View Single Post
Old
01-30-2013, 02:42 PM
  #90
Regal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,017
vCash: 500
It's not just the talent pools, it's how players perform in a particular year. Injuries and down years by star players hurt year to year comparisons. St. Louis' win in '04 against a typical Kovalchuk year (which has never got him back in the top 5 in scoring), and a older Sakic is not the same as Jagr winning against Sakic's best season in '01. We know when players are performing up to par because we watch them, but this isn't considered on the stat sheet. Top ___ finishes have their flaws due to this fact, and percentage leaders are extremely skewed by it to the point where I think they're mostly useless unless there are massive leads. I think large percentage wins are telling, but you have to not only look at it in context, but look at it more in general terms than absolutes. A 40% win say shouldn't necessarily be considered better than a 30% win just because it's a larger percentage. They're both massive leads. You take that fact and start to look beyond.

Looking at Lemieux's 199 point year, not only is he competing with Gretzky, but Yzerman's best season which was amazing, as well as a crazy out of the blue season by Nicholls. That is not a typical year by year comparison. There's not going to be massive changes in year to year scoring, yet if Lemieux has that season the following year, he leads Gretzky by 40% and third place Messier by 54%, and if he has it the previous year, he leads Gretzky by 34% and third place Savard by 52%. When you're looking at over 50% leads, I don't think there's a ton of difference. I think adjusted points is misleading when looking at different eras, but within the same eras, it's a lot more telling than point percentage leads.

Regal is online now   Reply With Quote