[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Not necessarily. Winning percentage is another stat where the standard deviation tends to decrease as sample size increases. What matters is not the absolute numbers of PDO, but the relative rankings.

What we really ought to be watching, it seems to me, is the z-score of PDO rather than the number itself. That would adjust for sample size and make the numbers between, say, a 19-game stretch and a full season strictly comparable.

Agreed. That said, I really can't see the Flames staying around 3rd. We are not going to maintain a crazy ES shooting percentage of 11.5% any more than Chicago will be stuck with a crazy low percentage of 7.0%. I do think that we are going lose more ground relative to many other teams. That is, however, why this hot start is so important. The farther ahead we get, the harder it is to lose that ground.

Very probably true. Though there is still the problem of measuring proxies instead of actual events. I mean, for instance, that the number of DZ faceoffs is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the percentage of time spent in the DZ. There are situations in which a team may be coached deliberately to try to get stoppages in play while hemmed in their own zone; in which case the coach's tactical decisions will contaminate the data. It's a pity that we don't have actual direct measurements of time of possession and time in zone. No doubt that will come with the new tracking technology. Having RFID chips on every player (and ideally the puck too, and just forget about FoxTrax) will make it possible to collect much more direct data instead of mucking about with all these proxies.

In general, I try not to look at one stat exclusively for this reason. However, the faceoff percentages, zone starts and possession stats combined indicate that we spend too much time in our own zone.

And the NHL's RFID program would be a major boost to the advanced stat world. Shame they are so focused on keeping it privileged. There is a veritable army of people that would do yeoman's work on their behalf - all for free. However, that work becomes publicly available for everybody, which would snatch away any advantage from teams spending money on such analysis.

This is an important point. 'If nothing changes' is hardly ever a valid assumption in sports (or in life generally). The Flames have been lucky to do as well as they have with all these injuries; but they weren't lucky to have all the injuries.

Yup. This, I think, is one key point that many stat haters tend to miss. Their predictive value relies on stability. A series of injuries, a big trade, a player taking a major step forward/backward from year to year, or any number of things can change the picture. Mark Giordano's injury last year being a major example.

"All things being equal..." should be an assumed starting point for any of these arguments. And that, of course, is a reason why deviation decreases over time. The farther we get into the season, the fewer such wildcards are likely to occur.