My point is, even when the score is close, the metric is still backwards. Even when close, if a team has a low shooting percentage, and a low save percentage, how do we know if the team is indeed lucky if we don’t know how many of those games they ended up winning? What makes them “unlucky” if by just looking at the metric as is, we just see that when we add the save percentage, and shooting percentage that the number is lower than other teams in close games? Now, if we knew how many of those games they ended up winning or losing ,we’d be able to tell if it was luck.

]]>Shoot%+Save%/.550

That would be an unlucky team. Accurate shooting, great goaltending, yet can’t pull out wins. If the metric bases a team with a low PDO being unlucky, it makes no sense when you look at it this way, when it should be the other way around, if, and only if they are winning games. Hence why dividing by the amount lost would show if the team is unlucky or not.

]]>Now, if the metric was then divided by something like, the amount of games won with a low shooting percentage and a low save percentage, than that would surely show LUCK.

]]>