View Single Post
Old
07-16-2013, 10:59 PM
  #28
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 36,689
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
The statistic itself is what it is - it doesn't purport to measure anything.

Some have asserted that PDO is exclusively a measure of luck. But those people were and are wrong.
Seems to me you're dealing in semantics here.

The fundamental concept behind PDO is that individual and team PDOs will always regress to 1000, so we measure distance from 1000 to account for short-term variance.

The problem is that there's not a logical reason why a specific player's or team's PDO should regress to 1000. It's a completely arbitrary assertion once you get past the bird's eye view. What the stat essentially does is take authentically predictable results and dismiss them as random variation. That's... a slight problem.

Quote:
And the person who conceived of the statistic - Vic Ferrari - never made that assertion.
First, Vic Ferrari didn't conceive of the statistic. A visitor on his blog named Brian King did.

Second -- here is a direct quote from Vic Ferrari's first post on the subject:

Quote:
Lets pretend there was a stat called “blind luck.” Said stat was simply adding SH% and SV% together. I know there’s a way to check what this number should generally be, but I hate math so lets just say 100% for ***** and giggles.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote