Against PDO

[tarheelhockey]

Hmm, are you talking about indivdual PDO or team PDO? I am talking about team PDO, which encapsulates the team shooting % and save %.



Sometimes it isn't that simple though. Your argument is basically PDO sucks because if you wanted to see if something was sustainable, you would just check the sv% and the shooting% of the teams. But that is exactly what PDO is.

To the last sentence — that’s exactly what PDO is, except PDO makes things needlessly complicated by combining the stats. So if something seems unsustainable, you have to do the extra work of deconstructing their PDO to figure out what’s going on.

This is exactly the problem with +/-, which is also a stat that illogically combines useful numbers so that it obscures the picture rather than making it more clear, and forces us to do extra work in validating whether it’s sending false positives or not.

 

[Mach85]

This.

I always hate when I hear the "he's shooting too high a %, he's obviously going to regress." Sometimes you're shooting the puck really well. And generally if you're shooting well, you keep it up because you feel confident, so your shooting is more sure. The opposite is true as well, if you're not scoring, you're likely going to be less confident and not shoot as well.

Some guys have better shots than others. Victor Mete didn't score for 2+ seasons because his finishing ability wasn't good enough. He'd have an open chance on a 2 on 1 and slide into the goalie's pads instead of burying it in the top half of the net. That's not bad luck, that's poor shooting. But he worked on his shot extensively this offseason and he's got 3 this year.

To me, shooting % is largely determined by 3 factors:
- Where the shot is coming from
- How good the shooter's shot is
- How hot the shooter is

Goaltending and "luck" is somewhat of a factor, but not much. Usually the goals that go in are ones that should go in - ie great shot, open net, deflection, rebound/scramble. I watch a lot of hockey and don't see a ton of "lucky" goals. Sometimes a goalie lets in a stinker, or a puck takes a crazy bounce...but not that often. Most pucks get stopped because the shot was from a low % spot on the ice, and/or the shot wasn't good enough.

That's still useful to an extent. The three factors you listed are good ones (although I don't subscribe to the notion of "hot" leading to measurable differences), and while a player is in his prime we can probably expect those things to be fairly constant. So if, say, Ovi is shooting waaaay below his career avg, we can usually safely assume luck is to blame and he'll regress. However, to be sure, it's important to check if he's still shooting from the same areas or if there's another factor that may depress his %. But I am in agreement that "x player is shooting y instead of z and therefore he'll be back to z soon" is simplistic in general. With all that said, that raises the question of when we can expect things like a career shooting % to normalize.

 

[filinski77]

This.

I always hate when I hear the "he's shooting too high a %, he's obviously going to regress." Sometimes you're shooting the puck really well. And generally if you're shooting well, you keep it up because you feel confident, so your shooting is more sure. The opposite is true as well, if you're not scoring, you're likely going to be less confident and not shoot as well.

Some guys have better shots than others. Victor Mete didn't score for 2+ seasons because his finishing ability wasn't good enough. He'd have an open chance on a 2 on 1 and slide into the goalie's pads instead of burying it in the top half of the net. That's not bad luck, that's poor shooting. But he worked on his shot extensively this offseason and he's got 3 this year.

To me, shooting % is largely determined by 3 factors:
- Where the shot is coming from
- How good the shooter's shot is
- How hot the shooter is

Goaltending and "luck" is somewhat of a factor, but not much. Usually the goals that go in are ones that should go in - ie great shot, open net, deflection, rebound/scramble. I watch a lot of hockey and don't see a ton of "lucky" goals. Sometimes a goalie lets in a stinker, or a puck takes a crazy bounce...but not that often. Most pucks get stopped because the shot was from a low % spot on the ice, and/or the shot wasn't good enough.

Except that for a fact, players in this era of the NHL can not sustain a high shooting%, and score a lot of goals. Looking at players in the last 20 years to score 40+ goals with a crazy high shooting%:

Karlsson - 23.4%
Draisaitl - 21.6%
Point - 21.5%
Boyes - 20.8%
Hejduk - 20.5%
Stamkos - 19.8%
Hossa - 19.7%

NONE of these players replicated an elite goalscoring season whilst shooting above 19.5% again.

Since 2000, the top sh%'s of elite goalscorers:
Stamkos - 16.8%
Drai - 16.4%
Marchand - 16.2%
McDavid - 15.2%

So yes, you can 100% say that if someone is shooting above 19-20% and score a lot of goals, that they will almost definitely regress next year.

 

[McDNicks17]

Except that for a fact, players in this era of the NHL can not sustain a high shooting%, and score a lot of goals. Looking at players in the last 20 years to score 40+ goals with a crazy high shooting%:

Karlsson - 23.4%
Draisaitl - 21.6%
Point - 21.5%
Boyes - 20.8%
Hejduk - 20.5%
Stamkos - 19.8%
Hossa - 19.7%

NONE of these players replicated an elite goalscoring season whilst shooting above 19.5% again.

Since 2000, the top sh%'s of elite goalscorers:
Stamkos - 16.8%
Drai - 16.4%
Marchand - 16.2%
McDavid - 15.2%

So yes, you can 100% say that if someone is shooting above 19-20% and score a lot of goals, that they will almost definitely regress next year.

I feel like Draisaitl is a weird inclusion there.

The season you listed was last season and he's on pace to score 50 goals again this year, but with a 19.3 SH%.

 

[filinski77]

I feel like Draisaitl is a weird inclusion there.

The season you listed was last season and he's on pace to score 50 goals again this year, but with a 19.3 SH%.

How is it weird? Do you think he's actually going to increase his shooting % more this season? He most likely settles at 18% or lower this season.

Even if he continues at a 19.3% this season, my whole point still stands where there appears to be a clear cutoff of 19.5-20% that is unsustainable, based on the data that is available.

 

[McDNicks17]

How is it weird? Do you think he's actually going to increase his shooting % more this season? He most likely settles at 18% or lower this season.

Even if he continues at a 19.3% this season, my whole point still stands where there appears to be a clear cutoff of 19.5-20% that is unsustainable, based on the data that is available.

Declaring that no player was able to replicate those seasons when some of them haven't even played a season since and then including someone who is basically replicating that season is a little strange.

You're likely better off arguing the sustainability of onSH% since it's far less sustainable and actually relevant to PDO.

 

[filinski77]

Declaring that no player was able to replicate those seasons when some of them haven't even played a season since and then including someone who is basically replicating that season is a little strange.

You're likely better off arguing the sustainability of onSH% since it's far less sustainable and actually relevant to PDO.

I don't get why you're getting so defensive over Draisaitl, I'm not even dissing the guy. I made my post about sh% cause I was directly responding to a post talking about sh%.

Secondly, nothing I said in my post was incorrect, and while true that Draisaitl has not finished this season, he currently is NOT on pace for a 20% shooting %. Regardless of your feelings on his performance, it is a FACT that in the last 20 years, nobody has been able to replicate a 20% shooting season again, whilst scoring 40+.

Maybe that changes in the future, who knows, but as far as data suggests, the best expectation you can make is a regression below 20%.

 

[Mickey Marner]

If 'luck' is being used as a shorthand for beyond one's control, then PDO at the mirco level is mostly luck. At the macro level it is a better reflection of the goaltending & finishing ability of a team.

 

[Video Coach]

That's still useful to an extent. The three factors you listed are good ones (although I don't subscribe to the notion of "hot" leading to measurable differences), and while a player is in his prime we can probably expect those things to be fairly constant. So if, say, Ovi is shooting waaaay below his career avg, we can usually safely assume luck is to blame and he'll regress. However, to be sure, it's important to check if he's still shooting from the same areas or if there's another factor that may depress his %. But I am in agreement that "x player is shooting y instead of z and therefore he'll be back to z soon" is simplistic in general. With all that said, that raises the question of when we can expect things like a career shooting % to normalize.

Except that for a fact, players in this era of the NHL can not sustain a high shooting%, and score a lot of goals. Looking at players in the last 20 years to score 40+ goals with a crazy high shooting%:

Karlsson - 23.4%
Draisaitl - 21.6%
Point - 21.5%
Boyes - 20.8%
Hejduk - 20.5%
Stamkos - 19.8%
Hossa - 19.7%

NONE of these players replicated an elite goalscoring season whilst shooting above 19.5% again.

Since 2000, the top sh%'s of elite goalscorers:
Stamkos - 16.8%
Drai - 16.4%
Marchand - 16.2%
McDavid - 15.2%

So yes, you can 100% say that if someone is shooting above 19-20% and score a lot of goals, that they will almost definitely regress next year.

Yes, I do agree if someone is shooting over 20% they are due for a regression the following year. But players have maintained a crazy shooting % for entire seasons, like Karlsson just did, on his way to 43 goals. To me, that's the perfect example of how confidence can lead to "hotter" or "better" shooting, resulting in more goals and a higher shooting %.

Maybe it sounds unscientific, but confidence does play a factor in how well a player shoots the puck. Most goal scorers go through peaks and valleys, and during the peaks they are feeling confident in their shooting and as a result they are not only shooting better, but playing better, getting to better areas to shoot, finding the puck in scrums better, getting their shots off more quickly, looking to shoot more than pass. This results in more goals and a higher %.

In the valleys these same players are more hesitant to shoot, they may not be getting to the higher % areas of the ice to score, they are unconfident. So they score fewer goals and have a lower shooting %.

It's not luck, it's confidence. Karlsson didn't shoot 23.4% one year because he was lucky and 14.2% the next year because he was unlucky. He was riding the wave of confidence.

 

[filinski77]

Yes, I do agree if someone is shooting over 20% they are due for a regression the following year. But players have maintained a crazy shooting % for entire seasons, like Karlsson just did, on his way to 43 goals. To me, that's the perfect example of how confidence can lead to "hotter" or "better" shooting, resulting in more goals and a higher shooting %.

Maybe it sounds unscientific, but confidence does play a factor in how well a player shoots the puck. Most goal scorers go through peaks and valleys, and during the peaks they are feeling confident in their shooting and as a result they are not only shooting better, but playing better, getting to better areas to shoot, finding the puck in scrums better, getting their shots off more quickly, looking to shoot more than pass. This results in more goals and a higher %.

In the valleys these same players are more hesitant to shoot, they may not be getting to the higher % areas of the ice to score, they are unconfident. So they score fewer goals and have a lower shooting %.

It's not luck, it's confidence. Karlsson didn't shoot 23.4% one year because he was lucky and 14.2% the next year because he was unlucky. He was riding the wave of confidence.

That's where too much subjectivity comes to play, why would a player only be confident one year? Look at Stamkos for example, he had 1 season over 19.5% shooting, but has remained a prolific shooter, but has settled around 16%, has he just lost his confidence?

Seems more like luck to me.

 

[MadLuke]

Yes, I do agree if someone is shooting over 20% they are due for a regression the following year. But players have maintained a crazy shooting % for entire seasons, like Karlsson just did, on his way to 43 goals. To me, that's the perfect example of how confidence can lead to "hotter" or "better" shooting, resulting in more goals and a higher shooting %.

Karlsson was at 25.9% after 41 games, 21.2% for the next 41. High for sure but similar or under this era best shooting percentage of year's we saw, but if someone would have said mid season that is 26% was bound to regress toward something close to the other annual best of the era (Oshie 23.08%, Tanguay often around 23%, etc..) would have been right.

 

[lomiller1]

If 'luck' is being used as a shorthand for beyond one's control,

It is

At the macro level it is a better reflection of the goaltending & finishing ability of a team.

At a team level "finishing ability" doesn’t really exist. A few individual players show sustained good/ad finishing ability but most are close enough to the mushy middle that once you get a group of 20 players a couple players with finishing ability won’t move the needle much. This isn’t universally true, there have been multiple "good finishers" on the same team that can a differences but it’s the exception not the norm.

Goaltending can potentially create a sustained PDO different from 1, but there also tends to be massive year to year variation in goaltending performances. Take away their best 2-3 years and even the leagues elite goaltenders sv% end very near that of an average starter. 2-3 years of really good goaltending surrounded by a 7-10 years of average goaltending isn’t going to result in a sustained high PDO. Rather, this shows up as high PDO the years the elite goaltender had their great seasons.