Advanced Team Stats - What the Heck is PDO?
by SkinnyFish on Jun 1, 2010 10:00 AM EDT
Email
PrintPDO is an advanced stat first introduced by and named for PDO, a frequent commenter in the Oilogosphere. It was developed by Vic Ferrari at Irreverent Oiler Fans. PDO is a number you derive from added a team's even-strength shooting percentage to its even-strength save percentage. A more detailed analysis can be found here by MC79. For you mathematical junkies PDO = 1000 * (G/SF + SV/SA). Now inherent to PDO is that the average PDO for all 30 teams has to be exactly 1 because every shot either becomes a goal or a save.
PDO is great for analyzing is how well a team will do based on its overall scoring and goaltending. I've compiled PDO number for every team for the last 30 years using data from behindthenet.ca and put them in a Google Document for your enjoyment that can be found here.
Looking at this past season's numbers you can see why Washington was so dominant, shooting nearly 11% while 5-on-5 and somehow getting a fantastic .927 sv% out of their goalies giving them a PDO of 1.037, the highest PDO of the last three seasons. At the other end of the spectrum you have the Ottawa Senators who sported a league worst .895 sv% while 5-on-5; and that's even with that 11 game win streak where everyone pointed out that the goaltending wouldn't hold out. It didn't.
One of the most interesting facts I stumbled across while compiling this data was the fact that overall league shooting and save percentages at 5-on-5 have remained exactly the same over the last three seasons. Team are scoring at a rate of 8.36% and thus goalies are stopping 91.64% of pucks thrown their way. While overall league scoring is up at even strength, this is due to an increase in the amount of shots being taken; 21.30 shots a game at 5-on-5 in 07-08, 22.32 a game in 08-09; 23.06 a game in 09-10.
Another thing I wanted to see was if there was a way to determing a team's ranking based on PDO. Turns out there is. As you can see in the graphs below, for the last three years the formula relating end of the year rank to PDO remains virtually the same:
via img25.imageshack.us
Now obviously PDO is not the be all and end all for determining the strength of a a team. Just look at Chicago this year. They posted a 28th best PDO of 0.985 due to terrible goaltending. However, they led the league is shots against while only giving up 19.14 shots at 5-on-5. So even though their goalies stunk, thankfully for them they didn't see a lot of rubber.
How did Toronto fare?
Pretty bad. They posted a 28th ranked shooting percentage of 7.55% and the 26th ranked 5-on-5 goaltending with a 0.906 sv%. Not only does this team need to find a way to score more, they desperate need better goaltending. Now obviously Toskala shewed these numbers a bit, but even without his dismal numbers Leafs goaltending was subpar. From that MC79 post:
Toronto is an interesting team - they outshoot the opposition at evens by a healthy amount but have the worst PDO number in the league, thanks largely to their inability to stop the puck. Maybe Brian Burke’s first miracle, as certified by the Toronto press corps (I think we should call them "The Disciples"), will be to push their PDO number towards 100.
In conclusion
There is a lot more hidden information in the data I've collected than just what I've detailed here. So take some time to go through the numbers and discuss what you found in the comments below.
251 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here’s a, uh, more comprehensive discussion of PDO and what it all means.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
And in context Toronto’s PDO being so low is something that’s seen as unsustainable; two years in a row Vesa Toskala played some of the worst goaltending the NHL has ever seen. That won’t happen again this year.
A fairly “meh” campaign by Giguere and Gustavsson is going to draw a lot of praise for the Leafs “growing confidence” this year.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
by Chemmy on Jun 1, 2010 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
ow my brain
My Fan Base Can Beat Up Your Fan Base
by JaredFromLondon on Jun 1, 2010 10:12 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The Leafs have three full seasons below 1. That is some terrible luck. This might be the year when MC79 is right and the Leafs move back to 1+ and it’ll have a heck of an impact.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
It’s a combination of luck and talent. A bad team will obviously be below one while a good team will be above it.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
7 of the top 16 teams this year were below 1 this past season, 7 the year before, and 4 the year before that.
I think that they tend to be there but it’s not a hard and fast rule.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
I really think it is a matter of small things making a huge difference.
Who knows what the season would have looked like had the team not started 0-8.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
just a guess
but i’m gonna go with “Better”
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Looking at that MC79 post you can see the damage that valleys can do to a season as well as the shielding that peaks can provide.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
like
an 11 game win streak built on the back of a hot goalie riding an unsustainable save percentage?
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
If anything the peaks can be worse. Montreal and Ottawa being the two teams that come to mind.
Should make for some interesting off season moves.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
If you don’t recognise the peaks and build as if that’s the norm then yes, they are worse.
But it wouldn’t kill the Leafs to put one together…
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
We could only hope for such a streak.
When was the last one. I know it was a few years ago, we went 13 games undefeated or something.
Pretty sure it was in November.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Are you thinking of the JS Aubin miracle run in April?
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
No, I think it was pre-lockout.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
stupid hairy necked frenchman giving us hope
My Fan Base Can Beat Up Your Fan Base
by JaredFromLondon on Jun 1, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
i remember that, it was in 04. We had a 15 game point streak, we had an OT loss to st louis crammed in the middle of two 7 game winning streaks.
Nieuwendyk was killing it with antro and poni then.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E"
by Matt_Roberts on Jun 1, 2010 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Yea, it gave me so much hope.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Leafs lost a tough 6 game series to a strong Flyers team that could have gone either way so I don’t know that it was misplaced hope.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
I know, that’s what made that series even harder.
Speaking of that game. I was watching it at a buddies house and left before overtime started. I was listening to the game on the radio and while I was walking to the house JR scored. I saw the replay when I got in the door.
Punched a hole in the drywall.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I left the bar so distraught that I walked about 20 blocks the wrong way in Copenhagen and took about 2 hours to find my way home.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Wow. I turned 19 the lockout year. I have yet to experience the combination of important Leaf games and alcohol. It won’t be pretty.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh my God.
I never even CONSIDERED THAT. No lie.
That said, when we played Montreal for the last playoff spot in 07-08, I didn’t need alcohol to almost pass out.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
That was as close as I’ve been, it was a mess.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s not a pretty picture although alcohol plus big playoff wins (ie that same spring against Ottawa) equals one happy lounge singer and one bitter guitar playing accompianist
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Detroit being ranked in the bottom half for the past three seasons is interesting.
We’ve always known that, at best, their goaltending was league average, but you’d think that a team that three years ago won the cup, and last season played in the cup final, would look better on paper.
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 10:33 AM EDT reply actions
Yeah, for teams like that, you have to look at the numbers behind the numbers. How many shots did they allow, how many did they take, what were their PP and PK numbers like.
I've always wanted to be a PPP Princess. You see kids, you can be anything you want to be; so long as Jay Leno doesn't also want to be that.
If I’m remembering right their PP and PK were both top-5 in 2008, PP was top-5 in 2009 and PK was bad until the playoffs, and this season neither were all that good.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
(note name change)
by red army line on Jun 1, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
PP
1st in 08-09 with 25.5%; 3rd in 07-08 with 20.7%.
9th this year with a 19.2%.
PK
25th in 08-09 with 78.3%; 8th in 07-08 with 84.0%.
10th this year with a 83.9%.
I've always wanted to be a PPP Princess. You see kids, you can be anything you want to be; so long as Jay Leno doesn't also want to be that.
Bad memory
But I could swear on NBC they said Detroit had a top-5 PP and PK in 2008…
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
(note name change)
by red army line on Jun 1, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I bet if you looked, the Wings don’t take a lot fewer penalties and possess the puck a lot more than average which helped offset that bad year on the PK.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
What are the r and r-squared values of those graphs?
Also, it’s interesting that Chicago, these years apparent Stanley Cup winner, has such a low value. Obviously trends are there for a reason, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.
Loving the Leafs is like being in love with a drug-addled, gambling addicted prostitute with a heart of gold and a bunch of humanitarian awards from her youth. It’s hard. It hurts. But dammit! I just love them!
by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jun 1, 2010 10:43 AM EDT reply actions
it doesn’t tell the whole story.
Now obviously PDO is not the be all and end all for determining the strength of a a team. Just look at Chicago this year. They posted a 28th best PDO of 0.985 due to terrible goaltending. However, they led the league is shots against while only giving up 19.14 shots at 5-on-5. So even though their goalies stunk, thankfully for them they didn’t see a lot of rubber.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Stupid early post
It’s just one piece of info like any other stat. If a team has a low PDO and winning then you’d break down the two aspects and investigate further.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
07-08: R^2 = 0.2766
08-09: R^2 = 0.2393
09-10: R^2 = 0.2188
I've always wanted to be a PPP Princess. You see kids, you can be anything you want to be; so long as Jay Leno doesn't also want to be that.
yeah, only have 30 data points will do that
I've always wanted to be a PPP Princess. You see kids, you can be anything you want to be; so long as Jay Leno doesn't also want to be that.
It has more to do with PDO not correlating very well with winning hockey games.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Those aren’t bad for R^2 values in my world.
My bigger problem is that it looks like a bimodal distribution. PDO seems to predict the losers very well, but not necessarily the teams who do well.
Loving the Leafs is like being in love with a drug-addled, gambling addicted prostitute with a heart of gold and a bunch of humanitarian awards from her youth. It’s hard. It hurts. But dammit! I just love them!
by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jun 1, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
In 07-08 the team that finished 2nd was 26th in PDO.
In 08-09 the team that finished 1st was 17th-ish in PDO
In 09-10the team that finished 3rd was 27th in PDO.
Being low in PDO doesn’t seem to suggest that a team will finish low in the standings. The graphs are essentially noise.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
The graphs aren’t noise. There seems to be a real and reliable trend there. But, some points have large deviations from the regression line (particularly the higher ranked teams). I don’t think this analysis is pointless, but it’s clearly not something you can bank on.
Loving the Leafs is like being in love with a drug-addled, gambling addicted prostitute with a heart of gold and a bunch of humanitarian awards from her youth. It’s hard. It hurts. But dammit! I just love them!
by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Jun 1, 2010 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Because you're factoring out
the shot totals, both for and against, by using shooting percentages.
Those are relevant values, and they have a major impact on the percentages.
Goals For vs. Goals Against actually determines wins and losses… not the percentages.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jun 1, 2010 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions
OK. So.
This data tells me a few things:
1) There is a relationship between teams that have high save percentages, shooting percentages, and wins. Shocker.
2) This relationship is a long ways from being a way to predict how your team will fare.
3) This relationship is a long ways from explaining why your team did well.
4) A very small difference in save percentage and shooting percentage can separate good from bad teams over the course of several seasons. Most teams have something around 1 by the end of the season, but the good teams may have a little more, and the not-so-good-teams will have a little less.
So my question is this:
So what?
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
Agreed on all counts. PDO in my mind is best for looking at teams as the season goes on. If Team A and Team B both won their first ten games but Team A’s PDO was 1.03 and Team B’s was 0.97 you’d feel pretty good saying Team B wouldn’t cool off as dramatically.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
The MC79 post has a great table that shows ‘so what?’.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
- Only 9 of the top 16 teams in the last two years would fit that description though.
- High and low numbers are unsustainable so if your team, for example, had a .93 PDO then you could predict that it would improve. Same with the other way. It may not necessarily be in the same season (although MC79’s post shows how quickly it can come back in line).
- That’s true for absolutely every stat.
- Yes
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
OK, but the idea that very high shooting and save percentages will level out, and regress towards their respective means isn’t really a new idea. In fact, they don’t need to be put together for us to see that. So aside from this, what new info does this article give me?
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
Something to talk about other than Kaberle, Kulemin, and Grabbo.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
An excellent point!
I’m reluctant to hate, if only for that reason. I’m happy to see we’re investigating every possible measure of team success/luck.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
It isn’t a new idea? Maybe to you and me, but tell that to virtually every sports reporter who talks about “renewed intensity” or “commitment to winning” for some team on a run, when in reality it’s an unsustainable PDO (mc79 has the hilarious story of the 2005-06 Ottawa Senators on this front). Or what about the Caps-Habs series? Everyone said Mtl was limiting chances and coming through in the clutch, and WSH lacked commitment to drive the net. Nonsense. Mtl was luck and Washington unlucky.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Bah, statistical wonkery. Montreal won because their compete level was higher.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
that and they rode special teams like they always do
My Fan Base Can Beat Up Your Fan Base
by JaredFromLondon on Jun 1, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
This is why I say to Fleet Fox, this stuff is news to a lot of people. Even I was amazed at the starkness of mc79’s Q1 vs. Q2-4 data.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Hahah
I hate it when people talk about “compete level”. There are so many perfectly acceptable ways of saying the same thing within the confines of normal English grammar.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
Heh
I know we made fun of Zelkovich one day for his ridiculous complaint about ‘saucer pass’ but some things in sports really are ridiculous.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
I think part of what irks me is after the first time I heard it (Kelly Hrudy? I can’t remember.) I started hearing it EVERYWHERE. And the thing is, you just KNOW all these clowns thought to themselves “Uh-oh. So-and-So is starting to use new lingo. I’d better start using it too, or everyone will think I’m dated!”
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
I think basketball might be the worst for this. Bill Simmons regularly rips on the draftniks for their ‘long’ ‘upside potential’ etc.
It would actually be pretty funny to see a glossary or ridiculous sports terms.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
it was a monster performance
to be sure
Unabashed fan of the surprise 2012 Stanley Cup champs
yeah, but in order to put up unsustainable percentages, there is something intangible that makes it so. I hate cliches as much as the next person, but when a team is “on a roll” it’s more than dumb luck. The team chemistry is just right, confidence levels way up, goalie playing like he’s Roy and believing he is until something brings him down to earth. Unsustainable percentages can be predicted to fall again. But , how do you explain a sudden increase?
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Every shot on net has a chance at going in. When that happens in clumps people call it intangibles.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Exactly, that and small sample sizes.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
If it’s more than dumb luck why did Mtl’s PDO crash to earth vs. Philly? Or even in individual games against Pittsburgh and Washington?
Human beings innately search for patterns and causes. It’s adaptive behaviour. But it can also mislead, and this is one example. Dumb luck.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
There are a lot of possible explanations for why Montreal didn’t fare well against Philly.
I refuse to chalk it all up to luck.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
Montreal only faced Philly because every bounce went their way against Washington and Pittsburgh.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Mtl v. Wsh
Well, using that series as the example, you can go to Behind The Net Hockey and find posts that refute every single talking point that sought to explain the outcome whether it was limiting chances or keeping shots to the outside or whatever people used.
The way I understand, ‘luck’ doesn’t mean that a shot hit a rut in the ice and went in. It’s the portion of shooting or save percentage that can’t be explained.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Luck is best described as statistical noise based on small sample sizes.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Ok.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
BTN beat the horse that was “traditional” explanations for Montreal’s success until it was dead and turned into glue. Every single explanation in the media was demonstrably horse shit.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Halak played outstanding. I wouldn’t call it luck, it’s kind of unfair. If I played over my head like that, and someone tried to reduce it to luck – I’d be pretty pissed.
MTL vs WSH is just one example.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
So provide the counterargument: that Halak willingly raised his game to unheard of levels based on some sort of talent or ability he holds back otherwise.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
He doesn’t hold back otherwise – it’s a different psychological environment, and that impacts a player’s performance as well.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
This isn’t nearly as convincing of an argument as “Halak had things go his way for two weeks”.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Because you’re biased. I’m a Leaf fan too but…
If it was Joseph, Belfour or Gustavsson pulling horsehoes out of his ass (I realize the irony of using that term) would you be humble enough to say “He had things go his way for 2 weeks?”
I wouldn’t – fuck that.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not about being humble: it’s about trying to make sense of a complicated system. I hope our team does well and I don’t care as a fan if that success has to do with them always getting every bounce; “better lucky than good” being the old saying, or if they win by being perfect. A win is a win.
As someone interested in actually talking about hockey, yes I’d be “humble” enough to say sometimes things just go our way.
Does anyone think JS Giguere is ready to return to Conn Smythe form because he tossed up two shutouts in a row when he joined the Leafs and finished the season with a .916 in Toronto?
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I would. In 2004 Belfour was lights out in the first round (3 shutouts!!!). The next found we won two games where his sv%s were .947 and .966, lost the other four with sv%s .917, .885, .880., .667. He was the difference, just as much as Halak this year.
IIRC, you can do the same analysis for most of the Joseph/Belfour years. Outstanding goaltending the first few rounds, then we lose once the goaltending gave out.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Look at Cammalleri. In the regular season his shooting percentage was 11.9, close to his career average of 12.3. We can reasonably conclude that Cammalleri scores 12 times out of 100 shots.
In the playoffs he scored 13 goals on 60 shots for a 21.7% clip. He doubled his regular season shooting percentage. If he did that with heart, grit and determination why doesn’t he use that heart to shoot 20% all the time? If he did he’d have scored 43, 51, and 42 goals his past three seasons and would have gotten a lot more than $5M as a UFA.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Cammalleri's Shooting PCT in the 2010 Playoffs:
Vs. WSH:
5 goals on 21 shots = 0.238
Vs. PIT:
7 goals on 27 shots = 0.259
Vs. PHI:
1 goal on 13 shots = 0.077
It’s not that he forgot how to shoot or made it to the Conference Finals and stopped caring; it’s that small sample sizes let weird things happen.
If Cammalleri shoots his 12% career average he scores 2.5 goals against Washington instead of 5, and 3 goals against Pittsburgh instead of 7.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Don't get me wrong.
I GET that strange things can happen in small sample brackets.
I guess, as you have already pointed out, the main issue I take with the notion that The Habs “were lucky” is semantic at heart. Essentially, if we call his shooting percentage in the playoffs a ‘statistical aberration’, I’m cool with that. Obviously, I can agree that his shooting percentage was unsustainable.
But the reality is, that using the word “luck” implies that he didn’t deserve to score those goals, and that by some strange hiccup in the fabric of the universe, these goals were handed to him anyway. To say that he simply got “lucky” is misleading.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
Luck is shorter to type than “statistical aberration”. See the quote from Baseball Prospectus and my response to PPP that by luck we mean statistical anomalies magnified by small sample sizes.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I guess, as you have already pointed out
I saw that you already explained this. My point is that although luck is shorter to type than statistical aberration, these words doesn’t mean the same thing, and it doesn’t make sense to use them interchangeably.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
by JP Nikota on Jun 1, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think everyone’s been clear what they mean. If you choose to cover your ears and say “They weren’t lucky” while ignoring the point of this discussion that’s your choice.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I haven’t ignored the point of this discussion at all.
Players’ great and terrible numbers will usually regress towards the mean – including shooting and save percentage. The slight differences between player stats over large periods of time define the great players from OK ones. Whoopee.
You and I are also in agreement that one good season or playoff run can be considered a statistical anomaly, or “luck” – I just don’t think “luck” is always the best word to describe a given anomaly.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
You’re arguing semantics despite obviously grasping the argument.
Why?
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
He’s unemployed.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That was a hilarious exchange. Just the last three parts though.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting. So why does Heatley traditionally disappear in the playoffs? Bad luck every year? Save for that one run with Ottawa?
I think the psychology of sports is being overlooked too much.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Heatley’s a point per game player in the playoffs.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
He’s a goal scorer, who is paid to score goals.
Over his career he has scored at approx .50% clip during the regular season. 299 goals in 589 career games
In the playoffs – .25% – 12 goals in 48 games.
I think he just doesn’t have “the balls” to play in the playoffs
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
His shooting percentage in the playoffs is half what it is in the regular season.
He probably gets checked tighter by better teams on average than what he sees in the regular season.
It looks like he responds to that by setting up a lot of goals.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Now you’re defending Dany Heatley :P
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Like John Elway? Like Peyton Manning? Like Steve Yzerman? Michael Freakingg Jordan (what a choker, couldn’t get past the Pistons all those years). History is littered with guys who “lacked balls”, suddenly got lucky/better teammates and were then winners.
On the flip side, why did notorious winner Derek Jeter crap out so many years in a row from 2001 to 2009?
Why has notorious choke artist A-Rod had several monster playoff performances, including last year?
Arggh. If there is some mythical “ability to come through in the clutch”, no one’s ever been able to find any evidence of it.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Derek Jeter. Mr. Postseason. Captain Clutch.
Never won shit without being surrounded by tons of way better players.
Legend. Hall of famer.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
The world’s greatest coattail rider.
To live his life. Sigh.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
suddenly got lucky/better teammates.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
If there is some mythical "ability to come through in the clutch", no one’s ever been able to find any evidence of it.
wasn’t it said that Mats Sundin scored more goals in the third period than any other NHL player in history? that to me sounds kind of clutch…
Or did I dream that…?
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
He also scored a shit load of OT goals
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Mats sure seemed clutch to me but realistically I have to accept the possibility that (a) the Leafs played a lot of close playoff games; (b) Mats was far and away the Leafs best player and therefore likely to be involved in any goals; © Mats is an exceptionally good hockey player; and conclude that these, plus some luck, probably account for any record.
I remember some Mats haters saying “if he always came through in the clutch, why didn’t he try that hard the rest of the game”. Fair point. The reality is luck, rather than effort level, probably had some role.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah he was always on the ice + their best player (far and away) for a long time = OT goals
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
(d) He also got more ice-time.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, sorta like Joe Sakic was getting top-line minutes in playoff OT so it’s natural to expect he’d score some, more than say more “clutch” players who have less talent and thus get less TOI.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
(note name change)
by red army line on Jun 1, 2010 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
“Intangibles” by their nature do not lend themselves to physical evidence.
I have issue with reducing performances strictly to numerical values, and calling anamolies in numerical data – luck.
Let’s agree to disagree?
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
but "luck" is neither completely good nor bad
it’s essentially random chance, which, when boiled down, equates to a statistical anomaly.
Just using positive examples for your opinion paints it as a feel good thing, but luck can be bad, like the Leafs going 0-8 to start this past season. that was bad luck.
or, if you prefer, a statistical anomaly.
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly. Let’s just call it “Glabberfissitude” and now it doesn’t have the negative connotations of ‘luck’.
Problem solved.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bingo.
I think what people get hung up on is the fact that luck is usually defined like this:
success and failure apparently brought on by chance rather than one’s own actions
This, of course, has a negative connotation when applied to a hockey player who has done well for themselves at any given point, because it implies some measure of undeserving.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
Ok
So let’s hope the Leafs’ Glabberfissitude increases positively next year.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, scrumtrillessence cannot be measured.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
for me
if you want to call it luck, then fine, it’s “luck”
but ask yourself, would you like to take your chances on riding a hot streak and hoping it doesn’t give out at the wrong time, or would you rather win knowing you’re playing the same game/style with the same effort as you have through out your career.
Like Dirty Harry says, do ya feel lucky…punk? Well, now he says “git off my lawn”, but i digress…
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
A lot of that was in the SCF run with OTT, wasn’t it?
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
(note name change)
by red army line on Jun 1, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
For his career Cammalleri takes about three shots per game and scores on 12% of them. In the playoffs he took three shots per game and scored on 25% of them.
Kent Wilson posted this below here in the comments:
If [your] club is winning because [of increased] frequency rather than volume, it’s likely more luck than true ability
If Cammalleri had taken six shots every game and scored all those goals you’d say “wow he really elevated his game”. Instead he did what he always does and the results are way out of line with what should normally happen.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I tend to think Philadelphia has some very good video analysts. They found a hole in Price when nobody could. They made Rask look average and they did the same to Halak.
Hot goalies seem much less so against the Flyers. Someone in their organization can really do their homework.
Leaf, the universe and everything.
Except against Chicago apparently. And during the regular season.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve seen enough of Price and Halak to know they’re not going to be Vezina winners in perpetuity. Philly has deep offense that likes to get down and dirty.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Clusters
If 5 people in a room of 10 get cancer you might think “HOLY SHIT 50% OF THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET CANCER” but in the entire building they would average out to whatever level (let’s say 8%) is expected.
Gabe had a piece with how he views shooting in terms of luck versus skill which I think would give you the answer of a short-term increase is luck and a long-term increase is skill.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Well, not everyone that reads this site let alone that follows hockey will know that is true. Just the same way in which people add up special teams numbers to see if they are pulling their weight.
The new info you get from the article is a look at how all of the teams in the NHL have done over the past three years (or 30 if you click through to the Google Doc).
And adding them up gives you a better idea than just looking at one in isolation.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
I agree
I do like some of the advanced stats, but if I have to look at this graph to understand that the Leafs need to make more saves and score goals at a higher rate then I probably haven’t watched any games.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Jun 1, 2010 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
That's not what it's telling you
Combined with the link to mc79’s article, it’s telling you that for most teams (the Leafs are an outlier thus far) these things tend to regress towards the mean all by themselves. That is an extremely valuable insight, and not one commonly shared in the sports world, when assessing team and individual talents.
So e.g. Gunnarsson had a ridiculous individual PDO of 1018, which helps explains his +/- this year. If his +/- crashes this year we’ll hear endless “sophomore slump” articles when in reality his PDO has probably just regressed to the mean. Komi, Kabs, Stalberg and Beauchemin all had terrible PDOs (even accounting for the Toskala factor), meaning we can expect better results with them on the ice even if their play improves not one iota.
This tells us a lot more than just “the Leafs need to make more saves and score goals at a higher rate”; it tells us the likelihood of those things happening.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem with that is the variables change so much within the dynamic of any given team… players move, players change their work out, players get older, coaching strategies change etc etc etc etc – all of these things have an impact not counting the multitude of variables that occur with the teams the Leafs play against.
The big issue I have with this is if you use a sample size that is too small you get too many aberrations in the results (statistical noise, as Chemmy calls it) but if your sample size spans several years then with all of the changes that occur you are just comparing apples to oranges.
The concept is very sound but the variables can’t be accounted for in any true fashion.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Jun 1, 2010 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Breath of fresh air – I don’t speak/write well enough.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Why do variables need to be accounted for?
Teams with low PDOs see that number regress to the mean. Teams with high PDOs see that number regress to the mean.
It suggests an obvious fact: a good team wins by taking a lot of shots and not allowing many.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
maybe it’s not an outlier, as it’s just an obvious fact of any sports team, but the impact has as much to do with a change in personnel as it does anything else.
just saying that “these things work themselves out over time” is a little too simplistic, and not entirely true, since the personnel effecting these measurements are not static.
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Except that PDO tends to normalize itself during a season and I don’t think that anything short of replacing your fourth line with Kovalchuk and Ovechkin is going to noticeably bump your PDO.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I am not arguing the meaning of the PDO, just trying to qualify my statement that it really has no value to a team.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Jun 1, 2010 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Seems awfully arbitrary. It has value to us because we want to talk about why teams win games.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Why teams win games and how they win games are two different things
I just place more value in the how and less on the why.
Sure it is very important to understand the ‘why’ to be able to get to the ‘how’ but I think this stat is very intuitive to begin with.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Jun 1, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
sorry, i meant season over season fluctuations
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m afraid you’re missing the point. At least, you’re missing mine. The fact that PDO is largely statistical noise IS the point.
The problem with that is the variables change so much within the dynamic of any given team… players move, players change their work out, players get older, coaching strategies change etc etc etc etc
The PDO analysis says NONE of these things will account for that much of PDO variation, barring a Vokoun (at the good end) or Toskala (at the bad) in net. Have you looked at mc79’s article? It shows that within the same season PDO regresses very close to the mean.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
PDO regress very close to the mean
Yes it does. It is one of those things that you look at and go “Hmm, that’s interesting” but it has pretty much zero value as far as being a metric in which you can evaluate your team by.
I completely understand that the point of the exercise is there to prove that the regression to the mean is normal, and expected, which is interesting when applied to a sports team. The only real value it has is it debunks a lot of the BS that some teams can somehow be outside the mean for any given length of time due to some undefinable qualities.
Except for that revelation, I don’t see how this measurement does anything for a team as far as being able to effect a change in a positive way.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Jun 1, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t see how this measurement does anything for a team as far as being able to effect a change in a positive way.
This seems like an awfully arbitrary criterium for a stat.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Two different arguments going here
No – a stat is a stat is a stat – whether it is useful or not is up for debate.
Is the PDO a stat? Most definitely
Is it a useful stat? Not really.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Jun 1, 2010 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s useful to me, it suggests when a team is hot vs. historically good.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
We just place a different value on what is important in this case.
This is a difference of opinion not a point that really needs to be debated any further.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Jun 1, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Really it just tells you
who is and who isn’t palying unsustainable hockey.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
And that has value. If the Leafs win 50 games with a PDO of 110 then you can use that information when evaluating your team. Hell, you can use it for individual players as well.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
it has pretty much zero value as far as being a metric in which you can evaluate your team by.
Tell that to the Bruins. In ‘08-’09 they rode unsustainable PDO to the top, and thought they didn’t need Kessel’s offence. This year, predictably, they crashed, and found themselves desperate for offence.
Teams absolutely need to check team and individual PDOs to determine whether luck or skill is driving results. That effects everything you do moving forward.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe the Bruins did evaluate that, and determined the sample size was sufficient to determine that it was skill and not luck.
The PDO is so arbitrary when it comes to determining just how big a sample size is necessary.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Jun 1, 2010 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Bruins did that they’re idiots and don’t understand PDO. No one PDO’s 1.033 in the long run.
And there’s nothing arbitrary about it. A PDO like 1.033, regardless of how long it took to accumulate it, is unsustainable, unless you have Hasek facing Toskala in every single game.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Tell that to the Bruins. In ‘08-’09 they rode unsustainable PDO to the top, and thought they didn’t need Kessel’s offence. This year, predictably, they crashed
…right into the same end of the year as last year, and with a second-overall pick.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jun 1, 2010 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
To be honest losing in game 7 last year hurt way more than this year.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jun 1, 2010 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I wanted you guys to win both years. I feel for you—first the goon who cheap-shooted your guy (who were the principals again?) is the game 7 here, then the 3-0 collapse.
Maybe you deserve the #2 pick karma-wise. What Leafs fans forget is that once we trade that pick it doesn’t matter that much where it winds up. Some other team is getting it, shouldn’t matter to the Leafs if it’s the Bruins, or Tampa, or the Canes… they’re all the competition. Sure the division hurts, but whatever. It’s gone.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
if the bruins get seguin for karma, what the hell do we get for Fraser? or Ballard? or JFJ?
My Fan Base Can Beat Up Your Fan Base
by JaredFromLondon on Jun 1, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
ummmmm
Kessel?
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jun 1, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
not enough
My Fan Base Can Beat Up Your Fan Base
by JaredFromLondon on Jun 1, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m still waiting for the answer on that one.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
PDO is more a measure of how fortunate a team was – not how good it is. Percentages in the NHL regress towards the mean over long periods (unless you, say, start the worst goalie in the league in net for 2 years).
BOS was a PDO leader in 08-09. Not so much in 09-10. STL had a mighty percentages run to end the season that same year. They regressed hard this season and it cost Murray his job.
If you’re club is winning because through frequency rather than volume, it’s likely more luck than true ability.
I pray every day this is true; mc79’s post certainly makes a good case for it. I have been waiting since the lockout for the Leafs to “progress to the mean” on the PDO front. This year’s stats show more good examples. Washington weren’t quite as good as their regular season record. Colorado were a bubble waiting to burst. Chicago were much better than even their strong regular season indicated. Florida are an abysmal team sheltered by world class ’tending. The Leafs were exceptionally unlucky. And so on.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know how unlucky we were. I think one of the assumptions of PDO is that your team doesn’t run out players who are clearly bad at playing hockey.
If you put a 12 year old from house league in net for the Leafs their PDO would be well below one and you’d see no reason it should changed from “bad” to “good”.
That 12 year old is bigger and probably cares more about winning than Vesa Toskala.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
THANK YOU.
Toskala is not “unlucky”. Toskala is a bad goalie. Save and shooting percentage are not just about luck, either.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
Look at mc79’s post. This shows regression to the mean IN THE SAME SEASON. There is some skill element that remains but much of it is luck.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
i think the term "luck"
is being used as shorthand for “discrepancies from what normally happens, based on what that player has done before”
To be sure, you have to have a certain level of skill to even make the NHL to enter into this discussion of luck.
Wheh players start performing in ways drastically out of line from what they have historically done, it’s “luck” — until they start doing it consisently more, in which case it moves over to the other side and becomes a recordable , documentable part of their record.
Steve Mason was a middling goalie prospect. Then he had a great season and won the Calder. Then he had a lousy season. What part luck played in all of that is going to come down to what gets discounted from whatever his consistent output ends up being. But in the short term its usually luck
Unabashed fan of the surprise 2012 Stanley Cup champs
I think two years is enough to call it ‘consistent’.
"Defense! Defense! Common! Do you call that blowing!?"
Yes
At some point it becomes the level of performance. Kind of like Cammalleri’s shooting percentage of 12% built up over a couple of hundred games compared to the 25% he put together in a couple of dozen.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Ol’ Dogshit is indeed terrible but I don’t think even he’s as bad as he played this year. And our shooting percentage was low.
But fair point, FLA can be expected to out-PDO the Leafs. Hopefully next year we close the gap with league average tending.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Remember what “luck” means in context; from the MC79 article via Baseball Prospectus:
As a brief aside, it’s important to clarify what is meant by batting average being subject to great deal of "luck." This is not to say that all major league hitters are equal when it comes to AVG, and the differences evident between them are entirely random. Rather, players have a theoretical AVG-ability that varies from player-to-player, but the sample size of a season is too small to accurately reveal that every year. The high volatility of AVG from year-to-year–the statistical "noise," if you will–is sufficiently large enough to obscure the differences between many major league hitters of similar ability.
I don’t doubt Toskala played below his theoretical SV% ability, but his theoretical ability is pretty low.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
So he was both bad and unlucky, dear lord.
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Jun 1, 2010 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
it's entirely possible
that vesa toskala is an average to below-average NHL goalie based on skill alone. And played over his head in SJ because they were a good team, he was the backup and sheltered, and he got lucky.
Through that lens, he wasn’t unlucky last year. He was lucky for the five years before that.
God. I hate Vesa Toskala.
Unabashed fan of the surprise 2012 Stanley Cup champs
unless you, say, start the worst goalie in the league in net for 2 years
Hate you.
I think it might have been a post that you wrote that mentioned that sometimes individual players will have bad luck 2 or 3 years in a row and present an opportunity to get value for a contract.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Self-confidence, focus and courage are 3 of the biggest intangibles – I can think of – that impacts performance.
Psychology has a huge impact on performance , and it’s rarely discussed. It’s just too complicated to get into I guess.
BS
It’s harder to calculate the correlation co-efficient of confidence and production.
But, just pulling a number out of my ass, I’m going to guess it’s 0.8841267
Leafs Nation: A drinking team with a hockey problem.
by nhlcheapshot on Jun 1, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
seems empirically accurate
Unabashed fan of the surprise 2012 Stanley Cup champs
Virtually every player who makes it to pro sports has world class levels of self-confidence, focus and courage. They’ve been performing under pressure their entire careers.
There are exceptions (Vince Carter, anyone?). But by and large, all this sports psychology is just a myth that gives hacks something to fill column inches with. “Washington dominated Montreal territorially as expected but the pucks bounced against them” doesn’t make for good copy.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Halak’s SV% in the Philly series:
Game 1: .714
Game 2: .870
Game 3: .962
Game 4: .917
Game 5: .880
Guess he couldn’t handle the pressure of the playoffs.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
He should elevate his game in the pressure cooker of the playoffs like Jaroslav Halak did against Washington and Pittsburgh. Maybe he just doesn’t have Halak’s intangibles.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
by Chemmy on Jun 1, 2010 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Or he ran out of energy, or motivation. There was less expectation to win against WSH and PITT, hence less pressure. There was greater expectation that MTL could beat Philly – surely you can beat Philly,if you can beat WSH and PITT – what impact does that have?
Philly didn’t take as many shots as WSH and PITT, what impact does that have on a goalies focus? Cujo played his best games when he faced a lot of shots. A lot of goalies respond that way. Their focus is increased, by a necessity to remain focused throughout the game. Against Philly, there was longer stretches of inactivity, which could lead to a lack of focus and impact their performance.
I just think it’s too complicated to reduce to strictly numbers.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Motivation and energy? It’s the conference finals!!!
Goalies always seem to have their best games when they’re outshot because those are games they win. Teams that trail tend to outshoot their opponents; that is one reason for Toronto’s shooting edge this year (though it doesn’t totally explain it). Once a goalie gets a lead they’ll get more shots, and more chances to ring up impressive sv%s. Some games they’ll cough up the lead, other times they won’t; the former are forgotten, the latter make legends. It’s like the “three guaranteed winner” sports betting scams. Someone is almost certain to look like a Clutchy McClutcherson in the short run. The true legends (Hasek, Roy, etc.) are those who can do it consistently. Those people are unbelievably rare.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
“Motivation and energy? It’s the conference finals!!!”
Doesn’t matter. He’s human not a robot. He’s brought his team all the way here, and if they want to win again, he’ll have to play like a magician again.
“The true legends (Hasek, Roy, etc.) are those who can do it consistently. Those people are unbelievably rare.”
Agreed. I’m not calling Halak by any stretch, but he did play phenomenal for a short period. Maybe you call that “luck” and I call it “playing loose, becaue you’re not expected to win”
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno. I can buy that that played a role, but you’d think he’s faced high pressure situations before. He was stellar for Slovakia, even in the bronze medal game IIRC against a (pretty old?) less-giant-slaying Finland squad.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
(note name change)
by red army line on Jun 1, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Change in variable – Playing for national team versus playing for club team
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Is it all that different?
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
(note name change)
by red army line on Jun 1, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
if you factor in barometric pressure
yes
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Ask anyone who does scientific research
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
One team he plays for salary
the other he doesn’t.
I think the two have different motivations
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Yet he plays much better for the National Team.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Pride, perhaps
Everyone’s different.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you need to think long and hard about correlation vs. causation and confirmation bias. No matter what a player does, good or bad, you look at the surrounding circumstances and (because you are inclined to psychological explanations: confirmation bias aleret) assume a causative relationship rather than mere correlation.
If Halak played better because of national pride, perhaps Sidney Crosby scored the game winner because I was watching the game in my basement instead of my living room.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
of course – I am not making causation statements at all. (That’s why I said “perhaps”).
Multi-causal factors at play always. And psychological factors should be inculded as well, not disregarded. The problem is measuring that – from your computer and webpages, minus direct observation – its near impossible for us to measure the impacts of psycho-emotional factors. Doesn’t mean it is not part of the cause. So why disregard it so readily.
I don’t think statistical analysis should lead to assumptions of causation either.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m making assumptions of non-causation in the absence of any evidence of causation—you are suggesting causation. Big difference.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Where though? (I guess I was being a bit of a devil’s advocate)
I’m really not saying psychological fortitude is the direct cause of Halak playing great.
There is a unknown variable that we cannot explore in-depth. This variable could explain what other’s have called random chance, luck or statistical noise.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
psychology impacts performance
You don’t know that it did. You’re guessing.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
In Halak’s case – since he seems to be the case study de jour – I’m speculating. His contract was up for renewal, he played with no expectations of winning – due to the nature of these things, I have no physical evidence.
In general, to deny the impact of psycho-emotional factors on performance in the sports world or otherwise seems odd to me. To disregard it because you cannot obtain its value readily I don’t get.
“I can’t plug in a value, so I’m just going to throw this variable out, and assume what I’m left with is correct?”
Doesn’t seem right
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m going to ignore stuff that’s 100% speculation, with no basis in evidence, and is not a helpful predictor of future results.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
There’s evidence – we just don’t have access to the information.
agree to disagree?
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
OK.
I am just annoyed by sportswriters coming up with the same old tired cliches to explain aberrational results when the fact is they have no freaking clue and are just trying to write good copy.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
There isn't real "evidence"
what you have is people attributing numbers to things they can’t quantify.
You could just as easily attribute those same numbers to “skill” as you could to “luck” but people don’t like the word luck so they point at skills…. either way you’re trying to explain the unexplained. This is why athletes often thank God when asked who they want to thank for their play.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
No
Crosby scored because he knew that if I spent $900 on a ticket and Canada lost there was a good chance I was going to murder every American I saw that day.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
He is going to have a horrible season next year because whatever new contract he signs is going to demand that he have the mental fortitude that he showed in rounds 1 and 2 and not the weakness he showed in round 3.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d bet his save percentage next year at even strength will be in line with his career average and that his overall save percentage will as well unless he has a glabberfissitudinal year on the PK.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
"Teams that trail tend to outshoot their opponents; that is one reason for Toronto’s shooting edge this year"
i’m embarrassed to say that’s so simply intuitive, it had never occurred to me.
Unabashed fan of the surprise 2012 Stanley Cup champs
For us there’s BtN ;)
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
(note name change)
by red army line on Jun 1, 2010 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously, I can’t recommend Behind the Net highly enough in exploding myths and enlightening me.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
But we also don’t play to the score either apparently so we keep shooting and attacking no matter what.
Wonder if anything will change when this team gets better.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I know, the Leafs have befuddled the stat minded for years now.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
There was less expectation to win against WSH and PITT, hence less pressure. There was greater expectation that MTL could beat Philly – surely you can beat Philly,if you can beat WSH and PITT – what impact does that have?
that doesn’t sound like a mentally strong player handling the pressure well.
as far as the motivation statement goes, i’ll just say it’s beyond preposterous. it’s the Eastern Conference finals with a chance to play for the Stanley Cup.
If it’s energy, then either he should have said something to the coaches, or better yet, the coaches should earn their money and recognize a player that’s out of gas.
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
“that doesn’t sound like a mentally strong player handling the pressure well.”
He might not be. That’s why he played so well when not expected to win, nd average when expected to win.
As far as motivation – at some point when you’re carrying your team to places they have no business being, and you may just give up. “I’m doing all the heavy lifting, fuck you guys for not pulling your weight, I’m burnt out>”
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
i'm sorry
i’m an admitted non-stats guy myself, but these arguments are reaching.
and yes, you could change the names to Leafs, Gustavsson, Kessel etc, and i’d still have a hard time seeing it your way…
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
no problem, it is mere speculation.
And I think that’s my point
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s sports psychology, and it’s complicated. Some people completely disregard it, and some organizations put a lot of money into it.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m guessing when a team spends money on sports psychology it has little to nothing to do with things like “Halak played great for two rounds because he had no pressure”.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Don’t purposely miss the point or anything
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
What point, that Halak played out of his mind for two rounds because he had some sort of emotional epiphany that ran out when he faced Philly?
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
That psychology impacts performance, and shouldn’t be disregarded
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Please provide an example.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Problem is there is no reason to think any of this is true. It’s pure speculation. And when you actually look at what the players say, they don’t believe it either. I think Cammalleri said something like “the pucks have just been going in” when asked to explain his hot streak.
I don’t care whether you call it luck or “playing loose”, the point is it’s not repeatable. And that’s all we’re talking about. If it’s not repeatable (and there’s good reason to think it’s not for Halak—see the Philly series) then who the hell cares what you call it.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Seems like a locker room cancer if he’s going to give up on his team.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
He could also have been distracted by the destruction of his home planet Krypton
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Jun 1, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
even overlords deserve a rec every now and again…
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Psychology is a recognized scientific institution. I don’t see why sports athletes would be any different from other humans when it comes to psychological impact on their performance.
What happens to a player when he gets that first huge contract?
When his wife leaves him?
If he takes drugs/alcohol?
When the fans start to boo him?
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Those are very different things from looking at short-term variations in performance, which is what we’ve been talking about.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
Short term variations: The absolute biggest one I can think of – Halak’s contract was up for renewal. The Playoffs were his last chance to prove he’s worth big coin, to a team that hadn’t made up it’s mind yet.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re not really grasping what people mean by statistical noise.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
If you have a puck and an empty net and took an infinite number of shots you’d have some “true talent” to score on it. Let’s just say your true talent is you’d score half the time.
Over a small sample size weird things can happen. If you took ten shots the chance that you’d score zero or ten would be 0.5^10=.001 meaning it would happen roughly one in a thousand times. This is statistical noise obscuring your true ability of scoring 5 out of 10.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
But the psych argument is “noise” too (assuming Halak isn’t super stable or unstable compared to normal), right? I mean, scientifically there isn’t much randomness—electron probability clouds are as far as you get if memory serves. There’s a reason the “noise” happens, and maybe part of it is psychology. How big a part, I don’t know.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
(note name change)
by red army line on Jun 1, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
That makes sense for players who hit the gym extra hard in the off season, dedicate to a new diet, adopt better sleep habits, find a new “pharmacist”. That can produce year-long effects. Two great series followed by bed shitting? That’s statistical noise.
by The '67 Sound on Jun 1, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Or “he had nothing left in the tank” :P
sorry got to get back to work, not wimping out or nothing.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Jun 1, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
To me this just seems like a complicated fashion of comparing
Even Strength goals for and goals against…
only slightly less meaningful because it ignores the NUMBER of shots taken or given up… which is how the Blackhawks get their low PDO number.
If you’re just comparing difference between them that would probably correlate more closely to rank than PDO would… although I’m at work and I’m not about to figure it out immediately.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
Steve
I would like to add that, unlike all the cool kids who knew all this already, I found this post very helpful, and am hoping we’ll get to see a few more like this, breaking down the advanced statistics and what we can learn from them.
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 6:57 PM EDT reply actions
uhhh
Skinnyfish wrote this…
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Jun 1, 2010 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
i knew that...
sorry Skinny, was reading Steve’s comment at the bottom here and just goofed…
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Jun 1, 2010 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
While I would like to take credit
I don’t really know if the PDO discussion is all that it’s cracked up to be, so I probably wouldn’t post something like this.
As far as the discussion of more interesting statistical discussions, I think GVT (Goals Vs Threshold) from the mind of Tom Awad is more relevant to assessment of individual players. Considering the use Puck Prospectus makes of it in their VUKOTA team rankings prior to the season on a yearly basis, I’m going to guess the great minds that work there concur that it’s one of the most integral determinants to rating how successful a team will be in coming seasons.
If you look at last year’s GVT rating predictions for some key Leafs you have the following list that outperformed expectations:
Tomas Kaberle: Predicted GVT (7.0), Actual GVT (9.3)
Ian White: Predicted GVT (6.5), Actual GVT (7.9)
Nikolai Kulemin: Predicted GVT (4.0), Actual GVT (7.2)
Francois Beauchemin: Predicted GVT (2.8), Actual GVT (3.5)
Luke Schenn: Predicted GVT (2.0), Actual GVT (4.8)
Colton Orr: Predicted GVT (-2.5), Actual GVT (-1.7)
You could also add Phil Kessel (10.7), and Carl Gunnarsson (4.9) to the list of those who contributed more than expected.
Unfortunately Mike Komisarek, even with his low GVT Prediction of 3.1, came in well below expectations at -0.7.
Dion Phaneuf had an expected GVT of 13.4 for his season with Calgary, and he disappointed a tad coming in at 7.7 for the season split between Toronto and Calgary. That largely may have contributed to the deal that saw him moved to Toronto.
Going into next year, we can probably expect improved GVT from Phaneuf, Bozak, Kessel, Kulemin (if he re-signs), Schenn, Gunnarsson, Stalberg, and Grabovski if they all maintain their late season roles with the club this coming season.
Similarly, Giguere and Gustavsson will likely be more positive on the contribution side of the ledger this coming season. I’m more interested in the predictive ability of things like those numbers than I am in PDO.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jun 1, 2010 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Doesn’t look like GVT has very good predictive value does it?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
- Adam Henrique sends New Jersey Devils to Stanley Cup Final with OT goal vs. Rangers (VIDEO)
- Watch Ilya Kovalchuk’s Game 6 goal for Devils, a.k.a. power-play porn (VIDEO)
- Devils look to eliminate Rangers in Game 6; Hal Gill’s broken tibia (Playoff Puck Previews)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Blues CEO Mike McCarthy stepping down
- Blues CEO Mike McCarthy stepping down, not long after ownership change
- Rangers eliminated by Devils with crushing OT loss after another rally in Game 6 falls short
- Rangers season ends as another rally falls short
- Hard-skating Cataractes upset set defending champ Saint John 7-4 at Memorial Cup
SBNation.com Recent Stories
StatCounter
