Also, in baseball, it's easier to quantify metrics because you're only dealing with pitcher vs batter or batter vs fielder, etc. Baseball also is a fairly static game as well where hockey is more fluid and dynamic and things such as bad ice, poor surfacing, weird glass/stanchions, warping and imperfections on the puck and tape on the stick, unseen damage to sticks via wear and tear all can have an impact on the play.
- DariusKnight

There was a Vox piece a couple years ago that basically said hockey is the most luck-inclined sports (of the big sports) – or that luck plays a larger part than other sports.

Investment strategist and sports fan Michael Mauboussin demonstrates this in his book The Success Equation, with a statistical technique that ranks sports by the relative contributions of skill and luck to the regular season standings. He looked at five seasons for five sports leagues and ended up with a continuum that looks like this:
Michael Mauboussin’s skill-luck continuum.



That’s not to say hockey players are any less skilled, but that outcomes in hockey are less representative of true differences in skill between teams, compared to basketball — in large part because the NHL is more competitive. There are many reasons for that, from the design of the leagues to the fundamentals of the gameplay.

Can watch the video here if you want: https://www.vox.com/video...5740632/luck-skill-sports

Boston had a PDO of 103 last year and lost in the first round.
- manvanfan

They, analytics gang, say +/- Is a useless stat, then PDO is somewhere beyond useless.

They, analytics gang, say +/- Is a useless stat, then PDO is somewhere beyond useless.
- Reubenkincade

The President’s Trophy is the hardest trophy in professional sports to win!!!

President’s Trophy > Stanley Cup

Boston had a PDO of 103 last year and lost in the first round.
- manvanfan

The hilarious part about the whole argument over PDO is that people on both sides are acting like it's supposed to be the only stat you look at. It's essentially a secondary or tertiary stat to further inform you beyond the more in-depth ones.

The Canucks PDO is going to come down, it has to. That literally means nothing in terms of wins and losses however when they're the highest scoring team in the league. They can regress and still win games.

The hilarious part about the whole argument over PDO is that people on both sides are acting like it's supposed to be the only stat you look at. It's essentially a secondary or tertiary stat to further inform you beyond the more in-depth ones.

The Canucks PDO is going to come down, it has to. That literally means nothing in terms of wins and losses however when they're the highest scoring team in the league. They can regress and still win games.
- NorthNuck

Also, not sure if you read this on The Athletic (trigger warning for others), but Harm posted a pretty reasonable breakdown between the "analytics" and "eye test". A little bit dated, but a new blog:
- NewYorkNuck

Yes I did read that article, but that was soo 5 games ago, and the team is still winning games at an unsustainable record, somehow, someway that they shouldn't be capable of.

Oh and McIndoe I believe he believes exactly what he wrote "That they're not this good, not even close" Eastern media biased wienerhead is what he is.

The hilarious part about the whole argument over PDO is that people on both sides are acting like it's supposed to be the only stat you look at. It's essentially a secondary or tertiary stat to further inform you beyond the more in-depth ones.

The Canucks PDO is going to come down, it has to. That literally means nothing in terms of wins and losses however when they're the highest scoring team in the league. They can regress and still win games.
- NorthNuck

It's just another tool to analyze or overview the game. Not an end-all-be-all.

The hilarious part about the whole argument over PDO is that people on both sides are acting like it's supposed to be the only stat you look at. It's essentially a secondary or tertiary stat to further inform you beyond the more in-depth ones.

The Canucks PDO is going to come down, it has to. That literally means nothing in terms of wins and losses however when they're the highest scoring team in the league. They can regress and still win games.
- NorthNuck

Ikr... you finish at this pace or you are a "pretender".

Yes I did read that article, but that was soo 5 games ago, and the team is still winning games at an unsustainable record, somehow, someway that they shouldn't be capable of.

Oh and McIndoe I believe he believes exactly what he wrote "That they're not this good, not even close" Eastern media biased wienerhead is what he is.
- Makita

I'm not watching tomorrow's game unless the Canucks have 5 or more expected goals for.

Yes I did read that article, but that was soo 5 games ago, and the team is still winning games at an unsustainable record, somehow, someway that they shouldn't be capable of.

Oh and McIndoe I believe he believes exactly what he wrote "That they're not this good, not even close" Eastern media biased wienerhead is what he is.
- Makita

It seems like they've hit a nerve?

IMO the articles aren't saying they shouldn't be winning games. Just that they're getting "luckier" than what is "normal" historically, and it should temper down over the course of the season. Doesn't mean they can't or won't win.

Just like Boeser is on pace for 65 goals over the course of the season. Prooooobably won't happen.

It's just another tool to analyze or overview the game. Not an end-all-be-all.
- NewYorkNuck

Stats only work if you don't cherry pick them, but that's not what gets the Twitter likes.

I'm not watching tomorrow's game unless the Canucks have 5 or more expected goals for.
- Marwood

You keep attacking advanced stats by saying "I don't know how this works so it must be stupid"

It seems like they've hit a nerve?

IMO the articles aren't saying they shouldn't be winning games. Just that they're getting "luckier" than what is "normal" historically, and it should temper down over the course of the season. Doesn't mean they can't or won't win.

Just like Boeser is on pace for 65 goals over the course of the season. Prooooobably won't happen.
- NewYorkNuck

The wienerhead is a top writer for the Athletic and he is dissing the Canucks on purpose, no-one believes that the will win every game 8-1, 5-2, or even win every game. As a professional hockey analyst and writer he should watch all teams and not make blanket statements based on his dislike of a team.

Canucks I believe can go toe to toe with every team this year, they will win some and lose some, but they are this good.

You keep attacking advanced stats by saying "I don't know how this works so it must be stupid"
- NorthNuck

There's a difference between not knowing and not caring.
You watch the game through equations and I'll watch humans play a sport.
Expected goals.

The wienerhead is a top writer for the Athletic and he is dissing the Canucks on purpose, no-one believes that the will win every game 8-1, 5-2, or even win every game. As a professional hockey analyst and writer he should watch all teams and not make blanket statements based on his dislike of a team.

Canucks I believe can go toe to toe with every team this year, they will win some and lose some, but they are this good.
- Makita

Oh, so you agree with the analytics then?

There's a difference between not knowing and not caring.
You watch the game through equations and I'll watch humans play a sport.
Expected goals.
- Marwood

How many games are you going to this year?

How many games are you going to this year?
- NorthNuck

What does that have to do with stats?

What does that have to do with stats?
- Marwood

"You watch the game through equations and I'll watch humans play a sport."

I would argue going to a game is about as far from the filter of advanced stats as you can get. Feel free to keep pretending you know how I watch games though.

I'm not watching tomorrow's game unless the Canucks have 5 or more expected goals for.
- Marwood

Stats only work if you don't cherry pick them, but that's not what gets the Twitter likes.
- NorthNuck

I like cherry picking stats. All you need to do is choose a narrative afterwards that supports your argument and you're golden.

I like cherry picking stats. All you need to do is choose a narrative afterwards that supports your argument and you're golden.
- Load Management

"Myers has as many goals as McDavid"

(though not anymore!)

"Myers has as many goals as McDavid"

(though not anymore!)
- NewYorkNuck

That was one of my better ones.

The hilarious part about the whole argument over PDO is that people on both sides are acting like it's supposed to be the only stat you look at. It's essentially a secondary or tertiary stat to further inform you beyond the more in-depth ones.

The Canucks PDO is going to come down, it has to. That literally means nothing in terms of wins and losses however when they're the highest scoring team in the league. They can regress and still win games.
- NorthNuck

You can give people 5-7 things to digest upon and they will find one thing and run it to the moon and back.

I picked Boston to lose in the first round last season for the fact that they had played top level for too long and Florida in a 7 game series was going to have a better handle on the puck than Boston.

That was one of my better ones.
- Load Management

Massive outliers are always hilarious. For years Daniel Sprong was the best 5v5 scorer in the NHL. I could understand people trying to portray that if they had never watched a hockey game and never watched McDavid or Sprong play either.

If the eye test shows you that there is no (frank)ing way, how could you continue to believe it.

You can give people 5-7 things to digest upon and they will find one thing and run it to the moon and back.

I picked Boston to lose in the first round last season for the fact that they had played top level for too long and Florida in a 7 game series was going to have a better handle on the puck than Boston.
- manvanfan

Yeah, asking people to use their brains to arrive at a well thought-out conclusion is never a recipe for success.