View Single Post
11-15-2012, 08:21 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 SaintPatrick33 View Post
I think though, you aren't looking at a limited sample. It's more the case of people who have watched whatever being discussed for years.
I understand and respect those opinions, even what I saw with my own eyes. However, I also no that observation and memory can be quite selective at times. Perhaps more importantly, there's really no basis for people who disagree as to what they (think they) saw to come to an agreement.

Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The problem here is that the changing quality of talent is balanced by the fact that since the Original Six the NHL has expanded as fast as the talent pool has grown.
It's not been constant over time on a per-game basis, but yes the talent pool and league size have both increased in multiples since the O6.

Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Yet at the same time you end up disregarding the views of some very knowledgeable sports writers. It isn't necessary to throw out the baby with the bath water.
I don't disregard them completely, I just don't value them nearly so highly as other people, especially single seasons and/or "winning" awards. Multiple seasons near the top carries more weight, as it's less likely to be the result of fluke, bias, or a "career achievement" award of sorts.

It's interesting how one poster supposes he knows exactly how I evaluate players... so others assume that he's right. Worse is when some presume they can tell other people what's the right or wrong way to evaluate a player. I've never said anyone can't use raw data or ignore all data, only that adjusted data will be more informative (and therefore better) than raw data, which is why many prefer to use it. I've never said anyone should exclude all other context or info.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote