The Uncovered Truth About PDO and SH%

[TropicOfNoReturn]

It seems as though NHL fans oft forget the somewhat obscure rule disqualifying teams from winning the Stanley Cup if they have a PDO that is too high. Similarly, and perhaps more obscure, is the rule stating that if a player on a team has too high of a shooting percentage, that also disqualifies the them.


Cited here:

46.15 Excessive PDO – Should a team's regular season PDO exceed 1050, that team will be ineligible to win the Stanley Cup, regardless of the outcome of the games in which they participate.

and

50.12 Unsustainable Shooting Percentage - When any individual player on a team has a regular season shooting percentage higher than 33%, that team will be disqualified and hence ineligible from winning the Stanley Cup


The infamous case of these rules actually being enforced was in 1928 when the Montreal Maroons advanced to the Stanley Cup Final against the New York Rangers. The Maroons went on to win that series, based on actual on-ice results, and capture the Stanley Cup with Babe Siebert scoring a series-clinching goal late in game 5 (the Final was a best-of-3 back then). Unfortunately for them and their fans, these rules, which had been buried in the rulebook, were brought to light. It turns out that Siebert's teammate Hooley Smith had a shooting percentage of 33.4%. Even more egregious, the team collectively had a regular season shooting percentage of 18.6%. Most appalling, and what ultimately ended up costing the Maroons the Stanley Cup, was their team regular season PDO of 1051.

This entire ordeal likely couldn't happen today with the speed of information transfer we now have, but one can see how in 1928 the coaches and players perhaps were not even aware of these rules - and how the Maroons were allowed to play all the way to the Stanley Cup Final before NHL President Frank Calder had to rightfully rip the Cup out of the hands of Maroons captain Dunc Munro.

 

[JaegerDice]

They’re not disqualified from winning the cup, teams that rely on PDO are simply rarely good enough to actually win the cup, and they get exposed in the playoffs by teams that rely less on luck.

The issue with PDO is it’s not controllable, sustainable or predictive. So a team racking up wins on the basis of PDO is s ticking time bomb, and their success isnt predictive in a way that you could reasonably say ‘this team has won a lot of games, therefore it is likely they will continue to win games’.

Could the heater last all the way to cup? Sure. Can you count on it? No. And without the heater, PDO-reliant teams fall fast.

 

[Shark Finn]

Ok.

 

[jcs0218]

They’re not disqualified from winning the cup, teams that rely on PDO are simply rarely good enough to actually win the cup, and they get exposed in the playoffs by teams that rely less on luck.

The issue with PDO is it’s not controllable, sustainable or predictive. So a team racking up wins on the basis of PDO is s ticking time bomb, and their success isnt predictive in a way that you could reasonably say ‘this team has won a lot of games, therefore it is likely they will continue to win games’.

Could the heater last all the way to cup? Sure. Can you count on it? No. And without the heater, PDO-reliant teams fall fast.

I am not an advanced hockey theorist/statistician.

But isn't PDO based on actual hard data? Such as actual shot percentage and actual save percentage?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

But if I am correct, then PDO is much better than all of the "expected blah blah / blah blah" that gets mentioned around here.

To me, ACTUAL data is better than PROJECTED/EXPECTED data.

Things that have actually happened are better proof of something than something that some model predicts to supposed to happen.

 

[JAK]

What is funny to me is that in Baseball, the stats are just acronyms of what the stats actually is, like WHIP, WAR. But in Hockey, some how fan made up names becomes the actually used term.

Stat is just a stat, people use it to spin it however they want based on their agenda.

10 game might be a heater, 20 might be a crazy run. But at some point, the save% + shot% must be a reflection on the team's overall ability, system, and style.

Luck isn't measured yet some fan bases love to use PDO as a measurement of luck.

If we want a true measurement of luck, every goal should be watched and voted on, then we can actually see what team is the "luckiest".
Measure each goal, lucky bounce, unintended tip/bounce off player, things like that would give an actual indication of "puck luck".

Corsi, Fenwick, all these names should be renamed to what the stat actually is.

 

[Steerpike]

Fan of local sports team left devastated when other fans don’t agree that his team is the best.

 

[Satan]

Very cool! Thank you

Everything will be okay

 

[jcs0218]

What is funny to me is that in Baseball, the stats are just acronyms of what the stats actually is, like WHIP, WAR. But in Hockey, some how fan made up names becomes the actually used term.

Stat is just a stat, people use it to spin it however they want based on their agenda.

10 game might be a heater, 20 might be a crazy run. But at some point, the save% + shot% must be a reflection on the team's overall ability, system, and style.

Luck isn't measured yet some fan bases love to use PDO as a measurement of luck.

If we want a true measurement of luck, every goal should be watched and voted on, then we can actually see what team is the "luckiest".
Measure each goal, lucky bounce, unintended tip/bounce off player, things like that would give an actual indication of "puck luck".

Corsi, Fenwick, all these names should be renamed to what the stat actually is.

I think all of the "expected blah / blah" in hockey is nonsense.

It is used to support views that aren't based on actual numbers, but based on projected numbers.

In baseball, statistics like WHIP are based on real actual data.

Not "expected" nonsense.

 

[BB79]

What does it matter how many personal days off someone takes?

I can't stress enough how much I HATE acronyms.

 

[The90]

It seems as though NHL fans oft forget the somewhat obscure rule disqualifying teams from winning the Stanley Cup if they have a PDO that is too high. Similarly, and perhaps more obscure, is the rule stating that if a player on a team has too high of a shooting percentage, that also disqualifies the them.


Cited here:

46.15 Excessive PDO – Should a team's regular season PDO exceed 1050, that team will be ineligible to win the Stanley Cup, regardless of the outcome of the games in which they participate.

and

50.12 Unsustainable Shooting Percentage - When any individual player on a team has a regular season shooting percentage higher than 33%, that team will be disqualified and hence ineligible from winning the Stanley Cup


The infamous case of these rules actually being enforced was in 1928 when the Montreal Maroons advanced to the Stanley Cup Final against the New York Rangers. The Maroons went on to win that series, based on actual on-ice results, and capture the Stanley Cup with Babe Siebert scoring a series-clinching goal late in game 5 (the Final was a best-of-3 back then). Unfortunately for them and their fans, these rules, which had been buried in the rulebook, were brought to light. It turns out that Siebert's teammate Hooley Smith had a shooting percentage of 33.4%. Even more egregious, the team collectively had a regular season shooting percentage of 18.6%. Most appalling, and what ultimately ended up costing the Maroons the Stanley Cup, was their team regular season PDO of 1051.

This entire ordeal likely couldn't happen today with the speed of information transfer we now have, but one can see how in 1928 the coaches and players perhaps were not even aware of these rules - and how the Maroons were allowed to play all the way to the Stanley Cup Final before NHL President Frank Calder had to rightfully rip the Cup out of the hands of Maroons captain Dunc Munro.

Hey man, I made a special sticker for the PDO winners. Hope you like it!

23-24 Vancouver
22-23 Boston
21-22 Florida

 

[CanadienShark]

I think all of the "expected blah / blah" in hockey is nonsense.

It is used to support views that aren't based on actual numbers, but based on projected numbers.

In baseball, statistics like WHIP are based on real actual data.

Not "expected" nonsense.

You don't seem to understand the fundamentals of statistics. Hockey is less predictable than baseball, yes.

 

[Sykur]

They’re not disqualified from winning the cup, teams that rely on PDO are simply rarely good enough to actually win the cup, and they get exposed in the playoffs by teams that rely less on luck.

This isn't actually true.

The Hockey Guy did a video on this a short while ago where he looked up the top 5 PDO teams of the last ten years. The only consistent thing about them is they all made the playoffs. After then things get a little more random. Some lost in the first round. Some won the Cup. About the same odds as Presidents Trophy winners and #1 seeds.

Going further, he also pointed out a few outliers -- teams with good records but bad PDO and teams with bad records but good PDO. But these outliers were exactly that: Outliers. It's rare for any team to behave like this. Maybe one a season (this year it's Arizona) and what happens is they might miss the playoffs because they didn't win enough shootouts.

But the one thing he emphasized is that good teams generally have high PDO. It's not a measure of luck, it's a measure of success. It's not a perfect 1:1 measure, where the #1 team in the standings is the #1 team in PDO (that is also quite rare), but for the most part you could count on the top 5 teams in the standings to be among the top 10 in PDO every year. Usually.

 

[Sticktape]

So a team with a 12.2 team shooting percentage and .929 team save percentage is ineligible to win the Stanley cup?

 

[Jay26]

Is anyone else sick of advanced stats? I'm so over it.

 

[Auston Marlander]

Is anyone else sick of advanced stats? I'm so over it.

Do you mean is anyone else sick of information?
You're free to watch the games and not care about any information you don't understand.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

This isn't actually true.

The Hockey Guy did a video on this a short while ago where he looked up the top 5 PDO teams of the last ten years. The only consistent thing about them is they all made the playoffs. After then things get a little more random. Some lost in the first round. Some won the Cup. About the same odds as Presidents Trophy winners and #1 seeds.

Going further, he also pointed out a few outliers -- teams with good records but bad PDO and teams with bad records but good PDO. But these outliers were exactly that: Outliers. It's rare for any team to behave like this. Maybe one a season (this year it's Arizona) and what happens is they might miss the playoffs because they didn't win enough shootouts.

But the one thing he emphasized is that good teams generally have high PDO. It's not a measure of luck, it's a measure of success. It's not a perfect 1:1 measure, where the #1 team in the standings is the #1 team in PDO (that is also quite rare), but for the most part you could count on the top 5 teams in the standings to be among the top 10 in PDO every year. Usually.

Yeah that's not really surprising. It's hard to miss the playoffs with a really high PDO. You're not saying anything meaningful here.

 

[Despote]

Variance in PDO between teams is caused by

1) variation in shooting talent
2) variation in the quality of chances per shot that a team generates
3) variation in the quality of chances per shot that a team gives up
4) goaltending
5) luck


Are NHL teams similar enough in the first four where luck is the main factor driving the PDO? It's obviously not all luck and not all talent.

 

[wintersej]

I am not an advanced hockey theorist/statistician.

But isn't PDO based on actual hard data? Such as actual shot percentage and actual save percentage?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

But if I am correct, then PDO is much better than all of the "expected blah blah / blah blah" that gets mentioned around here.

To me, ACTUAL data is better than PROJECTED/EXPECTED data.

Things that have actually happened are better proof of something than something that some model predicts to supposed to happen.

Look, I don’t understand what I am talking about, but I am going to use CAPS to make my point.

 

[BB79]

Is anyone else sick of advanced stats? I'm so over it.

You typed 41 letters with 1 question mark, 1 period and 1 special character making 44 characters. You also used 10 spaces resulting in 54 keystrokes. If you were typing at the speed of 394.72 words per minute, you would have typed out your reply in 7.27296 seconds. Factor in a .082 handicap to account for winter's low humidity and it adjusts to....

Ah to hell with it, I hate advanced stats too.

 

[wintersej]

Variance in PDO between teams is caused by

1) variation in shooting talent
2) variation in the quality of chances per shot that a team generates
3) variation in the quality of chances per shot that a team gives up
4) goaltending
5) luck


Are NHL teams similar enough in the first four where luck is the main factor driving the PDO? It's obviously not all luck and not all talent.

Bruins usually have an above 100 PDO year over year.

Because of the goalies. And Demko is a good goalie.

But that doesn’t seems sustainable. There isn’t anything “advanced” or elitist or whatever gets people’s butt holes all tight about it. It’s as common sense as knowing that just because you flipped a coin three times in a row and got heads, that you aren’t magically more likely to get heads on the fourth time.

And it’s not even a shot at the quality of the team. They are a good team. Are they the best team in the league? Probably not if you replayed the season 10 times. But, most Presidents Trophy winners get some luck. Canucks have been luckier than most any others in the past. But they are still a good team.

 

[BB79]

Do you mean is anyone else sick of information?
You're free to watch the games and not care about any information you don't understand.

..ok, we'll enjoy watching the game for entertainment, you can geek out over how many times McDavid blinks his eyes between scoring goals

 

[TheDoldrums]

It's more sustainable long term to be the team dominating in terms of creating and limiting scoring chances than the team dominating through their shooting/save percentages. It's really that simple. The latter is going to be subject to more variance.

 

[Auston Marlander]

..ok, we'll enjoy watching the game for entertainment, you can geek out over how many times McDavid blinks his eyes between scoring goals

I'm shocked it needs to be explained that people can both watch for enjoyment and find value/interest in advanced stats.

I see the value in advanced stats, however I don't look at them often. They are a really useful tool when discussing hockey beyond what you see on the ice.

As for being sick of them, it's really easy to not click on threads about advanced stats, yet here you are.

 

[Fatass]

I'm shocked it needs to be explained that people can both watch for enjoyment and find value/interest in advanced stats.

I see the value in advanced stats, however I don't look at them often. They are a really useful tool when discussing hockey beyond what you see on the ice.

As for being sick of them, it's really easy to not click on threads about advanced stats, yet here you are.

The issue with PDO for me is that it is connect, but its proponents, as a predictor of luck. Luck is not, imo, predictable.
IMO statistics are supposed to be about facts, and not associated with luck.

 

[wetcoast]

It seems as though NHL fans oft forget the somewhat obscure rule disqualifying teams from winning the Stanley Cup if they have a PDO that is too high. Similarly, and perhaps more obscure, is the rule stating that if a player on a team has too high of a shooting percentage, that also disqualifies the them.


Cited here:

46.15 Excessive PDO – Should a team's regular season PDO exceed 1050, that team will be ineligible to win the Stanley Cup, regardless of the outcome of the games in which they participate.

and

50.12 Unsustainable Shooting Percentage - When any individual player on a team has a regular season shooting percentage higher than 33%, that team will be disqualified and hence ineligible from winning the Stanley Cup


The infamous case of these rules actually being enforced was in 1928 when the Montreal Maroons advanced to the Stanley Cup Final against the New York Rangers. The Maroons went on to win that series, based on actual on-ice results, and capture the Stanley Cup with Babe Siebert scoring a series-clinching goal late in game 5 (the Final was a best-of-3 back then). Unfortunately for them and their fans, these rules, which had been buried in the rulebook, were brought to light. It turns out that Siebert's teammate Hooley Smith had a shooting percentage of 33.4%. Even more egregious, the team collectively had a regular season shooting percentage of 18.6%. Most appalling, and what ultimately ended up costing the Maroons the Stanley Cup, was their team regular season PDO of 1051.

This entire ordeal likely couldn't happen today with the speed of information transfer we now have, but one can see how in 1928 the coaches and players perhaps were not even aware of these rules - and how the Maroons were allowed to play all the way to the Stanley Cup Final before NHL President Frank Calder had to rightfully rip the Cup out of the hands of Maroons captain Dunc Munro.

WTF? Asking for a friend as the thread title and this post just doesn't line up.

But then again you are kind of skipping over the SSS theory here, small sample size.