The Uncovered Truth About PDO and SH%

[ItWasJustified]

So you don't believe in lucky bounces?

I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.

 

[Pip]

I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.

Lol

 

[Mattilaus]

I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.

So if play roulette and hit my number 6 times in a row it's not luck, its my hard work over time and doing the right things. Good to know.

 

[North Cole]

I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.

You're entire argument is predicated on the idea that ability is perfectly quantifiable. You over achieve on the basis of your ability being unknown to some degree.

In a perfectly controlled environment, what you're saying is possible. The issue being, nothing is perfectly controlled and you simply don't have the data to say with 100% certainty X outcome is due to Y ability.

PDO is a counting stat, it's just two simple stats added together, saying that the sum at some point in time is based wholly on ability is about as reductive as it gets. Especially when we've all watched the PDO regress in real time as more instances of data have been added. Is it going to keep regressing or is it where it supposed to be now? If you think the latter, why did you think it wasn't where it was supposed to be 20 games ago before it regressed? Unless the ability has changed so quickly, that's incongruent.

 

[AnInjuredJasonZucker]

No, it would not.

Nope. Your ability is your individual and team peak.

Your dictionary link didn't render my argument irrelevant. You can't measure expectations.

Yes. Because there's always the factor of an individual mistake or an individual not being good enough/having enough ability.

You are missing a glorious opportunity for self-reflection here. Your response is proof that you did not understand the definition, but please, Dunning-Kruger all over the thread.

 

[ijuka]

I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.

So you've never encountered a person who worked hard and did the right things but ended up being unsuccessful or unlucky?

At this point, I'm wondering whether you've actually lived life or are some sort of an Android that was started up yesterday.

 

[dgibb10]

So you've never encountered a person who worked hard and did the right things but ended up being unsuccessful or unlucky?

At this point, I'm wondering whether you've actually lived life or are some sort of an Android that was started up yesterday.

His entire worldview would be in shambles after 1 day of a high school level statistics class

 

[Oryxo]

Guys, didn't you know that if you repeat the same thing over and over with confidence it makes it true?

Trust me, my posting ability stat is very high.

 

[Atoyot]

No, it would not.

Nope. Your ability is your individual and team peak.

Your dictionary link didn't render my argument irrelevant. You can't measure expectations.

Yes. Because there's always the factor of an individual mistake or an individual not being good enough/having enough ability.

K, so if it's possible for a team to win a game they deserve to lose, then it's possible for a team to win 5 more than they deserve, or 10, or 15. What word would you use to describe such a team that is winning more than they deserve to?

 

[BurnabyJoe7]

No, it would not.

Nope. Your ability is your individual and team peak.

Your dictionary link didn't render my argument irrelevant. You can't measure expectations.

Yes. Because there's always the factor of an individual mistake or an individual not being good enough/having enough ability.

Were you homeschooled by a hamster? No idea where these definitions are coming from but it's entertaining

 

[ItWasJustified]

So if play roulette and hit my number 6 times in a row it's not luck, its my hard work over time and doing the right things. Good to know.

Roulette is a game of chance, not luck.

You're entire argument is predicated on the idea that ability is perfectly quantifiable. You over achieve on the basis of your ability being unknown to some degree.

If you think someone is overachieving, that's not overachieving, it's just peak, or close to peak performance.

So you've never encountered a person who worked hard and did the right things but ended up being unsuccessful or unlucky?

The only thing that can be luck or bad luck when it comes to sports are injuries.

K, so if it's possible for a team to win a game they deserve to lose, then it's possible for a team to win 5 more than they deserve, or 10, or 15. What word would you use to describe such a team that is winning more than they deserve to?

I would call such a team a good team. Then I would question whoever thinks that team is winning more than they deserve and on what basis.

 

[North Cole]

Roulette is a game of chance, not luck.

If you think someone is overachieving, that's not overachieving, it's just peak, or close to peak performance.

The only thing that can be luck or bad luck when it comes to sports are injuries.

I would call such a team a good team. Then I would question whoever thinks that team is winning more than they deserve and on what basis.

Everything is a game of chance, the only question is how much chance is involved. I think someone is overachieving based on a baseline ability. If you point to them simply hitting peak performance, then are all other instances of non-peak performance underachieving?

I'm just not sure how you can say this is exactly someone's ability because we saw these results. You'd also have to acknowledge lesser ability when you get lesser results. Further to that, how do you know this is the peak? Isn't there a mathematical possibility that they outperform this peak? Would that be overperformance or does it mean this current peak was not actually their ability?

It just seems much more logical to say that a human being has a certain range of ability, and when you greatly exceed/fall short of that range you over or under achieve. Rather than making someone's ability an infinite limit that you only define in hindsight.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.

"The harder I work, the luckier I get." ~ Lakers Coach Pat Riley

 

[BraveCanadian]

This thread demonstrates pretty well the problem of stats people calling things they don’t currently have a stat for or cannot explain “luck” and causing the non stats people to repeat nauseating cliches about how hard they work and adding in the just world fallacy for fun.

Both sides are wrong in different ways but the argument mostly stems from using a poor term for variance.

 

[JaegerDice]

I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.

Luck in hockey can be 'created' from increasing the number of shots and chances your team generates while decreasing the number of shots and chances the opponents get.

This creates a buffer that insulates teams against shooters and goalies going cold, or facing hot shooters and goalies themselves.

You create more opportunities for the puck to bounce your way, limit the opportunities for the puck to bounce against you.

This thread demonstrates pretty well the problem of stats people calling things they don’t currently have a stat for or cannot explain “luck” and causing the non stats people to repeat nauseating cliches about how hard they work and adding in the just world fallacy for fun.

Both sides are wrong in different ways but the argument mostly stems from using a poor term for variance.

Luck, by definition, is pretty much just elements you can't control.

If you want to create a new stat that incorporates other elements that cant be controlled, like bad/missed calls by the refs or injuries, go for it.

As far as raw on-ice play, PDO is a very good proxy for luck.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Luck, by definition, is pretty much just elements you can't control.

If you want to create a new stat that incorporates other elements that cant be controlled, like bad/missed calls by the refs or injuries, go for it.

As far as raw on-ice play, PDO is a very good proxy for luck.

Disagree, and the difference between what people versed in statistics call luck and what "normal" people call luck is the problem as I said.