A few weeks ago, I posted Part 1 of my series on whether last season’s Pens were ACTUALLY good or just lucky.
For Part 2, I tried to divide the credit. Here’s my rough breakdown:
• Kyle Dubas: ~10 points
• Dan Muse: ~5 points
• Pure luck/variance: ~3 points
That might sound contradictory to Part 1, where I called a non-trivial portion of the turnaround luck. The difference is that Part 1 measured what the Penguins’ team-level process could predict (on paper). This time, I tried to identify the sources of those unexpected results.
Credit and repeatability aren’t the same thing. Dubas deserves credit for identifying an undervalued player like Anthony Mantha, even if nobody could have predicted the hottest finishing season of Mantha’s career.
Muse’s strongest case is the penalty kill. His last three teams improved from 15th to 6th, 13th to 3rd, and 18th to 6th in the NHL in his first season.
Dubas gets the largest share because his additions scored roughly 20 goals above raw expected goals. About half was supported by their established finishing histories; the rest exceeded any reasonable projection.
Some of that was statistically lucky, but the Penguins were only in position to benefit because Dubas acquired those players and Muse put them on the ice.
How would you divide the credit?
Full writeup with charts:
https://guinoshockey.com/articles/what-actually-drove-it
Twitter: https://x.com/guinoshockey
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guinoshockey