View Single Post
11-03-2012, 06:26 PM
Just a Fool
Rhiessan71's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,337
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
First, if by "today's NHL" you mean last season, then his 21 goals in '85 would have equivalent value to about 15 goals in '12. Second, he was fourth in goals on a Montreal team that won their division. He was ahead of a 26 y/o Bobby Smith and two behind Guy Carbonneau. It would seem if that was possible (despite getting almost no PP time), then it may not be impossible that at his very peak he could score 15 goals in a 2012 environment. That's without trying to determine how much more competitive today's league is and how much more difficult attaining that level would be. Even if you made an adjustment for lower scoring by 4th liners, it would only decrease his adjusted goals by 1 or 2, so I'm not sure how this would really tell us anything about how useful adjusted stats are in comparing/projecting to different eras.
It's not about the math at this point, it's about the reality the math is trying to tell us and the difference between 4th line goals in 1985 and today is a hell of a lot more than just 1-2 goals more than what Adjusted Stats is telling us.

Are you adding a couple 1st/2nd line quality European/Russian/US forwards who likely wouldn't have been playing in the 80s? That would change the comparative quality of the top two lines compared the bottom two lines, now wouldn't it?
Only the top Russians and most of the top Czechs were missing in the 80's and there are 43% more 1rst, 2nd, 3rd and 4th line spots today than there were then.
Just adding the Russians and the Czechs do NOT account for a 43% increase in top line players and not every single Russian or Czech that has come over since is a top tier player.
There was a time in the very late 80's and early 90's where these top Russians and Czechs did affect top Tier scoring like you say. That was only for a short time though, before the League expanded to 43% more teams. Once again spreading the talent out and the data supports this.

Besides, if what you propose were the reason, there should have been an increase in top tier scoring while other tiers remained the same.
That wasn't the case.
All tiers scored less at variable rates.

And nothing you have said counters the much more supportable (and quite frankly common sense) explanation that scoring has decreased through a filtering process and not a flat % across the board.

Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-03-2012 at 07:36 PM. Reason: Spelling and Grammar, fixed % of increased teams
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote