View Single Post
Old
11-02-2012, 03:49 PM
  #171
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And I'll hold my breath that you will understand it until Czech or another poster breaks it down or responds to it.
I don't really want to get into a detailed analysis of Bourque vs. Lidstrom adjusted points. However, adjusted stats are directly grounded in the concept of value, so what they tell us is clear in that regard. Also, Bourque still maintains a healthy edge in career adjusted ppg, over a similar length career as Lidstrom. As far as comparing difficulty (as opposed to value), I want to mention a couple of other factors at play:

A) Lidstrom's '02-12 period starts in the midst of the "strange" '01-04 seasons, where individual data seems to be "off" for some reason. I can't explain it at this time, I just know there are some weird effects that I doubt are the results of adjusted stats, but rather are reflected in both the raw and adjusted data.

B) There are more PPO's from '02-12 than '80-91, particularly in '06 & '07.

So the first half of Lidstrom's "other" period ('02-'07) is marked by aberrations that may either distort and/or simply help his numbers.

The goal of adjusted data when comparing players is to see how close their production was. In this case, Bourque seems to have a clear, significant edge in adjusted point production over their careers. We can look at other data to determine whether the actual edge is likely more or less than it appears: ES vs. PP production, rankings vs. peer d-men, strength of peer competition, linemate/teammate effects, etc.

---------------

I had previously meant to address the following: It seems your hypothesis is that as scoring decreases, it will affect lesser (bottom tier) players much more than better (top tier) players. That implies the reverse as well, that as scoring increases, it will help lesser players more than top players. So it would seem your conclusion is that in higher scoring periods, adjusted stats will hurt the best scorers (by increasing the avg. gpg more than the points of the best players), while in lower scoring periods, adjusted stats will help the best scorers (by increasing their points more than the avg. gpg).

It's interesting that since expansion, the highest adjusted scoring players tend to have played in the higher scoring seasons: Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, Orr, Lafleur, etc. Meanwhile, the only player among the top 6 in most peak/prime adjusted scoring lists is Jagr. After that, there's a large group of relatively closely bunched players. Most of those are from the past two decades, but Dionne would be about at the the top of that group, so it may be 6/7 of the top peak/prime adjusted scorers since expansion played in mostly higher scoring seasons.

Some things to consider about this observation:

- the lower scoring periods are right after expansion (~'68-72) and since the first lockout ('95-present).
- it was a lot easier than it looks for top players to score right after expansion, because the talent was not close to evenly dispersed, so the best players were almost all on the best teams, while the expansion teams scored at a much lower rate and so brought down the league avg. gpg from what otherwise would have been substantially higher levels.
- the more recent low scoring period saw a substantial increase in power plays, which should have helped the best players in proportion to the lesser players
- the more recent low scoring period saw a disproportionate influx of high scoring forwards, which helps explain both the increased scoring of top tier forwards compared to bottom tier forwards and the strong presence of forwards in the group after the top 6-7 peak/prime adjusted scoring players since expansion (players such as Ovechkin, Malkin, Forsberg, Selanne, etc., as well as Jagr)

If not for the dramatically increased presence of European players, the top peak/prime adjusted scorers since expansion would be: Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, Orr, Lafleur and Dionne. Lemieux, Espo and Orr played part of their peak/prime seasons in lower scoring years, but these were more around the median in terms of league scoring for the post-expansion period, and the league avg. didn't fully reflect the (lack of) difficulty for the best players to score adjusted points (due to disparity in talent for Espo/Orr and increased power plays for Lemieux in '96 & '97). This would seem to negate and very possibly contradict your hypothesis that adjusted stats are more favorable to the higher scoring players IMO.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-02-2012 at 06:51 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote