Is Tulsky part of the problem?

[Ole Gil]

The more you look at things, the more what Rod is saying about "Just need to keep doing it" looks right.

Last year, the Canes High Danger Shooting% was 18%, good for 7th in the league. But they were only 16th in the league in HD shots. And their high danger shots for% was only 50.53. So even though they had the big shot total advantage, it wasn't resulting in more high danger chances.

This year, they're 1st in HD Shots. They're 2nd in HD Shots For%. But they are only scoring on 11.72% (30th) of the shots. (6+% less than last year)

It feels like the same as last year because of shot totals and not great results, but underneath, it's not even close to the same thing.

To me, this looks like when they had a 3% PP earlier in the season, and however good or bad their powerplay was, we knew it wasn't 3% bad.

Last year, the league low HD shooting% was 13.74. The year before that, 13.21. The Canes, who were at 18% last year, and 15.2% the year before, did not magically turn into the worst HD shooting team of all time. Just like they weren't going to end up with 3% PP.

Goal scoring is coming people.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

We'll see. I hope you're right.

 

[Ole Gil]

We'll see. I hope you're right.

Who knows. I was just surprised to see just how different this year is from last year, even though it 'feels' similar.

 

[bobc222]

PDO is so flawed because it assumes that your players are average shooters compared to the league. If you have poor shooters then your PDO will always be less than 100 and you will be stuck thinking that your team must breakout eventually despite the fact that statically this will never happen.

 

[Joe McGrath]

PDO is so flawed because it assumes that your players are average shooters compared to the league. If you have poor shooters then your PDO will always be less than 100 and you will be stuck thinking that your team must breakout eventually despite the fact that statically this will never happen.

The stat itself isn’t flawed. It’s the interpretation.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

The stat itself isn’t flawed. It’s the interpretation.

What does that mean?

 

[Joe McGrath]

What does that mean?

If you’re using PDO as some kind of indicator of luck, you’re doing it wrong.

The Canes PDO is always below 100 because they have no one who can shoot and no one who can stop the puck.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

If you’re using PDO as some kind of indicator of luck, you’re doing it wrong.

The Canes PDO is always below 100 because they have no one who can shoot and no one who can stop the puck.

Well, yes. Except that everyone calls PDO the puck luck stat. So if it isn't useful in that capacity, how is it useful at all?

 

[Joe McGrath]

Well, yes. Except that everyone calls PDO the puck luck stat. So if it isn't useful in that capacity, how is it useful at all?

Same way save % and shooting % are useful on their own?

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Same way save % and shooting % are useful on their own?

The individual stats are useful because they reflect actual things that are happening. The aggregate stat adds nothing.

 

[Joe McGrath]

The individual stats are useful because they reflect actual things that are happening. The aggregate stat adds nothing.

So the fact that the Hurticanes team shooting % is terrible doesn’t reflect actual things that are happening?

If you watch every game it adds nothing because you know the Hurricanes have terrible shooters, take a ton of shots, and don’t score any goals.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

So the fact that the Hurticanes team shooting % is terrible doesn’t reflect actual things that are happening?

If you watch every game it adds nothing because you know the Hurricanes have terrible shooters, take a ton of shots, and don’t score any goals.

You would know that by looking at shooting percentage and save percentage independently.