David, I am laughing to myself about your article because you are saying exactly what I told my wife last night. She asked how the other team could keep the little black thing so much more than the Stars but the Stars are still winning. I said it is sheer talent. I said for every 10 times the other team shoot the Stars only needed 1 rush to score. The Stars have played so poorly without the puck the last half dozen games you would think they are a team on the outside looking in. But when you have 2 guys that have more goals than anyone in the league since the end of January you still win games.
Teams our scouting our weaknesses and WILL get better a exploiting them… especially more talented teams -in the playoffs… unless the Stars make significant changes to address those weaknesses.
And the scouting staff will put in capital letters, "JUST THROW ALL YOUR WEIGHT ON #55 EVERYTIME HE IS ON THE ICE" and in smaller letters "Do not worry one bit for the other 5 D"
For some reason I didn't realize PDO was just someone's name. Anyone got any ideas on what it should stand for to turn it into an acronym? Here are my dumb ones:
Can someone clarify something with PDO - does it only make sense to use it under the assumption that talent level in the league is similar? For example, if an NHL team played an entire season in the AHL against AHL talent, would the NHL team have a really high PDO since their shooters should have a high shot % and goaltending would likely have a higher than average save %? If so, you wouldn’t call the NHL team “fortunate” for having a high PDO, you would just attribute the high PDO for having a more talented roster. Am I misunderstanding?
Good question. The difference is that the averages we're working with are well-established. So in your theoretical example, we wouldn't call the NHL team more fortunate than the AHL team. We'd simply say that the two leagues are different.
A lot of work has been done to look at PDO from year to year to see what is and is not repeatable. One of the reasons why this phenomenon holds true is that even on an individual level where the players have more control, there are large amounts of randomness. That doesn't mean things can't change. You're seeing it this year with the quality of teams that are getting "lucky." But it does mean caution.
What are the other flaws to PDO then? If you are a pure counterpunch team that gives up 50 shot attempts yet wins off your 9 rush attempts.
I also like looking at the special teams PDO if you will. PK + PP % being in excess of 1.05 is always a solid showing. Its main flaw is it doesn’t take into account quantity of either situation. Total special teams +/- might actually be a place for the stat in minutes and or goals.
I mean, PDO is barely even a stat. That's why you don't even see it posted in most public data sites. Its flaw is that it's just a signal. It's not a model, or even high level math -- it's just a broad pattern. So the flaw is that high level stats should be predictive, and PDO doesn't really make any real predictions. It just raises the flags. In that way, PDO is lot like the pieces it's combining: save percentage and shooting percentage. Variable.
David, I am laughing to myself about your article because you are saying exactly what I told my wife last night. She asked how the other team could keep the little black thing so much more than the Stars but the Stars are still winning. I said it is sheer talent. I said for every 10 times the other team shoot the Stars only needed 1 rush to score. The Stars have played so poorly without the puck the last half dozen games you would think they are a team on the outside looking in. But when you have 2 guys that have more goals than anyone in the league since the end of January you still win games.
Teams our scouting our weaknesses and WILL get better a exploiting them… especially more talented teams -in the playoffs… unless the Stars make significant changes to address those weaknesses.
And the scouting staff will put in capital letters, "JUST THROW ALL YOUR WEIGHT ON #55 EVERYTIME HE IS ON THE ICE" and in smaller letters "Do not worry one bit for the other 5 D"
For some reason I didn't realize PDO was just someone's name. Anyone got any ideas on what it should stand for to turn it into an acronym? Here are my dumb ones:
Patience Determines Outcomes
Potential Determination Owaits
Performance Dellivery Optimization
AS # 16 Cornell knocks off #2 Michigan State in College Hockey Playoffs 😄 !!
George Fegaras with an assist as #1^ Cornell
Can someone clarify something with PDO - does it only make sense to use it under the assumption that talent level in the league is similar? For example, if an NHL team played an entire season in the AHL against AHL talent, would the NHL team have a really high PDO since their shooters should have a high shot % and goaltending would likely have a higher than average save %? If so, you wouldn’t call the NHL team “fortunate” for having a high PDO, you would just attribute the high PDO for having a more talented roster. Am I misunderstanding?
Good question. The difference is that the averages we're working with are well-established. So in your theoretical example, we wouldn't call the NHL team more fortunate than the AHL team. We'd simply say that the two leagues are different.
A lot of work has been done to look at PDO from year to year to see what is and is not repeatable. One of the reasons why this phenomenon holds true is that even on an individual level where the players have more control, there are large amounts of randomness. That doesn't mean things can't change. You're seeing it this year with the quality of teams that are getting "lucky." But it does mean caution.
This is a good read for newcomers: https://jfresh.substack.com/p/percentage-luck-in-hockey-explained
What are the other flaws to PDO then? If you are a pure counterpunch team that gives up 50 shot attempts yet wins off your 9 rush attempts.
I also like looking at the special teams PDO if you will. PK + PP % being in excess of 1.05 is always a solid showing. Its main flaw is it doesn’t take into account quantity of either situation. Total special teams +/- might actually be a place for the stat in minutes and or goals.
I mean, PDO is barely even a stat. That's why you don't even see it posted in most public data sites. Its flaw is that it's just a signal. It's not a model, or even high level math -- it's just a broad pattern. So the flaw is that high level stats should be predictive, and PDO doesn't really make any real predictions. It just raises the flags. In that way, PDO is lot like the pieces it's combining: save percentage and shooting percentage. Variable.