View Single Post
08-28-2010, 07:59 AM
Join Date: Jun 2010
Originally Posted by
Statistics are only meaningful if you start with the right assumptions. Anyone who truly understands statistics can tell you that.
In the 1980s, every team in the league was offense-first, which is why EVERYONE had an easier time scoring.
So the Canadiens were much better than other teams
and it was harder to score on them. But how many games did other teams actually play against the Canadiens? 6-8 games out of an 80 game schedule? That is so much less significant than that a league where it was easier to score against every team.
Anyone who truly understands statistics also knows that averages don't apply very well to outliers. Even using its simple method you can immediately see how far out in front the Canadiens were.. even in comparison to some other dynasty teams.
It was easier for the Canadiens to score by a large margin over the average team of the league that year too. They weren't only better at defence, they were better at everything by a large margin.
You guys need to look at even the simple rating system that hockey-reference uses.
I can fully accept the validity of applying adjusted stats to players and teams that are close to the averages of the years that are being compared. They are reasonably accurate for that but the farther a team/player in any given year is away is from the average of that year, the worse and worse adjusted stats can explain what they did. It implicity assumes that the level of competition in the league during each year and every year is exactly the same.
And that simply is very far from the truth in some cases.
Last edited by BraveCanadian: 08-28-2010 at
. Reason: cause i don't make sense sometimes
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BraveCanadian