View Single Post
11-07-2012, 03:58 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
In every level of hockey I've ever played when the competition gets more difficult it tends to hurt those that were fringe to begin with and those at the top remain relatively unchanged. We're talking about the top 1% of players here generally. It is my opinion that they are unfairly dropped into the same pool of players that aren't the best. The cream rises to the top and there is no way in hell that the decline in scoring is spread evenly from the top all the way down to the fringe. Sometimes numbers can't be substituted for common sense.

I get the idea behind adjusted stats, but I believe they have some pretty big holes.
The 1% is a "special case" compared to the rest of the NHL... but then NHL players are a "special case" compared to the group of players which at some time played a relatively high level of organized hockey, such as collegiate, junior, minor league, etc.

I understand your skepticism, but to say that it's purely "common sense" is quite assumptive IMO.

The very top NHL players are best compared to those of similar ability/performance, but as we know, as one gets farther to the extreme of the spectrum, there are fewer and fewer players who are somewhat comparable.

I believe there are some ways to study this that haven't been fully explored, but it will take some time and effort on the parts of people who understand the problem, the factors involved, and the techniques that are most likely to yield an eventual (at least partial) solution to improving the comparison of players across different seasons/eras.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote