jammer2 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 The NHL will introduce Fenwick and Corsi in their new updated stats package. The changes take place tomorrow at NHL.com....they will rename the stats blocked and unblocked shots...guess they want to dumb it down for the masses. Whole story.... http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/corsi-fenwick-sport-new-names-nhl-com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Calling it "Corsi" in the first place was sort of a fortuitous accident: http://www.tsn.ca/mckenzie-the-real-story-of-how-corsi-got-its-name-1.100011 Ferrari had no idea back then, or even during our interview in April (until I told him), that Jim Corsi was actually the individual responsible for measuring a goalie’s workload by counting shots on goal + missed shots + blocked shots and, therefore, Ferrari’s random naming of Corsi turned out to be oh so fortuitous, that Regier wouldn’t have been talking about it if not for Corsi.“Oh, I had no idea of that,” Ferrari said. “I just liked his moustache.” They don't use people's names for any other stats so just calling it what it is makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 They don't use people's names for any other stats so just calling it what it is makes sense to me. Agreed. A statistic should be self explanatory. Ideally, it should be an abbreviation for what it represents. Corsi and Fenwick are esoteric. The names mean nothing. They should be called "shot ratio" or "shot +/-" or something to that effect. ie: SOG+/- (shots on goal +/-)SR (shot ratio)SFA% (shots for and against as a percentage)Corsi and Fenwick are +/- for shots on goal, represented as a percentage, index, or whatever. Just call it what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Yea..what @JackStraw said. Unfortunately for self important stat geeks, removing the Corsi and Fenwick names probably diminishes their feeling of superiority over the more casual fan who don't quite understand what a Corsi or Fenwick is..... Now that its named what it is, the casual fan may know just as much as the pompous numbers guy.Quick...those guys better come up with another convoluted name, stat and formula for a stat...can't have the common person be on par with them..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Yea..what @JackStraw said. Unfortunately for self important stat geeks, removing the Corsi and Fenwick names probably diminishes their feeling of superiority over the more casual fan who don't quite understand what a Corsi or Fenwick is..... Now that its named what it is, the casual fan may know just as much as the pompous numbers guy. Quick...those guys better come up with another convoluted name, stat and formula for a stat...can't have the common person be on par with them..... Vic and Matt didn't have the slightest concept that the ideas would become accepted as widely as they have been, and I'm sure didn't see a need to use a more appropriate naming convention. They were having a laugh, even if the work was meant to show more than the usual boxcars tell us. It seems like your post was pretty tongue in cheek, but just to address something in a general way, and not really directed at you: pompous fans come in all varieties: numbers-based, saw-him-good, etc. My own stance is to marry the two: there's nothing wrong with saw-him-good but there ought to be something objective to bring some balance to the equation. There's nothing wrong with looking at the numbers, but you have to look at the player, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Vic and Matt didn't have the slightest concept that the ideas would become accepted as widely as they have been, and I'm sure didn't see a need to use a more appropriate naming convention. They were having a laugh, even if the work was meant to show more than the usual boxcars tell us.It seems like your post was pretty tongue in cheek, but just to address something in a general way, and not really directed at you: pompous fans come in all varieties: numbers-based, saw-him-good, etc. My own stance is to marry the two: there's nothing wrong with saw-him-good but there ought to be something objective to bring some balance to the equation. There's nothing wrong with looking at the numbers, but you have to look at the player, too. In all honesty, I have nothing against advanced stats or how anyone wants to go about coming up with ways to quantify more things in hockey.And I certainly am not one of those people that go "well we don't need no stinkin fancy stats to tell me what I can see with my own eyes".... I can see the value of watching teams and players as well as things numbers based. My post was mostly for entertainment, however, there WAS tinge of sarcasm directed at those handful of people who spew numbers then look down on others because others may not be as 'up to par' as they are on the subject.Was no real agenda other than to point out and reiterate what JackStraw said....that things SHOULD be kept simple, while still providing any extra advantages to analyzing things within our fine sport. For the most part, the "pompous" crowd is not represented on this site (for which I am glad), but I have dealt, ad nauseum, with those sorts of people on forums for quite a while now, particularly in the realm of baseball, and me being me, always find a way to jab at one or several because of the way some carry themselves. I meant no insult or ill will towards those in hockey (or on this board for that matter) who are in favor in any way of advanced stats.Like I said, I can see the value and in fact, on my own, have been endeavoring to learn more n more and apply them to the other ways I try evaluations of players and teams. Most of my posts ANYWHERE are of the 'shoe fits' variety.....so if whatever I allude to doesn't apply to a particular individual or group, then no harm no foul... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 In all honesty, I have nothing against advanced stats or how anyone wants to go about coming up with ways to quantify more things in hockey.And I certainly am not one of those people that go "well we don't need no stinkin fancy stats to tell me what I can see with my own eyes".... I can see the value of watching teams and players as well as things numbers based. I meant no insult or ill will towards those in hockey (or on this board for that matter) who are in favor in any way of advanced stats.Like I said, I can see the value and in fact, on my own, have been endeavoring to learn more n more and apply them to the other ways I try evaluations of players and teams. Most of my posts ANYWHERE are of the 'shoe fits' variety.....so if whatever I allude to doesn't apply to a particular individual or group, then no harm no foul... I made my own "advanced" stat, although I don't believe in the "basic" vs "advanced" naming distinction. They're just stats to me. Anyway, I'm hoping someone working at the NHL picks up on it and implements it (or some variation thereof). I'd like to be famous too. Well... maybe just a little bit! (Shameless plug for Defensive Errors -- the only NHL stat that measures defence.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.