Thanks X, this is all good. My rule is the metric needs to be more than indicating what you are trying to achieve, it needs to actually represent what you are trying to achieve. If the landowner can manipulate the data, the data isn't very actionable. So, for me, in the end, measuring window space may be accurate regarding your wealth, but it's not an important measurement of wealth because it's not actionable, you can't tax it.
So to hockey. Shots are indicative of how you are playing, but they aren't representative.
So how long until players start taking terrible shots all the time during contract years to drive up their Corsi?
Lets take a look at 3 charts. They are Drew Staffords 10-11 (the contract year), 11-12, and 12-13. In 10-11, he gets to the net. Following the green line, over 6% of his shots are from 9 feet, 5.5% from 10 feet, 5% from 11 feet, 5.5% from 12 feet, 3.3% from 13 feet. This is well over league average, the blue line. If you count up the goals, the green dots, Stafford scored 15 of his 31 goals between 8 and 13 feet from roughly 25% of his shots.
In 11-12 his game changes, he is shooting further away from the net. In 12-13 he is even farther. He stops scoring.
Now the reasons this happened are probably more complex than my analysis (for instance Stafford had very good results playing with Roy, he has terrible results with Hodgson), but I attribute Stafford's decline in production to him being coached to shoot more.
Now if Corsi works for you, fine, but Regier failed while being on the forefront of this mindset.