Adjusted stats - how valuable?
View Single Post
11-02-2012, 01:16 PM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Originally Posted by
Pop culture certainly seems to maintain that its easier to destroy than create. Tell that to Faraday. The scientific method seems to be predicated in that belief to some degree or interpretation. Of course AS isn't quantum mechanics. That's a valid point here right? Its not quantum mechanics.
So why defend it as if it is? (Not to say you are. You present as quite open minded.
IMHO and experience when you have to do so much work to defend your idea then maybe its time to re-evaluate. I noticed that no-one gave a serious response to my point that ASs was likely, originally intended to predict what Howe would score today or in a Gretzky season. I remember doing similar stuff when I was 10 and reading about the history of hockey for the first time. I tried simple math, then I tried all kinds of new variables to try to fix some bizarre results. Then I resorted to reason. Later I discovered that when something works, it works immediately and always.
This is not about giving up coffee because a single study says it is bad for you. Its not about giving up on spaceflight because of a fire killing all the astronauts. Its not about refusing to sail the ocean because some believe there are sea monsters or that we'll fall off the edge of the world.
Its not that dramatic.
I appreciate yours and others(?) efforts to give reasons for your POV. Links (in the post) to specific studies referred to (in the post) would be appreciated. I think you might appreciate the results as well. Don't assume that I or any other poster knows wtf you're talking about. Be inclusive please and I'll try to do the same.
I kept looking at my statement that you bolded and thinking I should re-phrase that. It was not accurate. Instead I tried to explain in more detail where we differ. Its actually why I truncated your thread to the example.
Adjusted stats, raw stats, predictions, productivity expressions are not all equal. They can't be. They are each expressing a different aspect of the players results or productivity. Raw data has a special place in the hearts and souls of everyone. Ninety-two goals in a season is more than any other player has achieved. It is a benchmark. Nobody gives a rodent's hind end if Howe's production compared to peers was the same or better. They just see number 92 (imagine if he had scored 99? Was he trying to?). There is no number derived from any equation, no matter how convincing that will replace the number 92. Raw data is God.
Gretzky actually scored 92 goals in 80 games. Nobody has gotten very close. There is no possibility that any function, opinion or act of God will change that. Only a player scoring 93 will do that. And even then the circumstances he/she did it will (barring drug use) not matter.
My point is that AS are not nor ever will be raw data. So what do adjusted stats say? IMHO they were an attempt to compare raw data over eras and seasons but it didn't work and it just wasn't accepted by those not in the loop of those arcane calculations and some who were.
I'm pretty sure I posted in that Gretzky thread you referrenced. IMHO Gretzky scores more assists than the next best gets points and then 55-60 goals. Because that's what he usually, classically did in his career. Unless you're thinking of other variables such as transporting him instaneously, But then you're not taking into account that Gretzky had an effect on the game and so would be playing against himself so to speak.
You can't just remove a guy and his impact from the game by subtracting his stats from the formula. If he played then somebody, everybody and every point in between learned from him. You must see the league as if the guy never played, never impacted it and then guess what he'd do today.
I think the only way to do that is pretend that he never played and look at what he did when he played then induct what he would do if he played today. IOW I wouldn't use AS at all to predict. I would use reason.
What do adjusted stats do anyways if not attempt to predict? I'm still not clear on this.
I had this link tagged for quoting, but after scrolling down further it became clear that Iain so beautifully corrected all your misrepresentations.
Originally Posted by
I wonder if the names Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull, Bossy or <insert teammate of Gretzky> would have any bearing on what % of the 2nd place points Bourque produced
Originally Posted by
I've never heard of Total Hockey. Link please.
Gigantic book (biggest hockey book I own) that came out in 1998 and again in 2000.
I'd love to read how you compare players by
suggesting actual gs in a 6.00 gpg season as a measure but not really suggesting that they'd actually score that many
. Your argument has become so convoluted in the defence of it that it defies characterization in the English language.
It's quite simple, really. No one is saying anyone "would" score anything. The question is how valuable a player's points were. If league scoring is at 8.00 then it takes more goals to win a game (the objective of playing hockey), therefore each goal is individually less valuable. If league scoring is at 5.00 then each individual goal is much more valuable. This is irrefutable. Simple, adjusted offensive stats do little more than approximate a player's offensive contribution towards winning.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by seventieslord