View Single Post
Old
11-13-2012, 09:07 AM
  #319
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Honestly, most of your % work was too confusing more me to follow. Some of it seemed very similar to adjusted stats though.

The problem with strictly using performance vs. peer group is that the quality of the peer group has changed substantially over time. The quality and depth of Howe's peers during his prime was likely much less than those during Gretzky's prime, etc.



I definitely agree with that.



Again, the quality (and distribution) of the peer group makes all the difference. The same quality of performance will appear much more dominating against a lesser quality group of peers.



The units aren't really important, but using a "realistic looking" number gives some kind of reference point... it's as good as any.

The peer comparison tells us nothing of comparative value. As far as comparing performances from different seasons, it doesn't tell us much unless we can confidently estimate the magnitude and nature of the change in quality of the peer groups.




I see two main uses for adjusted stats:

1. It gives a value estimate, based on the fixed proportion of production vs. scoring environment. 30 goals in a 6.00 gpg league should have about the same value as 40 goals in a 8.00 gpg league or 20 goals in a 4.00 gpg league. AS is perfect at this relatively simple function.

2. it is a potential starting point for comparing players' seasons, but it is complicated by many factors which affect the difficulty of attaining various levels of adjusted production in each season.



Be careful when using terms like "devaluing", because adjusted stats are very clear and useful when it comes to the value of production in each season. Where it's not so clear is when trying to determine which player-season was of higher quality/difficulty.



Most great accomplishment were achieved by standing on the shoulders of giants, that is true.

All I'm saying is that just because standard physics becomes inadequate when studying the very big (cosmology) or the very small (quantum physics), is no reason to discard it. Similarly, just because simple adjusted stats don't automatically tell us which player-season was of higher quality... or may have increased error when dealing with extreme outliers... does not mean they are inherently flawed and practically useless. They are perfectly good as a measure of value. I don't see any measure at this point that can tell us with nearly absolute confidence how production in different seasons varied in quality/difficulty. More study should be done in this area if that is the goal, but in the meantime I believe adjusted stats are as good as any metric in helping to assess that.
Responding to my post (most any posts) line by line ignores the actual message or betrays the responders inability to respond to it.

The mere fact you cannot understand fractions does not prove anything about my work. It more likely speaks to the insidious truth of the conclusions and purpose of the study I often quote.

Howe's peers being 'more likely' anything is not the best response. It suggests you don't know and are erring on the side of a disproven line of thinking involving means.

Your next couple of responses are indecipherable as I use 'quote' to respond. Please make an effort to answer the post as opposed to individual sentences that taken together make up the post. It is disingenuous, misleading and wastes everyone's time.

I think I can respond to your numbered AS points.

1. I've argued against this and I believe proven it obviously false by using examples of eras involving outliers from science and hockey. The study I've quoted also shows this thinking to be in error. Case closed.

2. Sounds very weak. No real points here. Perhaps obfuscation. Just an attempt to defend a methodology proven to be in error by a massive study that included hockey players.

AS use averages by averaging seasons hence they are of several magnitudes in error by virtue of a study that has not been challenged. You have yet to respond to this with anything that I could post online as an offer to prove the study wrong. I'm sure the authors would be grateful to answer any challenge.

Bottom line is you keep ignoring the results of this massive HR study and appear to trying to convince somebody that AS gets a pass, that it somehow has found a loophole.

You're thinking is exactly what the study is showing to be an error.

Your final point is complete nonsence as an example. Who said classical physics is inadequate as an example to discuss the invalidity of AS? Not me. The attempts (string theory) to unite quantum and gravitational models in physics has nothing whatsoever to do with anything in this debate. I never addressed that issue at all. I used established thinking from other fields of study to try to help you understand your error in thinking and that it has been overcome in other fields without the use of the study. In fact that study gives many examples of people understanding the error of averaging human performance whether individual or collective in its premise.

Have you even read it? You don't seem to understand it at all. Its as obvous as a sunset that AS is wrong. Averaging seasons is just avergaing players collectively. The study addresses that when it points out that its resutls (hockey players included) hold true whether talking about a team, a season or across seasons. I think you should actually read it before commenting further.

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote