View Single Post
11-15-2012, 06:46 PM
Just a Fool
Rhiessan71's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,621
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Here's some more stats (some actual, some adjusted) for you ('91-99):

ES points (actual)
Gretzky 500
Jagr 598

ES points (adj.)
Gretzky 717
Jagr 892

ESGF/ESGA ratios (est. actual)
Gretzky: 1.53, 0.95, 1.24, 0.75, 0.68, 0.94, 1.19, 0.97, 0.69
Jagr: 0.96, 1.22, 1.74, 1.29, 1.71, 1.50, 1.47, 1.56, 1.37,

ESGF/ESGA (est. on/off)
Gretzky: 1.10, 1.00, 1.23, 0.88, 0.74, 1.25, 1.06, 1.34, 0.78
Jagr: 0.85, 1.20, 1.42, 1.35, 1.78, 1.44, 1.88, 1.63, 1.70

Avg. of ratios '91-99
Gretzky: 0.99 (est. actual), 1.04 (est. on/off)
Jagr: 1.42 (est. actual), 1.47 (est. on/off)

Gretzky's second best actual ES GF/GA ratio was less than Jagr's 7th best, and his best on/off ratio was less than Jagr's 7th best.

Gretzky's overall effectiveness at ES was nothing like it was in his peak years. He was racking up points on the PP in the early 90s, with a prime Robitaille, Sandstrom, and an older Kurri, with Blake and/or Zhitnik on the points. Meanwhile, Jagr was getting limtied or virtually no PP time in the early 90s, deferred to Lemieux running the PP when he has healthy, and ran the PP with an older Francis (until he left) with Kevin Hatcher as the best PP d-man (he was not exactly Leetch). Gretzky had a substantial advantage due to skill, experience and opportunity in '91 & '92... they were close in points in '93 & '94, but Jagr was much more effective at ES... and then Jagr was clearly much better after and including '95. say that Jagr didn't get a lot of PP time for a while, therefore scored most of his points at ES.
Then you try and use that ES to PP ratio, that of course is going to show that Jagr scored a greater % of his points at ES, against Gretzky, who had a more even distribution of PP to ES because he played more on the PP in the beginning of the decade than Jagr did?
Just making sure I'm getting this right.
I mean really if anything it just goes to prove that Gretzky's value offensively was that much greater than Jagr's through those years.
And that those ratio's of ESGF/ESGA are all well and good but If Jagr is only playing 15 minutes a game while Gretzky plays 20-25.
And Gretzky is facing the other teams best checkers early in the decade while Jagr wasn' valuable are those first half decade numbers really?

Later on in the decade when Gretzky is a former shadow of himself and Jagr is in his prime. Jagr is blowing Gretz away at even strength.
Tell me though, how is counting these advantages as "equal value" any different than me trying to count Gretzky's earlier decade advantages as equal value over a rookie Jagr?

Maybe I'm wrong here but it sure looks like all you're trying to do is minimize Gretzky's advantage years while maximizing Jagr's advantage years.
Anyone else see the same?

Oh and rationalizing it like a madmen after, still doesn't change the FACT that you used Adjusted Stats as a final answer.

Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-15-2012 at 07:00 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote