|
Post by soccer24 on Oct 24, 2017 13:31:33 GMT
I don't think that's what Pez meant. Even I am saying to mostly ignore the current list. It probably needs to be given about 2 months before the 'current' data will have anything meaningful.
But there are some interesting takeaways here. How good your power play is seems to mean absolutely nothing. Corsi/Fenwick are more powerful predictors of playoff success than where you finished in the standings.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 24, 2017 13:54:31 GMT
CORSI is completely useless.
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Oct 24, 2017 14:07:37 GMT
The data here is really suggesting otherwise...
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 24, 2017 14:20:28 GMT
LOL
It cant differentiate shot QUALITY...uselss.
Pens won the cup last year being outshot every game....here's your fail.
All shots are not created equally...some teams take a volume of low quality shots...some teams allow them...puck on stick possession has nothing to do with the number of times you unleash a shot on goal....and thus surrender possession....lol
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Oct 24, 2017 14:28:28 GMT
Where did I say corsi is 100% perfect in making predictions? Cherry picking the instances where it didn't pan out is what is actually useless. Again, here are the league rankings of every Cup Final matchup dating back to 2008. How can you look at this and say, "Eh, Corsi means nothing." Top corsi teams are regularly getting into the Final round.
1 defeats 29 19 defeats 1 1 defeats 13 14 defeats 5 2 defeats 12 4 defeats 3 1 defeats 7 2 defeats 7 2 defeats 11 16 defeats 5
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Oct 24, 2017 15:07:13 GMT
Continuing: I don't know why the mere mention of corsi makes people want to dismiss everything about it because it doesn't do X, Y, or Z. In this topic, nobody has claimed it is a perfect stat. And I don't think anyone is claiming that there IS a perfect stat. But we shouldn't dismiss something just because it can't account for 100% of the data. We might as well stop tracking how many goals and assists players are scoring. I mean, just because Player X put up more points than Player Y doesn't mean anything. That would be the argument, right? One thing you touched on that I would like to go back and do: I want to add Expected Goals For % into all of this. That might be the best one to look at, as it does factor in shot quality. But you also bring up something else that I think I've come to disagreeing with: "puck on stick possession has nothing to do with the number of times you unleash a shot on goal....and thus surrender possession" I know people are eager to get the technology to see which team truly possessing the puck the most. But I feel like that would be a worse predictor than just looking at Corsi. Fictional example: Say team A is awesome at being able to retain control the puck a lot throughout the game. They can own 70% of time with the puck. But Team B still ends up getting 70% of the shots in that game. I feel like Team B is going to have a better chance of winning. If you control the puck but don't do anything with it, then who cares? Anyway, here is one other thing I looked at, which I think helps highlight the advantages of Corsi. You can go to Hockey-Reference.com and verify this on your own, but run a search from 2009 through 2015. Sort the results by Corsi For %. You will notice right away that the teams typically looked at as the best during that era populate the top of that. Teams typically viewed as the worst are near the bottom. You'll also see a decent spread amongst the teams. Corsi is an easier thing to maintain year-to-year. Unlike a state like Shot%. When it comes to Shot%, most teams gravitate to the same percentage (8%). So you can kind of turn this into a math problem. During that range, teams shot 3477 times per season (and therefore also allowed that many.) So we can go 2 routes: Either max out a team's shot% and see the results, or max out the corsi and track the results. A team that shot the max % in that range (8.6) but with a 50% Corsi, would be able to improve their goal differential to +26 above average. If a team shot the average 8%, but maxed out Corsi (54.2%), they improve their goal differential to +46. That's a huge difference. In short.... Shooting more is a more effective way to score goals than relying on shot %. Here's the link: www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/tpbp_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&year_min=2010&year_max=2015&situation_id=5on5&order_by=on_ice_shot_pct
|
|
|
Post by Pez68 on Oct 24, 2017 15:29:09 GMT
Advanced stats are useful, but like Jim said, they aren't foolproof. Hockey is just such a unique game. A bad bounce, a hot goalie, a bit of luck, a guy that gets hot and seems to bury every shot he takes.. These are all things that really aren't quantifiable by numbers, and affect cup runs every season.
A good example is LA. They have the puck a lot and don't surrender a lot of shots, but they are lacking that "it" factor to get them back to the top. Mostly because they can't bury shots. Pittsburgh last season made the most of every scoring chance they got. They really got outplayed most of the playoffs, but had stellar goaltending, and clutch scoring. Stats just can't account for that.
Shot quality is one thing. Who is taking that quality shot is a totally different thing... and there's really no way to account for that. I know if my team is down a goal, there's 2-3 guys who I want taking the shot over everyone else on the team.
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Oct 24, 2017 15:46:18 GMT
I agree with the first paragraph. There will never be a singular stat that could account for everything. But like I said, that never stops anyone from tracking how many goals a particular player scores. It won't stop anyone from using Sv% or GAA to evaluate a goalie. This phobia only seems to surface when trying to track team stats.
And in the end, Corsi is still a better predictor for success than actual standings position. I feel like that is pretty significant. It doesn't pan out all the time. But it does 60% of the time. So yeah, 40% of the time, you will be able to find cases where it doesn't work. I mean, that's literally how the numbers work.
So there are things that one can do to buck the trend and go against the stats/patterns that are in play. But I think what I'm trying to accomplish in this thread is looking at these various team categories, and see what implications the regular season stats might have on the playoffs. Which teams are setting themselves up for the best chance of success?
The question is NOT, "Which teams are definitely going to have the most success?"
It's more about trying to sniff out the real contenders in a league where nearly half the time, the lesser seed is able to win a playoff round.
|
|
|
Post by lari on Oct 24, 2017 15:51:32 GMT
There will never be a singular stat that could account for everything. Stop overthinking. How does (regulation) win-% correlate to winning championships?
|
|
|
Post by Pez68 on Oct 24, 2017 15:53:06 GMT
Yep. And I mostly agree with you. It's a good indicator of how likely a team is to have postseason success, but I still don't see stats that can predict this more often than not... The best predictors I've seen for postseason matchups based on advanced stats were hitting at roughly 60%. If you consider the fact that a coin toss is 50/50...it's still not all that useful.
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Oct 24, 2017 16:05:54 GMT
There will never be a singular stat that could account for everything. Stop overthinking. How does (regulation) win-% correlate to winning championships? Teams with a better win% end up winning 54.6% of the playoff series dating back to 2008 playoffs.
This is what I mean when I say corsi is better than standings.
I guess I don't have the answer for winning in regulation specifically. I just use Points%. I wouldn't imagine Regulation Wins would be that much stronger.
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Oct 24, 2017 16:11:41 GMT
Yep. And I mostly agree with you. It's a good indicator of how likely a team is to have postseason success, but I still don't see stats that can predict this more often than not... The best predictors I've seen for postseason matchups based on advanced stats were hitting at roughly 60%. If you consider the fact that a coin toss is 50/50...it's still not all that useful. I think given how random hockey can be, it's tough to get much higher than 60%. As my last post suggests: It's a bit ridiculous that the team with a higher Points% only wins a series about 54% of the time. That SHOULd be higher. It's great to have parity, but that seems like TOO much parity to me. Being that close to 50% means we're basically just wasting our time with the aforementioned coin flips (not talent levels) for 6.5 months.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 24, 2017 19:21:48 GMT
Using goal differential is a pretty solid indicator...although the Wild of last year throw a wrench into that.
Thing us, reg season and playoffs are so different....some teams playy a playoff type game and some do not....last years hawks, for example...CORSI cant sccount for that.
|
|
|
Post by soccer24 on Oct 24, 2017 20:41:08 GMT
And like always.... Agreed that a single stat will never depict the whole story, an exception or several will always loom.
BUT.
As far as the formula I've put together, it had Minnesota rated as the 12th best playoff team that year. Pittsburgh was 4th. Nashville was 9th. Chicago 11th. Full list, best to worst (full-disclosure, last year was one of the worst years the formula worked):
Washington Montreal Boston Pittsburgh San Jose Columbus Anaheim Edmonton Nashville St. Louis Chicago Minnesota Calgary Toronto NY Rangers Ottawa
Despite Ottawa being at the bottom here, I think that's fully deserved. That team never had any right getting as far as they did. I imagine they ruined many brackets last year.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 24, 2017 21:06:56 GMT
I think your formula just flat out skipped last year
|
|