Adjusted stats - how valuable?
View Single Post
11-04-2012, 07:30 PM
Czech Your Math
Join Date: Jan 2006
Originally Posted by
Avg Power Play Goals/team: 71
Avg Power Play Opp/team: 321
Avg PP%: 22.2%
PP goals % of total goals:22.83%
Avg Power Play Goals/team: 47
Avg Power Play Opp/team: 271
Avg PP%: 17.31%
PP goals % of total goals: 20.98%
Total goals drop from '85 to '12: 29.6%
Total PP goal drop '85 to '12: 33%
Yeah....I think that will just about take care of any "theory" that PP goals or PP opportunities have anything to do with the top tier players holding a much greater % of league scoring today.
Not only are there LESS PP opportunities today but PP goals have actually DECREASED by a greater % than total goals have.
Scratch that off the list, moving on to next "theory" shortly...
The factors and their magnitudes will vary by season. The past two seasons had lower % of special teams goals than in the prior two decades. 2011 was the lowest since 1985 and 2012 the lowest since 1980.
The top adjusted point players (according to HR.com) in each of following seasons (Euro/Russian players are bolded):
, 109, 103, 94,
, 91, 90, 90,
90, 86, 86, 86
, 107, 106,
, 99, 94,
92, 86, 86
, 83, 83
1986: 170, 110, 108,
, 82, 82
, 103, 101, 96, 93, 84, 83, 82, 81, 81, 81
Is it not the greater number of high-scoring Euro/Russian players in the top tiers (disproportionate to both other types of players and the % teams that are additional in 30 team league) that is a big reason for the higher scoring in the top tier? There is also more total teams (more opportunity for players to have career years), possibly more parity (opportunity more evenly distributed as TOI, PP time, etc.). There are numerous factors which are at play, working in harmony or against each other. You seem to be clinging to one single factor (possible influences of a more difficult scoring environment, which itself is due to various causes) as the reason for all the changes over all the various seasons. What proof do you have of this? Why do you seem to claim the burden of proof is on other people to disprove the fantastic notion that one single factor is the sole cause (or even the primary cause) of various effects across various seasons? If some of you would actually contribute some thoughtful study and analysis, instead of trying to discredit the whole idea of adjusted stats, maybe meaningful progress in this area could actually be made in a relative quick time. Instead, I see angry accusations and confusing posts that do nothing but muddle and obfuscate the important, complex factors at work.
Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-04-2012 at
Czech Your Math
View Public Profile
Czech Your Math's albums
Find More Posts by Czech Your Math