HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

What's with our PDO?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-04-2012, 11:18 PM
  #1
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,697
vCash: 500
What's with our PDO?

I was thumbing through our PDO results available on Behindthenet here. Going back through every available season and playoffs, I noticed that there was never an instance where we benefited significantly from high PDO, and in fact suffered from low PDO quite often, especially in the playoffs.

What gives? As a fan, I do often lament the lack of "breaks" we catch year after year and at times it feels like the team is cursed. Is this just a statistical confirmation of that? Is there something in our personnel or system that causes that?

Other teams seem to catch PDO "waves" and ride them through enchanted seasons or playoff runs; with all our talent we just need one of those to break through but it never seems to come. When you look at our Presidents' trophy year our regular-season PDO wasn't anything special yet we dominated the league. Then in the playoffs our PDO promptly became a joke.

This squares with what I have seen on the ice for the years in question, we have to work so hard for a goal, and then something stupid will happen and the other team will get it back easily.

Can we ever hope to have a lucky season or playoffs? Is this just a vain hope?

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2012, 11:25 PM
  #2
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,046
vCash: 567
I blame Pronger.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2012, 11:33 PM
  #3
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,876
vCash: 500
Not going to try to analyze this technically. I will say as a long-time suffering Sharks fans, come playoffs time, our teams have lacked that extra finish to get the "lucky" (dirty) goals. That's probably the missing ingredient to bring our PDO in line.

Whatever is missing - tenacity, finish, poise - all contribute to it.

Gilligans Island is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2012, 11:44 PM
  #4
Mafoofoo
:facepalm:
 
Mafoofoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 12,834
vCash: 500
The document which granted San Jose a team was probably printed from a tree which grew on a cursed indian burial ground or site of a brutal native american massacre with the ink being made from orphan tears. I'm also pretty sure structures at the tank were made using melted down bits of cursed Aztec gold.

Mafoofoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2012, 11:48 PM
  #5
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,046
vCash: 567
Juantimer, you wouldn't happen to have access to the team PDO's of the Stanley Cup winners since the lockout, would you? It'd be interesting to see whether any team has been able to win it without massive PDO inflation. My bet's that if there are any, they'll be Detroit and Chicago.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2012, 11:59 PM
  #6
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Juantimer, you wouldn't happen to have access to the team PDO's of the Stanley Cup winners since the lockout, would you? It'd be interesting to see whether any team has been able to win it without massive PDO inflation. My bet's that if there are any, they'll be Detroit and Chicago.
Available at the same link ... Boston '11 had a massive PDO advantage, Chicago '10 middling, Pit '09 actually had a disadvantage, Detroit '08 was middling as well. That's as far back as the site goes.

For comparison we had a bad disadvantage in every year except '10, when we had only a slight disadvantage.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 12:29 AM
  #7
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,369
vCash: 500
OK I'll be the one to ask - what the **** is PDO?

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 12:33 AM
  #8
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
Available at the same link ... Boston '11 had a massive PDO advantage, Chicago '10 middling, Pit '09 actually had a disadvantage, Detroit '08 was middling as well. That's as far back as the site goes.

For comparison we had a bad disadvantage in every year except '10, when we had only a slight disadvantage.
I will disagree with the above about losing dirty goals. Those waves are the pretty goals. High percentage plays. Transition hockey produces that, grind hockey doesn't. You can get a bump with in-zone play like Detroit.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 12:41 AM
  #9
Squeeven
Registered User
 
Squeeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitten Mittons View Post
OK I'll be the one to ask - what the **** is PDO?
lol I was laughing my ass off when I saw the way you said that lol. I was gonna ask the same thing, what is it?

Squeeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 12:42 AM
  #10
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,046
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitten Mittons View Post
OK I'll be the one to ask - what the **** is PDO?
PDO is the sum of "On-Ice Shooting Percentage" and "On-Ice Save Percentage" while a player was on the ice. It regresses very heavily to the mean in the long-run: a team or player well above 1000 has generally played in good luck and should expect to drop going forward and vice-versa.

Behindthenet.ca

Basically, for example, Rich Peverly had a stupidly high PDO of 1056 this season. I expect his point totals and +/- to be significantly worse next season. On the flip side, Cam Fowler had an abnormally low PDO of 962 this season, and I expect his points totals and +/- to increase next season.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 12:53 AM
  #11
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I will disagree with the above about losing dirty goals. Those waves are the pretty goals. High percentage plays. Transition hockey produces that, grind hockey doesn't. You can get a bump with in-zone play like Detroit.
I'm not sure I agree with this. There does not seem to be a system-based way to improve PDO, as far as I can see. Transition teams may or may not have high PDO.

In fact I'd argue that it's the ugly goals that reflect PDO more ... like those 3 ugly ones Mike Smith gave up last night. They were shots he should not have given up, so the team plays defensive hockey AND gets burned = abnormally low PDO. Likewise LA's PDO goes abnormally high because those shots weren't worked for, so the defensive game was not compromised.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 12:59 AM
  #12
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
PDO is the sum of "On-Ice Shooting Percentage" and "On-Ice Save Percentage" while a player was on the ice. It regresses very heavily to the mean in the long-run: a team or player well above 1000 has generally played in good luck and should expect to drop going forward and vice-versa.

Behindthenet.ca

Basically, for example, Rich Peverly had a stupidly high PDO of 1056 this season. I expect his point totals and +/- to be significantly worse next season. On the flip side, Cam Fowler had an abnormally low PDO of 962 this season, and I expect his points totals and +/- to increase next season.
I will supplement what you say which is that the stats cognoscenti lump this in with the luck issue. And I disagree with attributing it to pure luck. The reason for the regression is assumed to be luck. The reality is the relative parity in the league. It is possible to not regress if someone is doing something completely out of line. Either they have a special tactic for high SH% (which the rest of league acknowledges and then counters) or a defensive tactic which can also be countered. Players who don't regress are those who have lost their skill through things like injury, aging, lack of effort, etc. The leaguewide regression is a bunch of little things that tend to push everyone to that "magic" middle. It isn't just "luck".

(BTW, I bet that Fowler is a PDO casualty. I don't think that he is as good as advertised and that his position in the lineup will change such that his numbers drift to the middle.)

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 01:03 AM
  #13
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,697
vCash: 500
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's impossible for leaguewide PDO to be anything other than 1000 no?

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 01:05 AM
  #14
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I will disagree with the above about losing dirty goals. Those waves are the pretty goals. High percentage plays. Transition hockey produces that, grind hockey doesn't. You can get a bump with in-zone play like Detroit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't PDO be affected by the type of system the team plays? If you play the "throw-everything-on-net, grind-it-down" hockey like the Sharks, I'd expect more fluctuation in PDO. Sometimes you'll get a lucky rebound or bounce, and sometimes you won't. Which could explain why the Sharks run into dry spells in the playoffs.
If you play a transition system with quick puck movement and higher scoring chances, wouldn't PDO be more stable? You don't really see a team like Philly run into consistent dry spells.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 01:08 AM
  #15
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't PDO be affected by the type of system the team plays? If you play the "throw-everything-on-net, grind-it-down" hockey like the Sharks, I'd expect more fluctuation in PDO. Sometimes you'll get a lucky rebound or bounce, and sometimes you won't. Which could explain why the Sharks run into dry spells in the playoffs.
If you play a transition system with quick puck movement and higher scoring chances, wouldn't PDO be more stable? You don't really see a team like Philly run into consistent dry spells.
exactly

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 01:08 AM
  #16
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,046
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I will supplement what you say which is that the stats cognoscenti lump this in with the luck issue. And I disagree with attributing it to pure luck. The reason for the regression is assumed to be luck. The reality is the relative parity in the league. It is possible to not regress if someone is doing something completely out of line. Either they have a special tactic for high SH% (which the rest of league acknowledges and then counters) or a defensive tactic which can also be countered. Players who don't regress are those who have lost their skill through things like injury, aging, lack of effort, etc. The leaguewide regression is a bunch of little things that tend to push everyone to that "magic" middle. It isn't just "luck".

(BTW, I bet that Fowler is a PDO casualty. I don't think that he is as good as advertised and that his position in the lineup will change such that his numbers drift to the middle.)
True, pure luck is probably not a good explanation. There are players like S. Kostitsyn that consistently top the league in shooting percentage, or someone like James Neal that worked a lot on his shot accuracy over the summer so I wouldn't expect him to regress. And for some reason, Patrick Marleau always has a really low on-ice save percentage, so I guess he's not good at suppressing high-quality shots or something.

(If you're bored and want to drop a line, what makes you say that about Fowler?)

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 01:13 AM
  #17
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
True, pure luck is probably not a good explanation. There are players like S. Kostitsyn that consistently top the league in shooting percentage, or someone like James Neal that worked a lot on his shot accuracy over the summer so I wouldn't expect him to regress. And for some reason, Patrick Marleau always has a really low on-ice save percentage, so I guess he's not good at suppressing high-quality shots or something.

(If you're bored and want to drop a line, what makes you say that about Fowler?)
On Fowler, his defense is horrific. They really need to protect him.

Marleau is pretty good at possession but there are high quality chances that he gives up. Frequently stuck low in the zone when play goes the other way. I see a lot of things that he does that try to protect against it (keeping shots in the frame of the goal, frequently back off as third man, not getting caught in 50/50 battles, etc.), but I suspect that the issue will never go away entirely.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 01:16 AM
  #18
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't PDO be affected by the type of system the team plays? If you play the "throw-everything-on-net, grind-it-down" hockey like the Sharks, I'd expect more fluctuation in PDO. Sometimes you'll get a lucky rebound or bounce, and sometimes you won't. Which could explain why the Sharks run into dry spells in the playoffs.
If you play a transition system with quick puck movement and higher scoring chances, wouldn't PDO be more stable? You don't really see a team like Philly run into consistent dry spells.
PDO ostensibly should account for both styles. Sharks puck-possession, lot of shots style tends to keep goals-against down, while a more risky transition game sees an uptick in goals-against. We were in the top half of the league in goals-against, Philly was in the bottom half. They had a higher shooting % than us, so it evens out in general.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 01:20 AM
  #19
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,046
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
On Fowler, his defense is horrific. They really need to protect him.

Marleau is pretty good at possession but there are high quality chances that he gives up. Frequently stuck low in the zone when play goes the other way. I see a lot of things that he does that try to protect against it (keeping shots in the frame of the goal, frequently back off as third man, not getting caught in 50/50 battles, etc.), but I suspect that the issue will never go away entirely.
Does that perhaps factor into why he doesn't try to snipe corners very often? Because he's worried that he'll miss and send the other team on an odd-man rush?

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 01:31 AM
  #20
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Does that perhaps factor into why he doesn't try to snipe corners very often? Because he's worried that he'll miss and send the other team on an odd-man rush?
Yup. Marleau errs in the frame. I see goalies get a lot of shoulder saves on him. A lot of posters call those in the crest, they aren't. I watch carefully and he is most often saved by shoulders. When he really is shooting crest, that is when he is slumping.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 01:34 AM
  #21
TheJuxtaposer
Lost a bet
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,046
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Yup. Marleau errs in the frame. I see goalies get a lot of shoulder saves on him. A lot of posters call those in the crest, they aren't. I watch carefully and he is most often saved by shoulders. When he really is shooting crest, that is when he is slumping.
Okay. Thank you, kind sir.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 02:44 AM
  #22
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,051
vCash: 500
I have often heard that overly high PDOs can be the result of luck as well as the results of "cheating." I don't mean breaking the rules... More like players "cheating" on their defensive responsibilities. It can also be the result of a player being carried by others.

Either scenario is unsustainable.


Last edited by WantonAbandon: 05-05-2012 at 02:53 AM.
WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 02:49 AM
  #23
CrazedZooChimp
Not enough guts
 
CrazedZooChimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,718
vCash: 1875
Send a message via AIM to CrazedZooChimp
You know what irritates me? When people call a stat as a percentage and then list as something other than a percentage. In the future I expect everyone to describe a baseline PDO as 100, or, at least, 1.000, not 1000. Thanks.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what it is...

CrazedZooChimp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 02:52 AM
  #24
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazedZooChimp View Post
You know what irritates me? When people call a stat as a percentage and then list as something other than a percentage. In the future I expect everyone to describe a baseline PDO as 100, or, at least, 1.000, not 1000. Thanks.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what it is...
Nah you get it. You can call it 1, 1.06 or .972 or whatever and people will no what you are talking about

WantonAbandon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.