View Single Post
11-12-2012, 04:12 PM
Just a Fool
Rhiessan71's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,586
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Wait... so it's okay to adjust for schedule?
When you're trying to project an 84 game season total into an 80 game season total...

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:

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

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!
There's more to it than that though. Take 3 more seconds and look over the teams in the Adam's division that year. It wasn't just Oates, the Bruins and Lafontaine, the Sabres. Look at the amount of players also on the Habs, Nords and Whalers that posted career years or pretty much matched their previous career years in 92/93. I'm not just talking about slightly better than their norm kinda thing either, most of them spiked well above anything they had done before or after.
It's like 2-4 players per team for pete's sake and again, Adam's division scoring increased by 23% not the league 4%.
Sundin(21% better), Ricci(39%), Lafontaine(41%), Mogilny(19%), Damphousse (3%), Muller(matched his career high), Lebeau(38%), Oates(23%), Juneau(42%), Sanderson(33%), Cassels(25%), Zalapski(14%).
The list goes on and on for that year in that division.
You can't just ignore this many concentrated anomalies. It has to be accounted for before you can simply say Adam's and Pat's season are worth 150 in the 80's because the value Adjusted Stats assigns those points, says so.
That's ridiculous, seriously.

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.

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.
But you're not just using them as a starting point are you! You're using them as the start and the finish and THAT is my whole problem with it all in the first place.

Again, for hopefully the last's not so much the math or the value that AS's assigns that is flawed(even though it most certainly is in the way it handles the top 1% and outliers). It's the value that AS's gets in the equation far too often, that is.
There has to be context!

You keep saying there are all these indications that it could be done yet ignore the indicators that say it wouldn't like Dionne, Lafleur, Bossy and Stastny who are as good or better than anyone you mentioned and each of them had better help and sometimes far superior circumstances to do it but didn't.

Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-12-2012 at 04:24 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote