View Single Post
11-12-2012, 04:45 PM
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 Rhiessan71 View Post
When you're trying to project an 84 game season total into an 80 game season total...
All I said was that based on such production as Lafontaine & Oates
in '93 (and other player-seasons) that I see ~150 points as attainable by some more recent players at some point(s) in their career. Laftonaine scoring 141/80 doesn't really change my opinion.

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
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%.

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.
You attributed the increase for Oates & Lafontaine to Ottawa's presence, but this reason appears to have been refuted. There were other reasons that many stars saw increases in their PPG that season. Oates & Lafontaine's production equates to ~135-140+/80 at the height of the 80s in terms of value, the only question is what is the fairest estimate of the quality/difficulty of that level of production in comparison to ~150 in '82. Simple adjusted stats are the best estimate, the agreed upon base summit, until higher ground is reached. Until the direction and magnitude of changes due to various reasons are determined, I don't see how one can properly arrive at a better estimate. I believe that at some point better estimates may be calculated.

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
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. It's the value that AS's gets in the equation far too often, that is.
There has to be context!
I give value to other things besides adjusted points. It seems the detractors of adjusted stats look for flaws in its context and disagree with the significance others may place on them in their evaluations of forwards, yet they weight much more flawed (IMO) data with almost no thought to the vast differences in context for rankings, awards, team success, etc. I'm not ranking players based on a single season of adjusted stats, but based on multiple seasons in multiple categories.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote