Adjusted stats - how valuable?
View Single Post
11-14-2012, 05:00 PM
Just a Fool
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Originally Posted by
Czech Your Math
At least you finally seem to understand the concept of "adjusted stats say Gretzky's '98 season was as valuable as having X points in season Y." I had almost given up on that happening.
No one's asking you to not use raw stats, use adj. stats, give adj. stats more value, etc. Some of us have decided on our own that using adjusted stats is much more valuable, accurate, and/or time-saving than using raw stats. We've given logical reasons as to why they are used and why many of your misconceptions are just that. I myself use raw stats... to immediately convert them to adjusted stats. You can use raw stats for whatever you like... make a sandwich with them for all I care.
It has never been about not understanding it, it's about not trusting or believing the results. ESPECIALLY the results that come out of converting DPE stats.
I also like how you made your answer about my understanding or about making sandwiches but never actually addressed the ridiculous Adjusted Stats results I posted.
As well as how you say you just use Raw stats so you can convert them to adjusted stats, then discard them completely.
Once again, using AS's as an alternative/replacement for raw stats instead of using both to find a conclusion.
Fantastic, welcome to 8 pages ago heh.
This is due to rounding error and the unique way HR.com calculates adjusted stats (they deduct player's totals and adjust for roster size, neither of which I would call "standard" or "simple" adjustment).
Sooo...that's a yes to inaccuracy then or am I due another wall of text explaining why it does that, without ever answering the question?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Rhiessan71