Skip to content

Devils don’t believe they need new players

Dec 18, 2013, 4:21 PM EDT

The New Jersey Devils have struggled to a 13-15-6 record and have just two wins in their last seven games, but they’re not desperate for general manager Lou Lamoriello to go out and get them some help.

“Do we need to make a trade? No, not really. We have a lot of guys here. We’re missing a lot of players that will be coming back,” veteran forward Patrik Elias said, per The Star-Ledger. “We’ll see what we can do when everyone is healthy. In the meantime, the young guys are doing a great job. The young guys have stepped in, stayed in the mix and given us a different game.”

Injuries have certainly been a factor:

source:

Also, it’s not like the Devils have been getting blown out. In fact, there’s a case to be made they’ve been downright unlucky. A newish statistic called PDO, which combines shooting percentage and save percentage, is used by its advocates as a proxy for luck. And the Devils rank 29th in PDO when the score is close, with only the Florida Panthers ranking lower.

The Devils host Ottawa tonight.

  1. peterjohnjoseph - Dec 18, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    I’ve never understood PDO. All you’re doing is adding a team’s shooting percentage, with their save percentage. If a team has a low shooting percentage, they’re not scoring goals. That doesn’t make them unlucky, it makes them bad shooters.

    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.

    • peterjohnjoseph - Dec 18, 2013 at 4:35 PM

      Another way for me to put this is- If a team has a high save percentage, and a high shooting percentage, yet has lost .550 percent of their games the metric would look like this-

      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.

      • peterjohnjoseph - Dec 19, 2013 at 12:22 AM

        You do realize now there is going to be a metric created by some site with these exact parameters and they’ll be forever linked to it because I’m far too lazy to promote it.. Maybe if I’m not too lazy I’ll pitch it to Extra Skater in the morning.

    • micasa81 - Dec 18, 2013 at 7:12 PM

      Don’t disagree with what you’ve said, but the key phrase in the article is “when the score is close”. Even there, they could do a little better. If it was PDO *differential* that would be the most meaningful (i.e. how much worse their PDO is when the score is close vs. when it’s not). I think that would be a reasonable measurement of luck.

      • peterjohnjoseph - Dec 19, 2013 at 12:19 AM

        I understand the “when the game is close” part of the metric, and I believe its absolutely I much better proxy than just using metrics like CORSI, or FENWICK on their own to grade a team, since it accounts for the fact that all out attacks, or holding fort in blowouts can sway numbers.

        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.

  2. slysipops - Dec 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM

    the DEVILS message to the fans………………

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. B. Bishop (1853)
  2. M. Fleury (1776)
  3. D. Alfredsson (1757)
  4. C. Anderson (1679)
  5. J. Schultz (1342)
  1. J. Boychuk (1282)
  2. D. Setoguchi (1276)
  3. D. Krejci (1260)
  4. E. Staal (1217)
  5. J. Harding (1177)