View Single Post
11-12-2012, 04:59 PM
Just a Fool
Rhiessan71's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,677
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
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.

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.

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.
Cherry pick which arguments and points to respond to and then, to top it all off, you attempt to spin my argument back onto me?
That the people that try and factor in ALL information are the ones with the flawed outlook...don't make me laugh.

Seriously, you have spent the better part of 4 pages now trying to come up with solutions for how Adjusted Stats could be fixed or made to be more realistic and accurate while the whole time completely double talking and avoiding admitting that there are issues with them in the first place.
Issues that most certainly DO affect how much value they should get. Which just so happens to be what the purpose of this thread was supposed to be about.
Funny stuff.

But hey, by all means lets just continue to call Glenn Murray's 02/03 season more valuable than 8 of Bossy's 10 seasons

Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-12-2012 at 05:13 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote