BagBoy wrote:
BagBoy wrote:
Vanek_Fanatic_26 wrote:
BagBoy wrote:
Jeepers Creepers! Why do they keep talking about Corsi numbers? It's a completely meaningless horseshit "statistic".
Not really, but if you refuse to learn about it, I guess it is.
You know what? I think you may just have won the smug award for the week, if not the month. Stay classy, Van Diego!
Basically all it is the SOG plus missed shots and blocked shots, so this means the more times you get your shots blocked or you miss the net, the “better” you are. So therefore, if a player comes down the wing and shoots wide causing the puck to go all the way back to his own zone, he still gets a “plus”. Or how about when a D-man gets the puck at the point, has time to wrist it toward the net, but chooses instead to crank a full wind up, and then the opposing winger blocks the shot and creates a breakaway for himself? The D-man gets a Corsi “plus” for this.
Look, I get it that in general more shots is better than fewer shots, but this stat is just plain stupid, even if it was cooked up in the Sabres' organization.
In fact, it makes me wonder if there isn’t some sort of correlation between the fact that we are paying attention to it as an organization, and the fact that we’re easily the worst team in this league.Considering the top teams have the best Corsi and Fenwick percentages, you coulnd't be further off with that statement. That's simply the fact. There are outliers because of the luck factor, like Toronto, last year and the beginning of this year, but they're starting to fall off. There are outliers the other way too, like Dallas.
Your top 10 teams in points right now are
Meanwhile, your top 10 teams in Corsi are:
There's definitely a correlation between how a team performs and how many shots they direct at the net compared to how many a team allows. 7 of the top 10 teams in points are proficient in the Corsi metric. The Sabres are dead last in the Corsi metric, which explains their latest stretch of games. Another closer look at Fenwick (same as Corsi, but it doesn't include blocked shots, as it considers a player blocking a shot to be a determined skill) shows that the Sabres have been outshot in that metric in 26 games. They've only won 5 of those games, good for 19%. Meanwhile in the 7 games they've "out-Fenwick'd" another team, they've won 3 of those games, good for 43%. It's a small sample size because very rarely outperform other teams in that metric, but let's say we put that over a rate of 82 games. If they're always out-performed in the metric that yields 5 of 26, they're on pace to win just 16 games. If we express the other metric at a rate of 82 games, it yields a pace of 35 wins. That's a huge difference!
I hope this was able to at least help your understanding of why it might matter a little more than you think it does. I wasn't trying to be smug about it, but a large portion of why people don't like Corsi/Fenwick/advanced stats in general is because people don't understand how they work, or they don't care to understand. Which is fine, too. We can watch this team with our eyes and know that they're bad at possessing the puck. The reason we use shot attempts as the metric is because there's no more reasonable method to calculate puck possession at this moment. The thinking behind it is basically that the team that attempts more shots than the other team possesses the puck longer as well. It isn't perfect, but it's the closest thing that correlates to actual team performance in a statistical method.
EDIT: I'd like to mention that these are the Corsi and Fenwick metrics with the score close (down by 1, tied, or up by 1) so as to take away effects from a blowout game
_________________
Girgensons for captain. Team Keep Nick DesLauriers forever.
@TJLuckman550