On Wednesday, we released the hounds (Kent Wilson) on an article by Brian Cazeneuve at Sports Illustrated. Kent took issue with the absence of any mention of puck possession stats (i.e. Corsi) in an article about the importance of puck possession. We’re not sure whether Cazeneuve chose to ignore the existence of advanced stats, or if it was more a matter of failing to find a GM that would bite on discussing them openly.
Several readers hit us up with some questions and comments over email and Twitter regarding advanced statistics, some in favour and others less so. For the purpose of this post, we’ll be looking at those that consider advanced stats to be a bunch of hogwash.
Here are the highlights:
[Ed. note: The following opinions and/or views do not reflect those of the author of this article or Houses of the Hockey. Names have been changed or removed where requested.]
“Man, you don’t need all these stats to know who’s good at puck possession. You can know all this stuff just from watching. That’s what the GMs do, they just watch the games and everyone else should do the same.”
“This is total crap. How do you shit on Sports Illustrated? These are the kinds of numbers that geeks make up so they can feel close to the game. I guarantee not one of these stats guys has ever smelled the inside of a dressing room or laced up a pair of blades. Get a life.”
“What about puck possession in your own end and through the neutral zone? It seems like that’s an area that corsi ignores. There’s something to be said too about passing the puck around the offensive zone, too.”
“What a B.S. stat. The league leader in Corsi for 2010-11 was Matt Frattin! He played ONE game!”
“If Kent Wilson knew anything about the game of hockey he’d be working in it.”
Loyal Kings fan:
“Aren’t these the same kind of stats that a bunch of lawyers and scientists at SBNation used to prove that Dustin Penner was actually really good? I believe they are. In that case you can take Corsi and the lot and shove ‘em up your ass.”