View Single Post
12-19-2012, 12:31 AM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,646
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
That's just it, though -- if I came something more efficient, I'd have the same attitude toward that method too.

We're talking about players separated by 50 years and in utterly non-comparable situations. To me, attempting to fix their stats to a common standard is stretching the numbers far beyond what they were ever meant to signify. There are far too many moving parts for us to derive sound conclusions from any such metric, unless we're willing to do a huge amount of research to confirm them, in which case we may as well do the research and forget the stats.
I agree that there are so many moving parts, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If we don't have some sort of quantifiable metric to at least start with, we're probably lost.

And hey, Billy's the one trying to take players separated by 60 years and fit the metric to them. I'm trying to say that it doesn't apply to them equally and that Raleigh is clearly better. I've taken that starting point (percentage) and applied some context and sense to it because I recognize there are different situations.

Intuitively it makes sense. Raleigh was far ahead of other pre-expansion centers heading into this, while Jokinen and Ribeiro were in a group of about ten post-expansion guys who were all within about 5% of eachother in terms of peak output. Their raw percentage scores top those of Raleigh. Intuitively, does it make sense that there were a dozen or more post-expansion centers better than the best pre-expansion one heading into this? I don't think so. I like my numbers but don't think I don't use my gut sometimes too.

As for the percentages being "obscure", we're all just trying to make sense of stats in a new way because adjusted stats were far from perfect. The concept makes logical sense and it's not like there's really a mainstream that we're straying from. You can't really complete this sentence, I imagine: "When comparing the offensive output of players 60 years apart, I don't like obscure things like percentages. I like the old-fashioned way, which is ....."

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote