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.
That's kind of my point and why I was talking about PDO in the first place. The general theme early on from people was that our PDO was too high and we were just lucky, and we'd come back down to earth. My issue with that isn't that the PDO is likely to come down because it's too high, it's that people were predicting that the team would be bad after it fell for the Islanders but not for other teams. A high PDO doesn't mean you're going to be bad.
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.
It doesn't matter what the coaches are trying to, it matters what is actually happening. Doug Weight thought not blocking shots would help the team. He was wrong. Greiss was talking about how this season there are a limited number of options for the opposition every time they have the puck, making it easier for him to read the play and so his save percentage has gone up. It's not just the goalie's individual performance that leads to his rise in SV%.
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.
Sure, there are other teams, but the GM of Arizona specifically targets players based off their advanced stats. So teams are definitely manipulating or trying to manipulate certain things if they think it will lead to wins.
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.
Who gets to judge whether it's believable? I mean, haven't there been teams with high PDO's where people were talking about how they're going to crash, they make the playoffs and lose, then those same people say "see, I told you they'd crash!"? I know what you're saying about the talent, but I don't think there's an accurate way for people to judge that in something like PDO or Corsi.
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.
Of course they aren't doing something at the expense of winning, they think having the best Corsi will lead to more wins, so they're intentionally trying to be better at that area. How exactly would you like me to prove such a theory? I already provided one example of a team doing it, how many do I need to provide? Our coach ignores Corsi, and I'm sure others do as well, but that doesn't mean there aren't more who don't.
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.
Trotz isn't telling his players to shoot from the corner. Driving the net, creating rebounds, etc. is definitely part of the game, but the Islanders certainly don't throw anything and everything at the net. They're very selective about when they do or don't.
I'm not really interested in debating whether or not teams are attempting to manipulate those numbers more now than in the past, but my main point is that PDO doesn't accurately predict who will be a bad team like many posters on HF Boards claim. I think both you and 13th both go over a lot of the misconceptions and wrong application of the statistic, and that's why I don't trust it when it's cited as a reason the Islanders will be a bad team by years end.
