Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole
The argument, if I understand it, is that it doesn't seem like we're winning more games than we should based on PDO. It's that our PDO isn't what it should be because people expected us to be bad.
And if that's the argument, then the analysis is backward.
|
That definitely is a backwards analysis, I agree.
What puzzles me is that a few people seem to want to use PDO for two different things. If a good team has a high PDO, they have a high PDO because they're a good team, and that is good. If a team they don't like has a high PDO, then suddenly that is unsustainable because everybody's PDO ought to be exactly 100.
Put that way, it sounds stupid, mostly because it is. But when anybody says that a team's PDO has to regress towards the mean (i.e. 100), that is, in fact, the argument they are making: that any difference between a team's actual PDO and 100 is purely a matter of luck, and there are no other reasons why a team might be better or worse than 100. If the same person then turns around and gives reasons why (for instance) Pittsburgh
ought to have a PDO above 100, or Buffalo
ought to be below it, then you can tell they are just moving the goalposts at will to please themselves.