1

Major Assignment 2
Promoting the use and understanding of puck possession analytics
What is the question you are trying to answer?
Why are puck possession analytics, such as Corsi for%, being used or ignored by hockey
analysts and fans?
Why is this question relevant?
The research question seeks to find an answer to subjective evaluations of professional
hockey players based on statistics and/or expert opinion. The point is not bent on answering
whether one is better than the other, but rather how can one utilize an effective combination of
the two (advanced stats and traditional opinion) to build the best product on the ice possible. In a
broader scope, this research could be used to justify salary negotiation between players and
management. In its most immediate scope, this research is built on understanding current
opinions from experts and fans regarding puck possession analytics and their importance
(however big or small) to the game.
NHL organizations seek to get a leg up on their competition and utilize many resources
when it comes to coaching and developing their game, as well as scouting their future members
of the game. By now, most NHL teams recognize the importance of sport analytic practitioners
and many have begun hiring practitioners within their front offices. NHL member clubs
understand the subjectivity of sport analytics and are cautious not to over-rely on any single
advanced stat.
Analytic practitioners actively comb through advanced stats and implement their
functions in their analysis of any given player on any given night, while hockey traditionalists
might rely on older, more concrete, standard stats, such as goals, assists, points, plus/minus,
etc. Advanced stats, like old-fashioned stats, help keep track of what is happening on the ice,
including key aspects, noticeable and unnoticeable (tangible and intangible). Advanced stats can
also be better at predicting the future than old-fashioned stats (McGuire, 2014). Fans of the sport,
however, are often divided on analytics- used interchangeably with advanced stats for
communicative purposes- in hockey. Expert analysts on television, Internet, and radio are
sometimes just as confused, mislead, or uninformed as the fans.
This research intends to bridge the gap between those that think hockey analytics have
nothing to do with the sport and those that think gut feeling is overrated, based on examining the
current level of understanding of puck possession analytics, such as Corsi for%*, with the
traditional view of the sport (gut feeling). A more effective way of communicating the
importance of context is imperative to the nature and discussion of player and/or team
evaluations using or ignoring puck possession analytics.
*Corsi for% is a puck possession analytic that is defined as: Corsi for% = 100 (shot attempts for/
shot attempts for + shot attempts against) (NHL.com Stats, 2015).
What does past research say about the topic?
Past research has shown plenty of findings regarding the usefulness and practicality of
puck possession analytics. There are two major findings dealing with puck possession analyticsevidence based findings and opinion based findings. Both types of findings may use a

2
combination of qualitative and quantitative explanations, however, evidence based findings rely
more heavily on quantitative statistics and formulas to discuss and display analytic trends.
Everyones got an opinion
Within the last five years of the most contemporary research, opinion based research has
shown favorable claims for the use of puck possession analytics in some manner, as the MLBs
moneyball practices- built with smaller budgets and on the grounds of consistency- have
transitioned to the NHL and NHL organizations. Given the complexities of the two different
games, however, current advanced stats in hockey are nowhere near the level of complexity and
practicality (McIndoes Advanced stats, 2014). Whereas in a more individual sport, such as
baseball, advanced stats are more likely to accurately depict predictions and projections,
advanced stats in hockey cannot pinpoint the future of a more team-oriented climate. McIndoe
(2014) notes that significant strides have been made, but entire NHL scouting departments
cannot be replaced with a spreadsheet. Advanced stats and puck possession analytics do not
replace, but rather supplement and support evaluations. They are the check and balance system,
the reality check for our eyes, when we think we arent being misled (McIndoe, 2014).
Fans and experts often overlook the degree to which advanced stats can help translate an
aspect of the game. McGuire (2014) argues that some people disregard puck possession analytics
simply because they do not fully understand them. Consequently, those people do not put in the
effort to read up on the latest in puck possession analytics and develop a knowledge and
understanding. Both McGuire (2014) and McIndoe (2014) touch on the notion that puck
possession analytics are key to understanding advanced stats as a whole and cannot be looked at
in isolation, because they do not make up the entirety of one player, let alone one team.
To summarize, advanced stats look at how good any given player is in one statistic, one
aspect of the game, and puck possession analytics are an important part of that evaluation.
However, no single analytic can be used to blanket the overall description of a player, team, or
nature of the sport itself, without being enhanced by other claims and supporting elements that
take on a holistic approach. Puck possession analytics are merely the product of a subjective
context of the game and can only do so much when it comes to prescribing a more efficient
method of coaching or generating offense.
Han (2015) sees puck possession analytics as a new technology, a new product of the
game. The former employee of the Montreal Canadiens marketing department draws
comparisons to the practicality of analytics with the transition of the on ice result of players
switching from wooden sticks to composite sticks. Han (2015) describes a test drive metaphor,
explaining that as more people begin to use analytics, more people will begin to accept them as a
revolutionizing and crucial part of the game, similar to the transition between heavier wooden
sticks to lighter, carbon-based, composite sticks and their affect on how the game has been made
into what it is today. As the technology and methodology around analytics improves, the
behavior surrounding the analysis should become clearer (Han, 2015).
Prove it
More evidence-based findings have been found on both sides of the use or disregard of
puck possession analytics, beginning with the most basic acknowledgments of chronemics and
steeped in general point- counterpoint promotions. Since enhanced analytics are still relatively
new to hockey, each enhanced stat is essentially a work in progress. Some like Pettigrew (2014),
Macdonald (2011) and Macdonald (2012), see the need for tweaking current basic stats and/or

3
analytics. Others, like Tulsky, Detweiler, Spencer, and Sznajder (2013), see current analytic
approaches as clear-cut proof in comparisons between players or teams.
Pettigrew (2014) draws on the faults of puck possession analytics, such as Corsi and
Fenwick, describing them as proxy, making note on current limitations of Corsi and Fenwick.
Pettigrew (2014) emphasizes the unpredictability in games that are not tied or in special teams
situations (power plays and penalty kills), claiming, shooting and possession statistics have little
value. Puck possession analytics are a step up on current basic shots on goal (SOG) statistics, in
the theoretical sense that they measure how much time each team had the puck and how much
offense was generated. However, player and puck tracking technology, similar to that in other
professional sports like the NFL, will be able to directly calculate the amount of time each team
had the puck in their zone as well as how much time they possessed the puck overall, effectively
replacing the educated guesses that are Corsi and Fenwick (Pettigrew, 2014).
These calls for further developing puck possession analytics harken back to Macdonalds
2011 and 2012 examinations of other analytics to be further developed and explored. For
example, Macdonald (2011) took a look at plus-minus and tried to improve it from its current
generalized form. A player earns a plus for being on the ice when his/her team scores a goal
and a minus when a player is on the ice for a goal against. Willis (2014) acknowledges that
plus-minus is biased in favor of players who kill penalties, as they are more often to be directly
affected by the difference in number of skaters on the ice leading to short-handed goals against,
and claims that many top offensive players are dragged down by their special team play.
Macdonald (2011) approaches fixing plus-minus as a matter of using weighted shots as the
dependent variable based on how often that kind of shot results in a goal.
Macdonald (2012) also presents a case for developing an expected goals model to be used
in evaluating NHL teams and players. Taking goalies into account, a model for goals against or
net goals could be performed in similar studies of special teams situations. Although Macdonald
(2012) acknowledges, the significance of some statistics could be different for special teams
situations as opposed to even strength situations, with one problem with studying special teams
being the lack of data compared to even strength. Likewise, one could opt to break the season
into smaller chunks of games, identifying the best predictors of performance over 10-games in
any given season, likely revealing that shots would be a stronger indicator than goals
(Macdonald, 2012). The use of Macdonalds (2012) expected goals models, coupled with actual
goals scored, shots, Corsi and Fenwick, can be useful to NHL teams, analysts, and fans alike in
their evaluations.
Tulsky, Detweiler, Spencer, and Sznajder (2013) echo similar sentiments about puck
possession analytics. Teams that enter the offensive zone with puck possession as opposed to the
dump-and-chase approach have shown a clear distinction in scoring. Entry with possession was
nearly twice as valuable in terms of generating shots and scoring chances, going against
traditional North American hockey understanding, which has long depended on the dump-andchase approach to entering the offensive zone (Tulsky, Detweiler, Spencer, & Sznajder, 2013).
The emphasis on controlling the game, with puck possession in both the offensive zone and
defensive zone, is essentially what puck possession analytics offer to measure. As summarized
by McIndoes Analytics awakening (2014), [t]eams that can gain an edge in possession and
create more shot attempts usually go on to beat the teams that cant. As far as analytics go, this is
settled science and has been for a long time.

Are particular methods common?

General managers hold end of season interviews with the players on their roster as any
manager would hold a performance review with his/her employees. Sports writers and other
analysts constantly ravage stats to evaluate player performance in accordance with the
mathematicians that generate a look at advanced statistics to begin with.
When it comes to discussing the reliability and/or validity of advanced stats, interviews,
like the Hockey Roundtable mentioned above can be used to gather qualitative and quantitative
data. In regards to the actual puck possession analytics themselves, numerical methods utilizing
big data are applied. In determining traditional value (gut feeling) of a player, results may vary,
but the easiest way to obtain a uniform set of data would be to provide a survey to those with
expert opinion on the subject.
The weakness of interviews, of course, is that they can be skewed. Archival research
surrounding numerical analysis may become out of date in relation to how the game is played.
Likewise, a survey limits the yield of results to predetermined answers.
Does your question add to the body of work on the topic? If yes, what specifically are you
proposing to add? If no, how can you alter your paper and topic so that you do add something
to the body of work?
The emphasis on the need for an advanced stats member on every scouting department in
the NHL is most evidently apparent now more than ever before. Understanding the
communicative nature around puck possession analytics reflects on the credibility of each
individual analytic, as well as the importance of puck possession analytics and team evaluation
as a whole. Whether any correlation between teams with better puck possession and more goals
scored exists remains to be fully and definitively investigated, or widely accepted. Due to their
increasing prevalence and predictability measures (however large or small), adding an advanced
stats member on every scouting department in the NHL, in the large scope, shouldnt be pointing
out anything more than the obvious.
Most people point out the importance for a balance between analytics and gut feeling.
Few, if any, have tried to devise a system whereby a combination of analytics and gut feeling is
explored, explained, and implemented. It may be the nature of competition, for one reason, why
we have not seen a glimpse at this strategy process. Then again, it may be too much of an
emphasis on studying numerical advanced stats without addressing their practicality in the eyes
of expert opinion. For the sake of future research, one could explore the implementation of a
combined evaluative approach, involving analytics and gut feeling.
If nothing, I am merely adding to the discussion of the already major contribution of
advanced statistics and puck possession analytics in hockey.
Pick two methods you would like to like to use to address your question
The two methods I will be using are interviews and focus groups. Before getting started I
will be utilizing archival research methods, gathering previous findings and/or opinions from
what is already out there, in journals, hockey blogs, and professional hockey websites. In the
event of unfortunate time constraints, the focus group method could be replaced with a snowballsampling questionnaire; this is explained in further detail as the method is explored below.

5
Advanced stats provide a glimpse at who is often underrated and/or could be utilized in a
particular aspect that is greatly contributory to the benefit of the team.
Method 1- a) How will you use each method to answer your question?
INTERVIEW:
I will utilize the interview method to gain more insight into expert opinion around the
NHL regarding the use of puck possession analytics, like Corsi for%. With a better
understanding of how each NHL expert interviewed perceives analytics, I will be able to better
construct/adjust focus group (and/or survey) questions to ask fans and bloggers of the NHL. I
will attempt to fit each expert opinion into one of three categories- those who are for the use and
implementation of puck possession analytics, those who are against the use and implementation
of puck possession analytics, and those who have no opinion for or against the use and/or
implementation of puck possession analytics.
I will also ask each expert how their opinion might change between applying analytics for
real life scenarios and for fantasy hockey renderings. This will help further separate the fan side
of each expert from the analytical side of each expert. Perhaps the fan in each expert might look
at analytics a different way when it comes to drafting a fantasy hockey team than when it comes
to constructing an NHL roster and analyzing each player on a night-to-night basis. Again,
though, this all circles back to the important question, why are puck possession analytics being
used or ignored by hockey analysts and fans, while adding the element of how they are used to
be further examined in future research. Since my research question is ultimately searching for the
varying degrees of opinion regarding analytics in hockey, an interview with expert hockey
analysts is only fitting to provide detailed and in depth analysis and explanations for and against
analytics.
Method 1- b) Where and how will you get your data?
I plan to collect 12 interviews using a semi-structured interview for the interview method
portion of my research and I plan to organize six focus groups of at least 8 to 12 people in each
group (or survey at least seventy-five hockey bloggers and fans).
The semi-structured interviews would take place either in person, over phone, or via
email based communications. Of the NHL expert analysts to interview, I have selected 12 of the
top NHL writers, including NHL.com writers, Dan Rosen and Mike Morreale, Puck Daddys
(Yahoo Sports) Greg Wyshynski, and ESPN.coms Pierre LeBrun, Scott Burnside, and Craig
Custance. Included as well are Adrian Dater, Nick Goss, Sean McIndoe, James Mirtle, Elliot
Friedman, and Kevin Paul Dupont. This selected group of NHL writers were chosen based on
their knowledge of the sport, seniority, expertise in sport analytic writing (Sean McIndoe),
proximity to the NHL, proximity to specific major markets in the NHL (Toronto- James Mirtleand Boston- Nick Goss, Kevin Paul Dupont), as well as popularity (Greg Wyshynski). It is to be
acknowledged that the selected group of NHL writers to be interviewed largely shares an in
favor of bias, regarding the use of puck possession analytics in the analysis and/or evaluation of
NHL players, rosters, and fantasy teams.
(To recap, in no particular order, all NHL writers to be interviewed)
Dan Rosen, Mike Morreale, Greg Wyshynski, Adrian Dater, Nick Goss, Craig Custance,
Pierre LeBrun, Sean McIndoe, James Mirtle, Elliot Friedman, Kevin Paul Dupont, and
Scott Burnside

Method 1- c) What instruments will you use to collect your data?

For the semi-structured interviews I will ask from the list of questions below, as well as
possible follow-up questions, relating to puck possession analytics and traditionalist hockey
perspective.
- How much would you say you know about puck possession analytics in the NHL?
- Would you consider yourself for, against, or indifferent towards the use and
application of puck possession analytics in the analysis, coaching, development, etc.
for the average NHL organization?
- In your opinion, why do some analysts or fans cling to analytics?
- In your opinion, why do some analysts or fans ignore analytics?
o Both of these questions could have potential tie-ins to what previous research
has said.
- Do you use any advanced stats to critique or analyze a players playing ability or
playing style in your commentary? If not, why not? What kinds of stats do you utilize
to support your argument?
o Do you use any puck possession analytics, like Corsi for%, to supplement
your evaluation(s) or commentary? If not, why not?
- Does it make a difference if you use advanced stats or puck possession analytics to
create a fantasy hockey team roster?
- What kinds of qualities do you look for in a player when evaluating a player in real
life? When selecting players for your fantasy team?
- Whats the best way for a player to generate offense, in your opinion?
- Whats the best way for a team to generate offense, in your opinion?
Method 1- d) What are the inherent flaws in that method and how will you work to mitigate
them?
Inherent flaws in the interview method surround the bias of the interviewer, the
preconceived notions of the interviewee, the range of responses that can occur, as well as the
chance that the person being interviewed is only saying what the interviewer wants to hear. More
often than not, interviews can only assess quality, not quantity; therefore broad generalizations
concerning my topic will have to be taken lightly. Likewise, the very medium of the interview
may affect the message. In a perfect world, I would meet with every interview subject in person,
however, some interviews might have to take place over phone, via text message, and/or email,
thereby limiting the effects of nonverbals on the conversation, as well as the subjective meaning
ascertained behind every response. In order to work around the inherent flaws, I will have to
address the subjective bias of my topic (that puck possession analytics are a helpful tool), while
balancing everything under the scope of an interview with the research in mind. I am merely
fielding opinion
Method 2- a) How will you use each method to answer your question?
FOCUS GROUP/SURVEY:
I will utilize either the focus group or survey method to gain insight into how NHL fans,
as well as the NHL blogging community, views the use of puck possession analytics. A focus
group would give me further insight than a survey would, however, the question to be
contemplated before fielding public opinion regards sample size. Of course, a large enough

7
swath of fans and hockey bloggers must be included in this research, but how much is too much
for one method or the other? Bloggers will be separated into three categories, similar to those
described above- for, against, and no opinion- which can be discovered in the content of their
blogs, however, the average fans might not be as up front at first about their opinions on hockey
analytics.
Mixed opinions will be considered as showing favorable or no favorable opinion for or
against the use of puck possession analytics, under subcategories of no opinion. Mixed
opinions that are in favor of utilizing a combination of traditional approaches and puck
possession analytics will be placed in a subset of those in favor of, but lacking a major
opinion, whereas mixed opinions that do not reflect a strong sense of combined approach, yet
remain on the fence in terms of opinion will be considered against, but lacking a major
opinion. To recap, mixed opinions will be categorized under no opinion, but sub grouped
under those in favor of a combined approach or those that do not, or continue to have no opinion
(along with those that have no opinion for or against). This can be resolved by reaching the
established goal of clarifying how puck possession analytics are used and can be used for player
or team evaluations, versus how traditional gut feeling measures and translates on the ice- to
the point that each member of the focus group will come to a consensus of being for, against, or
no opinion.
In any case, at least six focus groups (two for, two against, two no opinion/mixed) seems
optimal for determining why fans and bloggers are using or choosing to ignore puck possession
analytics.
A focus group setting would allow for more in depth responses and the chance for follow
up questions to be explored, while a survey would be limited in the yield of opinions and
reasons- stated or unstated. Again, the goal would be to answer the research question in either
case and leave enough of the door open for future research for how puck possession analytics are
used, with the same presets established as the interview process (both fans and bloggers are
asked about their opinions on analytics related to the real life aspect of the game, as well as when
it comes to building their fantasy hockey team).
Method 2- b) Where and how will you get your data?
I plan to organize six focus groups of at least 8 to 12 people in each group (or survey 75
hockey bloggers and fans). Recruitment for the focus groups would be proactive as well as
advertised, while the survey would likely be through a snowball sampling technique, combined
with intentional choice of hockey bloggers. The location of the focus groups would be dependent
on how many people and/or who might be interested in participating. For starters, it would be
best to try to have the focus groups in NHL markets, such as Boston, New York, Toronto, or
Chicago. Surveys would be taken online and would therefore be unrestricted in regards to
location.
Method 2- c) What instruments will you use to collect your data?
For the focus groups/surveys, I will facilitate questions based on the ones listed below, as
well as possible follow-up questions for clarification or further intrigue, relating to puck
possession analytics and traditionalist hockey perspective. Ideally, Id like to conduct focus
groups- similar in nature to a roundtable.

8
-

Would you consider yourself for, against, or indifferent towards the use and
application of puck possession analytics in the analysis, coaching, development, etc.
(all aspects) of the average NHL organization?
Advanced stats are the result of a formula that performed the operation of combining
concrete, or measurable-by-the-eye, stats for the purpose of measuring, predicting, or
explaining player performance, team performance, or data. Would you agree with this
definition or not? What would you change, if anything?
How much do you know about advanced stats, like the puck possession analytic,
Corsi for%, for example? What does Corsi for% describe, specifically?
Why do some analysts or fans use advanced stats?
Why do some analysts or fans ignore advanced stats?
How do you evaluate players in real life situations?
o Do you use puck possession analytics, like Corsi for% to clarify or
supplement your claims? If not, why not?
If you play fantasy hockey, how do you go about drafting a fantasy hockey team?
What qualities in players are you looking for and why?
Have you ever used advanced stats to supplement or justify your reasoning for
selecting a player in a fantasy hockey league?
Whats the best way for a player to generate offense, in your opinion?
Whats the best way for a team to generate offense, in your opinion?

Potential follow-up question/scenario: How is your fantasy hockey league scored?

If the participants were given a formula for scoring, a list of players, and their corresponding
statistics (traditional and advanced), how would they analyze each player? Draft the players?
(mock run through before and/or after asking the above focus group questions).
Method 2- d) What are the inherent flaws in that method and how will you work to mitigate
them?
In regards to focus groups, there are a few disadvantages as Leslie (2010) notes.
Sometimes an individual with lots of opinions will try to dominate the discussion of the focus
group, thereby limiting the amount of general input heard, as often, the dominant individual
responds quickly and at length to every question. On the other hand, there may be those who say
little to nothing at all, sometimes even agreeing with other focus group members, despite having
something worth adding to the discussion. The focus group leader will work to assure that all
members have an equal amount of time to respond, accounting for the fact that introverts and
extroverts exist, thereby giving all members a moment or two to think before responding. The
leader will also ask each question at first to the group as a whole, and then with each member of
the group, individually.
Another factor is that group discussion often gets off track, in which group members lose
focus or may begin to talk amongst themselves, leaving the moderator to bring everyone back
together from chaos (Leslie, 2010). Finally, some members may object to having the discussion
recorded. In the case of discussion getting off hand, the moderator must allow for some time for
all members to reflect as necessary, and then bring everyones attention back to the task at hand.
Likewise, in the event of an objection to recording the focus group, the only appropriate response
is to comply with the objection and rely solely on hand written notation from the focus group
session.

References
Han, J. (2015). Practical concerns: Analytics as technology. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
Leslie, L. Z. (2010). Communication research methods in postmodern culture: a revisionist
approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Macdonald, B. (2012). An expected goals model for evaluating NHL teams and players.
Retrieved November 21, 2015.
Macdonald, B. (2011). An improved adjusted plus-minus statistic for NHL players. Retrieved
November 21, 2015.
McGuire, L. (2014). Hockey roundtable: Advanced stats. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
McIndoe, S. (2014). The NHL's analytics awakening. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
McIndoe, S. (2014). The NHL dives into the advanced-stats pool. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
NHL.com - Stats. (2015). Retrieved November 10, 2015.
Pettigrew, S. (2014, May 28). Why we should be trying to do better than Corsi and Fenwick.
Retrieved November 21, 2015.
Tulsky, E., Detweiler, G., Spencer, R., & Sznajder, C. (2013). Using zone entry data to separate
offensive, neutral, and defensive zone performance. Retrieved October 25, 2015.
Willis, J. (2014, April 7). How can Alex Ovechkin have 49 goals and a minus-35 rating?.
Bleacher Report. Retrieved November 21, 2015.