PDO nonsense

[Machinehead]

You literally said a few posts up its statistically impossible for a team to have a 106 PDO for a season. I'm just trying to understand the damn stat

Its not "impossible" meaning mix oil and water, part the red sea, walk on air, scientifically impossible, but within reason, it's never going to happen.

 

[nyr__1994]

No to be stupid, becuase I probably am, but the way PDO is calculated, if you take every teams shooting percentage, and every teams save percentage and used that to calculate PDO you would get 100 correct?

Ok, if that assumption is correct, then you have the 'bad PDO' teams below 100 and 'good PDO' teams above 100.

The NYR have consistently been around 102 the past few seasons. Whats to say they can't increase that with a little better goaltending, and in increase in shooting percentage to say 103.5 for a season?

That is only an increase in 1.5 off what I would say is a baseline of 102 looking at the past 200 games or so. Is that thinking correct?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Its not "impossible" meaning mix oil and water, part the red sea, walk on air, scientifically impossible, but within reason, it's never going to happen.

Right, so it's not impossible. Let's not speak in certainties if we don't need to.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

That's not true.

Having 82 games as opposed to infinity games means they won't all make it to 100.

82 games is more than enough for all of them to go towards 100.

which makes it more of a suggestion that regression is likely, than a statistical certainty

 

[aufheben]

This should only be a concern if you expect to keep scoring 5 goals a game.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I find it to be incredibly ironic that folks complain that people don't take the time to learn about advanced stats and then those same folks go and post that X is "certain" or Y is "impossible" and cause confusion about the stats that they complain people don't know about.

Way to add to the problem.

 

[Machinehead]

No to be stupid, becuase I probably am, but the way PDO is calculated, if you take every teams shooting percentage, and every teams save percentage and used that to calculate PDO you would get 100 correct?

Ok, if that assumption is correct, then you have the 'bad PDO' teams below 100 and 'good PDO' teams above 100.

The NYR have consistently been around 102 the past few seasons. Whats to say they can't increase that with a little better goaltending, and in increase in shooting percentage to say 103.5 for a season?

That is only an increase in 1.5 off what I would say is a baseline of 102 looking at the past 200 games or so. Is that thinking correct?

100 is just an average. You're not legally bound to be anywhere near 100 but within reason, that's where you end up.

Over the last 181 games, the Rangers are at 102.5 which is already ridiculous. Could they get that up another whole point? I would bet money they don't, but even if they do, it's still massive halt to production compared to 105.8 which is where we are now.

This is a good offensive team, but if you're saying the PDO won't drop, you're essentially saying you expect the Rangers to score 348 goals which is what they're on pace for. One team has scored 300 since 2005-06.

 

[Machinehead]

Right, so it's not impossible. Let's not speak in certainties if we don't need to.

If the Rangers finish the season with a PDO of 106+ I'll take volunteers to come to MSG and crack an egg on my head.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

my beef with PDO is its usage by people that don't understand it. good PDO teams are not necessarily "lucky" as some would put it. at the same time, bad PDO teams are not necesarily "unlucky".

sometimes teams are just better shooters, and have better goaltenders than other teams.

I think its used too much as an excuse to:

1) Tear down good teams
2)discount ones own team by saying they have simply been unlucky. idk, maybe your team just sucks

 

[silverfish]

I find it to be incredibly ironic that folks complain that people don't take the time to learn about advanced stats and then those same folks go and post that X is "certain" or Y is "impossible" and cause confusion about the stats that they complain people don't know about.

Way to add to the problem.

I can help here but don't wanna dig through the thread. What do we need to know?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

If the Rangers finish the season with a PDO of 106+ I'll take volunteers to come to MSG and crack an egg on my head.

So please never, ever complain that people don't understand stats in the future if you're going to do your best to muddy the waters regarding them.

Thanks.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I can help here but don't wanna dig through the thread. What do we need to know?

I understand the discussion (re: PDO), but there is some completely needless confusion caused by MH speaking in absolutes when he shouldn't be.

 

[Kaapo Cabana]

100 is just an average. You're not legally bound to be anywhere near 100 but within reason, that's where you end up.

Over the last 181 games, the Rangers are at 102.5 which is already ridiculous. Could they get that up another whole point? I would bet money they don't, but even if they do, it's still massive halt to production compared to 105.8 which is where we are now.

This is a good offensive team, but if you're saying the PDO won't drop, you're essentially saying you expect the Rangers to score 348 goals which is what they're on pace for. One team has scored 300 since 2005-06.

also, PDO across multiple seasons shouldn't apply because of changes in personnel, coaching, schedule, injuries, etc.

ie, these Rangers are not the same team as last years Rangers.

 

[Irishguy42]

1.000 is not the PDO that every team ends at, nor are they drawn to that. It just happens to be the median.

Each team has a different stabilized PDO. Some teams normalize around .980 whereas some will normalize around 1.01.

1.000 being the bar for "over-performing" or "under-performing" is not correct and people need to get that through their head.

 

[silverfish]

I understand the discussion (re: PDO), but there is some completely needless confusion caused by MH speaking in absolutes when he shouldn't be.

Ah okay, got ya. I didn't want to be involved in this thread at all, but figured if I could help, I'd at least try.

Leaving again now

 

[sbjnyc]

I'm not sure that PDO itself is a meaningful number. I think it's more interesting how teams rank in PDO and how that rank changes over 1 or more seasons. Even if the rangers regress towards 100, if they remain at the top of the PDO ranking then that probably indicates they're playing pretty well.

 

[Thordic]

The highest recorded PDO is 103.3 and that team had Ovechkin and Semin. It's coming down eventually. That's guaranteed.



Yes. It's statistically impossible for a team to have a season at or around 106.



So they're going to go from 106 to 102. Ergo, regression towards 100.

The 76-77 Canadiens had an estimated PDO of 106.1. Stat tracking wasn't quite as accurate back then, but it was close to that number. So it IS possible. But they were probably the greatest hockey team of all time, so there's that...

 

[Irishguy42]

PDO also still needs work. It's an okay stat, not the best.

Ian Fleming was talking about adding xG work into it, which is the correct step, IMO. Would make it more accurate.

 

[Off Sides]

It's about very likely unsustainable numbers usually over a small sample size.

If that sample size were the playoffs and the Rangers were at 105, we'd all be very happy. In a way them being able to even get it that high should be somewhat encouraging. It means it is possible for them to get there, yet it does not mean we should expect them to be there.

 

[Machinehead]

The 76-77 Canadiens had an estimated PDO of 106.1. Stat tracking wasn't quite as accurate back then, but it was close to that number. So it IS possible. But they were probably the greatest hockey team of all time, so there's that...

I don't think it could happen in today's game.

Shot rates are up way too much from the 70's to sustain the kind of shooting percentage they had.

 

[nyr__1994]

100 is just an average. You're not legally bound to be anywhere near 100 but within reason, that's where you end up.

Over the last 181 games, the Rangers are at 102.5 which is already ridiculous. Could they get that up another whole point? I would bet money they don't, but even if they do, it's still massive halt to production compared to 105.8 which is where we are now.

This is a good offensive team, but if you're saying the PDO won't drop, you're essentially saying you expect the Rangers to score 348 goals which is what they're on pace for. One team has scored 300 since 2005-06.

I get that 100 is an average. My question/argument is that within a average you will have things consistently above average and consistently below average. So in this case, one teams average is different from another team.

What is to say that the NYR average is not 102.5? They have top notch goal-tending, and some very good shooters. This year the goal tending has not been top notch. It has been good to very good, but is not something that is unsustainable, and could even be improved upon.

Their shooting percentage is obviously going to come down, but to where is the question?

The Caps were mentioned has having the highest PDO in recent times due to Ovenchicken and Semin, but was that team 4 lines deep and able to come at teams in waves and counter punch like the NYR have been doing so far this year?

I know they are not going to finish at 106 , but is 103.5-104 really out of the realm of possibility or probablility?

 

[Irishguy42]

If you have a goaltender like Hank, you're going to end up with a PDO between 1.01 and 1.03 for your normal. That's just going to happen. 1.000 is not your bar for over/under performing.

Anything more than that, that's when you get to "oh they're going to regress."

 

[SnowblindNYR]

A 106 would mean a shooting percentage of 11, the highest ever recorded, and a save percentage of 95, the highest ever recorded.

If you want to believe the Rangers are breaking two NHL records this year, be my guest.

That doesn't make it statistically impossible, just statistically improbable. You have enough seasons 106 PDO is possible. I'm not even saying that we'll have that I'll be shocked, but this is like saying winning the lottery is statistically impossible because you never have. You're using impossible way too loosely.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

100 is just an average. You're not legally bound to be anywhere near 100 but within reason, that's where you end up.

Over the last 181 games, the Rangers are at 102.5 which is already ridiculous. Could they get that up another whole point? I would bet money they don't, but even if they do, it's still massive halt to production compared to 105.8 which is where we are now.

This is a good offensive team, but if you're saying the PDO won't drop, you're essentially saying you expect the Rangers to score 348 goals which is what they're on pace for. One team has scored 300 since 2005-06.

If the Rangers continue this goal differential they will be +164 by the end of the season. The 95-96 Red Wings had a +144 goal differential. We can win a lot of games while scoring a lot less than we are now. I don't understand the freak out about PDO.

 

[Machinehead]

That doesn't make it statistically impossible, just statistically improbable. You have enough seasons 106 PDO is possible. I'm not even saying that we'll have that I'll be shocked, but this is like saying winning the lottery is statistically impossible because you never have. You're using impossible way too loosely.

Depends on how you define "possible."

Do you really think a player scoring 80 goals in today's league is realistically possible?