PDO numbers by NHL team - Feb 11

Cam Charron
February 11 2013 08:35AM

PDO doesn't stand for anything, but that doesn't mean we can't learn anything from adding up the overall shooting and save percentages for a team at even strength. A layman's explanation for 'PDO' and why we use it can be found here over at the Backhand Shelf. Basically, if a team is playing with a PDO number way higher than 1.000, they're producing above their expected output. If a team is playing with a PDO number below 1.000, they're producing below their expected output. Over the course of a long season, the number will generally correct itself.

No website offers Team PDO as a sortable statistic, but behindthenet.ca has a page that offers a team's shooting percentage and a team's save percentage numbers. Shooting percentage is the 17th column from the left on BTN's team shots page—the first one to say SPCT. It's cousin, team save percentage, is three columns to the right also saying SPCT. The team shooting percentage needs to be subtracted from 1000 to get the actual number.

Here are the team PDO standings through games played Sunday night:

TEAM Shooting % Save % PDO
Anaheim 0.131 0.928 1.059
Vancouver 0.091 0.955 1.046
Tampa Bay 0.122 0.922 1.044
Chicago 0.119 0.925 1.044
Nashville 0.084 0.940 1.024
New Jersey 0.087 0.937 1.024
Toronto 0.093 0.930 1.023
NY Rangers 0.090 0.932 1.022
San Jose 0.081 0.938 1.019
Detroit 0.072 0.943 1.015
Ottawa 0.069 0.945 1.014
Montreal 0.087 0.927 1.014
Dallas 0.068 0.939 1.007
Philadelphia 0.068 0.938 1.006
Pittsburgh 0.081 0.923 1.004
Colorado 0.077 0.927 1.004
Boston 0.084 0.916 1.000
Buffalo 0.099 0.900 0.999
Carolina 0.066 0.927 0.993
Winnipeg 0.068 0.911 0.979
Edmonton 0.049 0.930 0.979
Minnesota 0.065 0.913 0.978
Phoenix 0.072 0.903 0.975
Washington 0.073 0.900 0.973
NY Islanders 0.091 0.879 0.970
Columbus 0.072 0.896 0.968
St. Louis 0.076 0.882 0.958
Calgary 0.066 0.884 0.950
Los Angeles 0.067 0.881 0.948
Florida 0.054 0.892 0.946

Here is the chart from February 4. See how your team has risen or fallen!

  • Anaheim remains at the top thanks to some unsustainable shooting. I'm unsure that if Jonas Hiller is out for any amount of time that Viktor Fasth will be able to maintain his initial pace stopping the puck as well. They're 8-2-1, but their record is pretty shaky.

  • The Montreal Canadiens may have made the most notable drop-off, from 1.056 to 1.014 over the course of the week after going 0-2-1 and falling back closer to .500. San Jose, who also appeared to cool off this week, didn't have as drastic of a fall but after starting the season where every shot was going in and winning seven in a row, they've dropped four straight.

  • The Vancouver Canucks have won five in a row and now find themselves at the top. They beat up on two division rivals this week to the tune of 4-1 and 5-1, so a couple of blowouts early in the season will do that. It's not their shooting and scoring that's unsustainable however, it's their goaltending. Roberto Luongo and Cory Schneider are the league's top goaltending duo so far and if they hold onto both goalies, that should continue. What shouldn't continue is that those goalies will make saves at a 95.5% rate. Last year they had a .929, a year before a .932. Before that, .919. You know how this story ends.

  • It's not so bad for the Edmonton Oilers, who are getting exceptional early season play from Devan Dubnyk, but they're at the bottom of the league in team shooting percentage. Nobody is going to make the claim that that team doesn't have enough talent to put pucks in nets, and I won't either. Their shooting is due for a drastic turnaround. Taylor Hall has two goals on 33 shots at even strength. Jordan Eberle has one in 24. Four players have taken double digits in shots without scoring.

  • I was watching a TSN program where some pills in suits were discussing what was wrong with Drew Doughty. One of the commentators made the point that he's so young and feels like he can do anything because he's won so much already in his young career. This leads to complacency on the ice. It's a cute story, but Doughty has the fourth lowest individual PDO in the league at .893. The Kings can't buy a save this season even after spending $58M to lock up Jonathan Quick this summer, who has a total of one top ten finish in individual goaltender even strength save percentage since becoming a starter, and that was last year. He's better than .881, for sure, but the Kings can't expect championship-level goaltending out of him each year I'm afraid.

63811cbf517d2d685ea09e103488ea3a
Cam Charron is a BC hockey fan that writes about hockey on many different websites including this one.
Avatar
#1 Kent Wilson
February 11 2013, 11:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

St. Louis is doing just fine despite a 95.8 PDO. Wow.

Avatar
#2 JM
February 11 2013, 02:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I always hate those 8-2-1 shaky starts.

Avatar
#3 immie_8
February 12 2013, 12:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Man, I didn't expect Edmonton's shooting percentage to get worse - that's some awful luck they're having.

Avatar
#4 Kent Wilson
February 12 2013, 03:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JM

"shaky" = not based on true talent level.

Avatar
#5 exsanguinator
February 17 2013, 03:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm surprised that Calgary's SH% has remained fairly consistent. Also with how inconsistent Kipper's been this year it's interesting to see how much their team S% dropped in his absence.

Avatar
#6 BradB
February 18 2013, 12:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I've always wondered a little bit about PDO & what it really means. Here's an article that explains my concern better than I could: http://hockeyanalysis.com/2012/02/05/thoughts-on-pdo-and-luck/

The crux is basically - why should an individual or team PDO regress to 1000? I see that across the league it mathematically must be 1000, but surely a good team will round out the year greater than 1000, while bad teams are sub 1000.

Does it make sense to use historic PDO as the regression point rather than plain old 1000?

Comments are closed for this article.