View Single Post
11-14-2012, 08:54 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
All through this thread, every time I brought up a reasonable point, you have responded by telling me that while it sounds reasonable, it would have to be verified first.
Show me how well Adjusted Stats have been verified so I can attempt to do the same.
There is really no verification needed for the valuation part of AS, because it's axiomatic... it's already inherently built into the formula.

That's like saying if X = 2, that we need to verify that 4*X = 8.

Yes you can verify that, but it's automatically true.

What needs to be studied more and verified/quantified IMO is how difficult it was to reach a certain valuation in different seasons for different quality players. Much of the confusion is also due to the apparent misconception that NHL seasons do not vary in terms of quality, total talent, per-team talent, etc. If all the potentially influential factors remained constant from season to season, then determining which player had the more valuable season would be the same as which player had the "better" or "higher quality" season in terms of difficulty. However, they don't remain constant, so it's not the same, and it's translating value into quality. When the effective total talent pool was smaller and/or the per team quality is lower, then it's like a "clearance sale" where a fixed level of adj. production (i.e. value) buys a lot of value (the good players are comparatively wealthier). When the total talent pool increases and/or the per team quality increases, then it's tough to find any bargains, because a fixed level of adj. production (value) buys less than during sales.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote