Using Vic Ferrari’s timeonice.com scripts, I looked at data from here, here and here to determine Corsi and Fenwick numbers for the Vancouver Canucks this season. The Ferrari scripts will differ slightly from Behind the Net’s because BtN looks at 5-on-5 data while TOI, I do believe, registers all even strength situations.

Either way, both are solid resources and the charts below will offer us a glimpse into which Canucks were the best at controlling the play when they were on the ice.

First off, here is how Corsi and Fenwick numbers are counted:

[ TOI = Even strength time on ice, GP = Games Played, GF = Goals For, GA = Goals Against, SF = Shots For, SA = Shots Against, MF = Misses For, MA = Misses Against, BF = Blocks For, BA = Blocks Against ]

Corsi is calculated by adding up GF, SF, MF and BF and subtracting them by GA, SA, MA and BA. Shot attempts are a very good proxy for offensive zone time. Fenwick, a variant of Corsi, takes blocked shots out of the calculation and it is more indicative of scoring chances than overall puck possession.

Anyhow, if you were total raw Corsi/Fenwick numbers, here would be your team leaders:

This isn’t the best measure to judge a hockey player, mind you. Corsi and Fenwick numbers, like goal totals, are somewhat reliant on overall offensive and defensive zone starts. Manny Malhotra and Maxim Lapierre are at a disadvantage because they usually start shifts in their own end, while the Sedins usually start them in the opposite end. The other caveat is the amount of time on ice each player gets.

By dividing Corsi by time on ice and multiplying by 60, we get a “Corsi/ON” number, which is the rate of extra offensive shots fired per 60 minutes:

Poor Victor Oreskovich. He played six minutes of awful hockey this season.

Now, we adjust them for defensive zone starts. Each extra defensive zone start will add an extra 0.8 Corsi points to each player’s total, and 0.6 Fenwick points:

Now we’re getting somewhere. Mikael Samuelsson had a great start possessionally before he was traded, and Andrew Ebbett thrived in his limited minutes, but the best Canucks were David Booth and Kevin Bieksa according to this measure. Chris Tanev again proves promising by adjusted statistics.

Caveat: this isn’t a measure of how good a player is, or at least isn’t the only measure. There are other factors, but generally, teams that hold onto the puck well tend to score more goals, and teams that score more goals tend to win more games. There are many other factors in play here. We refer to these numbers in absence of team scoring chance data, and we’ll show you why later this week when we begin to unveil Canucks scoring chances.

Since Corsi and Fenwick are a way of establishing who has the puck, they can be indicators of good two-way play. In this case, Canuck fans may be underestimating the positive impact of Marc-André Gragnani and Aaron Rome…