View Single Post
05-12-2013, 12:19 PM
Kershaw's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 25,509
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
Is it just me or are these advanced stats gurus always saying "based on this they are the best team yada yada yada (insert excuse as to why they lost)"?

If the stats are such a great tool at determining things why is the on ice result often different.

Reminds me of Trouble With the Curve. "Anybody who uses computers doesn't know a damn thing about this game."
Wins are just a stat, just like Corsi/Fenwick/PDO are stats. However win totals are ultimately the judgement of talent, which can be quite skewed when taken in with context. I feel that the advanced stats tell a better story than win/loss totals over the long haul. Corsi/Fenwick correlate better with future winning than win-loss totals and GF/GA totals.

Puck possession hockey is very vital to winning hockey games and goaltenders are sorta left out of the equation in the stats. This is why we refer to the norm at .909 sv percentage and evaluate from there. If you want to even further go onto it, ES vs. PK sv. percentage will tell better of goalie's performance.

The Penguins had a very high PDO number, which is largely unsustainable. Here is a good article:

Basically, if a team is playing with a PDO number way higher than 1.000, they're producing above their expected output. If a team is playing with a PDO number below 1.000, they're producing below their expected output. Over the course of a long season, the number will generally correct itself.
Isles PDO had 8 players over 1000 PDO at ES.

Pens PDO had a staggering 17 players over 1000 PDO at ES.

This tells that the Isles were for the most part, very unlucky throughout the series.

Kershaw is offline