View Single Post
11-09-2012, 11:32 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
The difference between the POVs you aren't comfortable with is that they don't come to the debate with a table of stats and an arcane methodology claiming 'I brought math therefore I've won.'

This is not a math problem. This an HR issue. Determining the value of work performed vs peers and making value judgements comparing work done in different social, economic and political times. Hockey has all these variables but they are not reflected in AS in any way whatsoever.
The POV with which I'm not comfortable is that which is not reasonable and open-minded. Probably the biggest problem with all methods used to evaluate players (including AS) is that those using them make no attempt to factor in the very large changes in competition (talent pool) over time, and the increased difficulty that results from having higher quality competition.

Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
You are assuming that adjusted stats the answer. This is a huge problem in this debate. The assumption that AS is absolutely true and that if you don't buy into that and argue from that POV then you are (fill in the blank).

Hard to have a debate about the value of something when one side won't acknowledge that their value is the debate.
Except they are true, at least in terms of relative value. They are not THE answer. However, they may be the starting point to find the best estimate of the actual possible.

If one cannot reach the summit of a mountain in their first attempt, but plans to try again, does one retreat to base camp or trek all the way down the mountain before making the next attempt? I'm of the group which would go back to base camp. You seem to be of the group which would go back down the entire mountain... if you didn't throw up your arms, declare the entire expedition "useless... complete nonsense", etc. and walk off before you even took a single step up the mountain.

Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I doubt that. After Orr everyone said you'll never see his like again. But then came Gretzky, Lemieux hot on his tail. This appearance of talent has a lot of factors other than mere population. How many excellent pro athletes take up the game. How many people with the skill set or appropriate intelligences get involved. Again averaging fails.

Lose this mind set.
The greats don't show up on schedule, I would agree to that. However, it's still a matter of probabilities. I doubt it's an accident that Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux were born towards the end of the population boom and were born less than 18 years apart. It may also not be an accident that they were part of a dynamic time in hockey, when there was more freedom for individual players and scoring was high.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote