Are the Capitals and Jets PDO merchants ?

[Kalopsia]

I just ran into the Caps head coach in the concourse at Rogers Place

Did you ask him if the Caps are PDO merchants?

 

[Mattilaus]

I think there are definitely reasons why combining the two is bad but the reasoning is that shots and saves are zero-sum. Across all games played in the entire NHL this year, the amount of total shots taken is constant, and the amount of goals is exactly equal to the amount of total shots minus the amount of saves. The PDO of the entire league then is by definition always 100.

As for sustaining it I don't think anyone would argue that there isn't some skill involved and that good teams can generally maintain higher PDOs than bad teams. I don't think that ability is quite as repeatable as you would think though (especially in the modern era) and the degree to which teams are able to be above that 100 mark are pretty hard capped

Well said. Like a team with a sv% of .950 and a team sh% of 20% has a PDO of 115. Is there anyone that wants to argue this wouldn't be largely unsustainable over a full season? Great teams usually have a PDO above 100, but at a certain point above 100 it becomes clear it is unlikely to continue. I think at their height last year the Canucks were around a 109 and look where they finished. There was absolutely regression. They were still a good team (I still think they are despite recent results) but their sv% and sh% were not sustainable over the long term.

It has nothing to do with luck and the people who keep parroting that is all about luck don't understand or simply don't want to discuss stats. As said earlier, it's not even an "advanced" stat. Nobody gets this upset when you say a .950 goalie will come back down to earth or a player shooting 40% will regress. They only get mad when you combine the two. Then it's all "lol go home stats nerd! My team can keep doing it! They are DIFFERENT!"

 

[tarheelhockey]

The big insight isn't saying "they won't play this great forever" it's trying to provide some sort of quantitative measure to separate out how much of a team's performance is sustainable over a longer period. That is the entire point of statistics.

Sure, but PDO obscures the point by combining unrelated factors rather than separating them. In order to formulate PDO, you have to already have possession of the key factors — then you make them harder to understand by squashing them together for no reason.

It has this dynamic in common with +/-, another stat that gets formulated by taking some useful information and jumbling it up into a non-useful, often deceptive end product.

I don't think it's mostly "luck" in the way of getting crazy bounces or offsides reviews or the other team hitting all posts (although that definitely has some part in it) and I think that lots of stats people often overstate this aspect. Rather, it is "luck" in the sense that the Caps are lucky to have basically every single player -- McMichael, Protas, Chychrun, Ovi, Strome, Wilson, PLD, Sandin, Thompson, etc. -- playing the best hockey of their careers at the exact same time.

I hear you, but there’s no causative effect at play here. PDO focuses on the idea that shooting and save percentages “should” regress to a certain point (100) which matches the league average. But nothing causes a specific player or team to have that regression. The only causative factor is performance.

Take Ovie for example. Of course his game is going to regress soon, he’s pushing 40 years old. Only someone with a very childish view of pro sports would think Ovie’s not close to the end of his run of elite performance. Age will cause his performance to drop, which will cause his scoring to drop.

That said, Ovie’s career shooting average is 13%. The NHL’s average over the course of his career is 9% — he is a 44% better shooter than the average player, as proven by nearly 1500 games of steady reliable production. If he regresses from his current 19% shooting this season, 13% will be the benchmark that he regresses to. Not 9%. PDO doesn’t recognize the difference.

This concept applies across the board. Is it “lucky” that a bunch of Caps are having career years? Maybe the question should be, is this random? Or is there something causative associated with their production, like Strome getting away from poor situations in Arizona and Chicago and finding himself on a PP with Ovechkin and Carlson instead? If that’s the case, why would he not be having the best year of his career?

I disagree with your point about the playoffs too. We see this every single year when a big upset happens and you take a closer look and it's because a goalie gets hot or has a complete meltdown. Basically the whole catalyst for the "analytics era" in hockey was the 09-10 Caps and their .977 PDO getting Halaked by the Canadiens! It definitely was a huge talking point in 2023 too with Vegas and their 105.3 PDO. Getting lucky, sure, but also just having everyone click at the same time (and the right time)!

Again though, there’s no causative relationship between shooting and goaltending. Why would you be talking about Washington’s .977 PDO instead of Halak’s .939, or Mike Green and Alex Semin combining for 0 goals in 7 games? In order to get to PDO, you have to walk right past the information that actually tells the story of the series.

 

[qc14]

Sure, but PDO obscures the point by combining unrelated factors rather than separating them. In order to formulate PDO, you have to already have possession of the key factors — then you make them harder to understand by squashing them together for no reason.

It has this dynamic in common with +/-, another stat that gets formulated by taking some useful information and jumbling it up into a non-useful, often deceptive end product.

Again though, there’s no causative relationship between shooting and goaltending. Why would you be talking about Washington’s .977 PDO instead of Halak’s .939, or Mike Green and Alex Semin combining for 0 goals in 7 games? In order to get to PDO, you have to walk right past the information that actually tells the story of the series.

I generally agree with this but saves and goals (and thus save percentage and shooting percentage) are zero sum. It also measures a very specific thing -- how efficient a team is at turning a shot difference into a positive goal difference.

Why do we use xG% which combines xG for (offense) with xG against (defense)? Why are WAR-like stats so popular? Drilling down deeper is great and what fans and GMs and writers and coaches and scouts should all do. It is also extremely helpful to have broader, more overarching metrics

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

I'd say Washington is overachieving a bit this season but they're a lot better of a team than most people gave them credit for at the start of the season. Their roster is actually pretty solid.

 

[cupface52]

Since November 30(exactly half their season so far) caps are 16th in 5v5 on ice sh%. Only Edmonton has a better record in that time, by 1 point.