I was actually going to say that I found this part written kind of annoyingly too. Just tone-wise it's offputting. I'm not sure why the writer was so allergic to topic sentences but it makes for a meandering article. And on top of that I had a big problem with their argument. The three factors they mention as being used to measure QoC are TOI, raw Corsi, and relative Corsi (I...think). Then their breakdown for why that sucks looks at each metric separately instead of considering them together, when weighing a player's Corsi by their ATOI helps fix a lot of the problems they bring up with both metrics.
They're not necessarily wrong, but their argument is flawed.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: Hockey Media
From: (Anonymous)They're not necessarily wrong, but their argument is flawed.