PDO And What It Means
When players have career years and perform beyond expectations, a very important question arises: is it sustainable? This is especially true during the summer months when the free agent frenzy is in full swing. While the statistical analysis to this question isn't perfect, PDO gives us an opportunity to make a strong prediction as to whether a player will be able to replicate one year's success.The recent Matt Cooke signing provides a nice example to examine through the lens of PDO.
Definition and analysis after the jump...
The creator of PDO is Vic Ferrari, a prominent hockey blogger and statistical analyst. He defined PDO as the the sum of a team's even strength shooting percentage and even strength save percentage (this analysis is easily applied to players as well). The idea is that if a team or player has a high PDO, it's going to come down in the future; if it's a low PDO, you can expect an increase in performance. Now that's great and all, but do the predictions PDO makes actually come true?
Regarding team PDO's, Tyler Dellow over at mc79hockey put together a ton of information in this article (I encourage everyone to check it out). He collected quarterly PDO numbers for the 20 best and 20 worst 1st quarter PDO teams since the 2003-2004 season. He then looked at how the PDO for each team changed from quarter 1 to quarters 2-4. The results are pretty startling, and summarized in his table below:
The Top 20 teams saw an average PDO decrease of 2.6% over the following three quarters of hockey, while the bottom 20 teams saw a 2.8% increase in PDO over the same time period. More specifically, 19 of the 20 top teams saw a drop in PDO and all but two of the bottom 20 teams saw a rise in PDO. The correlation wouldn't be as strong if you added the rest of the teams because you'd be adding randomness when looking at the average teams. But the two points to take away from this are that PDO is a great predictor of future performance, and that it works even better for those at the extremes.
But how does PDO do when analyzing individual players? I'm going to do a similar analysis by looking at the top 40 and bottom 40 players in terms of PDO in 2007-2008. I'll then compare their PDO's from that season to their average PDO over the next two years. I'm also going to limit my sample to players who played at least 50 games and saw at least 10 minutes of ice time at even strength for the last three seasons. The reason for this is that PDO needs a lot of games to work, and since a cutoff needed to be chosen, I picked those numbers. The results:
| 07-08 PDO | 08-10 PDO | PDO Diff | |
| Top 40 | 103.3% | 100.2% | -3.1% |
| Bottom 40 | 97.1% | 100.2% | +3.1% |
As you can see from the table, the change in PDO for the top and bottom players is even greater than the change in team PDO in the table above. This makes sense given the wider variation of talent among individual players as opposed to whole teams. The correlation is also stronger, as only two players out of the 80 surveyed failed to move in the PDO-predicted direction. There is, however, one cautionary point: when dealing with individual PDO's, one needs to take the context of the player into account. If Eric Godard finishes with a 99% PDO and Sidney Crosby has a 101%, does that mean Godard will get only get better and Crosby will get worse? No, because the talent differential between these two players means that they have different average PDO's. Since Crosby is one of the best players in the world, he'll have an above average PDO. That should be the benchmark by which you judge him, not the general 100% average. Yet discovering each player's "true" average PDO is very difficult, and the sample sizes only become big enough once a player is about 30 years old.
What does Matt Cooke have to do with this? Well, it was just announced that he signed a 3 year, $5.4 million deal with the Penguins, and what the Penguins will be getting from him in the future just became pretty significant. In terms of PDO, Matt Cooke led the Penguins with a 102.4 PDO this year, which put him at 55th in the league. He finished each of the last two year's with a PDO of 101%. Considering that Matt Cooke will be 32 to start next season, and that he doesn't have the elite level of talent that would put his benchmark PDO above 100%, every indication is that his PDO will drop. And since it's unlikely that he'll increase his shot volume that much, his numbers will very likely decrease as well. But, hopefully he continues to do the little things right and proves that Ray Shero knew what he was doing.
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
How would a players role as a defensive forward or offensive defenseman affect PDO?
Put on your dancin' shoes.
Theoretically, if a player is a defensive forward, then he might be able to decrease the quality of shots a goalie faces and thus raise his even strength SV%. As an offensive defenseman, one would expect him to have an above average even stregnth shooting percentage. Both could raise their PDO that way.
However, these classifications don’t have much significance because almost every player in the NHL population can not sustain a PDO above 100%, regardless of circumstance.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
well, that’s depressing.
STAAL FOR SELKE. SIDNEY FOR EVERY OTHER ONE OR JUST THE HART AND THE MESSIER LEADERSHIP AWARD. THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.
Yes, it is depressing…………but you never know……….a wee bit of luck on our side helps, too!
One Who Lives And Breathes All Things Penguins
by PensFanInDenver on Jun 23, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
it’s okay, amigo. you didn’t do anything wrong.
STAAL FOR SELKE. SIDNEY FOR EVERY OTHER ONE OR JUST THE HART AND THE MESSIER LEADERSHIP AWARD. THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.
by katielynn906 on Jun 23, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
just guessing
.
STAAL STAAL SID SID STAAL STAAL SID SID STAAL STAAL CROSBY CROSBY STAAL STAAL STAAL STAAL STAAL STAAL SIDNEY SIDNEY SIDNEY SIDNEY STAAL STAAL!!!!!
The Pens will be back.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jun 23, 2010 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
gopens, i have actually thought about it. and i have no idea. dang it.
PAYD, hahaha, thank you for the show of faith. now imma gonna put something crazy statical just to mess with your head.
STAAL FOR SELKE. SIDNEY FOR EVERY OTHER ONE OR JUST THE HART AND THE MESSIER LEADERSHIP AWARD. THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.
by katielynn906 on Jun 23, 2010 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree. A bit depressing. However, every situation has the potential for extraneous variables have a larger affect on some players than on others. I’m going to hope that the increase in PDO over the last 2 years for Cooke is the result of extraneous variables that can’t be captured with true accuracy: team and team environment, finding the right fit for the particular player on the right team so he is playing his game every night, drive to be better due to the environment or to team members…etc. I know, these variables usually cancel themselves out over a large sample, but individual differences will always remain. I’ll keep my hope up that Cooke is an individual affected more by variables :)
I’m keeping my hopes up too SuMac (though the chances of Cooke remaining at that level are practically nil).
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
37 players moved more than the 3.1%, 3 players moved exactly 3.1%, and 40 players moved less than 3.1%.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Did you put all of this into a spreadsheet so I don’t have to ask you all these questions. ’Cause my next question is what what the biggest change up and down? Where do you expect Cooke to end up? Do you think Fedotenko will improve therefore giving Shero the opportunity to buy low.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
I do have a spreadsheet that I can send to you, but it only has the top 40 and bottom 40 players in 07-08. Just send me an email with your address and I’ll send it to you.
Regarding Feds, he was 2nd to last on the team this year with a 96.9% PDO (and an astute observer would have predicted his fall from grace this year because he led the team two years ago with a 104.9% PDO). But even with his expected improvement next year, you’d only be looking at 35-40 points instead of his 30 from this year. There are plenty of other players with more versatility and less laziness than Fedetenko whom we could get in free agency that would put up similar point totals.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Shero
so, Shero just gave a 50% raise AND a longer contract to a NON-core 31 y.o. player whose PDO says he will get worse — not better
either Shero is wrong
or PDO is wrong
my money is on Shero
i love stats, but this one…not so much
either Shero is wrong
or PDO is wrong
I think that’s a false dichotomy. Matt Cooke might not lead the team in PDO or adjusted +/- next year, but he can still be a valuable contributor. Even though his offensive numbers will decrease, he can still be a net positive if he ups his penalty killing and cuts down on penalties taken.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I’m not sure I understand the use of PDO for individuals. Save percentage is a goalie/team stat, so its relevance for the individual is, at the very least, significantly decreased — possibly to the point of irrelevance. Unless I’m missing something, this doesn’t seem like a good way to evaluate individuals. The right statistics might ultimately say something similar (I mean, of course we don’t fully expect an over 30, non-elite player who has a great year to keep everything going at high levels …), but it doesn’t seem like these are the right statistics.
What am I missing?
Go, Shero, Go!!! And also Brian Burke.
Sorry, PopRocks, my below comment was supposed to be a reply to you.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Save percentage is a goalie/team stat, so its relevance for the individual is, at the very least, significantly decreased — possibly to the point of irrelevance.
Players can have an affect on save percentage in two ways: by limiting the quality of shots a goalie faces and maintaining possession of the puck in the opponent’s zone. How much of an effect skaters have on SV% is unknown, but they can affect it. The use of SV% also is relevant because it is a big determinant of a player’s +/- and adjusted +/-. If a player has a poor year in terms of relative +/-, looking at his PDO might tell you that he wasn’t bad defensively, but simply unlucky in terms of goalie support.
Unless I’m missing something, this doesn’t seem like a good way to evaluate individuals.
PDO doesn’t evaluate players in the traditional sense of the word; it only makes predictions as to what direction a player will move in the future. PDO’s pull is extremely strong for individual players, and it’s predictive power is unmatched by any other hockey statistic. As I discussed above, Fedetenko provides a neat example. He was 2nd to last on the team this year with a 96.9% PDO, so he’ll definitely improve upon next year’s totals. But if one followed PDO, you would’ve have predicted a significant drop in Fed’s game this year because his PDO of two years ago was a 104.9%.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
To me the problem is this: you seem to treat stats as indicators just because there is a correlation (albeit a strong one, in your opinion) between the numbers and the behaviour. But if the numbers being used aren’t, in principle, actually about the things you take them to be telling a story about, then you’re asking for trouble. It may turn out that the connection holds up, but we can be far more certain that will be the case if the data being used supports the conclusions by analysing what it’s actually supposed to be analysing, rather than some noisy hybrid thereof. And, of course, numbers that are more on point will give us more insight into why things are happening the way they are, which will in turn help us to be better predictors.
So … I get that you see the up and down effect of PDO in the sense that a player with a down year generally gets better the next year, and vice versa. What I’m worried about is that the particular numbers being used are not really relevant to what’s happening. In particular, the inclusion of save percentage seems to mess up the data when we’re looking at individuals: not just because we don’t know the precise effect of skaters on save percentage, but because SV% is based on 60 (+) minutes per game, while the average skater is out there for 15-20 minutes per game (far less for some players …), and is only about one twentieth of the story during each game. There is data being included in the analysis that seems more like noise, given what’s being analysed, than relevant. I suspect the correlation will hold up if we use the right numbers, but these don’t seem like the right numbers to me.
Go, Shero, Go!!! And also Brian Burke.
I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding you or you’re misunderstanding GoPens! here. Are you thinking that PDO attributes SV% from the whole game to a single player? That’s not the case, it’s just when he’s on the ice (and, IIRC, at even strength).
That’s not the case, it’s just when he’s on the ice (and, IIRC, at even strength).
This is correct.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
you seem to treat stats as indicators just because there is a correlation (albeit a strong one, in your opinion) between the numbers and the behaviour.
The level of correlation in this example isn’t a matter of opinion. The PDO pull is incredibly strong and one of the strongest among hockey stats.
But if the numbers being used aren’t, in principle, actually about the things you take them to be telling a story about, then you’re asking for trouble.
I’m not asking for trouble though because I’m using PDO for exactly what it’s good for: analyzing whether a player’s level of production is sustainable in the long run. That’s what PDO purports to measure, and it does an exceptional job at it.
What I’m worried about is that the particular numbers being used are not really relevant to what’s happening. In particular, the inclusion of save percentage seems to mess up the data when we’re looking at individuals: not just because we don’t know the precise effect of skaters on save percentage, but because SV% is based on 60 (+) minutes per game, while the average skater is out there for 15-20 minutes per game (far less for some players …), and is only about one twentieth of the story during each game.
A player’s PDO ES SV% is only the SV% while that player is on the ice. What happens off the ice doesn’t directly impact a player’s PDO.
I suspect the correlation will hold up if we use the right numbers, but these don’t seem like the right numbers to me.
Do you have another idea for a metric that measures whether a player’s level of production is sustainable in the long run?
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Furthermore
“Correlation does not imply causation”
When you find a trend that doesn’t agree with what you’d expect by a stat, you can try and explain it. Most of the time you can say it’s “luck”—not really luck but just a combination of factors that show up every now and then but over a long run don’t sustain themselves.
Almost every case in PDO though a player over a long period of time will average close to 100%, better players a bit higher, worse players a bit lower. If Matt Cooke and Jeff Schultz had such high PDOs, then it’s likely that they were experiencing a combination of good goaltending in their end, poor goaltending in the other end, good shooting by their team, and poor shooting by the other team. Which it is, I don’t know, but they’re all linked as it is.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
матовая Клими, Михал нуивирт ваш папа теперь
Red Line Station: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
Follow me on Twitter!
by red army line on Jun 24, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
"Correlation does not imply causation"
I think one point of confusion for some people in this thread is correlation and causation. In this instance, we’re not dealing with any causation, as PDO doesn’t try to explain why things happened or what variables caused other variables. It’s only job is to make a prediction based on a formula as to where a player or team will trend in the future. And it’s success rate is incredibly high.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I by no means think that correlation implies causation, or anything like that. However, it is a good idea if your statistics are not just lucky: if you can actually find a principled reason for using one measure rather than another. What I’m concerned with is the theory behind the theory, and that’s where some trouble arises, imo.
Go, Shero, Go!!! And also Brian Burke.
it is a good idea if your statistics are not just lucky
I think the success at both the team and individual level that I discussed above is proof that PDO isn’t just getting lucky. On top of that, it’s predictive power has held over multiple seasons.
if you can actually find a principled reason for using one measure rather than another
I don’t know of any other statistic that purports to do what PDO does.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
First, Justin cleared up the SV% issue above, which was helpful.
But there are still some things that bother me. Some of my questions/issues are discussed a little below (in other people’s comments), but here’s another one: I’d like to know more about the relevance of shot percentage. Guys who shoot a lot may have a low S% and yet score a lot. Does that matter? I realize that we’re looking to compare a guy’s PDO from year to year, which may have some bearing on the matter. But I’m not sure I see the whole picture yet.
Also, summing S% + SV% seems weird to me because there is a sense in which that doesn’t give equal weight to the offensive and defensive portions of the stat (because S% is a much lower number than the SV% number). I haven’t decided yet whether that matters, but perhaps someone can tell me why it’s done that way, and/or why it makes sense & is not a problem.
Also, let me point out that I’m not trying to be difficult, and I’m not necessarily in search of an alternative metric. What I want is for us to think about the metric that you’re using, to put it through the wringer, and to see what comes out the other end. I am as yet unconvinced that PDO is the right way to think about these things, but I haven’t rejected it out of hand. My interest is in thinking things through, and raising the questions that I think are important.
Go, Shero, Go!!! And also Brian Burke.
I’d like to know more about the relevance of shot percentage.
A majority of shooting percentage is transient, and if someone had a very high shooting percentage one year (and thus a high PDO), PDO is correctly predicting that that player won’t be able to maintain that level of production into the next season. Also, a player has much more control over S% than SV%, so it makes sense to include it in the equation.
Guys who shoot a lot may have a low S% and yet score a lot. Does that matter?
The number of goals a player scores doesn’t matter; only S% factors into PDO. Rate stats are much more menaingful than counting stats.
Also, summing S% + SV% seems weird to me because there is a sense in which that doesn’t give equal weight to the offensive and defensive portions of the stat (because S% is a much lower number than the SV% number)
.
PDO doesn’t try to make a value judgment and weight offense relative to defense; it only sums the two in an attempt to get a number, which will indicate whether a player’s performance is expected to be better in future seasons. I don’t think weighting would be appropriate in this instance.
My interest is in thinking things through, and raising the questions that I think are important.
This is the only way progress is made.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I think this is where I have a problem with PDO
You are saying it is indicative of performance, and yet you say yourself above “the number of goals a player scores doesn’t matter”. Now, I understand that your comment is in reference to the calculation for PDO, but that’s the issue. It doesn’t matter if a player works his ass off next year and somehow creates twice as many shots for himself. As a result, he might end up with a lower S%, but he might score a lot more goals and pick up a lot more assists, thus improving his performance, while his PDO number goes down. That, along with the thought that an individual has a very intangible impact on the team SV%, leads me to think that PDO does not really measure performance, and therefore can’t truly predict it.
The Pens will be back.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jun 25, 2010 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions
That, along with the thought that an individual has a very intangible impact on the team SV%, leads me to think that PDO does not really measure performance, and therefore can’t truly predict it.
I think part of your hesitation with the statistic is that you expect it to do more than it claims. In it’s simplest form, PDO is a measure of luck. Since luck isn’t a sustainable characteristic for a team or a player, it makes sense that if a player or team got really lucky one year, he/they won’t be as lucky the next year, and vice versa. PDO’s formula measures that luck factor, and makes a prediction that a player will regress upward or downward based on a previous PDO.
What’s important to remember though is the success this stat has had in predicting future performance. It’s not like I’ve pulled something out of my ass and threw it at you all while demanding absolute faith in it’s usefulness. PDO has been extremely successful (more successful than any GM or hockey stat) in predicting the future performance of a player.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
For more from Vic Ferrari on individual players influencing Sh%, Forest v. Trees is an excellent article.
For the tl;dr crowd, the synopsis is this – individual players can influence shooting percentage, but the repeatable effect is small, even for elite defenders. A much larger portion of the year-to-year variation seems attributable to what we call, for lack of a better term, luck.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Jun 27, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
So using this analysis, can you predict what the returning Penguins seasons should look like next year based on their last 2 seasons? (of course it’s only relevant if they’ve actually played a season or two in the burgh, in the past) It might be interesting to put this metric to use if it’s so strong. Like who is gonna have a slumpy season or who is going to redeem themselves? I’d also like to see an analysis of Sid, since he seems to get better every year. I mean a slump for him is gonna be a 101 pt year or something.
No. PDO is probably most useful during contract negotiations. Basically you can use it to determine if a player is going to continue producing at the level he just did in the past year. For instance, since Cookie had a career year it would be unwise to pay him based on that year since he is likely to regress to the mean.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
PDO is probably most useful during contract negotiations.
Very accurate. It’s a shame it’s not used by more GM’s, or we wouldn’t have these bloated deals that screw every other team up.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I’ll echo what Justin has said already.
As to PDO, it’s most useful for looking at the Penguins players who were at the extremes. They’re going to see a difference in next year’s performance. Those in the middle will still see a difference in the predicted direction, but it’s tough to say by how much, since player’s can affect it by increasing shot volume.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Why use PDO instead of reversion to the mean?
PDO seems to be getting at mean reversion as a concept—yet does so in a way that is roundabout
its this “roundabout-ness” that i think PopRocks is picking up on
PDO trends do resemble a regression to the mean, but asking instead to use a regression to the mean begs the question: what mean? Are we regressing to career shooting percentage, adjusted +/-, etc? PDO’s formula looks at ES S% and ES SV%, and all players demonstrate a regression to the mean in the long run. I don’t perceive any round about-ness.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
the roundabout-ness is the introduction of TEAM statistics to evaluate an INDIVIDUAL player
why not use the INDIVIDUAL’s S%, +/-, etc.?
(i understand, of course, why you’d need to use TEAM Save% — but its not intuitively obvious why that particular stat is any better than an individual stat)
I’m sorry for not being clear, but the ES S% used in the equation is the player’s own shooting percentage. And the ES SV% is only when the player is on the ice.
And every stat in hockey is in some way a reflection of the team; there’s no pure individual stat. I don’t see any reason to adjust the PDO formula because it already works incredibly well.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
I’m sorry for not being clear, but the ES S% used in the equation is the player’s own shooting percentage. And the ES SV% is only when the player is on the ice.
Thanks.
That makes sense.
this stat still doesn't click for me...
because the talent differential between these two players (Crosby and Godard) means that they have different average PDO’s…Yet discovering each player’s “true” average PDO is very difficult
without a clear benchmark (ie, “true” average PDO), how is the stat useful?
As I tried to show in my individual player analysis, almost all players have a benchmark mean of 100%. Considering that the top 40 and bottom 40 in 07-08 had an average PDO over the next two years of 100.2% is pretty good evidence that 100% is the mean.
The number of players that can escape that benchmark and rise above it are so few and far between that we’ll know they are true elite talents irrespective of statistics. These players include Malkin, Crosby, Gaborik, Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Ovechkin.
Here’s a response from Tom Awad (author at Puck Prospectus) on a fanpost I made about this very same topic:
Your analysis is correct. PDO is too influenced by context to be sustainable for an individual player. There is some small sustainability in PDO between even/odd games, but only at the team level. At the individual level, there is virtually nothing, and certainly not from season to season. There will be a few exceptions, as you mentioned: Ovechkin, Gaborik and Datsyuk have been notable examples, and I don’t think it’s coincidence, but among the general NHL population, nada.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
It's the shooting percentage while the player is on the ice, not the individual shooting percentage.
For example – Jeff Schultz.
Here’s his NHL.com page – he has a personal shooting percentage of 7%; 3 goals scored on 43 shots.
Here’s Washington’s D that played more than 70 games this season
Schultz is listed as having a 12.43 Sh% when he’s on the ice.
If PDO is individual shooting percentage, then Schultz has a PDO of 70 + 945, or 1015. Still high, but not the kind of thing drives a +50.
On the other hand – 124 + 945 = 1069, or the PDO listed by BtN and cited in other places.
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Jun 27, 2010 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions
What the heck does PDO stand for?
I mean, as an acronym? apologies if I missed it somewhere above.
Official BYB Juju Consultant...now accepting rally creature applications!
I don’t think it stands for anything, but here’s the response I got at Behind the Net:
PDO was the posting handle of some guy. Vic likes to name stats after people who come up with good ideas – hence, Fenwick
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
Yes, Jim Corsi.
The Pens will be back.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jun 25, 2010 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions























