Adjusted stats - how valuable?
View Single Post
11-02-2012, 05:27 PM
Just a Fool
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Originally Posted by
Czech Your Math
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 realise this, you realise this and there are more than just a few others that understand this but...
I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times, in the numerous Bourque vs Lidstrom threads, that AS's are used at face value, at the exclusion of any other evaluations, to say that Lidstrom was Bourque's equal or almost equal offensively. There were/are even a select few that swear Lids was better offensively based solely on AS's.
There are flaws in AS's and those flaws vary in intensity for different players through different era's.
There will be times where AS's are almost bang on, other times where they are off but you can usually see why and other times where they are a total train wreck.
Point is, the VALUE of AS's is going to vary and they should never be used exclusively or even be referred to as an "alternative".
You can defend the notion that AS's always have value in every case.
What you can't defend, is that they always have the same value in every case.
Even when I was showing how they seem to be quite off in regards to Bourque and Lidstrom's non-shared years, I still didn't dismiss them completely or not allow for some of their weight to still apply.
Why is the reverse not true far too often in regards to other data like raw data. Maybe raw data is also quite off in other cases as well but it should still never be completely dismissed IMO.
(For the record though, the quote of mine you're responding to here was in regards to my upcoming post about some of the theories expressed in this thread so far and had nothing to do with Bourque or Lidstrom.)
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-02-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Rhiessan71