Post-Game Talk: flies

[FireGerardGallant]

Dont look now but Laf & Kakko got an OT shift together, and KAM played over Trouba in OT as well. Kakko also got some PK time with Kreider in the box. More minutes for the children like we all wanted.

You can tell Gallant has begun to really trust the Kids. The playoff run probably did a ton for that.

 

[McRanger92]

You can tell Gallant has begun to really trust the Kids. The playoff run probably did a ton for that.

The Kakko game 6 scratch was also mistimed and unnecessary, but I think it worked. Kaapo received the message

 

[Kodiak]

I still can't fathom how that stat makes sense. Save percentage and shooting percentage are not correlated in any way. A team that has a 0.920% needs to shoot 8% to have a PDO of 1, another team may have a shooting percentage of 0.910% and would need to shoot 10% to have a PDO of 1. Why is the second team more likely to shoot 10% than the first team? PDO just seems like a made up stat that means very little.

I agree that logically it does not make complete sense, but it seems to work. All teams within the course of a season fall into range. I looked at the end of season 5v5 PDO for all teams going back to 2013-14. (Yes, I am that bored at work today.) That accounts for 276 team seasons over 9 years. Only one team has finished with a PDO above 1.025 (2016-17 Caps, who won the Presidents Trophy) and 5 teams have finished below 0.975 (Oilers, Coyotes, and Hurricanes in 2014-15, Avs in 2016-17, and Wings in 2019-20, all in bottom feeding years). So given enough time, a team should find themselves in the middle of the range about 98% of the time.

That's not to say that PDO is perfect. I view it a bit like voodoo because like I said earlier, it works but it doesn't make sense. The point is that if a team is finding itself particularly low or high in PDO, it should expect to trend toward 1 over the course of the season.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I agree that logically it does not make complete sense, but it seems to work. All teams within the course of a season fall into range. I looked at the end of season 5v5 PDO for all teams going back to 2013-14. (Yes, I am that bored at work today.) That accounts for 276 team seasons over 9 years. Only one team has finished with a PDO above 1.025 (2016-17 Caps, who won the Presidents Trophy) and 5 teams have finished below 0.975 (Oilers, Coyotes, and Hurricanes in 2014-15, Avs in 2016-17, and Wings in 2019-20, all in bottom feeding years). So given enough time, a team should find themselves in the middle of the range about 98% of the time.

That's not to say that PDO is perfect. I view it a bit like voodoo because like I said earlier, it works but it doesn't make sense. The point is that if a team is finding itself particularly low or high in PDO, it should expect to trend toward 1 over the course of the season.

I don't expect PDO to be super low or super high but within the range of reasonable PDOs I guarantee you year after the best teams more likely finish with a higher PDO and the worst finish with a lower. Maybe it's a good way to gauge which team will disappoint the following year but rosters change and I still think that personnel matters and influences that number.

 

[Kodiak]

I don't expect PDO to be super low or super high but within the range of reasonable PDOs I guarantee you year after the best teams more likely finish with a higher PDO and the worst finish with a lower. Maybe it's a good way to gauge which team will disappoint the following year but rosters change and I still think that personnel matters and influences that number.

That's absolutely true. Within the normal range, good teams are still going to have higher PDOs than bad teams. We shouldn't look at PDO in a vacuum. If we look at PDO in combination with our other advanced stats and the eye test, I think it paints the picture that this is a good team on a hard luck streak rather than a bad team with an inflated record.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

The Kakko game 6 scratch was also mistimed and unnecessary, but I think it worked. Kaapo received the message

I'm glad people finally realize that scratching a kid isn't a bad thing when not done excessively (not saying you were way against it or ranting - not sure either way).