets"(current team w/injured players back) are playing a different game than the "Kids"(previously with injured guys out) in combination with a change-up for the better from the opposing teams. Its something that's been gnawing at me since the Toronto game and came together after last night during a play in the 2nd period.

The play in question was a desperate, defensive lunging poke check of the puck along the boards to push it out over the line. Great play which relieved the pressure and showed just that little bit of 'extra' effort. The thing that twigged in my mind, however, was that this was pretty much the first time I'd seen it all game to that point (saw it a couple more later), which was remarkable because I immediately thought back to when they were winning and I remembered that happening like a dozen times EVERY PERIOD? Hmmm, that's different.... In the Chicago game I recalled saying to myself "How many times did you have the puck at or near their own Blueline and failed to get it out?" Which of course just reinforced Chicago's already strong play and pressure.

Then I set to wondering what other differences have developed that might be affecting things? I then remembered back to the Toronto and Buffalo games. Versus Toronto I was struck by how well Toronto played defensively, or at least how well they seemed to collapse to around the net and shut off the middle. That game was hard because we seemed to be getting some pretty good shots, and the rebounds were laying there, but the Flames either weren't in position, in front of the net, to get them, or they were getting tied up just enough that they couldn't get their sticks on them.

Then after last night, I was remembering us against Buffalo and another shoe dropped. There we saw us get killed by Buffalo's cross-ice, cross-crease back door tap-ins. Again we seemed to dominate but several key plays against led to "easy" goals against and another loss. The reason it came to mind is seeing us fail to connect so many times on the "spin at the sideboards, pass to the trailer in the high slot and shoot" play, time after time until Glencross finally connected on his one-timer at the end.

The reason it connected was that I can't remember the last time we scored on, or even attempted a back door play like the ones Buffalo killed us with, that I can still recall many of during 'the winning'. Now we're often dominating on shots (Corsi & fancy stats) but losing anyways. But most of our plays seem to be going across only 1/3-1/2 the ice(to the high slot) versus 1/2-3/4 or more(cross-crease or trap door plays. We're getting the shots, but since they don't shift as much are easier for goalies to defend and since we aren't getting as many rebounds (not getting to the net, better D positioning against) we are winning the Corsi wars but losing the games.

The final thought really came to the fore against SJ Sharks and pretty much ever since. Against SJ I thought Brodie played poorly with multiple long stretch passes gobled up as turnovers as well as getting rattled by very strong 2-man forechecking against. And again, after last night I can't recall only once or twice in the last several games that play working.

Avatar
#64 Burnward
December 18 2014, 07:08PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@redricardo

Ha! Cheers!

Avatar
#65 MattyFranchise
December 18 2014, 07:29PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
5
props
redricardo wrote:

Absolutely not referring to you buddy. I find your comments mostly insightful. Lol.

Just trying to steer the conversation a bit. I've noticed an influx of "us vs them" recently. If I come on here and point out stats, I'm told to just enjoy the ride, trust my eyes. Like... It has to be one or the other, mutually exclusive. As soon as one is pro-stats they're automatically con-common sense.

Like I said, just trying to steer the conversation a bit. Too much negativity recently.

I'm pro stats, I'm just not pro Lambert.

Avatar
#66 the-wolf
December 18 2014, 08:25PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
3
props
cccsberg wrote:

Not sure if this gets any traction here, but a splice out of a comment I made on the NYR Post-game thread... speaking about these very things.

....Rather than say its the "Hockey Gods" or some karmic correction, or "Regression to the Mean", however, I've got to disagree and would go with Derbies' comment that the "Vets"(current team w/injured players back) are playing a different game than the "Kids"(previously with injured guys out) in combination with a change-up for the better from the opposing teams. Its something that's been gnawing at me since the Toronto game and came together after last night during a play in the 2nd period.

The play in question was a desperate, defensive lunging poke check of the puck along the boards to push it out over the line. Great play which relieved the pressure and showed just that little bit of 'extra' effort. The thing that twigged in my mind, however, was that this was pretty much the first time I'd seen it all game to that point (saw it a couple more later), which was remarkable because I immediately thought back to when they were winning and I remembered that happening like a dozen times EVERY PERIOD? Hmmm, that's different.... In the Chicago game I recalled saying to myself "How many times did you have the puck at or near their own Blueline and failed to get it out?" Which of course just reinforced Chicago's already strong play and pressure.

Then I set to wondering what other differences have developed that might be affecting things? I then remembered back to the Toronto and Buffalo games. Versus Toronto I was struck by how well Toronto played defensively, or at least how well they seemed to collapse to around the net and shut off the middle. That game was hard because we seemed to be getting some pretty good shots, and the rebounds were laying there, but the Flames either weren't in position, in front of the net, to get them, or they were getting tied up just enough that they couldn't get their sticks on them.

Then after last night, I was remembering us against Buffalo and another shoe dropped. There we saw us get killed by Buffalo's cross-ice, cross-crease back door tap-ins. Again we seemed to dominate but several key plays against led to "easy" goals against and another loss. The reason it came to mind is seeing us fail to connect so many times on the "spin at the sideboards, pass to the trailer in the high slot and shoot" play, time after time until Glencross finally connected on his one-timer at the end.

The reason it connected was that I can't remember the last time we scored on, or even attempted a back door play like the ones Buffalo killed us with, that I can still recall many of during 'the winning'. Now we're often dominating on shots (Corsi & fancy stats) but losing anyways. But most of our plays seem to be going across only 1/3-1/2 the ice(to the high slot) versus 1/2-3/4 or more(cross-crease or trap door plays. We're getting the shots, but since they don't shift as much are easier for goalies to defend and since we aren't getting as many rebounds (not getting to the net, better D positioning against) we are winning the Corsi wars but losing the games.

The final thought really came to the fore against SJ Sharks and pretty much ever since. Against SJ I thought Brodie played poorly with multiple long stretch passes gobled up as turnovers as well as getting rattled by very strong 2-man forechecking against. And again, after last night I can't recall only once or twice in the last several games that play working.

I hear what you are saying. Stats basically assume that at the end of the day everything like that just comes out of the wash even. Basically, that's true. Which is why the evolution of stats still has a ways to go, so that it can be used to analyze those events that fall outside of the norm.

Avatar
#67 ssamze
December 19 2014, 06:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

@cccsberg

Let me also add the assumption that every shots are regarded as same is also a limitation of corsi. Borrowing from Kent's analogy, not all lottery tickets have same winning percentage.

You may buy a lot of low percentage ticket or few high percentage ones. It is a matter of choosing strategy.

Avatar
#68 ssamze
December 19 2014, 06:24AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
7
props
redricardo wrote:

Everyone needs to stop thinking of the advanced stats crowd as being smug, or know it alls, or meaning that if you know advanced stats it means you ignore the eye test.

I'm a huge proponent of advanced stats, I found when I was getting into it that the way Kent explained them made sense, and they added to the way I watch hockey. Note, I said added... Not replaced.

If you're tremendously opposed to advanced stats, then in your head stop thinking of them as stats. Call it "information". It's something else to think about in addition to what your eyes are seeing. It isn't one or the other, and if either side (stats v eye test crowds) claims that, then you're ignoring a huge chunk of hockey.

Completely agree. The problem many of us have is the assumption that good corsi numbers always equals good team. Again not all advance stats advocate hold this stance, but many like Lambert do. They act as if they found the magic formula and perceives anyone not 100% sold on stats as inferior being. They don't realize advanced stat is one of the many tools to evaluate a team.

Edmonton has a good corsi number, but they are not necessarily better than Calgary. And that is not just because Calgary had more luck.

Avatar
#69 DoubleDIon
December 19 2014, 09:14AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
4
props

We have a much better real record in the games where we lose in corsi. It's a weird thing.

That said, I mostly believe in advanced stats. However, certain players and goaltenders can skew possession numbers. A hot goalie makes up for a lot of possession.

There are also corsi busters who routinely shoot high percentages. If I remember right Tanguay routinely shot above 15%. Glencross usually shoots a high percentage too.

I would think based on shot location Monahan will shoot a high percentage too.

Advanced stats are like other stats. They need to be taken in context. Ie. 5 unobstructed point shots aren't as good as a breakaway or 2 on 1. The Flames also block a lot of shots which skews some advanced metrics that only account for shots taken toward the net.

Avatar
#70 kittensandcookies
December 19 2014, 10:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

@DoubleDIon

Scoring effect. The opposing team has the lead, they give up possession as they try to protect it.

Avatar
#71 jeremywilhelm
December 19 2014, 12:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
DoubleDIon wrote:

We have a much better real record in the games where we lose in corsi. It's a weird thing.

That said, I mostly believe in advanced stats. However, certain players and goaltenders can skew possession numbers. A hot goalie makes up for a lot of possession.

There are also corsi busters who routinely shoot high percentages. If I remember right Tanguay routinely shot above 15%. Glencross usually shoots a high percentage too.

I would think based on shot location Monahan will shoot a high percentage too.

Advanced stats are like other stats. They need to be taken in context. Ie. 5 unobstructed point shots aren't as good as a breakaway or 2 on 1. The Flames also block a lot of shots which skews some advanced metrics that only account for shots taken toward the net.

Shooting And scoring at a high than average scoring percentage is not a "corsi-Buster"

Not sure why you think that.

Avatar
#72 DoubleDIon
December 19 2014, 12:28PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props
jeremywilhelm wrote:

Shooting And scoring at a high than average scoring percentage is not a "corsi-Buster"

Not sure why you think that.

Not sure why you wouldn't think that. Corsi is entirely determined by shots... Nothing else is measured. If I shoot 20% on 150 shots in the year I'm a 30 goal scorer which directly impacts the score. If I shoot 5% I have 7 or 8 goals.

Avatar
#73 DoubleDIon
December 19 2014, 12:32PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props
kittensandcookies wrote:

Scoring effect. The opposing team has the lead, they give up possession as they try to protect it.

It's called chase effect and it makes my point. Advanced stats are like other stats. If you don't factor in chase effect and players who consistently shoot a high percentage you don't get the full story. Same is true of consistently high save percentages. Ie. You can survive crappy possession totals with Carey Price, you can't with Joey Mac.

Stamkos, Ribeiro and Tanguay all consistently post 15-20% shooting percentages. For the Flames, Glencross is consistently high and though it's a smaller sample size, I'd argue Monahan will be because of where his shots come from and the quality of them.

Avatar
#74 jeremywilhelm
December 20 2014, 02:07AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@DoubleDIon

Because shooting and scoring are two seperate statistics. So you haven't "busted" anything.

Comments are closed for this article.