Adjusted stats - how valuable?
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 05:20 AM
Just a Fool
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Originally Posted by
Czech Your Math
If you don't understand the concept well, then you may not understand the answer very well either.
It's not about concepts man, it's about answering questions with more questions and never getting any where.
You haven't even been able to concede the smallest of points that I have been right about. If you disagree, you say why you disagree like it should be but if you don't have a counter you skirt the question with huge walls of text.
Who was the better point producer over these two years (they each played all 80 games each season)?
league avg. 50 gpg
player A 250 goals
player B 225 goals
league avg. 5 gpg
player A 20 goals
player B 40 goals
I would say player B was better, because he was 10% behind in season 1, but doubled player A's production in season 2. Yet, player A actually scored more total goals in the two seasons, because he was better when scoring was higher and it was easier to have a larger raw margin for any % margin he had.
The concept is the same during the 90s, but you refuse to even acknowledge that obvious fact, let alone accept the results.
But the whole conversation was about who was the best point producer in the 90's. Not who was the better player.
We're not comparing players from different era's here, it's not about prime vs prime or what each did at a certain age.
It was simply a conversation as to who the top point producer in the 90's was and it was Gretzky, end of story.
You don't bring AS's in to compare players that were playing against each other at the same time, it's ridiculous!
When you compare Crosby to OV since the LO, you don't convert it to AS's.
When you compare Gretzky to everyone else in the 80's, you don't convert it.
Why would you, you already have it EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED!!!
There's no need to guess or estimate or adjust, no need what so ever!!!
Just admit you were getting a little silly there, that sometimes you have this need to do more with the numbers than needs to be and move on.
I don't see the difference as significantly large. It's possible that Murray had a season or two in which his goals had roughly the same value as Bossy's 2nd-7th best goal seasons. That isn't a flaw with adjusted stats, it's a couple seasons where Murray rose up and had very good years. Do you think using raw stats corrects this by instead asserting that Maruk was better than Ovechkin?
See, once again, here you are implying that you can only use AS's or Raw stats and not both. That's the difference between you and I, I don't replace raw stats with AS's or vice-verse. I USE IT ALL to find a conclusion. I go through the raw stats by checking PP abnormalities/spikes, teammates spikes in goals, whatever I can get my hands on. I think back of what I remember of him from that season. I look at his teams record (pretty bad btw in Maruk's case) and I look at what value AS's gives him. I look at the rules and rules enforcement for that year or years.
I get it all and THEN I make a conclusion on how good/bad his season really was.
I don't use a single season of the exact adjusted number to decide who the better player is. Yet, you continue to imply that's how I evaluate players. I reference adjusted numbers more, because more people understand that concept than understand and adjust for the massive change in competition in other categories (awards, rankings in scoring, etc.). If you explicitly stated your criteria for evaluating players, I'm guessing it could be critiqued and ridiculed using underhanded tactics. However, you're free to use logical fallacies and misleading portrayals, if that makes you feel better.
No, what you do is take AS's and hold to it like glue, no matter what any other info is saying including out right throwing away any info that isn't "in line" with your original AS's conclusion.
Again, the difference is minor... I calculate 4% (using my numbers or the rounded HR numbers), not 8%. If you want to use team scoring context instead of league scoring context, then one must also contend with more factors (such as the team's offensive depth and defensive quality).
The official site has Murray at 103 and Bossy at 95 for those years, an 8 point increase on 95 is 8.42%
I respect your position. It's possible even those players may have achieved 150 points:
Lafleur- maybe if he's a center... or peaked a few years later... or was required to play less defense
Bossy- he almost did it anyway, but maybe if he was a center... or bit better playmaker
Stastny- maybe if he was a bit better goal-scorer... this may have prevented Forsberg as well
Dionne- maybe if he had peaked just a tad later... or if Simmer had played full seasons in most of Dionne's peak years
These players were all less than 15 points away from 150, and Bossy just 3 points shy. It wouldn't have taken a lot for them to be in that range.
More subjectively, I would guess:
Jagr- he would have topped 150 multiple times and probably been in that range in several seasons
Lindros- if he stayed healthier (forwards in the DPE tended to have a lot of injuries), he probably would have topped 150... even with injuries I think he at least gets pretty close
Sakic- he would have a good chance to hit 150 and the healthier he was, the more/better chances he would have
Forsberg- he would have probably had to be healthier, but I think he would have made some runs at it, just not sure he was a good enough goal scorer during the season
Selanne- I like his chances to score ~150 at least once... he was a better player/scorer in the mid-late 90s, despite his previous injuries
Kariya- I think he falls short, but still has some impressive seasons ~130-140
Bure- not enough of a playmaker, although some monster goal seasons
note: Kariya and Bure would probably be helped by the less restrictive play in the 80s more than players like Lindros
Ovechkin- I like his chances at his peak, esp. with his durability... such a great goal scorer and a good enough playmaker to tally 150
Malkin- I like his chances at his peak, and he's still in his peak/prime years... can balance goals/assists well
Crosby- I like his chances at his peak, but injuries don't help... usually more of a playmaker, so a top wing could put him over the top
Thornton- he has the durability and playmaking, and the numbers suggest he would make a couple runs at it... a top wing really helps his chances... my main concern is how well he can balance goals/assists in the same season
Like I said previously, I don't see a single person on that list other than Jagr and Sid(for half a season) that have reached the level of play and more importantly the level of effort required to do what Stevie did in '89 for a full 80 games.
I'm never sure exactly what people mean by "value" ITT. The value of the actual points/goals by an individual in the league/team context? The value in terms of quality/difficulty of the player-season vs. other player-seasons? The value of AS as a whole compared to other methods of evaluating player value? I think the definition of value has not been constant, which makes it so much more difficult to fairly respond to the plentiful assertions you've made.
Simply this...the value or weight you assign to AS's(or any info for that matter) in any given situation should be determined by how it fits with all the other information.
If AS's is conflicting with all the other info, then its weight has to be reduced. Same if it was the raw point total in conflict.
There's other factors at work besides just the numbers.
Like during the height of the DPE, you had Jagr finishing ahead by large margins because he was so big and strong, all the clutching and grabbing had a lot less effect on him.
Take away the clutching and grabbing from that time, scoring goes up and suddenly those margins of Jagr become much smaller.
Jagr is not going to increase his points by the same amount that say a Kariya will because the C&G going on was a much bigger factor on Kariya's point totals than it was for Jagr's.
The value that is being assigned to Jagr in one of those heavy DPE is accurate for that season and anyone you bring into that season should have to deal with that value of Jagr's.
However, that value shouldn't carry him to 160 or 170 points in 1990 because the advantage he has on most other players in those DPE years doesn't translate to simply an increase in overall league scoring.
He was already ahead because the reason why those years were lower scoring had a lot less affect on him to begin with.
You have to temper those AS numbers with reality sometimes and you know as well as I do that some of those DPE number values are just whack. Not completely whack but there's some major inflation going on.
I hope I said that with enough clarity. I'm about to go to bed.
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-13-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Rhiessan71