A number they put to determine luck...What is a PDO?
A number they put to determine luck...What is a PDO?
Not everyone. I know most of our fans were pissed we lost Neal from the beginning.
And there were a number of threads here last summer saying the were going to be better than most thought.
I don't know if you saw them or not, but they were here.
Intro To Advanced Statistics - PDOWhat is a PDO?
As soon as it becomes about the money you undermine the validity of the league itself. By that logic, the most profitable teams should be more likely to win the more marketable players in the draft lottery. McDavid in Edmonton is costing the league millions and tons of exposure versus having him in a major market and on a competitive team. Such a thing may well occur in the NBA but not the NHL. Rather than do what is arguably in its best financial interest, the league attempts to maintain transparency and equality, allowing the ability of managers and ownership to dictate team quality rather than financial interests.You're looking at this with a homer's perspective and such a limited scope. At the end of the day, any major sports league is about the money, and a successful franchise in Vegas equals more profit. The entertainment value and everything else comes second. Now you can argue that a better quality product equals more profit, which is also true.
Right now, the league is profitable and growing because there is a high level of parity and the new expansion draft rules reflect that, along with the salary cap. The Avs got screwed when they introduced the salary cap. With your logic, it would be akin to saying that because the salary cap keeps rising, the league is acknowledging they set the salary cap too low when they introduced it, and now the league owes the Avalanche for the past mistake.
The league evolves. When Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Minnesota entered the league, there were true powerhouses, a few wildcards and a bunch of bottom feeders. Today, a team can go from finishing last in one season to making the playoffs the next season. Would you really prefer if the league stayed the same when those 4 teams entered the league where there was no salary cap?
Thank you very much for such a thorough reply, I appreciate it a lot.Intro To Advanced Statistics - PDO
PDO is the sum of a team's On-Ice SV% and On-Ice SH%. typically quoted as 10 x the percentage. For reference we usually look at the Even Strength PDO as the vast majority of ice time is spent in this game state. Usually the number regresses towards the NHL average of 1000 over the course of a season, though for some teams their sustainable PDO will be higher due to excellent goaltending or consistently good shooters.
PDO = 10 x (On-Ice SV% + On-Ice SH%)
Over a long enough numbers of games no team get out of a 100% PDO by that much (97 to 103 is pretty much the max) so team that over a small amount of games are having a 96 or 105 kind of PDO are bound to regress to the norm, it is a way to see how sustainable a team success is, looking at how much it is possibly driven by luck or badluck.
PDO is not just a measurement of luck, a strong goaltender able to separate itself from the back year's after year's combined with a group of elite shooter/power plays players (like the Caps were with Holtby for a while or the Luongo Canucks) can sustain good PDO for a while but it is hard and not by that big of an amount.
Good. What a mockery they made of the league last season.
A little premature. They may not teach 110 points again, but they are looking better, returning to form. Schmidt is back, Stastny and Haula out. They’ll be fine.
Calgary used them as toilet paper last night. how is that returning to form?
Most of the predictions were based off what past expansion teams did, and not the team Vegas assembled. They had more talent than half the league. I think they had 4 1st round picks on that roster and one of them was a 1st overall.So much revisionist history. Yeah, they had more favorable rules than past expansions but past expansion teams were literally a joke. Everyone and their mother was predicting that Vegas would be a bottom 5 team before the season started last year. Then they were good and, would you look at that, all of a sudden the rules are unfair.
The funniest part is that more than half their best players weren't even a product of favorable draft rules. They either got them directly through a trade or were paid to take them.
Western Conference*.Good. What a mockery they made of the league last season.
As soon as it becomes about the money you undermine the validity of the league itself. By that logic, the most profitable teams should be more likely to win the more marketable players in the draft lottery. McDavid in Edmonton is costing the league millions and tons of exposure versus having him in a major market and on a competitive team. Such a thing may well occur in the NBA but not the NHL. Rather than do what is arguably in its best financial interest, the league attempts to maintain transparency and equality, allowing the ability of managers and ownership to dictate team quality rather than financial interests.
Yes the league changes over time but that doesn't mean teams which were slighted shouldn't receive compensation in hindsight. Even preference for an outdoor game would likely suffice.
Speaking to the risk Vegas ownership took - T-Mobile arena was already well under construction by the time Vegas was even granted a team. The NBA wasn't in talks at all about going there. What's Vegas going to do? Sit on an empty arena? No, the NHL owners were in a position with all of the leverage. Vegas was already too committed to back out especially over a few more protection slots.
That's not at all true.This is literally the opposite of what is true. The business side is the only thing that makes the league valid. There would be no league without it.
Also, the salary cap (the only thing that allows teams like Columbus, or many others, to be competitive) is a business decision. It is "unfair" to some teams but not to your team so you don't determine it to undermine how valid the league may be.
And an arena in Vegas would do absolutely fine even without a pro sports tenant. Not that it has anything to do with anything, the league doesn't grant teams to cities only to try to extract bad deals for them to make them struggle.
That's not at all true.
Validity comes from transparency and allowing team management and on-ice play to be the sole determinants of team quality and success. If it came out that the league was favoring certain teams or acting behind the scenes to elicit financially beneficial outcomes, the whole league would lose legitimacy.
The owners had the opportunity to get a deal that was more in their own self interests and failed to do so. That's on them.
Calgary used them as toilet paper last night. how is that returning to form?
I don't agree with your logic. Vegas is paying because that is the fee. No need to be gifted a team.Vegas paid $500 mil to get a team. Nashville paid $80 mil ($124 million today).
Vegas basically paid 4x more to get a team, and there are 17 NHL franchises that are worth less than what Vegas paid for. They should be given a bit better start than what Nashville had to deal with, but a bunch of teams decided to give out top 6 players like candy (i.e. Florida).
Or a high draft pick or two.Exactly
Minnesota has won 4 playoff series in it’s history 2 was a real Cinderella run to the Conference Finals in their 3rd year.
Atlanta/Winnipeg had never won a playoff series until last season and lost to Vegas in the Conference Finals
Columbus has NEVER won a playoff series
Nashville is the only team to make the Stanley Cup Finals and it took 20 years to get there.
I could list the rosters of these teams in their 1st year and they were laughable at best.
Now Seattle is knocking on the door and my team is going to have to surrender a top 4 defensemen, our highly regarded backup goalie, or another Top 6 forward.
Everyone forgets that the league was not looking to expand and it was Vegas that was asking to join. The NHL opened up bids and set that price just to see how serious people were.I don't agree with your logic. Vegas is paying because that is the fee. No need to be gifted a team.
Compare head to head, East VS West and get back to me. Since lets say, since 2006.Western Conference*.
As soon as it becomes about the money you undermine the validity of the league itself. By that logic, the most profitable teams should be more likely to win the more marketable players in the draft lottery. McDavid in Edmonton is costing the league millions and tons of exposure versus having him in a major market and on a competitive team. Such a thing may well occur in the NBA but not the NHL. Rather than do what is arguably in its best financial interest, the league attempts to maintain transparency and equality, allowing the ability of managers and ownership to dictate team quality rather than financial interests.
Yes the league changes over time but that doesn't mean teams which were slighted shouldn't receive compensation in hindsight. Even preference for an outdoor game would likely suffice.
Speaking to the risk Vegas ownership took - T-Mobile arena was already well under construction by the time Vegas was even granted a team. The NBA wasn't in talks at all about going there. What's Vegas going to do? Sit on an empty arena? No, the NHL owners were in a position with all of the leverage. Vegas was already too committed to back out especially over a few more protection slots.
At this point of the season, that means you're pretty much done.
Not easy to make up points in this league.
I don't agree with your logic. Vegas is paying because that is the fee. No need to be gifted a team.