View Single Post
Old
11-14-2012, 04:25 PM
  #367
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
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.
I didn't address the "ridiculous" adj. stats you posted, because I didn't see them as ridiculous. They tell us what level of production would have been of similar value in '81. I'm not sure what is ridiculous about having that knowledge. We can argue about which was more difficult: Gretzky's '98 production or 131 (I actually calculate 132) points in '81. However, the fact remains that in terms of value (i.e. direct effect on winning), Gretzky's '98 production had the same value as 131-2 points in '81. If that seems irrelevant to you when comparing Gretzky's '98 season to players who actually played in '81, then that says more about your methods of evaluation than adj. stats IMO. There can be more research into the various factors which may make it more/less difficult in some seasons for top players to score adjusted goals/points, but that doesn't make the info irrelevant IMO. Apparently Gretzky finishing first in points among North Americans in '98 does not indicate that he had a very strong season? Excluding his own '81 season, it would be more valuable offensively than every player's '81 season except Dionne's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
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?
Yes, HR.com's version of adjusted stats has slight inaccuracies IMO (these are magnified as you go back in time when the league was smaller and/or roster sizes were smaller). It's not the first, nor the best, but it's a comprehensive resource that anyone can access, so it's used as common ground for approximate adjusted numbers.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote