I've actually heard some interviews with coaches, talking about watching for this. Apparently the players are smartening up to agents using possession stats in contract negotiations. If the choice at the end of a blowout game is to just keep the puck, or toss a nice little softy in to the goalie, apparently many players are making it practice to toss in a softy.

These guys aren't stupid (well, okay, a few are), if they know that they can jack up their salary a few 100k by taking a few more shots, even if they know they're useless shots, they're going to do so.
- prock

A few things -
1) That means they still have the puck, which is what's being measured
2) Blowouts would be filtered out by looking at Corsi Close
3) The extra one or two shots they might get off in the what, 10 (max?) blow-out games wouldn't make a dent on their corsi.
4)Also, it's not even their own personal shots that matter, it's the shots for/against while they're on the ice. And before anyone compares this to +/-, that's why you use a WOWY analysis to look at how they perform with groups of players, so that you know whether or not they're relying on others, or if they're actually driving possession.

A few things -
1) That means they still have the puck, which is what's being measured

- Feeling Glucky?

Actually it means they just gave the puck away. Regardless, it skews numbers. You can't argue it doesn't.

2) Blowouts would be filtered out by looking at Corsi Close

- Feeling Glucky?

the concept of players padding their Corsi because they know it gets used in contract negotiations isn't limited to blowouts. Obviously the point is, that they now know it gets used, and will do things throughout the course of a game to skew their numbers in a positive way.

A few things -
3) The extra one or two shots they might get off in the what, 10 (max?) blow-out games wouldn't make a dent on their corsi.
- Feeling Glucky?

Given that Corsi runs, for the most part, from 45% to 55% (anything outside that is generally the extremes), yes it does. Especially if you get 2 or 3 guys on the ice doing these little things.

4)Also, it's not even their own personal shots that matter, it's the shots for/against while they're on the ice. And before anyone compares this to +/-, that's why you use a WOWY analysis to look at how they perform with groups of players, so that you know whether or not they're relying on others, or if they're actually driving possession.
- Feeling Glucky?

oh yes, a WOWY analysis is so much more conclusive.

Your point was that

And no player is gonna go out, and take useless shots just to improve their corsi, nor will any coach instruct them to do so.

And that's what I'm telling you're wrong at, anyway. I've seen interviews where they've talked about EXACTLY that happening.

Nothing you've said refutes that. Because you can't. It's a fact, it has 100% been happening in the NHL.

Actually it means they just gave the puck away. Regardless, it skews numbers. You can't argue it doesn't.



the concept of players padding their Corsi because they know it gets used in contract negotiations isn't limited to blowouts. Obviously the point is, that they now know it gets used, and will do things throughout the course of a game to skew their numbers in a positive way.



Given that Corsi runs, for the most part, from 45% to 55% (anything outside that is generally the extremes), yes it does. Especially if you get 2 or 3 guys on the ice doing these little things.



oh yes, a WOWY analysis is so much more conclusive.

Your point was that



And that's what I'm telling you're wrong at, anyway. I've seen interviews where they've talked about EXACTLY that happening.

Nothing you've said refutes that. Because you can't. It's a fact, it has 100% been happening in the NHL.
- prock

1) you can't give the puck away if you don't have it. Corsi measures possession, not how intelligent you are with the puck. If you give the puck away, and as a result the other team gets more shots, you're not padding your corsi, you're hurting it.
2) If a player is dumb enough to just willingly give the puck away to pad his corsi, while the game is still on the line, he's gonna get benched, and again, if he's giving the puck away, this will hurt his stats in the long run.
3) given the number of tracked events that happen, no, it really really won't affect their numbers, unless they do it often enough that the coach notices and benches them.
4)Possibly most important to the point at hand: uncited interviews with no names named isn't evidence, it's hearsay and quite possibly fiction, given how dumb the premise is.


Long story short: Even if players were doing this, it wouldn't help them, and wouldn't happen frequently enough to skew any stats.

Sens analytics

If they agree with me they are good, if they dont they are bad

Long story short: Even if players were doing this, it wouldn't help them, and wouldn't happen frequently enough to skew any stats.
- Feeling Glucky?

I think you're wrong.

Let me help you out with some simple math.
Let's take all dmen who played over 750 minutes this year. There are 169 of them.

Take someone down the middle, with an average minutes played 5v5 out them. So, 1000 or so minutes. I'll take Jordie Benn on Montreal.

He came in at 49.8% CF%, with 1034 minutes, 60.82 CF60, and 61.29CA60

That's a total of 1048 CORSI events for, and 1070 Corsi events against.

Let's say he (or ANYONE on the ice with him) tosses a puck at the net at some point that really makes no difference, in a game. For each of his 71 games, add one Corsi event for. That's now 1119 Corsi events for. 64.06 CF60.

His CF% is now 51.1%.

He just jumped from 81st out of 169, to 54th. He just passed 27 dmen, out of 169.

that's not a small jump.

what a mess

I've actually heard some interviews with coaches, talking about watching for this. Apparently the players are smartening up to agents using possession stats in contract negotiations. If the choice at the end of a blowout game is to just keep the puck, or toss a nice little softy in to the goalie, apparently many players are making it practice to toss in a softy.

These guys aren't stupid (well, okay, a few are), if they know that they can jack up their salary a few 100k by taking a few more shots, even if they know they're useless shots, they're going to do so.
- prock

Pay attention to Prock on this. There are many things we disagree about but on this subject I tend to agree with his perspective, especially as it relates to the idea that coaches and players make a difference. My favourite read today is a Hockey News fancy stat guy trying to explain how his model has predicted a Sens win over the Rangers despite his saying they were a terrible team all season. The backsliding is so dramatic the guy is going to give himself a hernia.

"I meant every word I said all season. Ottawa was a bad team getting some breaks. Was. This is a very different group than the one that won games inexplicably in the first half of the season. Their bottom six was atrocious, but adding Alex Burrows, Viktor Stalberg, and Tommy Wingels has pushed some very bad players out of the lineup. Then there’s the Clarke MacArthur factor. That’s a big time addition right before the playoffs that very few models can account for. He’s a good player that’s already scored some big time goals these playoffs.
All those depth additions add up and they’ve suddenly got four actually capable lines. They’re led by Mark Stone and Mike Hoffman up front, two very talented and underrated wingers who I believe could arguably be the best forwards on the Rangers. Combine that with the fact they have the league’s best defenseman on the backend and Craig Anderson playing his best hockey in years – suddenly it doesn’t seem all that crazy for Ottawa to win. This current iteration is a slightly above average hockey club, and that could be enough to take down New York."

Pay attention to Prock on this. There are many things we disagree about but on this subject I tend to agree with his perspective, especially as it relates to the idea that coaches and players make a difference. My favourite read today is a Hockey News fancy stat guy trying to explain how his model has predicted a Sens win over the Rangers despite his saying they were a terrible team all season. The backsliding is so dramatic the guy is going to give himself a hernia.

"I meant every word I said all season. Ottawa was a bad team getting some breaks. Was. This is a very different group than the one that won games inexplicably in the first half of the season. Their bottom six was atrocious, but adding Alex Burrows, Viktor Stalberg, and Tommy Wingels has pushed some very bad players out of the lineup. Then there’s the Clarke MacArthur factor. That’s a big time addition right before the playoffs that very few models can account for. He’s a good player that’s already scored some big time goals these playoffs.
All those depth additions add up and they’ve suddenly got four actually capable lines. They’re led by Mark Stone and Mike Hoffman up front, two very talented and underrated wingers who I believe could arguably be the best forwards on the Rangers. Combine that with the fact they have the league’s best defenseman on the backend and Craig Anderson playing his best hockey in years – suddenly it doesn’t seem all that crazy for Ottawa to win. This current iteration is a slightly above average hockey club, and that could be enough to take down New York."
- spatso

I still think the senaturds get spanked.

My prediction - the series lasts 4 or 5 games, and over the course of those games, the senaturds don't score more than 6 goals.

I still think the senaturds get spanked.

My prediction - the series lasts 4 or 5 games, and over the course of those games, the senaturds don't score more than 6 goals.
- prock

I would be entirely disappointed if you said anything else.

I believe Sens score more in this series than they did against Boston. Sens lead playoffs in takeaways and Rangers lead playoffs in neutral zone giveaways.

I think you're wrong.

Let me help you out with some simple math.
Let's take all dmen who played over 750 minutes this year. There are 169 of them.

Take someone down the middle, with an average minutes played 5v5 out them. So, 1000 or so minutes. I'll take Jordie Benn on Montreal.

He came in at 49.8% CF%, with 1034 minutes, 60.82 CF60, and 61.29CA60

That's a total of 1048 CORSI events for, and 1070 Corsi events against.

Let's say he (or ANYONE on the ice with him) tosses a puck at the net at some point that really makes no difference, in a game. For each of his 71 games, add one Corsi event for. That's now 1119 Corsi events for. 64.06 CF60.

His CF% is now 51.1%.

He just jumped from 81st out of 169, to 54th. He just passed 27 dmen, out of 169.

that's not a small jump.
- prock

OMG Gaming Corsi

Its not even worth discussing its so dumb

OMG Gaming Corsi

Its not even worth discussing its so dumb
- senstroll

You may think so, but it's starting to happen.

If you're in the NHL, and you know you can bump your precious Corsi rating up past 25% of the other dmen, and these things are getting used in negotiations, don't you do it?

They've made their way into contract negotiations for a few years now:

http://www.thehockeynews....nhl-contract-negotiations

And an NHL coach telling you (along with an NHL player confirming it), that players are doing it:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/...ats/ar-AAkoj8y?li=AAggXBR

I think you're wrong.

Let me help you out with some simple math.
Let's take all dmen who played over 750 minutes this year. There are 169 of them.

Take someone down the middle, with an average minutes played 5v5 out them. So, 1000 or so minutes. I'll take Jordie Benn on Montreal.

He came in at 49.8% CF%, with 1034 minutes, 60.82 CF60, and 61.29CA60

That's a total of 1048 CORSI events for, and 1070 Corsi events against.

Let's say he (or ANYONE on the ice with him) tosses a puck at the net at some point that really makes no difference, in a game. For each of his 71 games, add one Corsi event for. That's now 1119 Corsi events for. 64.06 CF60.

His CF% is now 51.1%.

He just jumped from 81st out of 169, to 54th. He just passed 27 dmen, out of 169.

that's not a small jump.
- prock

If he's just dumping the puck in, causing a turn over, then the other team will get possession, and likely take more than one shot attempt in return, so unless this player dumps the puck and runs to the bench before the other team can turn around, then he's going to wind up with a net negative.

I thought it was a lock that Golden State win last year.

You never know.

The odds are slim that anyone but those two win.

I bet you could make some $ betting on just those two teams. I wonder what the bodog odds were?
- prock

Nothing is a lock when Lebron is on your team. Say what you will about his personality, but when he decides to rip another team apart there's literally nothing they can do about it. His ability to play every place on the floor is freakish.

That being said, even he will have a very difficult time stopping KD and Curry unless the other sad sacks on his team also elevate. Have to say the smart money is on Golden State this year.

I'm going to bet Cavs in 6 in the next round though. I think the Raps can take a couple again. Not the entire series though. Not a hope.

If he's just dumping the puck in, causing a turn over, then the other team will get possession, and likely take more than one shot attempt in return, so unless this player dumps the puck and runs to the bench before the other team can turn around, then he's going to wind up with a net negative.
- Feeling Glucky?

You can try to argue all you want, at the end of the day, you're wrong, it's happened.

so much stupid

You may think so, but it's starting to happen.

If you're in the NHL, and you know you can bump your precious Corsi rating up past 25% of the other dmen, and these things are getting used in negotiations, don't you do it?

They've made their way into contract negotiations for a few years now:

http://www.thehockeynews....nhl-contract-negotiations

And an NHL coach telling you (along with an NHL player confirming it), that players are doing it:

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/...ats/ar-AAkoj8y?li=AAggXBR
- prock

That article is pure speculation. Players saying other guys might do it, but that they personally don't.

And Trotz not understanding Corsi.

eesh.

You can try to argue all you want, at the end of the day, you're wrong, it's happened.
- prock

Well, with absolutely 0 evidence or logic to back you up, I guess you're right!

"I want to punch our analytics people on a daily basis because they come to me with stuff that when they tell me that [Borowiecki]’s no good, I say ‘why don’t you go on the ice with Boro and tell me how much fun it is to get hit ten times in a row?’ Guys go the other way sometimes, but analytics can’t tell you that.”


- Pierre Dorion

"I want to punch our analytics people on a daily basis because they come to me with stuff that when they tell me that
- Nucker101[Borowiecki]’s no good, I say ‘why don’t you go on the ice with Boro and tell me how much fun it is to get hit ten times in a row?’ Guys go the other way sometimes, but analytics can’t tell you that.”


- Pierre Dorion

truculence baby

Well, with absolutely 0 evidence or logic to back you up, I guess you're right!
- Feeling Glucky?

Yeah, I'm sure you're insistence that it doesn't happen is much better than a coach and a player saying it does.

Such ignorance.

Whether you think it works or not, you're kidding yourself if you don't think some of these guys know it gets into contract negoatiations, and will try to "game" them. Of course it happens, you're naive to think it doesn't.

to shoot the puck you need possession. if you're taking bad shots but still regaining possession so you can take more bad shots i don't exactly see how using the stat to track possession is hurt in any meaningful way.

"I want to punch our analytics people on a daily basis because they come to me with stuff that when they tell me that
- Nucker101[Borowiecki]’s no good, I say ‘why don’t you go on the ice with Boro and tell me how much fun it is to get hit ten times in a row?’ Guys go the other way sometimes, but analytics can’t tell you that.”


- Pierre Dorion

I had not seen that quote before. It is pretty good and makes a huge point. The truth is there is very little connection between team Corsi results and regular standings and playoff success. I am convinced if you just used the ratio of actual shots on goal to shots against it would be a far more accurate indicator of competitive success. But, obviously not as good a measure as goals scored to goals against.

The fact that the coach of the Washington Capitals has no idea what Corsi is tells you just how goofy the entire discussion has become.

I had not seen that quote before. It is pretty good and makes a huge point. The truth is there is very little connection between team Corsi results and regular standings and playoff success. I am convinced if you just used the ratio of actual shots on goal to shots against it would be a far more accurate indicator of competitive success. But, obviously not as good a measure as goals scored to goals against.

The fact that the coach of the Washington Capitals has no idea what Corsi is tells you just how goofy the entire discussion has become.
- spatso

There's more to analytics than corsi though. Just off of the top of my head:


1) Zone entries. Controlled zone entries lead to more goals than dump-ins, this is a good way to measure which players thrive/struggle in the neutral zone and transition.

2) Evaluating a player's luck offensively by looking at his sh% and on-ice sh%

3) Quality of shots taken/allowed when the player is on the ice

I bet there's a staggering difference between the amount of data teams that actually respect analytics look at versus the teams like Vancouver/Colorado/Ottawa that don't really care for them.

to shoot the puck you need possession. if you're taking bad shots but still regaining possession so you can take more bad shots i don't exactly see how using the stat to track possession is hurt in any meaningful way.
- daeth

I think the point is more around the idea that, let's say instead of dumping it in, you toss it on net, to the goalie. They're going to get possession anyway. Or the end of a period, instead of just letting it go. or various other instances.

There are absolutely ways of skewing shots, or attempted shots, to their advantage. Do they do it? I think it would be stupid to think none of them do. How often, I don't know.

but their paycheques are now involved, so you're kidding yourself if you think they're not trying to do some little things to manipulate it.

I think the point is more around the idea that, let's say instead of dumping it in, you toss it on net, to the goalie. They're going to get possession anyway. Or the end of a period, instead of just letting it go. or various other instances.

There are absolutely ways of skewing shots, or attempted shots, to their advantage. Do they do it? I think it would be stupid to think none of them do. How often, I don't know.

but their paycheques are now involved, so you're kidding yourself if you think they're not trying to do some little things to manipulate it.
- prock

Again, I highly doubt teams invested in analytics are using Corsi as their main evaluation tool. So yeah, some scrub player can trying shooting the puck a lot, but things like zone entries, quality of shots for/against will expose him for not being very talented.