Adjusted stats - how valuable?
View Single Post
11-12-2012, 05:41 PM
Just a Fool
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Originally Posted by
Czech Your Math
How do you imagine I "spun" your argument back at you? Unless you mean the reasons you gave for Oates & Lafontaine's production being obviously wrong. A bunch of lesser players increasing their scoring doesn't prove anything. Players like Gretzky, Messier, Hull, Nicholls, Hawerchuk, Stastny, Savard, Sakic, Roenick, etc. had a decreased PPG in '93. Some increased, some decreased. Overall it was a favorable year for many forwards, but you haven't proven anything by listing a few players in one division who increased their totals... esp. when the expansion team increased the production of Oates & Lafontaine by < 2% and less than the league avg. gpg increase.
Yeah, you're right. When every player on every top line in a entire division has career years and better all at the exact same time. It's just luck and should have no bearing in a discussion about the value of some of those players doing it.
Forget I mentioned it, that kinda stuff happens allll the time
Either way, it was your last paragraph that I was referring to about detractors of Adjusted Stats and once again you completely missed the boat.
What you keep calling detractors aren't even attacking AS's themselves. We're attacking the value you and others constantly assign to them. We're attacking the removal of almost all other info in favour of AS's that is done far too often.
I don't know how significant the issues are without further study. Apparently advocating such and trying to actually create something of value is not as valuable as your buckshot theories based on nothing but your imagination, biases, and guesses? There's nothing wrong with guessing, but the point is to use that as an intuitive basis for further research which can quantify and verify/disprove those guesses, not to cling to one's beliefs in the face of all evidence while declaring one's own unsubstantiated opinions as fact.
As I've explained, without further evidence, we don't know how or even whether to make further adjustments in terms of quality, until there is some solid quantitative research which explains the reasons for and magnitude of the changes.
I rest my case.
You just did it again. You're going on and on about evaluating what's wrong, what could be wrong or what could be done to make them better. You circle and circle saying you can't be sure if there is anything wrong but you also can't say they're right either.
So despite you not being totally sure of them either way, you still advocate them as the best and a lot of the time, the only way of comparing players.
You'll excuse me if I'm sitting here shaking my head in frustration.
Especially since my BIGGEST point in this whole thing has been not to ignore any of the info and to look past just the numbers to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Rhiessan71