View Single Post
09-08-2012, 07:14 PM
Registered User
Dreakmur's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,480
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Come on. That is so lame. At no point have I inferred or projected anything that did not happen. You and TDMM do it all the time.
Where have either one of us done that?

Fewer games in a season are significant as they advantage a weak player. Stamina and the ability to adapt over a season facing an opponent more that twice are important considerations when evaluating players. Moran is getting a free pass in this regard.
Which players of Moran's era are the guys who would suffer from playing mroe games?

GAA as a team stat gets applied to all goalies. It is not selective. While your arguments for Mpran have repeated selective elements that have been enumerated.
As I said, it gets erroneously applied to all goalie.

Goalies who have the good fortune to play on good defensive teams have better GAAs. Jonathan Quick is a good example.

Goalies who have the bad fortunre t play on poor defensive teams have worse GAAs. Paddy Moran is a good example.

Despite his GAA, Paddy Moran was widely considered an elite goalie in his era.

Vanek and Green. Point is that I have not attacked them on this level because I am able to recognize that good is good when it comes to talent. Good is not a synonym for accomplishments. Good is a stand alone characteristic in hockey. Accomplishments are a function of longevity. Do not confuse the two.
What players actually accomplish during their careers is not relevant in evaluating them in an all-time context? That's rediculous...

In the MLD, how good you are is an exact synonym for his accomplishments. How else do you think we should evaluate players?

Raw numbers. Wrap you reasoning around a basic fact. Without raw numbers you do not have adjusted numbers. As such raw numbers are never worthless. That you cannot or refuse to recognize them as a base for comparisons is unfortunate.
Raw numbers are what they are. They give you the facts. What they don't give you is the meaning of those facts.

As I have said many times before, context matters. Raw point totals ignore that important context.

Your Courtnall to Haynes analogy is the classic red herring. Irrelevent to the discussion.Step up and show using any approach - raw goals or adjusted goals that your forwards can actually score goals at various benchmark levels. But it has to be goals not %s or some other method that masks talent or lack of talent.
What is misleading about my Courtnall vs Haynes analogy? It shows exactly why raw numbers are meaingless. One guy scored 22 goals in a high-scoring era, which barely put him among the top-100 scorers. The other guy scores 16 in a low-scoring era, which put him in the top dozen. There's nothing misleading about it.

Furthermore, how it is irrelevant to a discussion about the context of raw offensive numbers?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote