GDT: Game 13: New York Rangers vs Minnesota Wild, 7pm ET, MSG

[duhmetreE]

Or we lose 8-6 lmao.

I’ll take a 8-6 W

Nothing against you, but this is some bogus metric someone made up by adding two unrelated percentages, as a basis for comparing teams. I'm no math genius, but I don't think this is how percentages work.

It just a simple way to show special teams performance

 

[will1066]

I’ll take a 8-6 W


It just a simple way to show special teams performance

At least take the percent marker off. How can you have over 100%? In fact, a better way is take total number of PP and PK situations and divide that by the number of PPGs + penalty kills and get a percentage.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

The Rangers need an emergency backup goaltender.

Wait, you hear that? It's coming from section 315. Someone is standing up.... Oh my god, it's Mike Dunham!

Pride of Endwell, NY Mike Dunham! By gawdd byyy gawwwd

 

[GAGLine]

Nothing against you, but this is some bogus metric someone made up by adding two unrelated percentages, as a basis for comparing teams. I'm no math genius, but I don't think this is how percentages work.

It's no different than PDO. Shooting percentage + Save percentage. People use that all the time, so why would it be invalid to add PP and PK percentages together? This isn't a new thing.

 

[will1066]

It's no different than PDO. Shooting percentage + Save percentage. People use that all the time, so why would it be invalid to add PP and PK percentages together? This isn't a new thing.

I reject PDO as a relevant statistic.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I will say there's no good #3 goaltenders out there. But at least Domingue is passable for a game. Not like that scrub we had play against Colorado two years ago. At least Domingue is an NHLer.

 

[TheDirtyH]

I reject PDO as a relevant statistic.

finally someone said it

 

[GAGLine]

I reject PDO as a relevant statistic.

Do you reject shooting percentage and save percentage as relevant statistics?

What about goal differential (GFA - GAA)?

I'm not the biggest proponent of advanced stats, but I think it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that 2 relevant statistics become irrelevant just because you added them together.

 

[will1066]

Do you reject shooting percentage and save percentage as relevant statistics?

What about goal differential (GFA - GAA)?

I'm not the biggest proponent of advanced stats, but I think it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that 2 relevant statistics become irrelevant just because you added them together.

They are relevant statistics. You just don't add them that way to get a third relevant statistic. See my previous post on what would be a third relevant statistic.

 

[eco's bones]

Domingue has over 140 NHL games. It's not like he's absolute shit. Anyway good teams often find ways to stave off adversity and the Rangers might tighten up their defending a bit.

That said from playing the Wild the other night....they have a lot of big forwards who forecheck and bang and I don't think we want to play into their game like we did the other night. Don't take lots of pm's and give them too much momentum.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

@SnowblindNYR please help

They are relevant statistics. You just don't add them that way to get a third relevant statistic. See my previous post on what would be a third relevant statistic.

I've been saying for a really long time I don't understand why PDO is relevant since shooting % and save % are not related. If we have a 0.920 why would exactly 8% shooting be considered not lucky or unlucky? Your shooting percentage doesn't depend on save %. And why if your save percentage is 0.930 is it 7%? Yeah 100% is average and you can say PDO is above average if it's really high, but why does it have to regress to 100%?

 

[Kovalev27]

They might be a little too cautious but it's early in the season...

They should be. Trouba should never have been playing hurt the way he was last year for so long. That sort of thing doesn’t help the player or the team long term. Stuff like that early in the year like this needed to be handled differently.

 

[KennyWu]

Pride of Endwell, NY Mike Dunham! By gawdd byyy gawwwd

The crappy comedian with the puppets? We're screwed!

 

[EdJovanovski]

Great Stepan interview, talks a lot about his time as a Ranger

 

[will1066]

I've been saying for a really long time I don't understand why PDO is relevant since shooting % and save % are not related. If we have a 0.920 why would exactly 8% shooting be considered not lucky or unlucky? Your shooting percentage doesn't depend on save %. And why if your save percentage is 0.930 is it 7%? Yeah 100% is average and you can say PDO is above average if it's really high, but why does it have to regress to 100%?

Why can't they take the total number of chances and divide by total number of successful outcomes in both shooting and saving, as a relevant metric? It's not that hard?

 

[Gluten Free Breadman]

I've been saying for a really long time I don't understand why PDO is relevant since shooting % and save % are not related. If we have a 0.920 why would exactly 8% shooting be considered not lucky or unlucky? Your shooting percentage doesn't depend on save %. And why if your save percentage is 0.930 is it 7%? Yeah 100% is average and you can say PDO is above average if it's really high, but why does it have to regress to 100%?

I don't like the implication that a high PDO is bad because it means you are lucky.

A high save percentage while you are on the ice might mean that you play defense well and prevent high danger chances by your positioning, your physical play, your hustle, your shot blocking, your linemates, your goalie, your competition.... etc.

Having a high shooting percentage while you are on the ice might mean that you play offense well and provide high danger chances by your positioning, your physical play, your hustle, your vision, your dangerous passes, your shooting skill, your linemates, your competition... etc.

It is a combo of all those things and more and some luck probably.

I just hate when people look at Elias Petterson having a PDO of 108 and saying that he is just lucky to start the season and that he is being carried by the Hockey Gods.

 

[will1066]

Great Stepan interview, talks a lot about his time as a Ranger

He's talking a lot now. Why?

 

[Kodiak]

I've been saying for a really long time I don't understand why PDO is relevant since shooting % and save % are not related. If we have a 0.920 why would exactly 8% shooting be considered not lucky or unlucky? Your shooting percentage doesn't depend on save %. And why if your save percentage is 0.930 is it 7%? Yeah 100% is average and you can say PDO is above average if it's really high, but why does it have to regress to 100%?

It's not going to be exactly 1.000 but it's generally in an acceptable range close to 1.000. There has only been a handful of teams that finished a season with a PDO above 1.025 or below 0.975.

I get that it doesn't make sense. Why would Panarin scoring at one end of the rink affect Shesterkin's performance at the other end? I've said it's a bit like voodoo to me. I don't understand exactly why it works, but it seems like it does. I don't think that sv% and sh% are related, so PDO could just be an indicator. If either stat is abnormally high/low, then you are on a hot/cold streak and likely to trend towards the mean.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It's not going to be exactly 1.000 but it's generally in an acceptable range close to 1.000. There has only been a handful of teams that finished a season with a PDO above 1.025 or below 0.975.

I get that it doesn't make sense. Why would Panarin scoring at one end of the rink affect Shesterkin's performance at the other end? I've said it's a bit like voodoo to me. I don't understand exactly why it works, but it seems like it does. I don't think that sv% and sh% are related, so PDO could just be an indicator. If either stat is abnormally high/low, then you are on a hot/cold streak and likely to trend towards the mean.

Well there would obviously be a range, I just don't think being at 1.025 means you got lucky. Maybe you have a really good goalie or you really good offensive players.

Here's a thing that doesn't make sense why does 0.920 + 8% mean the same thing as 0.930 + 7%? And if all 4 percentages are possible in that combination why is 0.930 + 8% considered lucky then? Considering they're independent of each other and each individual percentage is possible, any of the 4 combinations of those 4 percentages should be equally likely.

 

[will1066]

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Well there would obviously be a range, I just don't think being at 1.025 means you got lucky. Maybe you have a really good goalie or you really good offensive players.

Here's a thing that doesn't make sense why does 0.920 + 8% mean the same thing as 0.930 + 7%? And if all 4 percentages are possible in that combination why is 0.930 + 8% considered lucky then? Considering they're independent of each other and each individual percentage is possible, any of the 4 combinations of those 4 percentages should be equally likely.

PDO on it's own is a shit metric. It's just Save Percentage+Shooting percentage.

PDO in conjunction with xGF% is more telling. If you're dominating there and your goalie is a beast then yeah, you're just better than other teams. That will be evident on the ice and you don't need metrics to tell you that. The best teams generally have a higher than average PDO and that tracks just fine.

If you're getting your face kicked in and are shooting 15% with your goalies rocking a .930+ sv% then yeah.... Probably not going to keep that up.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

Game Day Media Availability. Sponsored by Panda Express:

 

[SnowblindNYR]

PDO on it's own is a shit metric. It's just Save Percentage+Shooting percentage.

PDO in conjunction with xGF% is more telling. If you're dominating there and your goalie is a beast then yeah, you're just better than other teams. That will be evident on the ice and you don't need metrics to tell you that. The best teams generally have a higher than average PDO and that tracks just fine.

If you're getting your face kicked in and are shooting 15% with your goalies rocking a .930+ sv% then yeah.... Probably not going to keep that up.

Is PDO even necessary in that case? If your GF% is terrible and you're still winning you can assume that PDO is high.

 

[will1066]

PDO on it's own is a shit metric. It's just Save Percentage+Shooting percentage.

PDO in conjunction with xGF% is more telling. If you're dominating there and your goalie is a beast then yeah, you're just better than other teams. That will be evident on the ice and you don't need metrics to tell you that. The best teams generally have a higher than average PDO and that tracks just fine.

If you're getting your face kicked in and are shooting 15% with your goalies rocking a .930+ sv% then yeah.... Probably not going to keep that up.

That's the entire AV era.

 

[Kodiak]

Well there would obviously be a range, I just don't think being at 1.025 means you got lucky. Maybe you have a really good goalie or you really good offensive players.

Here's a thing that doesn't make sense why does 0.920 + 8% mean the same thing as 0.930 + 7%? And if all 4 percentages are possible in that combination why is 0.930 + 8% considered lucky then? Considering they're independent of each other and each individual percentage is possible, any of the 4 combinations of those 4 percentages should be equally likely.

Ultimately, it would be better and more accurate to separate it out. You could take sv% and sh% and then determine the league-wide average, and then how far above/below average each team is, and then determine what the acceptable range for each stat would be. It should indicate if a team is shooting hot or cold, or getting hot/cold goaltending. Even then, it's not perfect because some goalies are better than others and some teams have better shooters. It would also be difficult to interpret. PDO's main advantage is that by combining the two stats, you get one stat that is easy to read by looking at how far above or below 1.000 the team is.