View Single Post
11-15-2012, 04:42 PM
Just a Fool
Rhiessan71's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,363
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Who is telling you, in this thread or otherwise, that Adjusted Stats are the be-all and end-all final answer?
I guess I misunderstood all of you telling me straight up that Jagr had more value than Gretzky from 90/91-98/99. Was that not a final answer on your part? Did I miss a follow up conversation or explanation of other factors and how they were applied for you to make that determination that Jagr had more value?

Anyone who has told you that Adjusted Stats are perfect is lying to you. However, I haven't seen that claim offered up in this thread.
I know, I'm confused too.
Why would anyone advocate the complete throwing away of Raw Stats if you didn't have something perfect to replace it with?
I mean, that's the only conclusion I can come up with when it seems much more rational and correct to me, to keep and use both at various weights.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote