So the Canucks were a product of PDO all this time? Or are they still a legitimate contender?

[Romang67]

For the record, last season ONLY the Canucks had a statistically unusually high sh% in the league last year 5v5.

They do not this year. Nor did they the year before.

I don't know why it's so contentious to suggest that sh% tends to gravitate toward the mean over time. It's not an attack on a team this year, just like it wasn't when it was the Flames, or the Avs, or various other teams. It's telling you what tends to happen over time.

 

[Three On Zero]

How so? Do teams not tend to gravitate to a PDO of 1, with some wiggle room for exceptionally poor or great goaltending?

Is there a team out there that has had a statistically significantly higher sh% than other teams in the league year after year? 5v5 that is.

It's a simple stat. Simple doesn't make it bad.

I didn’t say it’s bad, I said it’s basic. Which it is.

But to use the argument that a team is only good due to PDO, that team needs to have the same conditions to compare. Comparing Vancouver last season and Vancouver this season is comparing apples to oranges and saying they are the same thing.

 

[BertMcDrai]

Not frothing just baffled. I mentioned they were unlucky in OT and their regulation record is .500, both of which are correct, and you used wins alone (which nobody uses) to suggest it was below average. Again, their regulation record is average. There’s zero argument for a .500 record being below average. You can keep trying to spin it, but that is the reality

They are 19th in points and 18th in % in a league with 32 teams...so they are below average.
Here is your zero argument and that's the easiest way to show how good team XYZ is.

But while the math says they are below average, I can admit that they are really close to average and this could swing easily in every direction in a few games cause we are only half way through the season.
But now, mathematical they are below.

 

[Gm0ney]

Garbage take

A team with prime age Hughs , Hronek , Petterson , Miller and Demko doesn't compare with a team that won a cup in 2018 and is built around a 40 year old Ovechkin.

But keep saying it if it makes you feel good

Yeah a bunch of the guys on the Caps are having career years (7 or 8 of them either best or matching their previous best: Strome, Protas, Wilson, McMichael, PLD, Thompson, Chychrun - and Ovi scoring goals at the 2nd highest rate of his career)...

But aside from Ovi and Wilson, those guys are all under 30 (all under 28 - with Thompson and Strome being the oldest at 27).

The Caps have made some good moves and are certainly riding high, but I don't think I'd dismiss them compared to the Canucks core you list above (especially considering Miller's got one foot out the door).

 

[TheOrangeDesk]

I didn’t say it’s bad, I said it’s basic. Which it is.

But to use the argument that a team is only good due to PDO, that team needs to have the same conditions to compare. Comparing Vancouver last season and Vancouver this season is comparing apples to oranges and saying they are the same thing.

conditions change on things every single game. to throw out every stat because conditions aren't exactly the same between two states is silly. people don't use PDO solely to determine if a team is good or not, they use large sample sizes of games and compare sh% and sv% (PDO) to determine if a teams success or failure is influenced by unsustainable results. the same way people use goal differential, 1-goal games, health, shot share, etc. you don't have to like it but just because you don't fully understand something doesn't mean its "garbage".

 

[Regal]

They are 19th in points and 18th in % in a league with 32 teams...so they are below average.
Here is your zero argument and that's the easiest way to show how good team XYZ is.

But while the math says they are below average, I can admit that they are really close to average and this could swing easily in every direction in a few games cause we are only half way through the season.
But now, mathematical they are below.

That discussion was only about regulation record. A poster mentioned their OT losses are propping up their record because of loser points. I said it’s more the opposite because their 4-10 record after regulation suggests they’ve been unlucky in OT/SO (which, unless you’re the Oilers or the Avs is mostly a toss up).

The other poster I was quoting just now then tried to argue that they're actually below average in regulation because they’re only 23rd in regulation wins. I then argued that wins in regulation by itself is irrelevant, and that overall regulation record is the actual measure of team strength in regulation. They’re .500 in regulation (16-16-14), which is tied with Calgary for the 16th best regulation record.

The initial post wasn’t even meant to be propping up the team as they’ve been pretty poor this year and have mostly been carried by Hughes and some strong games from Lankinen. I just think the “loser point” argument can be a bit shortsighted because OT/SO wins are also a crap shoot. Regulation tends to be a better measure of ability.

 

[BertMcDrai]

That discussion was only about regulation record. A poster mentioned their OT losses are propping up their record because of loser points. I said it’s more the opposite because their 4-10 record after regulation suggests they’ve been unlucky in OT/SO (which, unless you’re the Oilers or the Avs is mostly a toss up).

The other poster I was quoting just now then tried to argue that they're actually below average in regulation because they’re only 23rd in regulation wins. I then argued that wins in regulation by itself is irrelevant, and that overall regulation record is the actual measure of team strength in regulation. They’re .500 in regulation (16-16-14), which is tied for Calgary for the 16th best regulation record.

OK, I understand.

Lots of hockey left, but right now the Canucks are slightly below average...I don't understand why someone has to bring in regulation wins.
Without watching the standings this could easily swing with a win, so it's splitting hairs right now.

 

[Regal]

OK, I understand.

Lots of hockey left, but right now the Canucks are slightly below average...I don't understand why someone has to bring in regulation wins.
Without watching the standings this could easily swing with a win, so it's splitting hairs right now.

Yea, I originally didn’t bring up regulation wins to try to suggest the team was good, it was more related to the “loser points” argument that I think can be shortsighted. They’ve been pretty poor this year outside of Hughes and some games from Lankinen.

 

[um]

Garbage take

A team with prime age Hughs , Hronek , Petterson , Miller and Demko doesn't compare with a team that won a cup in 2018 and is built around a 40 year old Ovechkin.

But keep saying it if it makes you feel good

I doubt you could even name the 2018 Capitals still on the team without looking it up.

Also, they are built around Ovie?!? Keep up with the times.

 

[God]

For the record, last season ONLY the Canucks had a statistically unusually high sh% in the league last year 5v5.

They do not this year. Nor did they the year before.

I don't know why it's so contentious to suggest that sh% tends to gravitate toward the mean over time. It's not an attack on a team this year, just like it wasn't when it was the Flames, or the Avs, or various other teams. It's telling you what tends to happen over time.

The NHL gravitates towards a PDO of 1, but teams do not tend to do that themselves.

The Canucks have not really even regressed in sh% by much. Last year they were 1st. This year they are 6th. The year before they were 7th. If you can accept that Leon Draisaitl has a career sh% of 18.5%, you can accept that shooting talent exists, and you can also accept that systems can exist to prioritize that.

Consider the opposite scenario with a team like Carolina. They consistently lead the NHL in expected goals for, but they are also consistently in the bottom 3rd of the league in sh% because their system prioritizes shot attempts from all over the ice (they are still a good team though - frequently leading in high danger chances). This is the reverse of the Canucks, where it's been noted in this thread repeatedly that Tocchet has them prioritizing high quality chances instead of shots from everywhere.

The problem with the Canucks is that they've gone from being 6th in high danger chances last year to last in the NHL this year. Their xGF this year is second last in the league, and last year it was 16th. PDO does not tell you that, and cannot predict that in any fashion. It's merely a measure of the results, not the process. If the expected goals for/against were the same as they were last year, then yes, last year was a product of luck, because then you can make the conclusion "with all things equal, the shooting and save percentages were higher last year than they were this year", and it isn't.

 

[geebster]

Their 5on5 shooting % is down a full point from 10.6 to 9.57

AND if they had the save percentage from this time last year they'd have the top PDO in the league right now WITH that 1% shooting percentage drop. If you took their save percent from last year overall theyd have the 2nd best PDO in the league right now. So.... that is not significant regression.

The argument that they were successful last year because of lucky shooting and that they are bad this year because they have reversed their luck (and are unlucky or regressed to average luck now) makes zero sense when they have been a top 5 shooting percentage team all year (fell to 6th last i checked). Again... the goaltending drop off is a huge difference and is the real change.

The Canucks have 7 forwards shooting over 15% RIGHT NOW, 2 over 20%. That hasnt been their issue, they still have a high team shooting percentage. They went from vezina caliber goaltending that could bail them out to struggling in net this year (Lankinen has been good by the eye test but his save % has not been anywhere near Demko last year).

 

[Connor McConnor]

The NHL gravitates towards a PDO of 1, but teams do not tend to do that themselves.

The Canucks have not really even regressed in sh% by much. Last year they were 1st. This year they are 6th. The year before they were 7th. If you can accept that Leon Draisaitl has a career sh% of 18.5%, you can accept that shooting talent exists, and you can also accept that systems can exist to prioritize that.

Consider the opposite scenario with a team like Carolina. They consistently lead the NHL in expected goals for, but they are also consistently in the bottom 3rd of the league in sh% because their system prioritizes shot attempts from all over the ice (they are still a good team though - frequently leading in high danger chances). This is the reverse of the Canucks, where it's been noted in this thread repeatedly that Tocchet has them prioritizing high quality chances instead of shots from everywhere.

The problem with the Canucks is that they've gone from being 6th in high danger chances last year to last in the NHL this year. Their xGF this year is second last in the league, and last year it was 16th. PDO does not tell you that, and cannot predict that in any fashion. It's merely a measure of the results, not the process. If the expected goals for/against were the same as they were last year, then yes, last year was a product of luck, because then you can make the conclusion "with all things equal, the shooting and save percentages were higher last year than they were this year", and it isn't.

Or we could just watch the games and see that the Canucks were getting lucky last year? Is that so hard to understand? Lmao, the team is not that good. They aren't "underachieving" this year, they were always a WC team at best. It's funny seeing Canuck fans trying to do analytic gymanstics to explain that last year wasn't an anomoly, as if the previous 3+ years including this year isn't a better sample size.

 

[God]

Or we could just watch the games and see that the Canucks were getting lucky last year? Is that so hard to understand? Lmao, the team is not that good. They aren't "underachieving" this year, they were always a WC team at best. It's funny seeing Canuck fans trying to do analytic gymanstics to explain that last year wasn't an anomoly, as if the previous 3+ years including this year isn't a better sample size.

Sure, if you want to revert to a "watch the games" argument, you're more than welcome to do that somewhere else. This is a thread about PDO.

Plus, all of my points refer to analytics supporting what I'm seeing in the games. Last year they were average at generating chances. This year they are very bad at generating chances. That's more than likely due to the fact that the defensemen on this year's roster cannot seem to move the puck effectively. All of that is reflected in the stats I'm quoting.

Do you need me to explain those stats too? I might have to charge a fee.

 

[TheSuperElite]

Sure, if you want to revert to a "watch the games" argument, you're more than welcome to do that somewhere else. This is a thread about PDO.

Plus, all of my points refer to analytics supporting what I'm seeing in the games. Last year they were average at generating chances. This year they are very bad at generating chances. That's more than likely due to the fact that the defensemen on this year's roster cannot seem to move the puck effectively. All of that is reflected in the stats I'm quoting.

Do you need me to explain those stats too? I might have to charge a fee.

Canucks were super lucky last year.

 

[thebigbea]

Canus

Canucks were super lucky last year.

totally agree. They overpaid so many players. Hogs, Joshua, hronek and pety. I rather they overpaid zadorov

 

[Bank Shot]

What are you talking about? The drop off in PDO is almost entirely save percentage. Shooting percent regression has not happened to any significant degree, Canucks are still around top 5 in the league and have been all season (dropping to 6th only recently). But went from being 7th to 25th in save percentage. Their Vezina candidate last year has an .871 save percentage right now.

With last years save percentage they would be 2nd in the league in PDO right now ahead of Winnipeg with their current shooting percentage.

The Canucks still have a significantly better shooting percentage than the Oilers do. You said they led the league in shooting percentage by a full percent... not true, they led by less than half a percent (0.43%). The save percent dropoff is more than double their shooting percentage drop and they still would be a top PDO in the league WITH that shooting percent drop as I said above. So wheres this giant regression then outside of your imagination? Specific players had regression but the team barely did overall. The Canucks still have 7 players shooting above 15%, 2 above 20% right now (including Joshua). Miller has a higher shooting percent this year than the Canucks averaged last year, so he isnt exactly bringing them down towards the NHL mean right now either.

As I said you care more about saying I told you so than about honestly looking at the thing you are discussing. You got your feelings hurt because of some Hoglander comment and have been waiting to be proven right on the shooting percentage, but you jumped the gun. If their shooting percentage actually regresses anywhere near the middle of the league (i.e. not a top team in the league even when they struggle), then come back and get your revenge on that Hoglander post that hurt you so much.

They were over a percent higher than everyone else shooting % else last year at the mid way point. They had another hot run to start this season but again they are fading.

You guys keep proving you don't understand how basic stats work.

You'll have a long offseason to talk about it no doubt.

 

[McFlash97]

Last season a near entirely healthy roster for 82 games.

This season, 45 games in and they haven’t once iced the entire healthy roster.

Looks like they did tonight....

6-2

Without McDavid.

There's levels to this, go retool properly then challenge us next year. Canucks are a minnow in front of the Oil rn