View Single Post
11-09-2012, 11:17 AM
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 Dalton View Post
I think expansion/dilution should be included. In the past some teams- Oilers, Habs, Isles had a lot of talent playing together. Dilution caused by expansion often leaves teams with very little high end talent playing together.

Lemieux and Jagr, Malkin and Crosby, those Detroit wingers. The Pens with their third all-star at center won a cup. Having two or three outstanding players makes a difference these days. It used to be that having an outstanding starting 6 and some excellent guys on the second and third unit was required.
You bring up a good point, but I think there are reasoned arguments on each side. You are focusing on the lack of concentration on the offensive side, while others might point out the dilution on the defensive side. The two factors may offset, or there may be other factors which determine which has more influence in a given era. Expansion in the late 60s & 70s led to increased scoring, despite most expansion teams not being able to score at nearly the rate of most O6 teams.

Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Dilution is a factor and another reason why applying a fixed average (AS) fails. Adding players from non-Canadian countries has just served to stem the tide towards mediocrity. Defensive systems also counter dilution. As do rule breaking or bending such as the recent NYR attempt to win by everyone laying down in front of the net when the other team comes calling. That's an increased talent pool?
The Rangers trying to block every shot or teams in the 90s clutching and grabbing are obviously examples of defensive systems. Would it work without a strong (Euro) goalie like Lundqvist? Is it countering dilution or less relative talent compared to other teams? Is it innovation or do these "defensive systems" devolve the game?

I think one factor has been the OT/SO points that came into play. This encourages teams to play for the tie, which means play a stifling defense and avoid giving up goals at all costs. The NHL has probably been short-sighted in using this point system, rather than an alternative which did not reward "playing for the tie."

Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
AS fails to take into account these changes.

Every tree in every forest is treated the same regardless of the weather or human intervention.
How does raw data take into account any/all of the factors you have mentioned over the course of so many posts? Are you suggesting that relying on raw data is more informative than using adjusted stats as a replacement/supplement to raw data?

Have you taken any steps towards improving adjusted stats? Are you just going to complain, critique, shake your head that "adjusted stats aren't perfect, so they're a failure", and present distracting tangents?

Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-09-2012 at 11:39 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote