Adjusted stats - how valuable?
View Single Post
10-28-2012, 03:58 AM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
I never really liked adjustment stats, for the reason Dalton suggests and many others. I believe the outliers definitely throw the use of means into a grey area.
If the league gets tougher to score, does it hurt Wayne/Mario in the same way it hurts the Craig Simpson or others. I don't think so. My problem isn't the stats themselves, it's the mischaracterization and misrepresentation I've seen on these boards.
Iain says it doesn't happen, but it most certainly does. I've debated in the "How many points would Gretzky score today threads" and posters have told me he would score precisely 158 points or whatever the number was, because there was a formula for that, LOL. Not only that, but certain posters use these numbers in every thread as their only source of reasoning. I won't mention his name, but one in particular poster uses them without even understanding them at all.
For an adjustment that is suppose to be used for putting things in context, it often lacks context itself.
One thing that is definitely left out (due to no tangible accounting method) of adjusted scoring is actual offensive talent level vs. defensive/goaltending talent level. This is not the same as "is scoring higher or lower?" as we all know. And there are always outliers; Gretzky and Lemieux in 1988-89 caused their teams (and teammates) to put up significantly higher offensive numbers than they would have otherwise. If you simply remove them from the league and replace them with fourth-line centers, the amount of scoring removed would be significant (on the order of 450-500 points) and the adjusted stats for players from that year who did not benefit from those two would look much, much better.
Adjusted stats are a good starting point. They're not a good ending point. Unless you think the best players from the pre-O6 era were easily the greatest scorers ever.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by pdd