View Single Post
Old
11-15-2012, 08:12 PM
  #424
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
That's where we disagree then. It depends on the amount and nature of data available, but it seems the other choices are:

The Eye Test- Arguing about what one thinks one remembers one's eyes seeing over (in most cases) a limited sample. Sure seems like a lot of room for bias, subjectivity, etc. Esp. difficult to reach consensus with others when there is initial disagreement.

Rankings amongst peers- From what I've seen, mostly or completely ignores the changing quality of peer talent, which has changed dramatically over time.

Awards- Same failure to recognize changing peer talent, but add in the bias and subjectivity of some oft-ignorant sportswriters.

Cups/Playoffs- Even those who use adjusted stats effectively often forget that playoff stats were affected in mostly very similar ways that effected regular season scoring. The role of team quality, % teams in playoffs, league size & parity, etc. are also often ignored by many or not fully appreciated.

They all can be used for evaluation. I don't tell anyone else what to use or that it's "wrong" when context is properly considered. However, there's a reverence, esp. for O6 players, that seems to prevent the realization that they were big fish in a much smaller pond... when it's a lot easier to be one of the big fish. Smaller population... no Euros/Russians to deal with... no huge leagues where lesser players can have fluke big seasons instead of being relegated to the third line on a powerhouse. I see respected posters claiming Howie Morenz should be highly ranked based on being a big fish in a much, much smaller pond... an ancient poll... and some yearly polls of "the usual suspected experts"... and I'm supposed to bow to that and agree that preferring objective evidence is "wrong." I can't see that happening.
Translation: You start with Adjusted Stats and discard anything that doesn't agree with them.
Exactly what I said you do, earlier in the thread.

And hey, that's fine. If that's the way you chose to evaluate players, that's your choice.
I'm just glad to finally get a straight answer about it.

I'm good now, got the confirmation of my suspicions and won't continue "muck up" the thread any more.


Cheers
R71

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote