Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
The argument that teams will inevitably regress to the mean is not a literal statement. What it says is that people who track the stat believe teams will regress toward the mean. Nowhere has it ever been suggested that every team would hit 100 exactly if the season was long enough. Also, no one has ever suggested there won't be outliers..
|
PDO himself, from what I have read, devised the stat in the belief that it was a measure of luck. To be a measure of luck, it cannot be a measure of skill. Therefore, ALL deviations from 100 must be a matter of luck, and teams must regress TO the mean, not merely towards it, over a sufficient number of trials.
Some people do use the stat for other purposes, and I have no quarrel with them. But the interpretation ‘PDO measures luck’ (the original interpretation) has caught on in the media, and it’s a damned lie. It measures nothing of the kind.
Quote:
|
Take Josh Jorris. He has a shooting percentage of 27.4%. As much as some people hate the word, that simply is not sustainable.
|
Fine. And you can see that by looking at nothing but the shooting percentage itself. PDO adds nothing to that discussion. (Does Jooris have a save percentage? Of course not.)
But you know who else has an unsustainable shooting percentage? Joe Colborne, at 0.0%. Oh, in theory he could deliberately shoot every puck square at the goalie and never score – but he’s not
trying to do that, nor is anyone else. If you assume that good shooting percentages must come down, without paying any attention to the bad shooting percentages that are likely to come up, you are just cherrypicking – which is the first cardinal sin of statistics.