View Single Post
06-14-2005, 11:54 AM
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by dolfanar
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.
I am not too concerned it you take my system seriously or not. You obviously have an idea in your head that you refuse to let go of.

You can adjust the REAL numbers if you like but, I will continue to run my system my way. I have chosen to do it this way because it fits well into my framework for the bigger project "NHL's greatest players"

You are looking for raw assist totals. I am not. I am looking for GREAT seasons that is very different. Players could hang around for years accumulating 30 or 40 assists to add to thier totals. My system does not recognize that because I am measuring GREAT seasons not total assists.

I am measuring something completely different than you think so, my system is not inaccurate at all. My system measures exactly what I am looking to measure. I was never interested in assist totals and my system does not measure that.

Again, thank you for the insults.

Ogopogo* is offline