View Single Post
06-14-2005, 11:46 AM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Like a midget at a urinal, I'm going to have to stay on my toes.
Posts: 2,948
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
A couple of points,

First, I am measuring NHL success. Not other leagues, other countries or anything else. If you are outside of the NHL, you are not included in this system. I probably will do a rating system for the other "major" leagues of hockey but, for this list it is irrelevant.
You obviously don't understand your own position... or much else about quantitative methods or hockey history for that matter...

You said: 6 teams in the NHL means you have the 120 best players. Add 24 more teams to the mix and you have just added 480 bad players that were not good enough to be in a six team NHL.

This is pure unadulterated bunk, as I demonstrated. Again, you are trying to claim that finishing as the 10th highest grossing NA enterprise in 1492 is equivalent to finishing as the 10th highest grossing NA enterprise in terms of accomplishment.

With that kind of position you expect people to take your analysis seriously? Again a good try, but hardly anything to crow over. Improve your method to adjust for the realities of a changing hockey world, and maybe you have something more workable.

But again, as I said the definitive method is adjusting for REAL numbers across the board comparing scoring levels from all periods against a baseline, as done by Total Sports (NOT Stats, Inc, my bad) in 1999.

dolfanar is offline