sammyk

Random Thoughts & Stuff

8,765 posts in this topic

I'm not much for new age stats, but I keep haring about the CORSI rating, can 1 of you explain it to me??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not much for new age stats, but I keep haring about the CORSI rating, can 1 of you explain it to me??

Something that a lot of people use to determine possession. I believe it is shots+missed wide.

Fenwick is shots+missed shots+ blocked shots. Belongs to the theory of, the more the team shots, the more likely it is to go in. For example, think of the 2012 ECF vs. the rangers. Shots were about even, I believe, but in terms of Fenwick it was something crazy like 60-30 in favor of the Devils. In the early games of the series. Goes to show that it is unsustainable to get crushed in possession and win frequently.

Teams that lead the league in Fenwick and Corsi tend to sit at the top of the standings.

While one might say "who cares, a shot missed is a shot missed", that isn't really what this is about. It's more about to show possession.

Edited by Devils Pride 26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that a lot of people use to determine possession. I believe it is shots+missed wide.

Fenwick is shots+missed shots+ blocked shots. Belongs to the theory of, the more the team shots, the more likely it is to go in. For example, think of the 2012 ECF vs. the rangers. Shots were about even, I believe, but in terms of Fenwick it was something crazy like 60-30 in favor of the Devils. In the early games of the series. Goes to show that it is unsustainable to get crushed in possession and win frequently.

Teams that lead the league in Fenwick and Corsi tend to sit at the top of the standings.

While one might say "who cares, a shot missed is a shot missed", that isn't really what this is about. It's more about to show possession.

OK, I understand the theory, cannot say I disagree, but not sure I love the missed the net part of the equation, but I get it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I understand the theory, cannot say I disagree, but not sure I love the missed the net part of the equation, but I get it...

I think it's a useful tool when missing a game. Watching the highlights shows the very few clips from the game, corsi/fenwick give a better feel to how the game went

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, & I agree, no better tool then wathcing thegame, donot care what the "stats" say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for asking, Red.  I didn't know what Corsi and Fenwick were either, and I figured they were some complicated formulas that you had to be a math major to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This page does a good job of explaining Corsi and Fenwick and how to use and interpret them meaningfully.  They are a great way to determine how evenly a game was played because it lets you see what team generated more offense since shots on goal excludes a lot.  You can also use these stats player by player to get a better idea of who is driving the play and who may be dead weight.  On the individual level though, you also have to consider line matchups since generally a first line is going to have higher percentages than a checking line.

 

Here's Part 2 of that link.  This one explains how to use these stats to dig deeper and weed out some variables that might skew the numbers.

 

I hope that sometime soon we see this stuff become mainstream and get used during broadcasts and in highlight shows.  I think before that happens though, either Corsi or Fenwick will have to win out over the other since the two stats are pretty similar and aim to portray the same thing.  I also think they might need a name that says what it actually means.  Nobody needs to be explained what a shot on goal or a giveaway is, but there is nobody that knows what a Fenwick is until someone explains it to them first, and I think that is something that keeps it from becoming mainstream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the explanation it states that we do not have the technologyto track time of possession..

seriously? why not? I know soccer is not as fast as hockey bit if they track time of possession in soccer why not hockey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also why not just track the amount of time the puck is in each zone, I think that would give a decent idea about puck possesion as well..and which team is the agressor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also why not just track the amount of time the puck is in each zone, I think that would give a decent idea about puck possesion as well..and which team is the agressor...

I think if they're going to be timing possession, for it to be meaningful it needs to be only when the attacking team has the puck, otherwise time spent when one team is setting up a breakout would count towards the other team's possession time.  I don't really know why they can't do that though, I guess maybe the official stat keepers could since they already keep track of time on ice, but since Corsi and Fenwick seem to kept track of by blogger type people, it is too much work for them to watch each game with a stopwatch and everyone's numbers would differ slightly by the end of the game.  Corsi and Fenwick are more cut and dry and thus easier for different people counting to end up with the same numbers.  That's my guess.

EDIT:  I just looked into it and found this article that sheds some light on this.

 

The easiest way to measure possession would be with a stopwatch of course, generating a time-of-possession number similar to what we're familiar with in, say, football. And the NHL actually did measure time of possession (and time in the attacking zone) for a brief period of time between 1997 and 2004. In this 2011 article from SI, the league's chief statistician said they stopped because, well, no one used it.

 

When I first learned about Corsi and Fenwick I remember thinking that they were already keeping track of possession time, well I guess this explains why I was confused.  Turns out we don't really need Corsi or Fenwick to become more popular, we just need the NHL guys to start recording time of possession again, obviously it is doable since they did it in the past.

Edited by devilsfan26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to go off on a tangent....but this IS the place to go off on a tangent after all :P

 

It's funny how I come here to talk more football than anything else the last few years, my hockey bantering seems to stick more to my own play and facebook rantage....heh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merci, mon ami. I really enjoyed this video.  Visiting Paris is on my bucket list. :)

 

Add " asking Moustic to be mine guide during my trip in Paris " 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now