• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Advanced Stats Thread

MindzEye said:
Define "very good" though. How much correlation are we talking here? Because Corsi/Fenwick only has a 55% correlation with winning, yet the same crowd considers that a very good proxy for team quality.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's a good proxy for possession, not in terms of winning/losing.
 
mbow30 said:
you're acting pretty irrationally here.

look at this thread.

all people are talking about is the leafs' possession.

we don't know what the leafs' possession is. we just assume corsi/fenwick tells us the leafs' possession. but we don't know that for a fact.

we do know, though, that the leafs coaches care about possession enough to time possession, and have intimdated that the team's possession stats last year didn't exaclty correlate with the team's corsi.
Click to expand...

A dude from pension puppets, actually tracked the Leafs possession last year with a stop watch (I think I posted the article here) and his numbers came very close to the fenwick numbers.
 
PlayerToBeNamedLater said:
I'm saying it's a good proxy for possession, not in terms of winning/losing.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying, but follow me for a second.

The same people who say that Corsi is a very good proxy for possession (the people who do the statistical work itself) are the same people who make the Corsi = team quality leap of faith based on a statistical 55% correlation between Corsi and winning.

So how good is Corsi as a possession proxy? Quantitatively? 80%? 90? Better?
 
MindzEye said:
I know what you're saying, but follow me for a second.

The same people who say that Corsi is a very good proxy for possession (the people who do the statistical work itself) are the same people who make the Corsi = team quality leap of faith based on a statistical 55% correlation between Corsi and winning.

So how good is Corsi as a possession proxy? Quantitatively? 80%? 90? Better?
Click to expand...

Those people are doing it wrong.

Possession is just one part of a very complex game.
 
mbow30 said:
you're acting pretty irrationally here.

look at this thread.

all people are talking about is the leafs' possession.
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause we're all smart enough to know what the f*ck is being referred to when we say it.

When we say "Player X has 30 homeruns" in the baseball thread no one confuses it for someone meaning Player x has scored 30 runs at home.


Literally everyone here knows what we're talking about when we use the term "possesion".....you're fabricating a problem that doesn't exist.


we don't know what the leafs' possession is. we just assume corsi/fenwick tells us the leafs' possession. but we don't know that for a fact.
Click to expand...

We don't do that at all......in fact we lambast those that do. It's a proxy, not an definitive measure.

Nor does anyone here confuse it as such...

we do know, though, that the leafs coaches care about possession enough to time possession, and have intimdated that the team's possession stats last year didn't exaclty correlate with the team's corsi.
Click to expand...

We also know we don't have that data available to us....hence using what we do have. Corsi/Fenwick.....and we attempt to properly contextualize it as much as possible, so it's not miss used (in the manner that many have miss used it, Mirtle, etc)
 
Last edited:
Montana said:
Yeah, cause we're all smart enough to know what the f*ck is being referred to when we say it.

When we say "Player X has 30 homeruns" in the baseball thread no one confuses it for someone meaning Player x has scored 30 runs at home.


Literally everyone here knows what we're talking about when we use the term "possesion".....you're fabricating a problem that doesn't exist.




We don't do that at all......in fact we lambast those that do. It's a proxy, not an definitive measure.

Nor does anyone here confuse it as such...



We also know we don't have that data available to us....hence using what we do have. Corsi/Fenwick and attempting to properly contextualize it, so it's no misused ( as many have done, Mirtle, etc)
Click to expand...

except 'home run' has a clearly defined meaning.

just like corsi can have, without calling it something that it isn't.
 
People just say "possession" because it's easy. Writing "proxy for possession" every single time isn't necessary imo. We all know what we're referring to.

Fenwick isn't a true possession stat, just a proxy. But the creators of the stat wouldn't suggest any different.
 
'corsi doesn't mean possession. we just call it possession'.

why would you do that?

we don't call a home run a home run for the sake of it. we call it a home run because a name was assigned to a hit to describe what the hit is. a hit where the batter scores. which is a lot easier than saying 'he got the hit that allowed him to run around all the bases without anybody getting him out, or anybody else getting a hit to advance him to another base'. just like it's a lot easier to say 'corsi' than 'the differential between shot attempts for and shot attempts against'.
 
mbow30 said:
except 'home run' has a clearly defined meaning.

just like corsi can have, without calling it something that it isn't.
Click to expand...

Ummm....everyone knows what "possession" means in this context dude. It's a pretty defined statement in these discussions.

Literally never seen anyone get confused by it before now...
 
PlayerToBeNamedLater said:
People just say "possession" because it's easy. Writing "proxy for possession" every single time isn't necessary imo. We all know what we're referring to.

Fenwick isn't a true possession stat, just a proxy. But the creators of the stat wouldn't suggest any different.
Click to expand...

lots of people do that all the time.

'the leafs are a bad puck possession team'. that's what we hear, time and again. and it' sbecause of their corsi.

it would be just as easy to say 'the leafs corsi isn't very good', except a lot more factually correct.
 
What a load of BS. When James Mirtle or these other fake stats guys talk about the Leafs possession game he is talking about their possession game.

James Mirtle ‏
Wild the NHL's top possession team after tonight's game - small consolation but they look like team on the rise http://www.extraskater.com/teams/2013/5v5


He's blatantly talking about possession not pucks directed at the net. They are using it wrong. That is the whole issue here.
 
But there's a strong correlation between pucks directed at the net and possession. Thus it being a proxy for possession.

I don't know why you guys are upset about this. As the Leafs are showing, you can still win at good clip without being great at this particular stat.
 
We're criticizing the mainstream media for blatantly using advanced stats wrong. Why wouldn't we do that?

You always criticize them for being stupid.
 
No one said it has no value. it definitely overrated though. It doesn't have anywhere near the weight these so called "advanced stats proponents" think it does. Nor does it tell them what they think it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top