I don't believe it's about luck, it's about sustainability. Being far too high or far too low is very likely unsustainable over a long period of time. That's not to say there aren't outliers, but they are exactly that, an outlier and shouldn't be expected.
The Uncovered Truth About PDO and SH%
- Thread starter TropicOfNoReturn
- Start date
I don't believe it's about luck, it's about sustainability. Being far too high or far too low is very likely unsustainable over a long period of time. That's not to say there aren't outliers, but they are exactly that, an outlier and shouldn't be expected.
Grulemieux
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2021
- 33
- 56
TheDawnOfANewTage
Dahlin, it’ll all be fine
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,323
- 21,566
wintersej
Registered User
But like the whole field of statistics is about probability and variance. That’s oversimplified here to mean “luck” but luck is only part of it. Obviously, if your team has Hasek, you are going to have a high save percentage and that is going to drive PDO. That ain’t luck. But having almost everyone is your top 9 shooting 15-20% without history showing that is normal for them? There is probably some luck in there. Maybe some system stuff, too. Maybe they all just got better at the same time. But, there is a high degree of probability there is some luck at play. You flip a coin 10 times, you might get heads 7 times. That doesn’t mean that forever you will always get heads 70% of the time.
I'm not sick of advanced stats. I'm sick of the continuing misunderstanding - not by casual fans, by people who do teh analtyics and created advanced stats - of what some stat really means or how to practically apply it, because they should all know better. Way too many people - and especially teh analytics people - and way too many takes still see correlation and thinks aha, there's the explanation! and run off accordingly.
PDO and winning percentage are highly correlated. PDO is nothing more than an aggregate of all team and individual performance, for offense and defense, split into two numbers that are added together. Are both of those two numbers that get added together highly correlated with winning percentage? No. Or, not nearly as much as PDO. [Which, this should already be raising questions, but it doesn't - so, we move on.] So all I have to do is increase "the sum of my goalie saving more shots" and "the sum of my skaters to score on more shots" and we're more likely to win more games, right? OK. How do I use PDO to adjust the roster, adjust the offensive and defensive schemes to improve my chances of winning?
Playoff series are short, there's a hell of a lot more variability in results in 4-7 games vs. 82 games, how do I use PDO from the regular season to predict what's going to happen in the playoffs? Is there any practical application of PDO that I can reliably use for decision-making for say organizational planning, sports betting, or anything? But goddamnit, PDO is highly predictive! It's highly predictive, Bob!Some like has CF% above X, and the xGF/xGA is above some ratio? Oh, look, they're doing really good? OK, why? Does that line have special synergy? Is someone carrying the others? Is it favorable line matchups? Have they just been on a heater and they're going to calm down? How do I apply this for other guys on the roster?
Can I take this and build a roster where everyone in other places has "above average" stats and now on the same roster, they're still going to have "above average" stats or maybe be even better? And this goes to all kinds of advanced stats getting cranked out: lots of ooh, aah, completely lacking in context or explanation.Which brings me to one of my all-time hates: if a stat is higher/lower than expected, it's explained away with "well, there's going to be regression to the mean" as if they or anyone else knows what the mean is. You don't know. I mean, I'm sure you think you do, you claim you do because of long-term averages and blah blah blah, but at the micro-level, at the player level, you have no clue what any player's "mean" is at any given point in their career until you have enough data to get a reliable sense of what they've done, by which time other things have changed and the observed historical mean may not be the expected mean going forward. Quit pretending you have any clue what "mean" is for something.
I've said it a number of times, I'll say it again: whoever figures out how to take all these stats and apply them in such a way that they produce reliable results going forward is going to make an absolute f***ing shitload of money, because that's going to be applicable to a huge swath of business applications. [Spoiler: it starts with understanding why some stat looks like it does.] Until then, everyone is figuratively pissing in the kiddie pool thinking they're making great art.
Mattilaus
Registered User
I don't get why the point is deliberately misconstrued by the people who dislike stats or PDO. Nobody is saying a team with a high PDO can't win or won't win in the future, or that it will completely regress back to 100. They simply say that there is like to be some regression when it comes to sv% and shooting %. Can a team have a higher than average shooting % and sv%? Of course they can, but the further you go above average, the less likely it is to be sustainable. McDavid scores 150 points a season, that is WAY above average but is sustainable for him. If he had a stretch where he is on pace for 300 would we say that is sustainable? Of course not, and saying he will likely regress doesn't mean he is a bad player or that he won't still settle in at still above average production.
KeithIsActuallyBad
Fire Dustin Schwartz
Canucks fans should remember well the 2015 series against the Flames, the PDO darlings. Despite the Canucks being the better team, the Flames got goals seemingly at will not to mention timely saves and a few comeback wins (including the decisive game 6)
...Then the Flames went to face a real team in Anaheim who promptly brushed them aside.
...Then the Flames went to face a real team in Anaheim who promptly brushed them aside.
Djp
Registered User
I agree. Probability can vary. some players can improve over time but prior stats can’t predict that If changes occurred.
if your top 6 scoring players have an increased shooting % might be attributed to system change.
How do you rely on a strong goalie save percentage and lower than average shots vs havimg a good goalie and not wasting low % shots
And if it is uncontrollable can it be unsustainable? Or for that matter be the basis of wins?
Voight
#winning
I'm sick of hearing about them when there's little to no use for them
ryan callahan
Registered User
I think people underestimate how much Elias Pettersson makes players around him better. Extremely selfless player. Builds trust in the locker room and other players are likely to follow suit. Defense, skating, shooting and unreal hockey IQ and passing. Built like a popsicle stick but will play physical if the game gets gritty.
The Gr8 Dane
L'harceleur
PDO is dumb ask canucks fans how they feel about it , I'm sure they we're crying during the first half of the season having WON all those games fair and square and BANKING all those useless points in the regular season.
- Oct 9, 2012
- 27,039
- 36,400
They are fine but people rely too heavily on them thinking they actually prove something. Advanced stats in the current form prove nothing and are highly subjective due to the nature of the sport. You can refute almost all of them
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,007
- 16,161
Which rulebook, here is 23/24, not in there.
Another parody thread.
Last edited:
GOilers88
Fer Da
- Dec 24, 2016
- 14,032
- 22,797
The whole PDO thing makes me think of the old, "Gotta be good to be lucky, and lucky to be good."I'm not sick of advanced stats. I'm sick of the continuing misunderstanding - not by casual fans, by people who do teh analtyics and created advanced stats - of what some stat really means or how to practically apply it, because they should all know better. Way too many people - and especially teh analytics people - and way too many takes still see correlation and thinks aha, there's the explanation! and run off accordingly.
PDO and winning percentage are highly correlated. PDO is nothing more than an aggregate of all team and individual performance, for offense and defense, split into two numbers that are added together. Are both of those two numbers that get added together highly correlated with winning percentage? No. Or, not nearly as much as PDO. [Which, this should already be raising questions, but it doesn't - so, we move on.] So all I have to do is increase "the sum of my goalie saving more shots" and "the sum of my skaters to score on more shots" and we're more likely to win more games, right? OK. How do I use PDO to adjust the roster, adjust the offensive and defensive schemes to improve my chances of winning?
Some like has CF% above X, and the xGF/xGA is above some ratio? Oh, look, they're doing really good? OK, why? Does that line have special synergy? Is someone carrying the others? Is it favorable line matchups? Have they just been on a heater and they're going to calm down? How do I apply this for other guys on the roster?
Which brings me to one of my all-time hates: if a stat is higher/lower than expected, it's explained away with "well, there's going to be regression to the mean" as if they or anyone else knows what the mean is. You don't know. I mean, I'm sure you think you do, you claim you do because of long-term averages and blah blah blah, but at the micro-level, at the player level, you have no clue what any player's "mean" is at any given point in their career until you have enough data to get a reliable sense of what they've done, by which time other things have changed and the observed historical mean may not be the expected mean going forward. Quit pretending you have any clue what "mean" is for something.
I've said it a number of times, I'll say it again: whoever figures out how to take all these stats and apply them in such a way that they produce reliable results going forward is going to make an absolute f***ing shitload of money, because that's going to be applicable to a huge swath of business applications. [Spoiler: it starts with understanding why some stat looks like it does.] Until then, everyone is figuratively pissing in the kiddie pool thinking they're making great art.
Also, good post.
Clamshells
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Aug 11, 2009
- 2,485
- 1,319
Its real, its in the other rulebook that isn't publically available. The same one that says the refs have to make bad calls against your team.
Let's just stop there.
Is there really "like [sp] to be some regression?" Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. Do you know? Does anyone know? No, no one does. All we know is there's an expectation of what "the mean" is [which again, is probably unknowable in the context to which the regression comment is lobbed] and an implied belief that obviously, a stat has to tend toward that value over the long-term which can not happen for all kinds of reasons.
When might this regression occur? Tonight? Tomorrow night? 3 weeks from now? Right before the playoffs start? 2 years from now? No one knows. Well, eventually it will. OK, thanks Baba Vanga, that's really helpful for me trying to analyze what's going on with a team and understand what to expect. Going to be great when I go into a team's front office and things are going great and someone offers up hey I know you're all in a great mood, the team is doing fantastic in the standings, but this stat says it's unsustainable, you guys are going to regress to the mean. No, I have no idea what the means. No, I have no clue when that's going to happen. No, I have no clue what you can do to prevent it. What do you mean you're calling security? Look, I'm trying to help you folks out!
While the past is obviously not a perfect predictor of the future, it is a predictor and we're arguing over how much weight to put on it. Or, in my world, how much credibility to assign to it. When a stat outperforms expectations [either positively or negatively], you have to ask is this real, or is this a fluke? And the longer it outperforms, the more you have to ask that question - and simply being lazy and saying ah, well, it's going to regress to the mean is a worthless comment because it lacks both context and knowledge.
ThatGuy22
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2011
- 10,598
- 4,720
PDO is a set of a facts, that indicate when a team/player may be getting lucky or unlucky based on historical data.
It's all fact based. We know what these individual players have done in the past. We know based on 100s of seasons by individual teams what tends to happen.
It's entirely fact based
Bank Shot
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2006
- 11,404
- 7,861
Breakers
Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Series Talk: WCQF Dallas Stars (C2) vs Colorado Avalanche (C3) | Dallas leads 3-2 (53 Viewers)- Latest: Pokecheque
