View Single Post
Old
02-07-2011, 02:53 PM
  #101
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
I guess the end game would be to show that scoring finishes are not really the best way to compare players from different eras. Instead we should be looking at how that player is doing compared to some kind of league standard. What that standard is would be up for debate. A simple example might be to calculate the number of first liners and make the standard an average of whatever the 2-3 guys right in the middle scored (In the O6 it would be the 8th, 9th, and 10th place point totals, while today it would be the 44th, 45th, and 46th place point totals).
Don't worry. Very few people here want to strictly use points finishes anymore. I think that for the majority of post-expansion to post-expansion, and pre-expansion to pre-expansion comparisons, they still work very well as a starting point and usually get the point across. If you're trying to compare a pre-expansion player to a post-expansion player then bringing out the percentages is the fairest way to go. At the same time, adhering too close to the percentages will see you overrate a modern player. If a 15th-place guy in one season today out-percentages a 5th-place guy from a season in the 50s, I still want the guy in the 50s because there's something to be said for being among the top-5 in the best league on earth.

If peer comparison is the best way to rank players, isn't this a much more accurate picture of a players peers?

Quote:
Here is how the original comparison I posted looks for years 60-62 and 08-10.

1959-60: 5th place: 73pts, 10th place: 66pts
1960-61: 5th place: 72pts, 10th place: 62pts
1961-62: 5th place: 71pts, 10th place: 62pts

2007-08: 25th place: 75pts, 50th place: 65pts
2008-09: 25th place: 75pts, 50th place: 65pts
2009-10: 25th place: 71pts, 50th place: 62pts


I know this is very simple, but doesn't this start to show that compared to his peers, the 50th place guy today is doing just as well as the 10th place guy back in the 60's (offensively at least)? They are both in the same percentile when compared to peers that play similar roles.
Yes, it appears that the difference from 5th-10th is similar to the difference from 25th-50th. But why are 5th and 25th the benchmarks? there's no way 5th in 1960 is equivalent to just 25th today, so naturally the 50th-place player today will look equal to the 10th from 1960, because they are being compared to very different things!

seventieslord is offline