As you say, we will need to find new measures that indicate an edge.

]]>This approach has been adapted from bburke’s e adv nfl stats website. The best teams win at most 65% of games also the best theoectical predictive models top out at. I will provide links. We know that randomness is solit equally since it is not skill based.Therefore to get around a 63% winbest skilled tm must hv ~30% skill and 1/2 of the luck component. or 70/2 which is 30+35 or 65%.

This also passes the rye test. I counted ~300 goals in games llast yr and morecthan 2 out of 3 were primarly the result of luck…bad bouncec etc etc. I have made this point before and no ine has refuted it .Perhaps someone will this time? – So Corsi’s value is fighting for the 35%. I like Alan ryders old breakdown goaltending 15% defense 40% offense 45%. If we div. by 3. We get goaltending 5% skill.(about the observed skill diff we see-btw)..Off. 15% skill and def. ~13%. So the next question is how much of off is Corsi and how much of def skill is from corsi….Not sure about this answer yet as seperating D skill very tough.. Dan ]]>

I’m somewhat surprised to see the Devils that high in NetCarryIn, as they strike me as a team that, even though they produces a high Corsi%, didn’t have much offensive ability. Would it be possible to do a combination of GF% at Corsi%, and divide by 2, and see the correlation for that? (I know, sounds a bit crude, but it would be a way to combine the effects of Corsi, and the shot quality that GF% has).

]]>Where is the turning point at which forcing too many carries becomes costly?

The challenge of course is this probably varies for every player or groups of players on the ice. The risk calculations for Sidney Crosby are likely a lot different than they are for Jay McClement.

I typically believe that you generally coach conservatism and the players natural instinct is to be more on the aggressive side. The Kings dump the puck in a lot, that is probably a coaching driven decision. The Blackhawks don’t which means the coach is probably letting the players be more creative through the neutral zone.

]]>Totally agree with this statement, but I think what we need to do next is to find out which is worse: attempting to force carries (and having both a higher carry rate but also a few more turnovers) or being a bit more conservative and dumping the puck in (fewer turnovers but also lower carry rate). Where is the turning point at which forcing too many carries becomes costly?

]]>Out of curiosity, what format are you using to report your equation? The slope appears to be where I am used to seeing the intercept and vice versa.

]]>