View Single Post
Old
03-31-2013, 10:47 PM
  #19
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,025
vCash: 50
Oh dear, some comments...

FenwickClose and PDO give a greater understanding on the standings because they do help you see the team performance against others and where the wins are coming from.

They do help indicate if a team's points is beyond what their performance should indicate, since more often than not if the whole thing was repeated multiple times with all other variables being equal they would be unlikely to have that.

We can then guess that they (team or individuals) are likely to regress to their mean because they have been helped by "luck".

Some people have issues with this because of two things: luck and regression.

The idea of luck bothers people as it seems to take responsibility away from the players work and effort, making it either controlled by fates or making it completely random. In actuality it describes the natural variance in life. A premium sniper can take the exact same shot, in the exact same location and situation, against the same goalie, multiple times and get different results. Maybe 9 times out of 10 that would go in, but in that one time the goalie gets it you could say it is lucky.

The problem with regression is sometimes people think that we're indicating that due to their "good luck" they are in run for some "bad luck". Merely what we mean is that teams that have low Fenwick tend to lose, more often than not. So far the team has won, but the probability of being like that is unlikely. It's not demanding that the world will be straightened out, just merely working with weighted probabilities.

Good quote from NHL numbers:
Quote:
Outcomes in professional sports are weighted probabilities, not destinies, so it's entirely possible for the better team to lose on any given night or even over a brief sample of games, like a best of seven series, for no other reason beyond variance. There are also other influences beyond the control of the players, coaches and GM's of course: the officiating, injuries to key players, etc. Sports are interesting not only because of the action, competition and violence, but because they are a boiling cauldron of uncertainty. Sometimes the underdog wins. And sometimes it's not because of any particular failing of the favorite.

Also, remember that not all individuals are created equal. Stamkos will always have a better career SH% and OnIceSH% then Chris Thorburn as he has the talent to create the higher percentage plays. A team with more PP TOI will have a higher team SH%. A team with a stronger goalie will have a better team SV%.

But, when a team who has been mostly the same over the last few seasons has been the same (in makeup, SF, SA, Fenwick, etc) except for their PDO... don't expect your Thorburn to be turning into a Crosby.
(I used Thorburn because he's on the team I follow so not to hurt other people's feelings)


Last edited by garret9: 03-31-2013 at 11:13 PM.
garret9 is offline   Reply With Quote