View Single Post
Old
11-12-2012, 03:03 PM
  #296
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,555
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You realise that both Oates and Lafontaine both played 84 games that year right?
On an 80's 80 game sched, Lafontaine only has a 141 raw and an adjusted 113 point season and Oates only has a 135 raw and 110 points adjusted.
Wait... so it's okay to adjust for schedule?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And of course it's not at all suspicious that both of these guys just happen to have a spike in their scoring in the same year while members of the same division.
Hmmm...I wonder if something changed in their division that year like say...the 398 goal allowing Senator's coming in that both of them piled up 14 points in 7 games each against.
It's not like the scoring of the existing 5 teams in the Adam's division didn't spike by a whopping 23% from 91/92 to 92/93 or anything.

Took me all of 3 seconds to figure that out by looking at the story the raw numbers were saying.
But hey, lets just look at the Adjusted stats numbers without any other context and conclude those seasons were worth 150 in the 80's despite that the reasons they even scored that much that year (4 extra games and 7 games to beat the crap out of the Sens) wouldn't have even been in the mix for them.
You really showed me. It took me a whole 3 minutes to look at the game logs for Oates & Lafontaine that season. They each scored 14 points in 7 games vs. Ottawa:

Lafontaine
total: 1.76 PPG (148 Pts)
vs. all but Ottawa: 1.74 PPG (146 Pts/84)

Oates
total: 1.69 PPG (142)
vs. all but Ottawa: 1.66 PPG (140/84)

So their PPGs increased by 1.2-1.7% due to Ottawa being in their division... yet league scoring increased by over 4% from '92. You've really convinced me now that no players since could match or surpass their totals!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So tell me, at the end of the day, which information would you consider more valuable in gauging the actual worth of Oates and Patty's 92/93 seasons? The story Adjusted Stats is telling you or the story the raw data is telling you?
Do you think AS's is giving you an accurate "value" of their points that year?
It depends on what you mean by "value." If you want to examine how valuable their seasons were in terms of offensive contribution to winning, then adjusted points (or adj. goals created) would be about as perfect an indicator as possible.

If you want to determine whether Lafontaine's 148 in '93 was "better" or "more difficult" than, say, Ovechkin's '08 season... then adjusted stats are to me the best starting point, before looking at other factors which may influence those numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And again, I'm not doing this to bash AS's. Just stop trying to use them as the be end all or base so much, if not all of your final answers on them so often.
They definitely have their place but it sure as hell is not always going to be at the front of the line.
They are the be all & end all in terms of calculating actual offensive value. They are the base for further adjustment and/or examination, as the best estimate before further info is included. They are at the front of the line, because they are objective numbers which reflect actual value and the best starting place forf estimating quality/difficulty of individual seasons. Those are basically my opinions on the matter, and you're free to disagree, and you often do.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote