Are the Capitals and Jets PDO merchants ?

[oXo Cube]

Because PP/PK is more systems driven.

If you're looking at *luck*, look at 5v5. The teams that crash down always have extremely high 5v5 oiSH%, or in some cases wildly high save % by a known mediocre goalie.

So you're suggesting that the Jets have doubled their PP shooting percentage from just last year because of systems play.

Press X to doubt.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Why are people always up in arms over unsustainably high PDO but don't ever bring up low PDO as unsustainable?

Which teams are we talking about?

People bring it up with good teams all the time and the only fans who care about teams performing poorly (regardless of PDO) are fans of that team.

 

[MardyBum]

So you're suggesting that the Jets have doubled their PP shooting percentage from just last year because of systems play.

Press X to doubt.

You're welcome to actually watch the games. The Jets had one of the worst powerplays in the league for most of last year because they were stationary. The coaches, media, the players all spoke of needing to move more. They didn't.

This year is entirely different. They can drop to 10th in the league and it'd still be a remarkable improvement, largely due to systems (and the PP coach finally realizing the optimal group).

5v5 is where most of the game is played. The Jets are still high there if you'd like to make an actual point.

 

[SimpleJack]

From 1-6 I don’t think there are more than two or three teams, if any, with a better blue line than Washington. Carlson, Fehervary, Roy, Chychrun, TvR, and Sandin is as good as it gets in the NHL from top to bottom. Strome, PLD, Eller, and Dowd is also terrific center depth even without a superstar at the position.

The Caps are built like Vegas before Vegas got Eichel. No All-World player at any position but terrific depth at every position.

But sure, PDO.

If that’s terrific center depth then call me Miles Davis.

 

[gojetsgo]

So you're suggesting that the Jets have doubled their PP shooting percentage from just last year because of systems play.

Press X to doubt.

how much of the jets powerplay did you watch last year? how much have you watched this year? there is a night and day difference between the two with the coaching changes and adding ehlers to the top unit

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Which teams are we talking about?

People bring it up with good teams all the time and the only fans who care about teams performing poorly (regardless of PDO) are fans of that team.

It was just general thought here. I wasn't thinking of any team in particular. Just seems this board is highly skewed on the negative.

 

[BallardEra]

This may not have been a serious question, but I did some quick digging for fun and I have to imagine it's Edmonton in 1983-84 with 105. 17% shooting and 88% goaltending.

The Oilers were 1st in the NHL for shooting percent every year of the decade except for the Penguins in 1989-90.

Appreciate the info. Figured the lower SV% would have made it tougher to go over 100.

 

[cjm502]

PDO can be based on luck, or it can be a combination of having a good goalie, your team forcing low percentage shots from the opponent, and taking more high percentage shots then other teams leading to a higher shooting percentage. One has to dig deeper in to each team to see if their PDO is a result of how they are playing, or if they have had an abundance of puck luck. In Winnipeg, having the best goalie in the league combined with a high octane offense has lead to a high PDO that is not based on luck. Truly strong teams will maintain their PDO throughout the season, where the lucky ones will usually fall closer to equilibrium as time goes on.

 

[oXo Cube]

You're welcome to actually watch the games. The Jets had one of the worst powerplays in the league for most of last year because they were stationary. The coaches, media, the players all spoke of needing to move more. They didn't.

This year is entirely different. They can drop to 10th in the league and it'd still be a remarkable improvement, largely due to systems (and the PP coach finally realizing the optimal group).

5v5 is where most of the game is played. The Jets are still high there if you'd like to make an actual point.

I've already made the point I was trying to make. The Jets have scored goals way above reasonable rate mostly due to unsustainably impressive shooting on the power play. If I've said anything about what I think of the Jets as a whole at all in this thread, it would be in my first post where I implied that I don't believe they are a bad hockey team.

You're absolutely right that there is plenty of room for the teams offensive output to decline with the team remaining high in the standings.

Appreciate the info. Figured the lower SV% would have made it tougher to go over 100.

The whole argument of why the statistic is worth paying attention to is that at a league wide level it always adds up to 100 as any shot that isn't a save is by definition a goal.

Teams individually can exceed that number consistently if they have reliably elite goaltending, but that's rare in todays NHL and has been for awhile. The data tends to bear out that shooting at a team level is mostly random and varies quite wildly from season to season.

 

[Regal]

Why are people always up in arms over unsustainably high PDO but don't ever bring up low PDO as unsustainable?

I think people legitimately trying to predict sustainability have always looked at both, though PDO isn’t used as much anymore since expected goals tends to be more in favour than just shot metrics. At this point though, it’s mostly just become an easy criticism for opposing fans to criticize teams they don’t like, which means the teams “overachieving” will be looked at more than those “underachieving”

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

If that’s terrific center depth then call me Miles Davis.

Best 4C in the league, two 1Bs, and a solid 3C. Not flashy or spectacular but solid from top to bottom. I’d say they’re middle of the league if you were ranking each team’s overall strength at the center position.

 

[PuckG]

Why are people always up in arms over unsustainably high PDO but don't ever bring up low PDO as unsustainable?

Usually because low PDO is just an opportunity for opposing teams to rip that team and their fans a new one.

 

[JaegerDice]

Yes.

Next question?








Ok, the Jets have an elite goalie that has proven he can carry elite levels of play through a whole season and beyond. As such, some of their PDO can be attributed to that, and as such cant be counted on to regress.

That said, teams that rely on goaltending and shooting percentage over puck possession, chance generation and shot suppression rarely win the cup

 

[10YearsHaveGone]

At this time last year the Canucks had a 5v5 sv%+s% of 105.0. This "corrected" as the season continued to 102.8.

Right now the Caps have a 5v5 sv%+s% of 103.2, the Jets have a 5v5 of 102.4.

The Nucks of the first half of last year were running on an all time PDO heater. It was justified to point to as having an impact on their teams success.

This year the Caps and Jets are also benefitting from some puck luck, but not to the extent the Nucks did in the first half of last year.

 

[JaegerDice]

I think people legitimately trying to predict sustainability have always looked at both, though PDO isn’t used as much anymore since expected goals tends to be more in favour than just shot metrics. At this point though, it’s mostly just become an easy criticism for opposing fans to criticize teams they don’t like, which means the teams “overachieving” will be looked at more than those “underachieving”

xGF isn't wholly separate. Every expected goals model factors shot volume (as well as distance, type, etc) into their model. The amount that shot volume is weighted varies.

That said, there isn't a single expected goals model that generates a strong direct correlation between expected goals for and team on-ice shooting percentage.

We know this intuitively, because there are no shortage of teams that ultimately finish the season with fewer goals than expected, and all the anti-stats people try to claim it proves expected goals is a meaningless measure.

TLDR; Don't assume a team with a high PDO is just taking better shots. People love ascribing purpose to randomness. Look at their expected goal numbers and possession numbers, too. Sometimes the team really is just getting lucky.

 

[Aashir]

If that’s terrific center depth then call me Miles Davis.

I think it fits perfectly with what the poster said about Vegas before eichel

They have 2 guys who are playing at top 6 levels, one ok 3C and a great 4C.

Strome, Dubois, Eller, Dowd
Vs
Stephenson, Karlsson, Roy, Jamark

I’d say it’s very similar with hopes that either team could get an elite 1C and move the centers down/one to the wing. Vegas got Eichel, Washington hasn’t gotten that someone.

 

[wetcoast]

From 1-6 I don’t think there are more than two or three teams, if any, with a better blue line than Washington. Carlson, Fehervary, Roy, Chychrun, TvR, and Sandin is as good as it gets in the NHL from top to bottom.

Man I'm not so sure about this but they have been healthy with 4 of them playing in all 46 games and then 41 and 36.

At full health though I think you would be hard pressed to put that group, in a vacuum in the top 10 among NHL defensive groups and certainly more than 2 or 3 other teams.

Strome, PLD, Eller, and Dowd is also terrific center depth even without a superstar at the position.

Strome had an insane start with 34 points in 21 games his first 2 months and now has 12 in his last 22.

PLD had a slow start and has played quite well since then but he never seems to be able to sustain it.

Dowd is incredible if he is your 4th liner but he really is the 3rd line center to Eller's 4th line.

The Caps are built like Vegas before Vegas got Eichel. No All-World player at any position but terrific depth at every position.

Vegas defensive group is most certainly better 1-6

But sure, PDO.

The thing is that most stats showing your above assertions will also show PDO right?

 

[Regal]

xGF isn't wholly separate. Every expected goals model factors shot volume (as well as distance, type, etc) into their model. The amount that shot volume is weighted varies.

That said, there isn't a single expected goals model that generates a strong direct correlation between expected goals for and team on-ice shooting percentage.

We know this intuitively, because there are no shortage of teams that ultimately finish the season with fewer goals than expected, and all the anti-stats people try to claim it proves expected goals is a meaningless measure.

For sure they’re not separate, but like you say, expected goals factors both quality of shots and shot volume into the equation. We can still try to look at sustainability with expected goals, but because PDO is only shot volume dependent, it doesn’t really tell us much on its own

 

[FiveFourteenSixOne]

Why are people always up in arms over unsustainably high PDO but don't ever bring up low PDO as unsustainable?

low PDO came up a lot last year and this year early in the seasons to explain the Oilers poor records.

They were seriously outplaying teams and losing games. They couldn't buy a goal, and couldn't get a stop. There's a good argument that things would have turned around without firing Woodcroft because their PDO was so terrible it was going to rebound, and the wins would start piling up.

 

[Mattilaus]

It was the cool stat after Corsi... then it faded away because it's stupid... and for some reason it's making a comeback

it's shooting percentage + save percentage... the belief is if it's over 100% you're getting lucky

Lol no that's not the belief. That's what people who don't understand what we are talking about believe we are saying.

It's just a measure. Good teams will have higher PDOs because they have better goaltenders and better shooters. Zero people are arguing that PDO over 100 means you are just lucky. However exceptionally high PDOs are not sustainable generally.

Separate it out into its individual parts. We can even just take one. Some players have better shooting percentages than others. Maybe a player is real good and can maintain a shooting percentage of 15%. Then one year he has a shooting percentage of 50% for 3 months. Of course the 50% isn't sustainable and will regress, but that doesn't mean his shooting percentage will just drop to league average at some point. It means it will likely regress to around his career shooting percentage, which is still above average.

 

[Susannah]

What are the limitations of PDO?
- PDO can be misleading if used as the sole predictor of performance
- PDO can be influenced by a team's style of play, player skill, and other systemic factors

From internet...

PDO looks more like a statistic number without context. Very shallow way to look at teams' performances.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Uncertain what PDO is but Washington is absolutely a series of outliers this season. Cannot imagine this continues into playoffs and beyond.

 

[Coffey]

Uncertain what PDO is but Washington is absolutely a series of outliers this season. Cannot imagine this continues into playoffs and beyond.

Combo of sv% and sh%.
Basically its unsustainable scoring and saving.

See: Canucks this year and last year.

 

[Three On Zero]

Uncertain what PDO is but Washington is absolutely a series of outliers this season. Cannot imagine this continues into playoffs and beyond.

It’s a very shallow look at a teams performance. Doesn’t take into account a lot of factors. Just a very poor advanced stat.

 

[JaegerDice]

What are the limitations of PDO?
- PDO can be misleading if used as the sole predictor of performance
- PDO can be influenced by a team's style of play, player skill, and other systemic factors

From internet...

PDO looks more like a statistic number without context. Very shallow way to look at teams' performances.

Yes, I too believe that LUCK can be misleading if used as the sole predictor of performance.