Anaheim - huge regression incoming?

[BeardyCanuck03]

When you average out the PDO for the Ducks players it comes out to be 1019 for 2012-13 and 1011 for 2013-14. The Sh% went up but the Sv% went down.

Offensively they'll be fine, Getzlaf and Perry have generally had a higher shooting %. It could take a small hit though as last years did go up from the year before. It should hover around the same Sh% though. The question with Anaheim is that how much growing pains will we see with the young Anderson/Gibson tandem and how much that could affect the On Ice Sv%.

If the Sh% goes down as it should and the Anderson/Gibson tandem can't keep the solid Sv% (which is debatable, only because of their age/experience) then we could see a regression for Anaheim, but I don't see it being a big regression. Too much talent up front.

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

There's a lot of things going on for Anaheim. Maybe the numbers say they are due for a regression, BUT (and this goes for all the doom-sayers talking about the Avs as well) you need to take into consideration that these are two teams with just a ton of terrific high-end young talent. They're not standing still...if they follow the usual trajectory of really good young players then both teams are going to see big improvements from key contributors. Even if they were beneficiaries of luck or a hot goalie, if they see improvements in other areas because of their kids making the jump it could easily balance out.

When a team is winning games with young players in key roles, those kids are learning good habits and learning to win - it doesn't matter whether the wins are lucky or the wins aren't supported by the underlying stats, those lessons are still being learned and carried over to the upcoming games. If a Mackinnon or a DSP, or Barrie, or Fowler builds on what they learned from last year's success and has a huge season, what does it matter that last year's wins were "unearned" based on the numbers? It's not like players are going to think to themselves, "well we were the beneficiaries of an unusually high PDO so I am just gonna forget everything I learned last year." Winning locks in good habits and makes it easier for coaches to teach young players, no matter how you get those wins.

 

[Rogie]

Someone mentioned in a post that PDO isn't only about luck. I tend to agree with that.

Because the finishing skill of Ducks forwards is above average to me, if there is little regression or none,I wouldn't be surprised.

However, the save percentage variable is all different now w/o Hiller. If the goaltending falters the PDO comes crashing down. Again, this isn't about luck.

Can Anderson and Gibson do the job? If Anderson duplicates his save percentage from last year, the PDO stays pretty close.

 

[hockeywoot]

Anaheim. Overachieved last year. I see a small regression only though, offset by their offseason acquisitions and the younger guys taking a larger role.

Colorado. Major regression I reckon (slightly offset by Mackinnon having a big second year)

 

[KaseMeOutside]

the only significant losses were Bonino and Perreault and to a lesser extent Winnik.

I think that a full season of the likes of Maroon/DSP/Vatanen plus the additions of Kesler/Thompson plus more production from say Silf or Palmieri the team is more well balanced. Koivu was awful after he returned from injury, and Selanne had alot of terrible nights as well.

If our PP is awful again I don't see the team scoring as many goals, but really there is enough talent to have a top 10 group to help off-set some potential 5 v 5 regression.

Also the additions of Thompson and Kesler will significantly improve the team on faceoffs, which should in turn help the overall possession game, overall i think the team needs 1 more solid dman. But if you look at the Pacific division if they finish 2nd or 3rd, is that really a case to "prove" regression? the division is just really good at the top

 

[613Leafer]

I think the addition of Kesler as well as internal development (Lindholm, Silferberg, Vatanan, Palmieri, etc) should help compensate for any "regression to the mean" by other players, high shooting %s, or high save %s.

Though Gibson has higher potential than Hiller anyways, so there's a good chance their goaltending willl be improved. Not necessarily this season, but within 1.5 seasons I think it likely will be.

 

[MMonarchs]

The assumptions that must be made for PDO to have merit are flawed. It's as simple as that.

 

[BF3]

The assumptions that must be made for PDO to have merit are flawed. It's as simple as that.

Wait, so you are saying that PDO doesn't have merit, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary? Or are you saying that there are certain teams that, due to elite goaltending and other reasons, can consistently have an above average PDO (Bruins, Ducks to name a couple)?

 

[getzforfighting*]

Wait, so you are saying that PDO doesn't have merit, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary? Or are you saying that there are certain teams that, due to elite goaltending and other reasons, can consistently have an above average PDO (Bruins, Ducks to name a couple)?

Well having "elite goaltending and other reasons" is a flaw that takes merit from PDO. Never been a numbers guy myself. Similar to goodwill in business, you can't judge a team/company based on simply numbers.

 

[MMonarchs]

Wait, so you are saying that PDO doesn't have merit, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary? Or are you saying that there are certain teams that, due to elite goaltending and other reasons, can consistently have an above average PDO (Bruins, Ducks to name a couple)?

What is elite goaltending? PDO assumes that elite goaltending doesn't exist.

 

[PenguinMario]

What is elite goaltending? PDO assumes that elite goaltending doesn't exist.

No, it doesn't.

PDOs more than a standard deviation above or below the mean tend to regress, because truly elite (or terrible) tending (or shooting) is rare - which is undeniably true - and heavily affected by random variation, even over the course of a full season. It's an observed phenomenon, not an iron law.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Well having "elite goaltending and other reasons" is a flaw that takes merit from PDO. Never been a numbers guy myself. Similar to goodwill in business, you can't judge a team/company based on simply numbers.

Then why are you on an analytical message board, to change our opinion based on your goodwill theory. PDO is real at the team level in todays NHL.

 

[Freudian]

There is no reason to believe teams can't have significantly lower or higher PDO than other teams have over the long term. Both save percentage and shooting percentage are, while there is some luck involved in the short term, events that are reflections of player/team skill. Of course PDO will be clustered around 100 (or 1000 if you use that format) because of the data ranges involved.

 

[getzforfighting*]

Then why are you on an analytical message board, to change our opinion based on your goodwill theory. PDO is real at the team level in todays NHL.

No, but the thread is named "huge regression incoming" and my OPINION is that numbers alone won't be able to ever predict that.

 

[Rebuilt]

Ducks team I see has high end talent and depth.

 

[TOML]

There is no reason to believe teams can't have significantly lower or higher PDO than other teams have over the long term. Both save percentage and shooting percentage are, while there is some luck involved in the short term, events that are reflections of player/team skill. Of course PDO will be clustered around 100 (or 1000 if you use that format) because of the data ranges involved.

I find it astonishing that any analysis would revolve around 'luck'. Perhaps if all players had the same skill level that would be the case, but with recent long-term PDO reflecting the obvious: Boston at the top, NYI at the bottom, it's pretty hard to determine anything from PDO other than what happened to create a good PDO or a bad PDO happened because of the players they had available. They simply made their own luck via skill, long-term.

(Anaheim has 3rd overall PDO in that period, 2007-14, btw. So what's the problem?)

I think there are better ways to determine whether a regression is incoming. Like if a team is a bit top-heavy with aging players on the cap. Or if they have no impact prospects ready to make some contributions. Looking at Anaheims age bracket, cap space, and the talent of their top players currently at their peak, I see no 'huge regression' concerns at all.

On the contrary, they're in 'win now' mode. 2 year window with a cheap Kesler and cheap goaltending, with a ton of cap space to make additions for runs.

 

[The Bob Cole]

I find it astonishing that any analysis would revolve around 'luck'. Perhaps if all players had the same skill level that would be the case, but with recent long-term PDO reflecting the obvious: Boston at the top, NYI at the bottom, it's pretty hard to determine anything from PDO other than what happened to create a good PDO or a bad PDO happened because of the players they had available. They simply made their own luck via skill, long-term.

(Anaheim has 3rd overall PDO in that period, 2007-14, btw. So what's the problem?)

I think there are better ways to determine whether a regression is incoming. Like if a team is a bit top-heavy with aging players on the cap. Or if they have no impact prospects ready to make some contributions. Looking at Anaheims age bracket, cap space, and the talent of their top players currently at their peak, I see no 'huge regression' concerns at all.

On the contrary, they're in 'win now' mode. 2 year window with a cheap Kesler and cheap goaltending, with a ton of cap space to make additions for runs.

Luck is often used synonymously with chance. In short-term time frames (year on year), the role of 'luck' or chance, such as pucks hitting bodies and finding the net over one 20 game period and not over the next, do exist. PDO will likely normalize to talent level over long time periods. If you see a team with a greater > 1 SD of PDO one year to the next, you can assume that it will not be sustainable and that they don't the most talented roster in the league. They'll cluster back to the mean. That's why people suggest PDO can indicate teams/players playing above/below their expected value. It won't mean that if Patrice Bergeron has a PDO of 1018, he'll drop back down to 1000 immediately. He likely has a higher PDO because of his skill and team. However, if he (or Boston in general) were at 1035, you wouldn't expect that level of play to continue and it is likely more of an indication of some things going 'lucky' for him (them).

 

[Freudian]

Luck is often used synonymously with chance. In short-term time frames (year on year), the role of 'luck' or chance, such as pucks hitting bodies and finding the net over one 20 game period and not over the next, do exist. PDO will likely normalize to talent level over long time periods. If you see a team with a greater > 1 SD of PDO one year to the next, you can assume that it will not be sustainable and that they don't the most talented roster in the league. They'll cluster back to the mean. That's why people suggest PDO can indicate teams/players playing above/below their expected value. It won't mean that if Patrice Bergeron has a PDO of 1018, he'll drop back down to 1000 immediately. He likely has a higher PDO because of his skill and team. However, if he (or Boston in general) were at 1035, you wouldn't expect that level of play to continue and it is likely more of an indication of some things going 'lucky' for him (them).

The problem is that you don't know what a teams true PDO is, so you don't know what they will regress to.

If we played the current season 1000 times, we'd get a good idea what the true shooting percentage and save percentage each team is and thus their true PDO. It would only be accurate for this season with these specific players, of course. Most teams would probably be around 995-1005. Some would be at 990 and 1010. The odd team might be at 980 or 1020.

It's quite different if a team with 1020 true PDO has a PDO of 1030 than if a team with 990 has it.

If you don't know what the mean is, talking about regression to a mean is meaningless. You'll be able to identify obvious outliers, but have no tools to estimate how much they are under/overachieving. You could make an educated guess but it would still be a guess.

 

[Mubiki]

The reasons why a high or low PDO are unsustainable often have nothing to do with the team in question.

For example, Anaheim could play a team 3 times that has young players, including a goalie. If the next year they play the same team 3 times, but those players are much better, Anaheim might score less and allow more goals, even if they play an identical game.

As I said in a previous post, good PDO has to come at the expense of other teams' PDO. So it's not only about Anaheim. It's about the growth of other teams in comparison.

 

[Hagged]

PDO should be somehow adjusted with the amount of Corsi events. For example a possession team that tend to only shoot in a position to score would propably have less shots on goal but a higher SH%.

Actually it would just lead to goal differential .

There are some players in the league with close to 20SH%. If a team was made that included only the highest SH% players and the best playmaking centers, and would have a prime Hasek in goal, I'd find it unlikely that that team would ever regress to the mean.

At the start of the season the PDO can be ridiculously high and you can expect it to regress to a reasonable level. But I don't find it likely that there isn't a correlation between PDO and the team shooting and playmaking skill + goaltending.

Take a goaltending duo of Thomas+Rask for example. The team infront of them should have been shooting at a league low level for Boston to regress to the mean. While it definitely could have happened, it never did when Boston had both of those guys.

On top of that, an average PDO team can be the best team in the NHL if it has a high Corsi.

So just to summarize:

In my opinion:

1. A high PDO team can remain a high PDO team for as long as the core stays the same

2. A low PDO team can still be at the top if it has a high Corsi

3. PDO can depend on the strategy, a team that shoots from all over the ice will have a lower SH% than a team that tries to play the puck to the perfect scoring position. These strategies can be exactly as effective as the other as the high shooting low SH% team will have more shots on goal than the low shooting high SH% team.