As Corsi becomes universally embraced, I find it necessary to invent new metrics for us to yell at each other about.  Here are two I am currently working on.

Douchi ratings.

Douchi ratings are calculated by the number of Douchi acts for which a player is on the ice, but of which the player was not the direct instigator.  Douchi acts are presumed to have a positive correlation to overall winning percentage.  Thus, the team that initiates the Douchi act receives a +1 for each player on the ice except the actual initiator of the act.  This prevents the actual Douchi act initiator from benefitting directly from his Douchi act but still rewards teams for perpetuating a climate of Douchiness.  Thus Douchi ratings are primarily a team stat even though a team raises its rating by procuring players of extremely high Douchiness.  This explains how bertuzzi, mccarty, Pronger, and Avery types remain appealing to teams who accentuate the Douchi.  Aberrant data such as Rob Blake’s late career spike in Douchiness is referred to as “luck” because it would otherwise reflect poorly on my metric.

Many people do not understand the Douchi, so I will endeavor to explain how it is calculated.  As stated before, the most important stat is the number of Douchi acts per team.  However, the Douchi ratings' validity is enhanced by accounting for several relevant factors.  Their overall effect is multiplied by the following factors: Shots (S), Time on ice (T), Flagrancy (F) and  Unfuckingbelievability (U). For those of you too stupid to understand the Douchi rating or those who insist on viewing the sport through the plebeian mindset of a sports fan this formula is most simply expressed this way:

Douchi=STFU

Shootmi metric

I am currently working on a metric (Shootmi) that calculates productivity in an accounting firm and correlates it to the degree of excitement that would be experienced by anyone who watched a similarly rated group of participants in a (theoretical) but active, fast-moving, non-mathematical context where outcomes are not entirely determined by numbers and have tangible results.  While the formulas themselves are laughably simple for someone of my intellect, I am struggling with the theoretical concept of a context that isn’t entirely governed by numbers as no such place exists in the real world.  Thus, my staggeringly important work, is being incessantly undermined by its inapplicability which I express as “luck”.