drnkirishone Posted May 10, 2012 Report Posted May 10, 2012 Anyone check out OV's Corsi? :doh: That just sounds dirty to me. He shouldn't be showing that in public............ :blink:
fan2456 Posted May 11, 2012 Report Posted May 11, 2012 People really tend to misinterpret what a blocked shot being a negative in the Corsi number really means. As that post indicates, the Corsi is really just a measure of pressure. Blocking a shot in and of itself is not a bad thing, in fact it is very often a positive thing--which is why it really frosts some people that a blocked shot brings a player's Corsi down. But the Corsi is an aggregate measure, you can't just take that one portion of the measure and say it's useless, because that would be using it improperly. Vaneks corsi number? He is our star, right? For example, say a player has 6 blocked shots in a game and ends up with a -3 Corsi, while another player has 0 blocked shots and also has a -3 Corsi. Conventional wisdom may say "WTF how does somebody with 6 blocks get rated as poorly as somebody with 0? Those blocks are more valuable!" That may be the case, but it's also not what the Corsi is supposed to measure. In this hypothetical scenario, all the Corsi is saying is that both players were receiving more offensive pressure than they were generating on the opposition. While in the defensive zone, maybe player A's blocked shots are more valuable than whatever player B was doing at the time, but again, the Corsi isn't meant to measure the value of individual play in the defensive zone. So what is our supposed star Vanek's corsi number?
spndnchz Posted May 11, 2012 Report Posted May 11, 2012 So what is our supposed star Vanek's corsi number? Average.
Fire Lindy Ruff NOW Posted May 11, 2012 Report Posted May 11, 2012 haha why is the default profile picture a picture of connolly?
TrueBlueGED Posted May 14, 2012 Report Posted May 14, 2012 I think game 1 of LA-PHX was an example of how blocked shots can be a very misleading stat. The Coyotes blocked roughly twice as many shots as the Kings....but they also faced almost twice as many shots as the Kings. Blocking that many shots should in no way, shape, or form, be viewed as a positive--all it shows with a game like this is that they got their lunch handed to them.
Kristian Posted May 14, 2012 Report Posted May 14, 2012 I think game 1 of LA-PHX was an example of how blocked shots can be a very misleading stat. The Coyotes blocked roughly twice as many shots as the Kings....but they also faced almost twice as many shots as the Kings. Blocking that many shots should in no way, shape, or form, be viewed as a positive--all it shows with a game like this is that they got their lunch handed to them. Getting outplayed is obviously a bad thing, no matter how we slice it.
That Aud Smell Posted May 15, 2012 Report Posted May 15, 2012 i'm pasting in my thread from the playoff discussion, as i had a sense that this issue was being discussed in its own thread. is this being debated in another thread? i saw a piece on the hockey news (by a fella named ken campbell) who insists that what the rangers are doing is bad for hockey. http://www.thehockey...ad-for-NHL.html it appears that there's a lively debate on the subject -- kevin snow (who's affiliated with the sabres somehow?) tweeted this rejoinder: I thought guys who blocked shots were considered "warriors." Now they're doing something wrong? https://twitter.com/...218327253331968 i dunno. i watched most of the second and a chunk of the third before falling asleep. the devils owned the second and were an entertaining team to watch. the rangers are not fun to watch. also, as ghost intimated, i'm not sure that every team in the league (specifically our team) is capable of replicating the rangers' style of play. and i'm glad for that, frankly. They may not play a pure trap, but they absolutely clog up the neutral zone with 4 guys and 1 forechecker a significant amount of the time. IF they go on to win the Cup, they'll be the lowest scoring team to do so since the 2003 Devils, and that's not an accident, it's due to the system they play. And this is where we disagree. I loved the 05-07 Sabres because to me that was fun, exciting hockey. I fully understand the merits of playing a more controlled system, more grinding, less open, and so on...it's effective, it works (since the league stopped calling penalties anyway). But to me, it's not fun to watch. the rangers are every bit as dull to watch as the 2003 devils were. i do enjoy watching the 2012 devils, though.
X. Benedict Posted May 15, 2012 Report Posted May 15, 2012 the rangers are every bit as dull to watch as the 2003 devils were. i do enjoy watching the 2012 devils, though. Funny, isn't it? My thought last night was it took a more trudging Rangers brand of hockey to finally make the Devils look more interesting by comparison. :lol: It doesn't quite capture my imagination.
That Aud Smell Posted May 15, 2012 Report Posted May 15, 2012 Funny, isn't it? My thought last night was it took a more trudging Rangers brand of hockey to finally make the Devils look more interesting by comparison. :lol: It doesn't quite capture my imagination. fair deuce. i do think, though, that the devils play a fairly (moderately?) entertaining brand of hockey. okay, i am clearly dam#ing them with faint praise.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.