View Single Post
Old
11-01-2012, 07:36 PM
  #149
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
No, my hangup with Adjusted Stats has always been how they are used far to often as the ONLY form of comparison with the exclusion of everything else between players of different era's.
If AS is going to be used that exclusively with that much weight, it better be extremely god damned accurate!

And because this actually seems right to you....

Raw Career PpG: Bourque-.98 Lidstrom-.73
ADJ Career PpG: Bourque-.88 Lidstrom-.76
Raw 10year(92-01) in the league together: Bourque-.86 Lidstrom-.73
Adj 10year(92-01) in the league together: Bourque-1.00 Lidstrom-.66
Raw remaining years: (80-91)Bourque-1.07 (02-12)Lidstrom-.73
ADJ remaining years: (80-91)Bourque-.78 (02-12)Lidstrom-.78

So despite Bourque through 79/80-90/91 leading his team in scoring multiple times, despite having a top 10 along with multiple top 20 league scoring finishes, despite what your actual eyes tell you, despite Bourque doing this with a hell of a lot less offensive support than Lidstrom and despite Bourque being clearly better offensively in all other data...that an 01/02-11/12 Lidstrom that includes 3 of the 4 worst offensive years of his entire career was exactly equal to 79/80-90/91 Bourque offensively?

Nothing wrong there

Sorry but somewhere along the line, Adjusted stats is breaking down and breaking down bigtime.
Ok, so what's the alternative? Using raw data instead of adjusted stats seems to me to result in two conclusions: Either players' offensive numbers from prior to 67-68 and after 92-93 are brushed aside because they significantly inferior to the numbers put up between 67-68 and 92-93 OR we can't compare players from different eras at all because it's apples and oranges. Neither seems to me to be a very satisfactory answer.

SaintPatrick33 is online now   Reply With Quote