I would pretty confidently say that is much more than the typical difference, at least on a good team. Much more in fact.

But I'd also pretty confidently say that's not the norm for Karlsson. We can actually say that for fact, given that on average, the senaturds give up more shots with him on the ice. In fact, the ratio of shots FOR the senaturds, vs shots against, in comparison to the rest of the team, is actually pretty neutral (slightly positive) for karlson.
- prock

Oh, I was only looking at position players not goalies.
- senstroll

Goaltender is not a "position"?

Seriously, I do not understand how Boston can appear to dominate in terms of possession without registering as many shots on goal or having as many red zone shots? I understand how the possession numbers can be indicative of outcomes in high scoring games. But, what does it mean against a team that does not allow many goals.
- spatso

are you steve simmons?

Seriously, I do not understand how Boston can appear to dominate in terms of possession without registering as many shots on goal or having as many red zone shots? I understand how the possession numbers can be indicative of outcomes in high scoring games. But, what does it mean against a team that does not allow many goals.
- spatso

It matters when that team doesn't score many goals.

Can't score if you don't have possession.

Possession is tracked by shot attempts, because generally speaking, the more a team has the puck, the more they try to shoot the puck at net.

Pretty simple

The refs blew it, no question.
- Aetherial

HB Rainman

Love Mark Stone.
- spatso

Has been playing at maybe 50 to 60 percent, still feeling effects of whatever injury he had in the latter part of season, that caused him to sit out a number of games.

It's a great time to be a sports fan in Toronto. The Blue Jays are among the best in the league, as are the Raptors. the TFC just lost in the championship game, and the Leafs are within a couple of years of being one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the league.

- prock

Dude, I think you may have jinxed them....... guess they'll have to tank now.

It matters when that team doesn't score many goals.

Can't score if you don't have possession.

Possession is tracked by shot attempts, because generally speaking, the more a team has the puck, the more they try to shoot the puck at net.

Pretty simple
- Feeling Glucky?

Seriously. I work with evidenced based numbers everyday and I can't find the evidence that NHL fancy stats are predictive of anything. The numbers are generally similar for both Corsi and Fenwick (5 on 5 and 5 on 5 close). But for illustration purposes let's look at CF% (5 on 5).

The obvious point is that LA is ranked number 1 in regular season CF% but they did not make the playoffs. Indeed, Corsi top 10 performers like Carolina, Philadelphia and Tampa Bay also missed. If Corsi was being sold as an investment tool and it missed on 40% of your top 10 performers out of 30 you would fire the guy that developed the model.

The idea that a team Corsi number or ranking is predictive of probable outcome needs to be tested against actual outcomes. So, for example, if you look at CF% head to head for playoff teams you can get an idea of the total absence of evidence. The numbers used are the CF% (5 on 5) regular season 2016-17.

Washington (5) vs Toronto (20) series even
Montreal (3) vs New York (23) New York leads series 3-2
Columbus (14) vs Pittsburgh (16) Pittsburgh wins series
Boston (2) vs Ottawa (22) Ottawa leads series 3-1

Nashville (6) vs Chicago (12) Nashville wins series
St. Louis (15) vs Minnesota (20) St. Louis leads 3-1
San Jose (8) vs Edmonton (18) San Jose leads 3-2
Calgary (10) vs Anaheim (19) Anaheim wins series

If you look at the Corsi regular season rankings, 6 of 16 teams qualifying for the playoffs are among the bottom 14 (of 30). Pittsburgh, perhaps the best looking playoff team grabbed the 16th Corsi rank.

I would not make an investment decision on Corsi numbers and would caution anyone thinking about doing so.

The guys pumping the numbers are frauds. But because they are getting paid to do it they continue with the illusion that these number actually mean something, they don't.

Give me the scoreboard. And, because SOG are recorded on the scoreboard in all NHL rinks I will concede that shots on goal (for and against) is typically reflective of outcome. SOG also acknowledges the disproportionate influence that good or bad goaltending has on outcomes. Beyond that, the fancy numbers tell us nothing that is reliably measurable. If it is not reliable, it is junk.

Goaltender is not a "position"?
- D0PPELGANGER

The term is used in baseball, sorry if that confuses you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_player


The term is also used in hockey, to refer to all non-goaltender players, although skater is the more common term in hockey.

Seriously. I work with evidenced based numbers everyday and I can't find the evidence that NHL fancy stats are predictive of anything. The numbers are generally similar for both Corsi and Fenwick (5 on 5 and 5 on 5 close). But for illustration purposes let's look at CF% (5 on 5).

The obvious point is that LA is ranked number 1 in regular season CF% but they did not make the playoffs. Indeed, Corsi top 10 performers like Carolina, Philadelphia and Tampa Bay also missed. If Corsi was being sold as an investment tool and it missed on 40% of your top 10 performers out of 30 you would fire the guy that developed the model.

The idea that a team Corsi number or ranking is predictive of probable outcome needs to be tested against actual outcomes. So, for example, if you look at CF% head to head for playoff teams you can get an idea of the total absence of evidence. The numbers used are the CF% (5 on 5) regular season 2016-17.

Washington (5) vs Toronto (20) series even
Montreal (3) vs New York (23) New York leads series 3-2
Columbus (14) vs Pittsburgh (16) Pittsburgh wins series
Boston (2) vs Ottawa (22) Ottawa leads series 3-1

Nashville (6) vs Chicago (12) Nashville wins series
St. Louis (15) vs Minnesota (20) St. Louis leads 3-1
San Jose (8) vs Edmonton (18) San Jose leads 3-2
Calgary (10) vs Anaheim (19) Anaheim wins series

If you look at the Corsi regular season rankings, 6 of 16 teams qualifying for the playoffs are among the bottom 14 (of 30). Pittsburgh, perhaps the best looking playoff team grabbed the 16th Corsi rank.

I would not make an investment decision on Corsi numbers and would caution anyone thinking about doing so.

The guys pumping the numbers are frauds. But because they are getting paid to do it they continue with the illusion that these number actually mean something, they don't.

Give me the scoreboard. And, because SOG are recorded on the scoreboard in all NHL rinks I will concede that shots on goal (for and against) is typically reflective of outcome. SOG also acknowledges the disproportionate influence that good or bad goaltending has on outcomes. Beyond that, the fancy numbers tell us nothing that is reliably measurable. If it is not reliable, it is junk.
- spatso

The first thing you need to do is understand and accept hockey has a large Randomness or Luck component. around 35%, probably the most of any of the major sports.

Also using results from series that are only half over does not make sense. the Ultimate goal is winning the cup. In the past 7 or 8 years the better Corsi teams have risen to the top. There is nothing in hockey that is 100% including Corsi and other related stats. In order to be useful they dont have to be 100% accurate because nothing is.

The term is used in baseball, sorry if that confuses you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_player


The term is also used in hockey, to refer to all non-goaltender players, although skater is the more common term in hockey.
- senstroll

Aquinas taught us that randomness or acts of Providence were entirely unpredictable unless influenced by a physical or mystical bias.

But the argument for randomness is essentially a way of saying Corsi is less than perfect. The problem here is far worse. It is entirely unreliable. It is misleading. If LA Kings are #1 in your statistical model you know your model is broken.

The first thing you need to do is understand and accept hockey has a large Randomness or Luck component. around 35%, probably the most of any of the major sports.

Also using results from series that are only half over does not make sense. the Ultimate goal is winning the cup. In the past 7 or 8 years the better Corsi teams have risen to the top. There is nothing in hockey that is 100% including Corsi and other related stats. In order to be useful they dont have to be 100% accurate because nothing is.
- senstroll

I think the score, at the end of games, is 100% correct in showing which team won the game.

Fans of other teams may not like the score, and resort to fancy boy stats to tear down the team they dislike, or build up the one they like .......... in the end, fancy boy stats are just as predictive as anything else, including a hunch, or a gut feeling, is respect to hockey.


Fancy boy stats are much more suited to MLB.

Aquinas taught us that randomness or acts of Providence were entirely unpredictable unless influenced by a physical or mystical bias.

But the argument for randomness is essentially a way of saying Corsi is less than perfect. The problem here is far worse. It is entirely unreliable. It is misleading. If LA Kings are #1 in your statistical model you know your model is broken.
- spatso

If you look at the cup winners going back to 2010 and the CF% rank..Its not a perfect stat, nothing is.

#2
#2
#1
#4
#2
#14
#1

But its pretty good

I think the score, at the end of games, is 100% correct in showing which team won the game.

Fans of other teams may not like the score, and resort to fancy boy stats to tear down the team they dislike, or build up the one they like .......... in the end, fancy boy stats are just as predictive as anything else, including a hunch, or a gut feeling, is respect to hockey.


Fancy boy stats are much more suited to MLB.
- D0PPELGANGER

Sure your hunches and gut feeling will def out preform them

If you look at the cup winners going back to 2010 and the CF% rank..Its not a perfect stat, nothing is.

#2
#2
#1
#4
#2
#14
#1

But its pretty good
- senstroll

they are both colossal morons, don't waste your time with them

Sure your hunches and gut feeling will def out preform them
- senstroll

I know you avoided this issue before, by simply not answering when I asked you about the two teams, after last season, that decided to go "All In on analytics" and drafted, traded and resigned or let go players and restructured their teams, based heavily on analytics

The two teams were the Panthers, and the Coyotes, so how did that turn out for them, and will you respond with crickets again?


https://www.fanragsports....reates-questions-answers/

http://www.12news.com/spo...acing-analytics/336672583

I know you avoided this issue before, by simply not answering when I asked you about the two teams, after last season, that decided to go "All In on analytics" and drafted, traded and resigned or let go players and restructured their teams, based heavily on analytics

The two teams were the Panthers, and the Coyotes, so how did that turn out for them, and will you respond with crickets again?


https://www.fanragsports....reates-questions-answers/

http://www.12news.com/spo...acing-analytics/336672583
- D0PPELGANGER

I saw it and didnt address it, because its dumb

you dont turn a team around in 1 year, its a process and most teams cant wait it out they keep firing and hiring people like the Panthers.

what about the Leafs? What about the Pens? they both have done the same

http://www.thehockeynews....t-to-build-analytics-team

The Pens stumbled around since 2009 cup win, being good but not good enough. Hired some nerds and then won the cup again.

Now dont take that as the sole reason they won the cup last year, because I know thats your next go to comment.

Stop asking dumb questions

If you look at the cup winners going back to 2010 and the CF% rank..Its not a perfect stat, nothing is.

#2
#2
#1
#4
#2
#14
#1

But its pretty good
- senstroll

I am not against fancy stats. I enjoy the discussion around them. My problem is when someone assumes that a positive fancy stat is in itself a meaningful outcome. For example, do we need a presentation ceremony to honour the LA Kings for winning the regular season CF% (5 on 5) trophy? We even have weekly power rankings based on fancy stats that imply that the actual standings are less important than a notional criteria of possession.

The New York Rangers are the lowest fancy ranked team in the playoffs. They rely on strong goaltending, good defence, shot blocking, controlling the neutral zone and the ability to counter attack with speed. There is no doubt their coach values team defence over everything else, not unlike a Roman centurion that was highly trained on how to defend. The Romans understood that in defending against a very strong attack they could do severe damage to their opponents and actually win even as their opponents continued to attack.

When a game is over the winning team usually had more shots and more possession than the losing team. But, I have no idea what CF% tells us beyond shots for and against.

I saw it and didnt address it, because its dumb

you dont turn a team around in 1 year, its a process and most teams cant wait it out they keep firing and hiring people like the Panthers.

what about the Leafs? What about the Pens? they both have done the same

http://www.thehockeynews....t-to-build-analytics-team

The Pens stumbled around since 2009 cup win, being good but not good enough. Hired some nerds and then won the cup again.

Now dont take that as the sole reason they won the cup last year, because I know thats your next go to comment.

Stop asking dumb questions
- senstroll

The Pens won because they stole Kessel from the Leafs and they added more depth to their speed and scoring. Kessel should have won the Conn Smyth last year and there is a good chance he will win it this year.

The only way you could say that you haven't seen any evidence of possession stats being a predictor of success is if you've actively been avoiding anything that might suggest that.

You can't expect the rankings to line up 1 to 1, but if you're a bottom-10 team in possession at the end of a season, it's pretty safe to say that if you don't go out of your way to address that over the off season, your position in the standings is going to trend towards your possession rank, and the opposite is also true.

You can find outliers over the course of a season, but they are just that, and they almost always correct.

The Pens won because they stole Kessel from the Leafs and they added more depth to their speed and scoring. Kessel should have won the Conn Smyth last year and there is a good chance he will win it this year.
- spatso

"stole"

The Leafs got a prospect that's head and shoulders above any forward prospect Ottawa has in their system, plus the picks used to get Andersen.


Even ignoring that it set us up for drafting Matthews, that's a pretty damn good return for a player who's useful time to the team had run out.

I am not against fancy stats. I enjoy the discussion around them. My problem is when someone assumes that a positive fancy stat is in itself a meaningful outcome. For example, do we need a presentation ceremony to honour the LA Kings for winning the regular season CF% (5 on 5) trophy? We even have weekly power rankings based on fancy stats that imply that the actual standings are less important than a notional criteria of possession.

The New York Rangers are the lowest fancy ranked team in the playoffs. They rely on strong goaltending, good defence, shot blocking, controlling the neutral zone and the ability to counter attack with speed. There is no doubt their coach values team defence over everything else, not unlike a Roman centurion that was highly trained on how to defend. The Romans understood that in defending against a very strong attack they could do severe damage to their opponents and actually win even as their opponents continued to attack.

When a game is over the winning team usually had more shots and more possession than the losing team. I have no idea CF% tells us beyond shots for and against.
- spatso

The Rangers have the best goalie in the NHL from the past 10 years, they are going to do well with that. Still hasnt won them the cup though.

The Bruins won the cup in 2011 being middle of the pack..but that was the year Thomas has one of the best goalie performances ever in the playoffs.

If I had a choice of my team being the best CF% or the Presidents trophy winner going into the playoffs, I would pick CF%

The Rangers have the best goalie in the NHL from the past 10 years, they are going to do well with that. Still hasnt won them the cup though.

The Bruins won the cup in 2011 being middle of the pack..but that was the year Thomas has one of the best goalie performances ever in the playoffs.

If I had a choice of my team being the best CF% or the Presidents trophy winner going into the playoffs, I would pick CF%
- senstroll

Los Angeles Kings, really!

I don't disagree with the basic principle of fancy stats in wanting to provide a different yardstick for measuring the quality of performance. But it is not in itself a result.

The first thing you need to do is understand and accept hockey has a large Randomness or Luck component. around 35%, probably the most of any of the major sports.

Also using results from series that are only half over does not make sense. the Ultimate goal is winning the cup. In the past 7 or 8 years the better Corsi teams have risen to the top. There is nothing in hockey that is 100% including Corsi and other related stats. In order to be useful they dont have to be 100% accurate because nothing is.
- senstroll

Part of what drives me nuts about the advanced stats crowd is that they think they have all the answers, and many think it boils down to one particular stat that can measure how good someone is defensively, or overall. It really isn't that simple, and it's stupid of those to think that it is.

How do you know that what you're definitively referring to as "randomness" is just something they haven't figured out how to measure just yet? How do you know that the deployment a player has, which many advanced stats people stupidly brush aside, actually plays a big portion of what you're referring to as "luck".

I mean, at it's base, using shot attempts vs shots, is just using bigger numbers, and I'm going to guess that if you were to compare CF vs team shots for, and CA vs team shots against, the number would come out reasonably close to what they are anyway. And really, it's not rocket science saying that if you outshoot a team, you'll win more often than lose. That's really not all that "advanced". It also ignores a lot of factors (which other stats attempt to address). It's common sense.

It's also common sense that a player primarily put in defensive situations will score less. And players put in offensive situations will score more. Statements like "a zone start only effects possession for the first 10 seconds, on average", are pretty silly, given that there are what, 60 faceoffs a game? By my math that means 10 minutes of every game, which is incredibly significant when it comes to CORSI. Then you get morons (not saying you) that brush aside the importance of faceoff guys. Tell that the vast majority of NHL teams who employ video guys to analyze other teams guys and how they take their faceoffs. Hell, they even analyze refs, and what side of the faceoff dot each ref is more likely to drop a puck closer to.

I think the first thing you need to do is stop assuming you can measure everything, already have all the stats to do so, and trying to explain anything you can't as "luck". And stop thinking you know better than everyone else. Especially those who think they know better than NHL teams....