View Single Post
08-09-2012, 03:05 PM
Registered User
mindmasher's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 372
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Well if good teams tend to have consistently have high PDOs and bad ones tend to have consistently low ones, then I don't think it should be very revealing that "on average," they regress to the mean

Edit: if CYM's numbers are correct, that would seem to be what they are showing
This is simply not the case. Past PDO does not correlate with future PDO. In other words, a team with a low PDO in one season does not accurately predict they will have a low PDO in the upcoming season - it is much more likely they will move towards 1000.

I believe Vancouver and Boston are the number 1 and 2 teams respectively for PDO for the last five years, and repeatable results indicate that it is more than luck driving this success. I don't think anyone in the 'stats' community will refute that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: PDO is not, and never will be, a perfect proxy for team luck. It's merely a useful indicator. A red flag if you will that helps people like you and I draw up a quick list of possible over- or under-performing teams or players.

Finally, I will also say I think all the new statistics should have descriptive and appropriate names. Cryptic titles help nobody.

mindmasher is offline   Reply With Quote