View Single Post
Old
11-10-2012, 11:01 PM
  #290
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
Just like raw stats. Adjusted stats do not take everything into account, but they take some things into account that raw stats do not, which gives them their value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
This is not a math problem.
You made it a math problem by making claims about the math that are simply wrong.

Quote:
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).
Massive misrepresentation. Many of us have discussed the flaws in the system, while pointing out that many of the flaws you say it has are not actually real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Again averaging fails.

Lose this mind set.
Again averaging does not mean what you seem to think it means. Lose this mindset.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
This has been disproven in a massive study that included NHL left wingers gs.
Once again, that study does not say what you claim it says. We've been over this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
To accurately predict what Gretzky or Howe would have actually scored last year is problematic given that their presence in the league changed the way everybody plays.
Indeed, but since adjusted scoring does not make such predictions, it's not much of a problem. Again, we've been over this before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Maybe AS shouldn't be trying to set a fixed, realistic looking number to use as a measure. That just makes it look like a prediction. Comparing to peers in their own eras and then comparing those results is a better approach IMHO.
Since adjusted scoring uses a player's results when playing against peers in their own era, this is exactly what adjusted scoring does. "Comparing to peers in their own eras and then comparing those results" is an excellent, succinct statement of what adjusted scoring does.

So what's the issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
The unintended consequence of averaging the eras to compare them is to devalue the accomplishments of the outliers themselves. Hence averaging necessarily reduces the output of the best while increasing the output of the rest.
This is mathematically false. It would be the result if adjusted scoring actually normalized results, but of course, as we've been over and over again, adjusted scoring does not normalize.

Some of the best players have their output increased, and some decreased. Some of the lesser-tier players have their output increased, and some decreased. You're still hung up on the idea that normalization occurs. It does not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I conclude that you can only really look at an outliers productivity in the context of the era they achieved. If anything their productivity should be increased to reflect the fact that their presence increased the productivity of their peers thus closing the true gap between them and their peers.
And indeed adjusted scoring does do this in a very small way. If you think it should be more, please provide something other that "it should be more".

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote