New York Islanders: Confirmed with link : Barry Trotz Islanders Head Coach

[PWJunior]

Just a little bit

 

[PK Cronin]

How do you think Snow and Weight feel? They're still employed by the Islanders, right? Is it a good feeling or a terrible one to know that two other guys were able to come in and take your shit show and flip it upside down?

 

[Flair19Woo]

How do you think Snow and Weight feel? They're still employed by the Islanders, right? Is it a good feeling or a terrible one to know that two other guys were able to come in and take your **** show and flip it upside down?

They probably think they could’ve done it if given more time.

 

[MJF]

They probably think they could’ve done it if given more time.

Snow was being timed with a sundial:
13 years as GM. 1 playoff series win. Missed the playoffs 8 times.

More time? He had too much time, but that’s just me.

 

[Macch]

Anyone see one of those PDO charts that showed just how lucky the Islanders were earlier in the season?

Wondering how much it's changed.

 

[Flair19Woo]

Snow was being timed with a sundial:
13 years as GM. 1 playoff series win. Missed the playoffs 8 times.

More time? He had too much time, but that’s just me.

Oh I totally agree. But in Snow’s smug world he probably thinks he was doing fine and could’ve turned it around...his way.

 

[Axel574]

Anyone see one of those PDO charts that showed just how lucky the Islanders were earlier in the season?

Wondering how much it's changed.

Islanders are third with 102.7. It's a joke, if you look at the league all the best teams are over 100. A high PDO doesn't mean the islanders are lucky...it means they're good.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Oh I totally agree. But in Snow’s smug world he probably thinks he was doing fine and could’ve turned it around...his way.

He probably thinks the team would be performing this well with Weight and co....thankfully he's kicking rocks somewhere. If nothing else Snow always had to be the smartest guy in the room at all times, and I really don't get where that even came from.

 

[periferal]

Hahd to believe.

 

[Lame Lambert]

If the league wants to increase scoring they should just ban Trotz.

 

[Macch]

 

[periferal]

Good system (Trotz) + Good goaltending (Lehner) = Good results (18-19 Islanders)

 

[PK Cronin]

Islanders are third with 102.7. It's a joke, if you look at the league all the best teams are over 100. A high PDO doesn't mean the islanders are lucky...it means they're good.

I looked at PDO briefly after that question and noticed the same thing too. Last year, Washington was 2nd in PDO I think. The teams surrounding them were all solid cup contenders. These advanced stats become less and less reliable the more teams are looking at them and trying to manipulate them.

 

[Spybot]

I looked at PDO briefly after that question and noticed the same thing too. Last year, Washington was 2nd in PDO I think. The teams surrounding them were all solid cup contenders. These advanced stats become less and less reliable the more teams are looking at them and trying to manipulate them.

Teams are trying to manipulate their goaltending sv% and shooting %? I guess so, though they've been trying to "manipulate" those since hockey was invented.

 

[Spybot]

Islanders are third with 102.7. It's a joke, if you look at the league all the best teams are over 100. A high PDO doesn't mean the islanders are lucky...it means they're good.

I don't really get this board's sudden obsession with PDO. A high or low PDO doesn't guarantee a team is winning or losing. This armchair analysis of the teams' PDOs is hardly enough to establish whether a team is good or not. Don't bother using stats you don't understand, it's not gonna do anybody any good. And for what it's worth you need to look better. Teams like San Jose and Vegas are both deeply below 100 and I think most people would count them as good as well.

 

[Lame Lambert]

I don't really get this board's sudden obsession with PDO. A high or low PDO doesn't guarantee a team is winning or losing. This armchair analysis of the teams' PDOs is hardly enough to establish whether a team is good or not. Don't bother using stats you don't understand, it's not gonna do anybody any good. And for what it's worth you need to look better. Teams like San Jose and Vegas are both deeply below 100 and I think most people would count them as good as well.

Because every main board thread about the Isles is infested with jerk off Laffs fans screeching “BuT mUh PdO!!!!”

 

[PK Cronin]

Teams are trying to manipulate their goaltending sv% and shooting %? I guess so, though they've been trying to "manipulate" those since hockey was invented.

No, but they're manipulating their Corsi, which has a direct impact to SV%. A team like Carolina who is employing a "throw everything at the net from anywhere on the ice" is going to lead to greater shot attempts and skew SV% statistics. As well as "possession" numbers.

 

[Spybot]

No, but they're manipulating their Corsi, which has a direct impact to SV%. A team like Carolina who is employing a "throw everything at the net from anywhere on the ice" is going to lead to greater shot attempts and skew SV% statistics. As well as "possession" numbers.

Where is the evidence? I'm assuming this is your deep personal feeling, correct? Personally I haven't noticed any players routinely firing on net from center ice which would be the optimal strategy for padding Corsi. I'm assuming "from anywhere on the ice" actually means from the blue line in. I'm also assuming that you realize SV% deals with shots ON NET whereas corsi is shot attempts (+misses+blocks). Which means your opinion is a strange one, because, again, 'get pucks to the net' is an ancient wisdom. If you're against that, you're in the minority among coaches, players and probably most fans. It's also strange that apparently Carolina's employing the exact same strategy as ever even though they changed coaches and GMs. Maybe there's something else that could explain their overall lack of success.

Because every main board thread about the Isles is infested with jerk off Laffs fans screeching “BuT mUh PdO!!!!”

Right, makes sense. I guess I haven't been much on the main boards.

 

[Cygnusx1018]

How do you think Snow and Weight feel? They're still employed by the Islanders, right? Is it a good feeling or a terrible one to know that two other guys were able to come in and take your **** show and flip it upside down?

Weight was fired, Snow is still here as a "Senior Advisor"

 

[PK Cronin]

Where is the evidence? I'm assuming this is your deep personal feeling, correct? Personally I haven't noticed any players routinely firing on net from center ice which would be the optimal strategy for padding Corsi. I'm assuming "from anywhere on the ice" actually means from the blue line in. I'm also assuming that you realize SV% deals with shots ON NET whereas corsi is shot attempts (+misses+blocks). Which means your opinion is a strange one, because, again, 'get pucks to the net' is an ancient wisdom. If you're against that, you're in the minority among coaches, players and probably most fans. It's also strange that apparently Carolina's employing the exact same strategy as ever even though they changed coaches and GMs. Maybe there's something else that could explain their overall lack of success.

There's no hard evidence, other than GM's and coaches who cite those advanced stats (I think there have been rumblings that GM's use some of that stuff in contract negotiations too, which means the players are aware of it). Yes, from the blue line in. I do know that SV% deals with shots on net, but there is a difference in quality of shots. Trotz actually preaches quality over quantity, so his teams (including the one that won the Stanley Cup last season) are out-possessed and would likely have a higher shooting percentage. He's also employing a strategy that limits quality shots against, thus raising SV%. So when the Islanders play against Carolina, it looks like Carolina is dominating play, but they're just shooting the puck from the corner because that's their strategy. Things like that would naturally skew PDO, making it less likely to predict collapses, especially when all of the good teams have a high PDO. How can it be used to predict collapses but also the good teams at the same time?

Looking at Corsi or other numbers in the past may have indicated certain things, like possession and likelihood to win, but now that coaches and GM's are intentionally trying to get better in those numbers, it's actually decreasing their likelihood to predict the likely outcome.

X = more wins in the past, so we have to do more X at all costs.

The ancient wisdom of "get pucks to the net" is partly because goaltending was worse. There is a time and place to get the puck to the net, other times it's better to hold it look for something better.

 

[Bronson]

Weight was fired, Snow is still here as a "Senior Advisor"

Both are employed by the organization, not sure what they are doing exactly.

 

[eoin92]

Both are employed by the organization, not sure what they are doing exactly.

Neither are they.

 

[Axel574]

Why the f r we talking about Dougie and the Snowman?

 

[13th Floor]

I don't really get this board's sudden obsession with PDO. A high or low PDO doesn't guarantee a team is winning or losing. This armchair analysis of the teams' PDOs is hardly enough to establish whether a team is good or not. Don't bother using stats you don't understand, it's not gonna do anybody any good. And for what it's worth you need to look better. Teams like San Jose and Vegas are both deeply below 100 and I think most people would count them as good as well.

It's because people are misusing analytics. The ideas about PDO are directionally correct, but people are also misinterpreting what that means.

The problem with people analyzing PDO is that PDO is not a predictor of what's to come for the team's success. PDO is showing you how "lucky" a team has been. In every season, the PDO at the end of the year is within a very specific tight range. And that makes sense, over enough time, the shooting percentages and save percentages in the NHL will normalize and their sum will converge towards 1.000. And that also makes sense since it's a zero sum metric in totality. Meaning, if the universe existed of only one shooter and one goalie, adding the shooting % and the save % together would always be 1.000.

So, when people were jumping on the Isles earlier in the year, it's because their PDO was pretty far outside of the range that every team has been within by the end of the year. The analysis of what has happened in the early games isn't wrong -- the Isles were getting a high sum of shooting % and save % that was unsustainable since no team in the history of the NHL has been able to keep those numbers up for a full year. Over a long enough timeline, it just doesn't happen.

The problem that people have is that they jump to the conclusion that the high PDO means the Isles were crash back down to earth. But, the real analysis is that their PDO will come back into the normal range -- but that doesn't say anything about winning. There are too many other variables. For example, the team can continue to win but have the shot and save % flip in the other direction. Look at our last two games as perfect opposites. We scored 3 goals and then 4 goals and gave up 2 goals and 3 goals, respectively. But the shots for and against were completely flipped. We completely outshot Chicago and then got complete out shot by St. Louis. Obviously we need longer timelines to see PDO really smooth out, it's just convenient that PDO can be demonstrated in just a 2 game stretch. The game against STL is not sustainable, of course. We can't expect to get outshot like that and continue to win. But when you mix in games like Chicago, PDO evens out. So again, PDO predicts PDO -- it is only an indirect proxy for winning, and that's the mistake people make.

In looking at the stats today, Isles have the 3rd highest PDO. The teams at the top are, in order: Leafs, Caps, Isles, Penguins, Ducks, Lightning, Predators, Jackets. So, pretty much the very good teams (and then should-be-MVP candidate in Gibson who is somehow keeping the terrible Ducks afloat). And of course that's who's at the top -- the teams that are getting slightly better save percentages and shooting percentages compared to league average are winning and it has a lot to do with the players they have. But they key is, the Isles PDO is at 1.03 now. It has come down a lot since the beginning of the year and is falling into a 'sustainable' area. So our metrics have evened out because they had to by law of averages. The problem with the armchair analysts is they never took into account is the Isles could start outshooting people AND still win. Whoops! Carolina is another good example here since they are known for throwing everything on net. So, naturally, they are going to probably have the lowest PDO in the league (and they do). But because that's their strategy and PDO doesn't take into account the quality of shots, it is not going to be a good predictor of their success. All PDO is saying that if Carolina had the lowest in the league and it's outside of the normal range, then we expect their PDO to come back up toward the normal range. But if they continue to throw garbage at the net, they won't start winning more.

 

[Spybot]

There's no hard evidence, other than GM's and coaches who cite those advanced stats (I think there have been rumblings that GM's use some of that stuff in contract negotiations too, which means the players are aware of it).

That doesn't even count as soft evidence, contract negotiations are a complex matter, I'd expect every stat under the sun to show up there. Likewise the teams track all sorts of stats. Is that all that makes you think this?

Trotz actually preaches quality over quantity, so his teams (including the one that won the Stanley Cup last season) are out-possessed and would likely have a higher shooting percentage.

Okay. Indeed, the fact the Islanders do prefer high danger chances is well recorded in the available stats. But PDO is a zero sum stat, so it's quite impossible for every or most teams to inflate their Sh% and SV%. I haven't done an analysis of all his previous teams, though in Washington he also benefited from elite shooters, elite goaltending and elite powerplay. There was a little more than good strategy that contributed to their success.

He's also employing a strategy that limits quality shots against, thus raising SV%.

While the exact approach of teams in the ozone may differ, I've never heard of a coach that wasn't trying to employ a strategy that limits quality shots against. And whatever our strategy is, we've been pretty mediocre at supressing scoring chances. The goalies' individual performances have been a massive part of this team's success.

So when the Islanders play against Carolina, it looks like Carolina is dominating play, but they're just shooting the puck from the corner because that's their strategy. Things like that would naturally skew PDO, making it less likely to predict collapses, especially when all of the good teams have a high PDO.

Great, but there are other teams in the league than Carolina. Now show me how shooting the puck from the corner is the previaling trend in the league. Good luck with that, because it isn't.

How can it be used to predict collapses but also the good teams at the same time?

When a team with elite shooters and elite goaltending like Washington rides high PDO, it's more believeable it's gonna stay that way than when a team with not a lot of talent and two mediocre goalies career wise does the same. Kinda like that I guess.

Looking at Corsi or other numbers in the past may have indicated certain things, like possession and likelihood to win, but now that coaches and GM's are intentionally trying to get better in those numbers, it's actually decreasing their likelihood to predict the likely outcome.

Again, you have no evidence and you're only making things up. This is a complex conclusion you're basing purely on your personal feelings and what you want hockey to be like. No, GMs and coaches are not intentionally padding anything at the expense of winning. They're intentionally trying to make their team play better, which is often reflected in Corsi.

The ancient wisdom of "get pucks to the net" is partly because goaltending was worse. There is a time and place to get the puck to the net, other times it's better to hold it look for something better.

The wisdom is still current. Modern hockey is a lot about throwing the puck into traffic and looking for a rebound/deflection. The majority of high danger chances are generated just like that, even Trotz teams do this.