HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
By The Numbers Hockey Analytics... the Final Frontier. Explore strange new worlds, to seek out new algorithms, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Adjusted stats - how valuable?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2012, 08:57 PM
  #151
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
No, my hangup with Adjusted Stats has always been how they are used far to often as the ONLY form of comparison with the exclusion of everything else between players of different era's.
So again, not a flaw with the system itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So despite Bourque through 79/80-90/91 leading his team in scoring multiple times, despite having a top 10 along with multiple top 20 league scoring finishes
Not as ridiculous as you seem to think. Bourque in the 12 seasons from 80-91 finished 1st among defencemen in scoring once, 2nd three times and 3rd twice. Lidstrom in the 10 seasons from 02-12 finished 1st among defencemen in scoring three times, 2nd once and 3rd twice. So it's not like Bourque was always at the top of the list and Lidstrom never was. Leading your team in scoring is nice, but obviously the impressiveness of the accomplishment depends on your teammates. When Bourque was among the scoring leaders, he was not the only blueliner there.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:07 PM
  #152
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Ok, so what's the alternative? Using raw data instead of adjusted stats seems to me to result in two conclusions: Either players' offensive numbers from prior to 67-68 and after 92-93 are brushed aside because they significantly inferior to the numbers put up between 67-68 and 92-93 OR we can't compare players from different eras at all because it's apples and oranges. Neither seems to me to be a very satisfactory answer.
The best alternative would be for the hockey stats community to thoroughly evaluate and improve on H-R's basic adjusted stats.

Until then, I think rankings and percentages are superior to adjusted stats for evaluating top players.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:30 PM
  #153
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
So again, not a flaw with the system itself.
If there wasn't a flaw in the system I wouldn't take issue with it being used exclusively now would i?


Quote:
Not as ridiculous as you seem to think. Bourque in the 12 seasons from 80-91 finished 1st among defencemen in scoring once, 2nd three times and 3rd twice. Lidstrom in the 10 seasons from 02-12 finished 1st among defencemen in scoring three times, 2nd once and 3rd twice. So it's not like Bourque was always at the top of the list and Lidstrom never was.
Smoke and mirrors!
How about adding some context to those rankings so we get a better picture. Namely who Bourque was finishing 2nd and 3rd to, who he beat and then do the same for Lidstrom.

It's the equivalent of saying Iginla was equal or better than Yzerman offensively because Iggy has an Art Ross while Stevie never did better than 3rd in league scoring.

I weighed the context of Bourque's and Lidstrom's finishes before using them. You obviously did not.


Quote:
Leading your team in scoring is nice, but obviously the impressiveness of the accomplishment depends on your teammates.
Right, so when Bourque finished 9th in league scoring and 1rst in D-man scoring in 86/87, he only led his team in scoring because he didn't have any teammates that could keep up to him despite the fact that only 8 players in the entire friggen league out scored him.
So tell me, is it more impressive or less impressive that Bourque finished 9th in league scoring without a lot of help from his teammates?

Or how about in 90/91 when he only finished 2nd in D-man scoring and out of the top 10 in league scoring (Bourque was 11th) because of MacInnis' career year?

Quote:
When Bourque was among the scoring leaders, he was not the only blueliner there.
Bourque was the only blueliner in the top 10 in 86/87.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-01-2012 at 10:03 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:12 PM
  #154
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
No, my hangup with Adjusted Stats has always been how they are used far to often as the ONLY form of comparison with the exclusion of everything else between players of different era's.
If AS is going to be used that exclusively with that much weight, it better be extremely god damned accurate!

And because this actually seems right to you....

Raw Career PpG: Bourque-.98 Lidstrom-.73
ADJ Career PpG: Bourque-.88 Lidstrom-.76

Raw 10year(92-01) in the league together: Bourque-.86 Lidstrom-.73
Adj 10year(92-01) in the league together: Bourque-1.00 Lidstrom-.66
Raw remaining years: (80-91)Bourque-1.07 (02-12)Lidstrom-.73
ADJ remaining years: (80-91)Bourque-.78 (02-12)Lidstrom-.78

So despite Bourque through 79/80-90/91 leading his team in scoring multiple times, despite having a top 10 along with multiple top 20 league scoring finishes, despite what your actual eyes tell you, despite Bourque doing this with a hell of a lot less offensive support than Lidstrom and despite Bourque being clearly better offensively in all other data...that an 01/02-11/12 Lidstrom that includes 3 of the 4 worst offensive years of his entire career was exactly equal to 79/80-90/91 Bourque offensively?

Nothing wrong there

Sorry but somewhere along the line, Adjusted stats is breaking down and breaking down bigtime.

On a scale of 1-10(10 of course being the most value), what value would say AS's has when comparing Bourque's first 12 years with Lidstrom's last 10?
For me, it's about 2, maybe 3 at the most.
So I was wrong the hangup is Wayne and Bourque now.

to the bolded part with both guys career raw and adjusted stats.

The time difference, ie Ray before Lidstrom was in the NHL and Nick after Bourque was out was different right?

Like the 80's were more high scoring and the 00's were less.

Bourques team situation versus Lidstrom has nothing to do with adjusted stats either.

I'll hold my breath till the weekend and you have time to consider your view on adjusted stats.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:19 PM
  #155
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The best alternative would be for the hockey stats community to thoroughly evaluate and improve on H-R's basic adjusted stats.

Until then, I think rankings and percentages are superior to adjusted stats for evaluating top players.
Rankings and % are excellent things to consider but they still only work for single seasons and are poor comparisons for comparing different seasons with different eras.

Also with rankings and % we have to then account for influx of major new streams of offensive talent and more detailed and complex (and more effective defensive systems).

Basically my point is that rankings and %, tell us how certain players did against their peers within that season but it doesn't provide much context on how player A in 50 compares to player B in 67 or 94 or 07.

Adjusted stats do attempt to do those comparisons.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:56 PM
  #156
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post

to the bolded part with both guys career raw and adjusted stats.

The time difference, ie Ray before Lidstrom was in the NHL and Nick after Bourque was out was different right?

Like the 80's were more high scoring and the 00's were less.
Really? After everything I posted there, this is your best conclusion?

Quote:
Bourques team situation versus Lidstrom has nothing to do with adjusted stats either.
Who said it does???


Quote:
I'll hold my breath till the weekend and you have time to consider your view on adjusted stats.
And I'll hold my breath that you will understand it until Czech or another poster breaks it down or responds to it.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 12:10 AM
  #157
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
How about adding some context to those rankings so we get a better picture. Namely who Bourque was finishing 2nd and 3rd to, who he beat and then do the same for Lidstrom.
I agree with this part. Though I wish this thread wasn't going in this direction, and this might all get moved to the Bourque/Lidstrom thread in the end.

Bourque's record is already more impressive (two more times in the top-3) before you consider that he had Coffey to compete with, and Lidstrom had no such comparable offensive defenseman in his way.

Second, I think it's obvious that 70 points for a defenseman when the best forward on the team has 60, and 70 points for a defensemen when there are forwards with 90, 80, and 70 points are two very different things.

I don't see it as being any different than saying "leading your line with 70 points is much more impressive than being 3rd on your line with 70 points" when talking about forwards.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 12:48 AM
  #158
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I agree with this part. Though I wish this thread wasn't going in this direction, and this might all get moved to the Bourque/Lidstrom thread in the end.
I don't think it needs to move.
It was only to show that, in this case, the results from AS's are in direct conflict with every other piece of data and method of evaluating players.

To show that the value of Adjusted Stats (what the thread is all about) is far from constant and can change drastically.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 05:04 AM
  #159
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
The numbers for 1997-98 are wrong - the average goals per game should be 5.28.

So Selanne would have about 59 adjusted goals.

Not it makes a huge difference.
Thanks for that. Pointing out the error and not being a weiner (euphimism alert) about it.

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 06:07 AM
  #160
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
It's generally easier to destroy than create.

Many claim any perceived flaw means that adjusted stats are incompletely invalidated. They claim one of Mona Lisa's hairs is out of place, and that proves to them that the painting should be burned and we should go back to looking at stick figures. One of the stripes on the airplane looks crooked, so it's back to horses and buggies.



I, and others, have certainly made the effort to explain the foundation (value proportional to scoring context) and methodology (formulas) for adjusted stats. Specifically, while I prefaced my explanation of comparing players across the same range of seasons with the cautionary "this is difficult to explain" (and even more difficult to grasp if you do not fully understand the foundation and reasoning for adjusted stats), I still did my best to explain it by use of a simplified example.



I agree with your bolded statement. One would expect the two players to have roughly equal production over the combined two seasons, yet they wouldn't. The reason is that the scoring context changed substantially.

The player who scored more absolute goals will get more credit by people who don't understand that his goals didn't have more value than the other player's goals. Raw data's goal is to record the data as directly and simply as possible. There is no other goal or refinement present in the raw data.

---------------------

There are various problems with comparing a player's production to a vary small subset of his peers (say the top 10 finishers or similar group):

- as has been pointed out ITT, comparative scoring between tiers can change and the reasons for that change should determine whether/how to further adjust for that fact (e.g., the top 10 players' adjusted scoring may increase simply due to being of comparative higher quality than before)

- the data for a very small subset is much more likely to vary substantially due to random factors, or for reasons that are more difficult to assess and properly adjust for

- the link between the adjusted data and value is broken

Simple adjusted data is built on the premise that goals win games, and that the value of a player's goal/point production is fixed in proportion to the average gpg in the season in which he was playing. Any deviation that does not explicitly and directly factor in the scoring context will distort the direct link to value which has been established. IMO simple adjusted stats should not be excluded in the quest for "new & improved" adjusted stats.

There are so many factors to consider for "new & improved" adjusted stats, that I'm not sure if/when there will be substantial agreement as to the proper method to obtain such. There was a thread in HoH about "Why would Gretzky still dominate today?" Well over 500 posts by many of the more knowledgeable posters and wide range of opinions on just how dominant Gretzky would be in today's NHL. That's just one player hypothetically placed in one different era. What about every player in any era? Coming to some sort of consensus on that will be incredibly difficult, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth attempting.
Pop culture certainly seems to maintain that its easier to destroy than create. Tell that to Faraday. The scientific method seems to be predicated in that belief to some degree or interpretation. Of course AS isn't quantum mechanics. That's a valid point here right? Its not quantum mechanics.

So why defend it as if it is? (Not to say you are. You present as quite open minded. )

IMHO and experience when you have to do so much work to defend your idea then maybe its time to re-evaluate. I noticed that no-one gave a serious response to my point that ASs was likely, originally intended to predict what Howe would score today or in a Gretzky season. I remember doing similar stuff when I was 10 and reading about the history of hockey for the first time. I tried simple math, then I tried all kinds of new variables to try to fix some bizarre results. Then I resorted to reason. Later I discovered that when something works, it works immediately and always.

This is not about giving up coffee because a single study says it is bad for you. Its not about giving up on spaceflight because of a fire killing all the astronauts. Its not about refusing to sail the ocean because some believe there are sea monsters or that we'll fall off the edge of the world.

Its not that dramatic.

I appreciate yours and others(?) efforts to give reasons for your POV. Links (in the post) to specific studies referred to (in the post) would be appreciated. I think you might appreciate the results as well. Don't assume that I or any other poster knows wtf you're talking about. Be inclusive please and I'll try to do the same.

I kept looking at my statement that you bolded and thinking I should re-phrase that. It was not accurate. Instead I tried to explain in more detail where we differ. Its actually why I truncated your thread to the example.

Adjusted stats, raw stats, predictions, productivity expressions are not all equal. They can't be. They are each expressing a different aspect of the players results or productivity. Raw data has a special place in the hearts and souls of everyone. Ninety-two goals in a season is more than any other player has achieved. It is a benchmark. Nobody gives a rodent's hind end if Howe's production compared to peers was the same or better. They just see number 92 (imagine if he had scored 99? Was he trying to?). There is no number derived from any equation, no matter how convincing that will replace the number 92. Raw data is God.

Gretzky actually scored 92 goals in 80 games. Nobody has gotten very close. There is no possibility that any function, opinion or act of God will change that. Only a player scoring 93 will do that. And even then the circumstances he/she did it will (barring drug use) not matter.

My point is that AS are not nor ever will be raw data. So what do adjusted stats say? IMHO they were an attempt to compare raw data over eras and seasons but it didn't work and it just wasn't accepted by those not in the loop of those arcane calculations and some who were.

I'm pretty sure I posted in that Gretzky thread you referrenced. IMHO Gretzky scores more assists than the next best gets points and then 55-60 goals. Because that's what he usually, classically did in his career. Unless you're thinking of other variables such as transporting him instaneously, But then you're not taking into account that Gretzky had an effect on the game and so would be playing against himself so to speak.

You can't just remove a guy and his impact from the game by subtracting his stats from the formula. If he played then somebody, everybody and every point in between learned from him. You must see the league as if the guy never played, never impacted it and then guess what he'd do today.

I think the only way to do that is pretend that he never played and look at what he did when he played then induct what he would do if he played today. IOW I wouldn't use AS at all to predict. I would use reason.

What do adjusted stats do anyways if not attempt to predict? I'm still not clear on this.


Last edited by Dalton: 11-02-2012 at 09:57 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 06:17 AM
  #161
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I don't think it needs to move.
It was only to show that, in this case, the results from AS's are in direct conflict with every other piece of data and method of evaluating players.

To show that the value of Adjusted Stats (what the thread is all about) is far from constant and can change drastically.
I agree. Examples are useful as long as things don't degrade into a debate about the players without regard to the debate.

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 07:01 AM
  #162
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I noticed that no-one gave a serious response to my point that ASs was likely, originally intended to predict what Howe would score today or in a Gretzky season.
Pardon? I quoted Total Hockey, which is the origin of the adjusted scoring system, where they stated their purpose in the development of the system. It was for comparison, not prediction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Ninety-two goals in a season is more than any other player has achieved. It is a benchmark.
A context-free benchmark, I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Nobody gives a rodent's hind end if Howe's production compared to peers was the same or better.
Nobody? You need to stop using these absolute terms. I myself care how Howe's production compares to Gretzky's, and I know several others who do as well. So again you've made a demonstrably false statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Gretzky actually scored 92 goals in 80 games. Nobody has gotten very close.
You don't think 85 goals in 76 games is very close to that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
So what do adjusted stats say? IMHO they were an attempt to compare raw data over eras and seasons
I thought you said it was for making predictions? At any rate, you now have it correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
but it didn't work and it just wasn't accepted by those not in the loop of those arcane calculations and some who were.
All of your arguments so far as to why it doesn't work have been demonstrated to be invalid. These are not arcane calculations, they're very straightforward. And you can pretend all you like that no one accepts the results of adjusted scoring, but that's simply not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
You can't just remove a guy and his impact from the game by subtracting his stats from the formula.
When you're comparing him to the rest of the league, why not? You're not comparing him to himself, that would be silly. Removing a player's in excess of some replacement value would be better, of course, but this would increase the complexity of the calculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
What do adjusted stats do anyways if not attempt to predict? I'm still not clear on this.
You said it yourself. They are designed to compare players from disparate eras, just as Total Hockey says.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 07:06 AM
  #163
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
If there wasn't a flaw in the system I wouldn't take issue with it being used exclusively now would i?
When you say your biggest hangup with the system is that too many people use it as the final answer, that means the problem is that too many people don't understand the limitations and the purpose of the system. No system of analysis will be perfect, but you have to understand the system you're using.

That some people don't understand the limitations of the system is not in itself a flaw in the system. Any such system will have limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Smoke and mirrors!
Don't get bogged down in the details. Notice I said "not as ridiculous" as you might think, not "obviously correct".

Edit: Although, if you look at their points in these years as a % of the 2nd-highest scorer in the league, Bourque has the biggest season (1987), but Lidstrom isn't really far behind as a whole, achieving a value of .60 or higher the same number of times as Bourque, in fewer seasons.


Last edited by Iain Fyffe: 11-02-2012 at 07:20 AM.
Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 07:57 AM
  #164
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
When you say your biggest hangup with the system is that too many people use it as the final answer, that means the problem is that too many people don't understand the limitations and the purpose of the system. No system of analysis will be perfect, but you have to understand the system you're using.

That some people don't understand the limitations of the system is not in itself a flaw in the system. Any such system will have limitations.
Doesn't have to be an either/or, it could also be both.


Quote:
Don't get bogged down in the details. Notice I said "not as ridiculous" as you might think, not "obviously correct".

Edit: Although, if you look at their points in these years as a % of the 2nd-highest scorer in the league, Bourque has the biggest season (1987), but Lidstrom isn't really far behind as a whole, achieving a value of .60 or higher the same number of times as Bourque, in fewer seasons.
Not that I want to sidetrack this discussion any further with more of your smoke and mirrors but...
Why don't you go right ahead and provide everyone with the names of these second place scorers that you're basing this off of, so we can all put some context into that comparison as well

I wonder if the names Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull, Bossy or <insert teammate of Gretzky> would have any bearing on what % of the 2nd place points Bourque produced


Lets move on.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-02-2012 at 08:15 AM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 09:02 AM
  #165
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Pardon? I quoted Total Hockey, which is the origin of the adjusted scoring system, where they stated their purpose in the development of the system. It was for comparison, not prediction.


They are designed to compare players from disparate eras, just as Total Hockey says.
I've never heard of Total Hockey. Link please.

I'd love to read how you compare players by suggesting actual gs in a 6.00 gpg season as a measure but not really suggesting that they'd actually score that many. Your argument has become so convoluted in the defence of it that it defies characterization in the English language.

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 12:16 PM
  #166
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Pop culture certainly seems to maintain that its easier to destroy than create. Tell that to Faraday. The scientific method seems to be predicated in that belief to some degree or interpretation. Of course AS isn't quantum mechanics. That's a valid point here right? Its not quantum mechanics.

So why defend it as if it is? (Not to say you are. You present as quite open minded. )

IMHO and experience when you have to do so much work to defend your idea then maybe its time to re-evaluate. I noticed that no-one gave a serious response to my point that ASs was likely, originally intended to predict what Howe would score today or in a Gretzky season. I remember doing similar stuff when I was 10 and reading about the history of hockey for the first time. I tried simple math, then I tried all kinds of new variables to try to fix some bizarre results. Then I resorted to reason. Later I discovered that when something works, it works immediately and always.

This is not about giving up coffee because a single study says it is bad for you. Its not about giving up on spaceflight because of a fire killing all the astronauts. Its not about refusing to sail the ocean because some believe there are sea monsters or that we'll fall off the edge of the world.

Its not that dramatic.

I appreciate yours and others(?) efforts to give reasons for your POV. Links (in the post) to specific studies referred to (in the post) would be appreciated. I think you might appreciate the results as well. Don't assume that I or any other poster knows wtf you're talking about. Be inclusive please and I'll try to do the same.

I kept looking at my statement that you bolded and thinking I should re-phrase that. It was not accurate. Instead I tried to explain in more detail where we differ. Its actually why I truncated your thread to the example.

Adjusted stats, raw stats, predictions, productivity expressions are not all equal. They can't be. They are each expressing a different aspect of the players results or productivity. Raw data has a special place in the hearts and souls of everyone. Ninety-two goals in a season is more than any other player has achieved. It is a benchmark. Nobody gives a rodent's hind end if Howe's production compared to peers was the same or better. They just see number 92 (imagine if he had scored 99? Was he trying to?). There is no number derived from any equation, no matter how convincing that will replace the number 92. Raw data is God.

Gretzky actually scored 92 goals in 80 games. Nobody has gotten very close. There is no possibility that any function, opinion or act of God will change that. Only a player scoring 93 will do that. And even then the circumstances he/she did it will (barring drug use) not matter.

My point is that AS are not nor ever will be raw data. So what do adjusted stats say? IMHO they were an attempt to compare raw data over eras and seasons but it didn't work and it just wasn't accepted by those not in the loop of those arcane calculations and some who were.

I'm pretty sure I posted in that Gretzky thread you referrenced. IMHO Gretzky scores more assists than the next best gets points and then 55-60 goals. Because that's what he usually, classically did in his career. Unless you're thinking of other variables such as transporting him instaneously, But then you're not taking into account that Gretzky had an effect on the game and so would be playing against himself so to speak.

You can't just remove a guy and his impact from the game by subtracting his stats from the formula. If he played then somebody, everybody and every point in between learned from him. You must see the league as if the guy never played, never impacted it and then guess what he'd do today.

I think the only way to do that is pretend that he never played and look at what he did when he played then induct what he would do if he played today. IOW I wouldn't use AS at all to predict. I would use reason.

What do adjusted stats do anyways if not attempt to predict? I'm still not clear on this.
I had this link tagged for quoting, but after scrolling down further it became clear that Iain so beautifully corrected all your misrepresentations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I wonder if the names Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull, Bossy or <insert teammate of Gretzky> would have any bearing on what % of the 2nd place points Bourque produced
.
Bingo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I've never heard of Total Hockey. Link please.
Gigantic book (biggest hockey book I own) that came out in 1998 and again in 2000.

Quote:
I'd love to read how you compare players by suggesting actual gs in a 6.00 gpg season as a measure but not really suggesting that they'd actually score that many. Your argument has become so convoluted in the defence of it that it defies characterization in the English language.
It's quite simple, really. No one is saying anyone "would" score anything. The question is how valuable a player's points were. If league scoring is at 8.00 then it takes more goals to win a game (the objective of playing hockey), therefore each goal is individually less valuable. If league scoring is at 5.00 then each individual goal is much more valuable. This is irrefutable. Simple, adjusted offensive stats do little more than approximate a player's offensive contribution towards winning.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 12:19 PM
  #167
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
What's better? 92 goals or 49? Raw numbers say that Gretzky's season was 88% better.

hockey-reference's adjusted numbers say that it's only about 5% better.

what's the actual truth? who can ever truly know? But, I can say with great confidence, that whatever this number is, it's a lot closer to 5% than 88%.

Adjusting the figures gets you a better answer, not a worse one. Not a perfect one, but clearly better.

I sure thought it was funny how you said no one cares about how their dominance of their peers compare to eachother. That is all anyone here cares about!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 12:26 PM
  #168
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I've never heard of Total Hockey. Link please.
Total Hockey is the biggest single collection of hockey statistics in print. The second edition is massive.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:15 PM
  #169
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I've never heard of Total Hockey. Link please.
As mentioned above, it's a massive print volume that went through two editions. It formed the basis of HR's stats database. It printed career plus-minus component data, and the first adjusted scoring system. It's a major work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I'd love to read how you compare players by suggesting actual gs in a 6.00 gpg season as a measure but not really suggesting that they'd actually score that many.
Each goal in a 5.0 GPG environment is more valuable in winning games (the point of scoring goals) than each goal in a 6.0 GPG environment.

It's a way of scaling a player's point to make a direct comparison more fair, in terms of the effect that the player's scoring had on his team's chances of winning games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Your argument has become so convoluted in the defence of it that it defies characterization in the English language.
*snrf*

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It's quite simple, really. No one is saying anyone "would" score anything. The question is how valuable a player's points were. If league scoring is at 8.00 then it takes more goals to win a game (the objective of playing hockey), therefore each goal is individually less valuable. If league scoring is at 5.00 then each individual goal is much more valuable. This is irrefutable. Simple, adjusted offensive stats do little more than approximate a player's offensive contribution towards winning.
Indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
what's the actual truth? who can ever truly know? But, I can say with great confidence, that whatever this number is, it's a lot closer to 5% than 88%.

Adjusting the figures gets you a better answer, not a worse one. Not a perfect one, but clearly better.

I sure thought it was funny how you said no one cares about how their dominance of their peers compare to eachother. That is all anyone here cares about!
Well said.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:27 PM
  #170
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Gigantic book (biggest hockey book I own) that came out in 1998 and again in 2000.
Then I was way behind the curve when it comes to developing and calculating adjusted stats. That just shows that reasoned minds may follow similar processes and achieve similar results, because the concept is relatively simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It's quite simple, really. No one is saying anyone "would" score anything. The question is how valuable a player's points were. If league scoring is at 8.00 then it takes more goals to win a game (the objective of playing hockey), therefore each goal is individually less valuable. If league scoring is at 5.00 then each individual goal is much more valuable. This is irrefutable. Simple, adjusted offensive stats do little more than approximate a player's offensive contribution towards winning.
Good explanation, perhaps your will sink in better than mine seemed to have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
What's better? 92 goals or 49? Raw numbers say that Gretzky's season was 88% better.

hockey-reference's adjusted numbers say that it's only about 5% better.

what's the actual truth? who can ever truly know? But, I can say with great confidence, that whatever this number is, it's a lot closer to 5% than 88%.

Adjusting the figures gets you a better answer, not a worse one. Not a perfect one, but clearly better.
Another good explanation, again hope it sinks in for some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I sure thought it was funny how you said no one cares about how their dominance of their peers compare to eachother. That is all anyone here cares about!
That's not exactly true IMO. Since the strength of one's peers in the NHL has varied quite substantially over time, it's important to realize that how their domination of such peers compares to each other will depend on that very fact. I think what we should be focused on is the value and relative difficulty of achieving various levels of production and effectiveness.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 03:49 PM
  #171
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And I'll hold my breath that you will understand it until Czech or another poster breaks it down or responds to it.
I don't really want to get into a detailed analysis of Bourque vs. Lidstrom adjusted points. However, adjusted stats are directly grounded in the concept of value, so what they tell us is clear in that regard. Also, Bourque still maintains a healthy edge in career adjusted ppg, over a similar length career as Lidstrom. As far as comparing difficulty (as opposed to value), I want to mention a couple of other factors at play:

A) Lidstrom's '02-12 period starts in the midst of the "strange" '01-04 seasons, where individual data seems to be "off" for some reason. I can't explain it at this time, I just know there are some weird effects that I doubt are the results of adjusted stats, but rather are reflected in both the raw and adjusted data.

B) There are more PPO's from '02-12 than '80-91, particularly in '06 & '07.

So the first half of Lidstrom's "other" period ('02-'07) is marked by aberrations that may either distort and/or simply help his numbers.

The goal of adjusted data when comparing players is to see how close their production was. In this case, Bourque seems to have a clear, significant edge in adjusted point production over their careers. We can look at other data to determine whether the actual edge is likely more or less than it appears: ES vs. PP production, rankings vs. peer d-men, strength of peer competition, linemate/teammate effects, etc.

---------------

I had previously meant to address the following: It seems your hypothesis is that as scoring decreases, it will affect lesser (bottom tier) players much more than better (top tier) players. That implies the reverse as well, that as scoring increases, it will help lesser players more than top players. So it would seem your conclusion is that in higher scoring periods, adjusted stats will hurt the best scorers (by increasing the avg. gpg more than the points of the best players), while in lower scoring periods, adjusted stats will help the best scorers (by increasing their points more than the avg. gpg).

It's interesting that since expansion, the highest adjusted scoring players tend to have played in the higher scoring seasons: Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, Orr, Lafleur, etc. Meanwhile, the only player among the top 6 in most peak/prime adjusted scoring lists is Jagr. After that, there's a large group of relatively closely bunched players. Most of those are from the past two decades, but Dionne would be about at the the top of that group, so it may be 6/7 of the top peak/prime adjusted scorers since expansion played in mostly higher scoring seasons.

Some things to consider about this observation:

- the lower scoring periods are right after expansion (~'68-72) and since the first lockout ('95-present).
- it was a lot easier than it looks for top players to score right after expansion, because the talent was not close to evenly dispersed, so the best players were almost all on the best teams, while the expansion teams scored at a much lower rate and so brought down the league avg. gpg from what otherwise would have been substantially higher levels.
- the more recent low scoring period saw a substantial increase in power plays, which should have helped the best players in proportion to the lesser players
- the more recent low scoring period saw a disproportionate influx of high scoring forwards, which helps explain both the increased scoring of top tier forwards compared to bottom tier forwards and the strong presence of forwards in the group after the top 6-7 peak/prime adjusted scoring players since expansion (players such as Ovechkin, Malkin, Forsberg, Selanne, etc., as well as Jagr)

If not for the dramatically increased presence of European players, the top peak/prime adjusted scorers since expansion would be: Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, Orr, Lafleur and Dionne. Lemieux, Espo and Orr played part of their peak/prime seasons in lower scoring years, but these were more around the median in terms of league scoring for the post-expansion period, and the league avg. didn't fully reflect the (lack of) difficulty for the best players to score adjusted points (due to disparity in talent for Espo/Orr and increased power plays for Lemieux in '96 & '97). This would seem to negate and very possibly contradict your hypothesis that adjusted stats are more favorable to the higher scoring players IMO.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-02-2012 at 06:51 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 04:27 PM
  #172
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I don't really want to get into a detailed analysis of Bourque vs. Lidstrom adjusted points. However, adjusted stats are directly grounded in the concept of value, so what they tell us is clear in that regard. Also, Bourque still maintains a healthy edge in career adjusted ppg, over a similar length career as Lidstrom. As far as comparing difficulty (as opposed to value), I want to mention a couple of other factors at play:

A) Lidstrom's '02-12 period starts in the midst of the "strange" '01-04 seasons, where individual data seems to be "off" for some reason. I can't explain it at this time, I just know there are some weird effects that I doubt are the results of adjusted stats, but rather are reflected in both the raw and adjusted data.

B) There are more PPO's from '02-12 than '80-91, particularly in '06 & '07.

So the first half of Lidstrom's "other" period ('02-'07) is marked by aberrations that may either distort and/or simply help his numbers.

The goal of adjusted data when comparing players is to see how close their production was. In this case, Bourque seems to have a clear, significant edge in adjusted point production over their careers. We can look at other data to determine whether the actual edge is likely more or less than it appears: ES vs. PP production, rankings vs. peer d-men, strength of peer competition, linemate/teammate effects, etc.

I realise this, you realise this and there are more than just a few others that understand this but...
I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times, in the numerous Bourque vs Lidstrom threads, that AS's are used at face value, at the exclusion of any other evaluations, to say that Lidstrom was Bourque's equal or almost equal offensively. There were/are even a select few that swear Lids was better offensively based solely on AS's.

There are flaws in AS's and those flaws vary in intensity for different players through different era's.
There will be times where AS's are almost bang on, other times where they are off but you can usually see why and other times where they are a total train wreck.
Point is, the VALUE of AS's is going to vary and they should never be used exclusively or even be referred to as an "alternative".

You can defend the notion that AS's always have value in every case.
What you can't defend, is that they always have the same value in every case.

Even when I was showing how they seem to be quite off in regards to Bourque and Lidstrom's non-shared years, I still didn't dismiss them completely or not allow for some of their weight to still apply.
Why is the reverse not true far too often in regards to other data like raw data. Maybe raw data is also quite off in other cases as well but it should still never be completely dismissed IMO.

(For the record though, the quote of mine you're responding to here was in regards to my upcoming post about some of the theories expressed in this thread so far and had nothing to do with Bourque or Lidstrom.)


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-02-2012 at 04:37 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 05:37 PM
  #173
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Even when I was showing how they seem to be quite off in regards to Bourque and Lidstrom's non-shared years, I still didn't dismiss them completely or not allow for some of their weight to still apply.
Didn't you say they were evidence that the adjusted stats system was breaking down bigtime? That's pretty faint praise, if it was intended as any sort of praise at all.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2012, 06:51 PM
  #174
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Didn't you say they were evidence that the adjusted stats system was breaking down bigtime? That's pretty faint praise, if it was intended as any sort of praise at all.
Try reading the rest of of a post before cherry picking one paragraph.
Especially when the paragraphs leading up to the one you're cherry picking provide the exact context you're looking for.
I'll even underline the relevant part for you and bold the most important point I was making..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post

There are flaws in AS's and those flaws vary in intensity for different players through different era's.
There will be times where AS's are almost bang on, other times where they are off but you can usually see why and other times where they are a total train wreck.
Point is, the VALUE of AS's is going to vary and they should never be used exclusively or even be referred to as an "alternative".

You can defend the notion that AS's always have value in every case.
What you can't defend, is that they always have the same value in every case.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 11:26 AM
  #175
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I realise this, you realise this and there are more than just a few others that understand this but...
I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times, in the numerous Bourque vs Lidstrom threads, that AS's are used at face value, at the exclusion of any other evaluations, to say that Lidstrom was Bourque's equal or almost equal offensively. There were/are even a select few that swear Lids was better offensively based solely on AS's.
Well those people, if they even exist in reality, would be incorrect as Bourque holds the advantage in Adjusted stats, which would make sense since he was the better offensive player.

Quote:
There are flaws in AS's and those flaws vary in intensity for different players through different era's.
There will be times where AS's are almost bang on, other times where they are off but you can usually see why and other times where they are a total train wreck.
Point is, the VALUE of AS's is going to vary and they should never be used exclusively or even be referred to as an "alternative".
These flaws you talk about only seem to exist in your mind as how Adjusted stats don't show the dominance , that you see with your favorite guys, rather than a real mathematical or systematic one.

Quote:
Even when I was showing how they seem to be quite off in regards to Bourque and Lidstrom's non-shared years, I still didn't dismiss them completely or not allow for some of their weight to still apply.
Why is the reverse not true far too often in regards to other data like raw data. Maybe raw data is also quite off in other cases as well but it should still never be completely dismissed IMO.
You didn't actually show that AS was off, it's still the same relationship to other players in those years as to their team situations, since everything is the same relationship wise as raw stats are.

At the end of the day Adjusted stats are quite use full for those with an open mind and actually want to compare players from different eras statistically.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.