Prospect Info: Brendan Lemieux

[AKAChip]

There are two components to PDO. the whole line and not just Lemieux have high PDO and lead the team in on ice SV%. Their PDO is not just high because of lucky SH%.

That’s true, it’s also because of bad goaltending against!

 

[Jimby]

No doubt. But that wasn't what I was responding to.

Over that same time frame Connor, Little, and Scheifele are in the bottom 5 as well, and Lemieux is still a sub 50% even though he's 8th. Copp has worked wonders on that line and they're definitely better defensively, but offensively they've been pretty damn lucky.

Still, you can definitely see he's been improving over the year, but he's still going to be in the PB before Roslovic.

 

[Gil Fisher]

This is a lot a typing that ultimately says very little. You’re entitled to intepret the stats anyway you like. I’m not sure how you can argue that a PDO of 110 could be interpreted as anything other than blind luck.

One way you could argue that a PDO of 110 is something other than blind luck is look at where his shots are coming from. I believe (I'm sure someone will collect me if I'm wrong) PDO is based on league average shooting percentage that would imply a league average shot distribution between High Danger and non-HD shots. We have seen HDCF/60 and CF/60 data for Lemmy that indicates he is much better at generating the former than the latter when he is on the ice. We also know that expeted sh% is higher on HDCF than other CF. So we should expect, given average goaltending, that Lemmy's PDO should be north of 100 based on where he's generating offence.

How much I have no idea.

 

[10Ducky10]

If we trade for Stone it'll be both.

Ehlers - Scheif - Wheeler
Connor - Little - Stone

Keep P-L-T together and run Laine Copp Roslovic.

If we trade for Stone, one or both might be going to Ottawa.

 

[AKAChip]

One way you could argue that a PDO of 110 is something other than blind luck is look at where his shots are coming from. I believe (I'm sure someone will collect me if I'm wrong) PDO is based on league average shooting percentage that would imply a league average shot distribution between High Danger and non-HD shots. We have seen HDCF/60 and CF/60 data for Lemmy that indicates he is much better at generating the former than the latter when he is on the ice. We also know that expeted sh% is higher on HDCF than other CF. So we should expect, given average goaltending, that Lemmy's PDO should be north of 100 based on where he's generating offence.

How much I have no idea.

I could get behind this idea more, and normally it's a fair point, if Lemieux hadn't scored a great deal of his goals on "low danger" chances. Two of his goals where in the last minute of blowouts, one was from the half boards, at least one was from behind the net off a defenceman's foot. So while he takes the puck hard to the net which can lead to high danger chances on occasion, his goals this year are far more reflective of fluke than his style of play.

 

[pucka lucka]

One way you could argue that a PDO of 110 is something other than blind luck is look at where his shots are coming from. I believe (I'm sure someone will collect me if I'm wrong) PDO is based on league average shooting percentage that would imply a league average shot distribution between High Danger and non-HD shots. We have seen HDCF/60 and CF/60 data for Lemmy that indicates he is much better at generating the former than the latter when he is on the ice. We also know that expeted sh% is higher on HDCF than other CF. So we should expect, given average goaltending, that Lemmy's PDO should be north of 100 based on where he's generating offence.

How much I have no idea.

When we say luck we don't mean fluke (it can include fluke, but everyone experiences it). It usually means you are in a sample that is not evenly distributed. The distribution of events it not even across large samples, most things aren't, especially with so many things influencing outcomes that a player doesn't control e.g. errant sticks, bump in the ice, goalie's saving things they normally don't. those all add up to "luck".

a PDO of 110 means you are way on the positive side of natural variance. No player has the skill to control play to the degree necessary to maintain a PDO that high. I can't say it's impossible as I am not a statistician, but I bet garret can or knows someone who could tell us the likelihood of someone maintaining a 110 PDO over a significant sample.

 

[Jet]

There are two components to PDO. the whole line and not just Lemieux have high PDO and lead the team in on ice SV%. Their PDO is not just high because of lucky SH%.

No one will convince me that Lemieux is playing well because some numbers idgaf about say he's lucky.

He's skating hard, finishing checks, doing a much better job of maintaining possession in the offensive zone, driving the puck to the net, scoring, and drawing more penalties than he takes.

He still has warts - that line does get trapped in their own zone (strangely enough when morrow is on the ice with them) but he has shown a very steady progression and willingness to learn from his mistakes.

He won't likely stay in the lineup with the return of Ehlers and whatever acquisition we make, but I am very confident he will be a regular next year and will likely continue to build on what he's established so far.

I am glad he's in our prospect pool. We have a lot of high skill forwards, it's good to have a nice mix of skillsets.

Funny, I remember HF Jets having a very similar debate about Brandon Tanev a couple years ago. I see him as Tanevs potential replacement.

 

[Gil Fisher]

When we say luck we don't mean fluke (it can include fluke, but everyone experiences it). It usually means you are in a sample that is not evenly distributed. The distribution of events it not even across large samples, most things aren't, especially with so many things influencing outcomes that a player doesn't control e.g. errant sticks, bump in the ice, goalie's saving things they normally don't. those all add up to "luck".

a PDO of 110 means you are way on the positive side of natural variance. No player has the skill to control play to the degree necessary to maintain a PDO that high. I can't say it's impossible as I am not a statistician, but I bet garret can or knows someone who could tell us the likelihood of someone maintaining a 110 PDO over a significant sample.

Well I think we would expect Laine to have a PDO >100, because he's going to score at better than average sh%. PDO is better for team measurement than individual for this reason.

A good chunk of Lemmy's +10 on PDO is from goaltending....which he doesn't control....the rest is from shot distribution and luck. Not sure how that carves out.

Hopefully this is the end of amateur hour here.

 

[Gil Fisher]

He's skating hard, finishing checks, doing a much better job of maintaining possession in the offensive zone, driving the puck to the net, scoring, and drawing more penalties than he takes.

Yeah, we could do a poll, but I don't think there's anyone on the forum that would argue Lemieux's game over the last 25 games hasn't been much better than over the first 25 games. It was pretty bad back then.

 

[Jet]

Yeah, we could do a poll, but I don't think there's anyone on the forum that would argue Lemieux's game over the last 25 games hasn't been much better than over the first 25 games. It was pretty bad back then.

I think most would also agree if a high second round pick is showing continual improvement, that is exciting. We should just be excited right now. If he flattens out or returns to previous play, then the pitchforks should come out again

 

[ffh]

Does anybody believe even for a second that if lemieux was sitting here with slightly better posession numbers this year and petan had 9 goals in 40 games that the fancy stats people would be harping on petan and saying he pdo is to high and is scoring lucky goals and he cant keep up this scoring. Believe me pdo and shooting % would not be mentioned at all. This range on pdo is about dissing a better player who replaced their favorite player.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

Does anybody believe even for a second that if lemieux was sitting here with slightly better posession numbers this year and petan had 9 goals in 40 games that the fancy stats people would be harping on petan and saying he pdo is to high and is scoring lucky goals and he cant keep up this scoring. Believe me pdo and shooting % would not be mentioned at all. This range on pdo is about dissing a better player who replaced their favorite player.

This is nonsense.

Nobody has any personal issues with Lemieux. There is no chance he can retain a 110 PDO, that is unheard of. His OIS% and his goalie save percentage while he is on the ice are both absurdly high and things he has little control over.

He has been better lately, I don't hate him as a 4th liner, but as of right now, luck driven results are clouding a lot of peoples judgement.