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
11-03-2012, 02:42 PM
  #176
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
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.
If they exist eh?
Heh, there was a post in the History section just yesterday saying Lidstrom would be a 100 point player in the 80's and would wipe Bourque off the map when his defense is factored in so...lets just put to rest any notion that I'm chasing rainbows here shall we.


Quote:
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.
No, there are flaws, it's not perfect and doesn't always give you an accurate representation.
And AGAIN, if you are only using AS's you are not making a very informed comparison.


Quote:
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.
It's not though. Top tier scoring hasn't dropped off by as much as as second tier scoring and second tier scoring hasn't dropped off as much as third tier and so on and so forth.
Adjusted stats figures out the value of a goal, that's all it does and the value of that goal is being driven up by the absence of goals from the lower tiers.
So while the value of a goal has gone up overall, the actual value of a goal from a first tier player(99% of the players we talk about around here) hasn't gone up by any where near the same as the value of a goal from a 3rd tier player has.


Example:
Team from 80's scored 325 goals
1rst line 125g
2nd line 100g
3rd line 75g
4th line 25g

Now that team is taken to today and they are now adjusted to have scored 265 goals, which of following would you think is more accurate...
That there is an exactly equal drop off between all 4 lines like so...
265 goals
1rst line 102g
2nd line 77g
3rd line 63g
4th line 20g

Or that there is more of a filtering effect where the less talented players are having a lot more trouble maintaining their previous scoring level than the more talented players are like so...
265 goals
1rst line 117g
2nd line 85g
3rd line 53g
4th line 10g

Especially considering that the second option is EXACTLY what the data on scoring by tier tells us from the 80's compared to today.

A 3rd line player today scoring 20 goals compared to a 3rd line player scoring 20 goals in 1985 has a hell of a lot more relative value than a 1rst line player scoring 50 goals today than a 1rst line player scoring 50 in 1985.

Chris Nilan playing as a 3rd/4th line enforcer had 21 goals in '85 along with 358pims and you want me to believe that according to adjusted stats, he's going to be a 17 goal scorer in today's NHL in that same role? Are you ****ing kidding me? He's going to score as many goals as Plekanec, Clowe or Wheeler?


So I really don't mind if you keep accusing me of going on a "Witch hunt" as long as you realise that there actually are "witches".


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-03-2012 at 03:22 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 04:15 PM
  #177
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
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
You might want to recalculate Bourque's "remaining" years ('80-91). Using HR.com's rounded numbers, I calculate ~.85 PPG for those seasons. Using my own numbers, I calculate ~.86 PPG. So it would seem adjusted stats give Bourque ~10% edge for his '80-91 seasons vs. Lidstrom's '02-12 seasons. If someone else wants to verify which number seems correct to them, then that would be great too (note: HR.com does not show adjusted games, so Bourque's actual games need to be multiplied by [82/80] ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Chris Nilan playing as a 3rd/4th line enforcer had 21 goals in '85 along with 358pims and you want me to believe that according to adjusted stats, he's going to be a 17 goal scorer in today's NHL in that same role? Are you ****ing kidding me? He's going to score as many goals as Plekanec, Clowe or Wheeler?
First, if by "today's NHL" you mean last season, then his 21 goals in '85 would have equivalent value to about 15 goals in '12. Second, he was fourth in goals on a Montreal team that won their division. He was ahead of a 26 y/o Bobby Smith and two behind Guy Carbonneau. It would seem if that was possible (despite getting almost no PP time), then it may not be impossible that at his very peak he could score 15 goals in a 2012 environment. That's without trying to determine how much more competitive today's league is and how much more difficult attaining that level would be. Even if you made an adjustment for lower scoring by 4th liners, it would only decrease his adjusted goals by 1 or 2, so I'm not sure how this would really tell us anything about how useful adjusted stats are in comparing/projecting to different eras.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Example:
Team from 80's scored 325 goals
1rst line 125g
2nd line 100g
3rd line 75g
4th line 25g

Now that team is taken to today and they are now adjusted to have scored 265 goals, which of following would you think is more accurate...
That there is an exactly equal drop off between all 4 lines like so...
265 goals
1rst line 102g
2nd line 77g
3rd line 63g
4th line 20g

Or that there is more of a filtering effect where the less talented players are having a lot more trouble maintaining their previous scoring level than the more talented players are like so...
265 goals
1rst line 117g
2nd line 85g
3rd line 53g
4th line 10g

Especially considering that the second option is EXACTLY what the data on scoring by tier tells us from the 80's compared to today.
Are you adding a couple 1st/2nd line quality European/Russian/US forwards who likely wouldn't have been playing in the 80s? That would change the comparative quality of the top two lines compared the bottom two lines, now wouldn't it?


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-03-2012 at 04:34 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 04:54 PM
  #178
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
You might want to recalculate Bourque's "remaining" years ('80-91). Using HR.com's rounded numbers, I calculate ~.85 PPG for those seasons. Using my own numbers, I calculate ~.86 PPG. So it would seem adjusted stats give Bourque ~10% edge for his '80-91 seasons vs. Lidstrom's '02-12 seasons. If someone else wants to verify which number seems correct to them, then that would be great too (note: HR.com does not show adjusted games, so Bourque's actual games need to be multiplied by [82/80] ).
Confirmed. Well-spotted.

So the main reason that HR's adjusted scoring seems to think Lidstrom was as good offensively as Bourque in these years is that it doesn't.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 05:10 PM
  #179
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,722
vCash: 500
The main problem I see is in the distribution of goals. If one season is say 10% harder to score, I think it's likely 15-20% harder for some and only few % more difficult for the top point netters, if I'm right, the difference is huge imo. The top point getters are being arbitrarily adjusted to a number that doesn't necessarily exist for them.

Lets say goals are harder to come by, is the difference going to have the same implications on Lemieux, Gretzky and Jagr as it does lesser tier players? I can't imagine it.

habsfanatics is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 05:19 PM
  #180
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
You might want to check Bourque's "remaining" years ('80-91). Using HR.com's rounded numbers, I calculate ~.85 PPG for those seasons. Using my own numbers, I calculate ~.86 PPG. So it would seem adjusted stats give Bourque ~10% edge for his '80-91 seasons vs. Lidstrom's '02-12 seasons.
Bah, on re-check I also relaised that '95 screws all the numbers anyway but I did figure out where I screwed up. You're right though, they were off.
Should read

Raw Career PpG: Bourque-.98 Lidstrom-.73
ADJ Career PpG: Bourque-.86 Lidstrom-.76
Raw 10year(92-01) in the league together: Bourque-.86 Lidstrom-.73
Adj 10year(92-01) in the league together: Bourque-.85 Lidstrom-.74
Raw remaining years: (80-91)Bourque-1.07 (02-12)Lidstrom-.73
ADJ remaining years: (80-91)Bourque-..87 (02-12)Lidstrom-.76

Obviously this changes the weight I give AS's in this case to around a 7 instead of a 2 or 3.
Bourque and Lidstrom's non-shared years still doesn't jive with the other info though.
Like how 2 of Bourque's 3 worst offensive years were in their shared years and 3 of Lidstrom's 4 worst offensive years were in their non-shared years yet the numbers don't reflect this.
Bourque is losing too much in his non-shared years while Lidstrom is gaining too much in his non-shared years.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-03-2012 at 07:14 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 06:26 PM
  #181
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
First, if by "today's NHL" you mean last season, then his 21 goals in '85 would have equivalent value to about 15 goals in '12. Second, he was fourth in goals on a Montreal team that won their division. He was ahead of a 26 y/o Bobby Smith and two behind Guy Carbonneau. It would seem if that was possible (despite getting almost no PP time), then it may not be impossible that at his very peak he could score 15 goals in a 2012 environment. That's without trying to determine how much more competitive today's league is and how much more difficult attaining that level would be. Even if you made an adjustment for lower scoring by 4th liners, it would only decrease his adjusted goals by 1 or 2, so I'm not sure how this would really tell us anything about how useful adjusted stats are in comparing/projecting to different eras.
It's not about the math at this point, it's about the reality the math is trying to tell us and the difference between 4th line goals in 1985 and today is a hell of a lot more than just 1-2 goals more than what Adjusted Stats is telling us.


Quote:
Are you adding a couple 1st/2nd line quality European/Russian/US forwards who likely wouldn't have been playing in the 80s? That would change the comparative quality of the top two lines compared the bottom two lines, now wouldn't it?
Only the top Russians and most of the top Czechs were missing in the 80's and there are 43% more 1rst, 2nd, 3rd and 4th line spots today than there were then.
Just adding the Russians and the Czechs do NOT account for a 43% increase in top line players and not every single Russian or Czech that has come over since is a top tier player.
There was a time in the very late 80's and early 90's where these top Russians and Czechs did affect top Tier scoring like you say. That was only for a short time though, before the League expanded to 43% more teams. Once again spreading the talent out and the data supports this.


Besides, if what you propose were the reason, there should have been an increase in top tier scoring while other tiers remained the same.
That wasn't the case.
All tiers scored less at variable rates.

And nothing you have said counters the much more supportable (and quite frankly common sense) explanation that scoring has decreased through a filtering process and not a flat % across the board.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-03-2012 at 07:36 PM. Reason: Spelling and Grammar, fixed % of increased teams
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2012, 10:02 PM
  #182
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
It's not about the math at this point, it's about the reality the math is trying to tell us and the difference between 4th line goals in 1985 and today is a hell of a lot more than just 1-2 goals more than what Adjusted Stats is telling us.
The math tells us the relative value of the goals/points in each season. This isn't exactly the same as the difficulty of attaining a certain level of production. There at least three reasons why scoring could comparatively change between tiers:

1. The relative quality of one or more tiers changed in comparison to one or more other tiers.

2. The relative opportunity of one or more tiers changed in comparison to one or more other tiers.

3. The league environment changed in a way that helped one or more tiers proportionately more/less than one or more other tiers.

I have given examples of # 1 & 2:

#1- The much larger influx of overseas players was composed more of forwards in the top tiers than bottom tiers. This may have been a stylistic difference in overseas players, or due to more incentive for the better players to leave for the NHL than the more marginal players, or the preference of NHL teams for certain types of players (e.g. they may have been more confident due to more/better scouting of better players or believed the fulfilled certain roles better than others).

#2- The increase in PP opportunities helps 1st/2nd line players almost exclusively, since they are the players who get these additional opportunities. Of course, it helps players who score a higher % of their points on the PP significantly more than those who score a higher % of their points at ES.

You seem to be focused on #3, which is probably the most difficult type of effect to more directly measure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Only the top Russians and most of the top Czechs were missing in the 80's and there are 43% more 1rst, 2nd, 3rd and 4th line spots today than there were then.
Just adding the Russians and the Czechs do NOT account for a 43% increase in top line players and not every single Russian or Czech that has come over since is a top tier player.
There was a time in the very late 80's and early 90's where these top Russians and Czechs did affect top Tier scoring like you say. That was only for a short time though, before the League expanded to 43% more teams. Once again spreading the talent out and the data supports this.
I don't have exact numbers for all forwards, but from what I remember the number of total forwards from overseas has been ~25% since the mid-90s, maybe slightly less. The US has been a more consistent and stronger presence since the mid-80s as well. The current NHL has 9 more teams out of 30, so overseas players would need to be ~30% for there to be the same number of Canadian/US forwards in the NHL. Of course there have been changes in population as well, so it doesn't appear that there has been a substantial decrease in the minimum quality of NHL forwards since the 80s. OTOH, the quality of forwards in the top tier has substantially improved, as can be seen by the table below of top 2N scorers (where N = number of teams):

Year Cze Fin Rus Swe USA Other Total
1977 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 5%
1978 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3%
1979 3% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 9%
1980 2% 0% 0% 5% 2% 0% 10%
1981 5% 2% 0% 5% 2% 0% 14%
1982 5% 2% 0% 2% 2% 0% 12%
1983 5% 2% 0% 5% 2% 0% 14%
1984 2% 2% 0% 5% 12% 0% 21%
1985 5% 2% 0% 7% 5% 0% 19%
1986 2% 5% 0% 2% 14% 0% 23%
1987 2% 7% 0% 2% 7% 0% 19%
1988 2% 2% 0% 5% 12% 0% 21%
1989 2% 5% 0% 7% 10% 0% 24%
1990 0% 2% 2% 2% 11% 0% 18%
1991 2% 0% 5% 0% 20% 0% 27%
1992 4% 0% 4% 2% 18% 0% 29%
1993 4% 4% 8% 2% 14% 0% 33%
1994 4% 2% 11% 4% 11% 0% 32%
1995 2% 2% 11% 6% 13% 0% 33%
1996 12% 2% 12% 4% 17% 0% 46%
1997 12% 2% 13% 6% 13% 0% 46%
1998 10% 5% 14% 5% 14% 0% 48%
1999 13% 4% 15% 9% 15% 0% 55%
2000 19% 2% 11% 7% 12% 2% 53%
2001 18% 2% 12% 10% 18% 0% 60%
2002 13% 2% 13% 8% 15% 0% 51%
2003 18% 5% 12% 10% 10% 0% 55%
2004 20% 3% 6% 11% 14% 0% 55%
2006 14% 3% 11% 14% 10% 0% 52%
2007 13% 5% 13% 11% 5% 2% 48%
2008 11% 2% 11% 11% 5% 3% 44%
2009 10% 2% 15% 8% 11% 3% 48%
2010 3% 3% 11% 10% 11% 2% 40%
2011 9% 5% 6% 8% 14% 5% 47%
2012 11% 5% 6% 10% 11% 3% 47%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Besides, if what you propose were the reason, there should have been an increase in top tier scoring while other tiers remained the same.
That wasn't the case.
All tiers scored less at variable rates.
The factors I've mentioned don't happen in a vacuum. I'm talking about comparative scoring between tiers, not raw data by tier. Yes, scoring decreased across all tiers due to other factors: more emphasis on defensive systems, the lack of rules enforcement (clutch & grab, etc.), changes in equipment (goalies in particular), etc. You contend that these factors hurt lower scoring players proportionately more than higher scoring players, but that's just a supposition with no real proof. The "proof" you offer is the change in comparative scoring by tiers. Yet I've provided valid alternative explanations, based on substantial changes in the comparative quality of the tiers (overseas players) and comparative opportunity of tiers (PP opportunities). Additionally, I've presented ITT that 6/7 of the top peak/prime adjusted scorers played primarily in higher scoring seasons, which does not seem to support your assertion at all, and in fact supports the opposite. So I would say the burden of proof is on you to prove that the factors which decreased overall scoring also disproportionately decreased the scoring of lower scoring, bottom tier players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And nothing you have said counters the much more supportable (and quite frankly common sense) explanation that scoring has decreased through a filtering process and not a flat % across the board.
I'm not saying that it decreased equally across the board. In fact the numbers suggest it hasn't. What I'm saying is that unless you determine most/all of the important factors which caused comparative scoring between different types/tiers of players to change, then you cannot confidently decide whether/how to further adjust the "simple adjusted" stats to better reflect the change in difficulty for those players to attain various levels of production (and so more fairly compare their production to that of players from other seasons).

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 01:01 AM
  #183
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
The math tells us the relative value of the goals/points in each season. This isn't exactly the same as the difficulty of attaining a certain level of production. There at least three reasons why scoring could comparatively change between tiers:

1. The relative quality of one or more tiers changed in comparison to one or more other tiers.

2. The relative opportunity of one or more tiers changed in comparison to one or more other tiers.

3. The league environment changed in a way that helped one or more tiers proportionately more/less than one or more other tiers.

I have given examples of # 1 & 2:

#1- The much larger influx of overseas players was composed more of forwards in the top tiers than bottom tiers. This may have been a stylistic difference in overseas players, or due to more incentive for the better players to leave for the NHL than the more marginal players, or the preference of NHL teams for certain types of players (e.g. they may have been more confident due to more/better scouting of better players or believed the fulfilled certain roles better than others).

#2- The increase in PP opportunities helps 1st/2nd line players almost exclusively, since they are the players who get these additional opportunities. Of course, it helps players who score a higher % of their points on the PP significantly more than those who score a higher % of their points at ES.

You seem to be focused on #3, which is probably the most difficult type of effect to more directly measure.



I don't have exact numbers for all forwards, but from what I remember the number of total forwards from overseas has been ~25% since the mid-90s, maybe slightly less. The US has been a more consistent and stronger presence since the mid-80s as well. The current NHL has 9 more teams out of 30, so overseas players would need to be ~30% for there to be the same number of Canadian/US forwards in the NHL. Of course there have been changes in population as well, so it doesn't appear that there has been a substantial decrease in the minimum quality of NHL forwards since the 80s. OTOH, the quality of forwards in the top tier has substantially improved, as can be seen by the table below of top 2N scorers (where N = number of teams):

Year Cze Fin Rus Swe USA Other Total
1977 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 5%
1978 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3%
1979 3% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 9%
1980 2% 0% 0% 5% 2% 0% 10%
1981 5% 2% 0% 5% 2% 0% 14%
1982 5% 2% 0% 2% 2% 0% 12%
1983 5% 2% 0% 5% 2% 0% 14%
1984 2% 2% 0% 5% 12% 0% 21%
1985 5% 2% 0% 7% 5% 0% 19%
1986 2% 5% 0% 2% 14% 0% 23%
1987 2% 7% 0% 2% 7% 0% 19%
1988 2% 2% 0% 5% 12% 0% 21%
1989 2% 5% 0% 7% 10% 0% 24%
1990 0% 2% 2% 2% 11% 0% 18%
1991 2% 0% 5% 0% 20% 0% 27%
1992 4% 0% 4% 2% 18% 0% 29%
1993 4% 4% 8% 2% 14% 0% 33%
1994 4% 2% 11% 4% 11% 0% 32%
1995 2% 2% 11% 6% 13% 0% 33%
1996 12% 2% 12% 4% 17% 0% 46%
1997 12% 2% 13% 6% 13% 0% 46%
1998 10% 5% 14% 5% 14% 0% 48%
1999 13% 4% 15% 9% 15% 0% 55%
2000 19% 2% 11% 7% 12% 2% 53%
2001 18% 2% 12% 10% 18% 0% 60%
2002 13% 2% 13% 8% 15% 0% 51%
2003 18% 5% 12% 10% 10% 0% 55%
2004 20% 3% 6% 11% 14% 0% 55%
2006 14% 3% 11% 14% 10% 0% 52%
2007 13% 5% 13% 11% 5% 2% 48%
2008 11% 2% 11% 11% 5% 3% 44%
2009 10% 2% 15% 8% 11% 3% 48%
2010 3% 3% 11% 10% 11% 2% 40%
2011 9% 5% 6% 8% 14% 5% 47%
2012 11% 5% 6% 10% 11% 3% 47%



The factors I've mentioned don't happen in a vacuum. I'm talking about comparative scoring between tiers, not raw data by tier. Yes, scoring decreased across all tiers due to other factors: more emphasis on defensive systems, the lack of rules enforcement (clutch & grab, etc.), changes in equipment (goalies in particular), etc. You contend that these factors hurt lower scoring players proportionately more than higher scoring players, but that's just a supposition with no real proof. The "proof" you offer is the change in comparative scoring by tiers. Yet I've provided valid alternative explanations, based on substantial changes in the comparative quality of the tiers (overseas players) and comparative opportunity of tiers (PP opportunities). Additionally, I've presented ITT that 6/7 of the top peak/prime adjusted scorers played primarily in higher scoring seasons, which does not seem to support your assertion at all, and in fact supports the opposite. So I would say the burden of proof is on you to prove that the factors which decreased overall scoring also disproportionately decreased the scoring of lower scoring, bottom tier players.



I'm not saying that it decreased equally across the board. In fact the numbers suggest it hasn't. What I'm saying is that unless you determine most/all of the important factors which caused comparative scoring between different types/tiers of players to change, then you cannot confidently decide whether/how to further adjust the "simple adjusted" stats to better reflect the change in difficulty for those players to attain various levels of production (and so more fairly compare their production to that of players from other seasons).
Ok listen. We can argue over the exact causes all day, which is exactly what you're trying to do here.
Whether we identify the cause or not doesn't matter as much for the purposes of this discussion as the fact that there is a cause and that that cause, according to scoring by tier, for some years, is pretty substantial.

Now all you have to do to get me to shut up about it is show me how the current version of Adjusted Stats is taking either my explanations or your explanations into account when it determines the value of a goal.

It doesn't! It assumes all goals are worth the same value across the board and they aren't!

A harsher scoring environment will NOT affect all players equally and that is EXACTLY what Adjusted Stats does, treats every player equally.
The more talented players will experience reductions but they will still produce and certainly not the 31% or so drop that 1985 to 2012 says. The less talented players will experience much greater reductions to the point where the least talented players may barely produce any points at all or an almost 100% reduction.
Certainly a lot more than just the 31% or so mentioned above.

Top tier players goals from the 80's are being undervalued while lower tier players goals are being overvalued.


Also in my other post I said this...

Quote:
Example:
Team from 80's scored 325 goals
1rst line 125g
2nd line 100g
3rd line 75g
4th line 25g

Now that team is taken to today and they are now adjusted to have scored 265 goals, which of following would you think is more accurate...
That there is an exactly equal drop off between all 4 lines like so...
265 goals
1rst line 102g
2nd line 77g
3rd line 63g
4th line 20g

Or that there is more of a filtering effect where the less talented players are having a lot more trouble maintaining their previous scoring level than the more talented players are like so...
265 goals
1rst line 117g
2nd line 85g
3rd line 53g
4th line 10g
No BS, no long winded possible solutions.
Just straight up answer these two questions...

1) Which example above much more accurately reflects scoring now compared to the 80's?
2) Which example is the way Adjusted Stats does it?


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-04-2012 at 01:30 AM. Reason: Added the 2 questions
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 02:51 AM
  #184
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Ok listen. We can argue over the exact causes all day, which is exactly what you're trying to do here.
Whether we identify the cause or not doesn't matter as much for the purposes of this discussion as the fact that there is a cause and that that cause, according to scoring by tier, for some years, is pretty substantial.
I'm simply suggesting more than one very possible cause, each backed up by data. I've also explained why one cause would not require further adjustment, while the other would require any additional adjustment to be based on ES vs. PP production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Now all you have to do to get me to shut up about it is show me how the current version of Adjusted Stats is taking either my explanations or your explanations into account when it determines the value of a goal.
It doesn't need to take any explanations into account to determine the value of the goal. The value of the goal is basically fixed in proportion to the scoring context. What you're describing is how the difficulty of attaining a certain level of adjusted production may change from season to season. That could vary due to a number of factors, but I would guess that you're overestimating the amount it would vary in most cases, and I also believe that you should not ignore the likely reasons for such changes, for the reasons previously stated ITT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
It assumes all goals are worth the same value across the board and they aren't!
They are, the value of each adjusted goal is essentially the same. The difficulty of each adj. goal can vary by season. It may take a better player to get the same number of adjusted goals in 1985 vs. 1975, but the value doesn't change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
A harsher scoring environment will NOT affect all players equally and that is EXACTLY what Adjusted Stats does, treats every player equally.
The more talented players will experience reductions but they will still produce and certainly not the 31% or so drop that 1985 to 2012 says. The less talented players will experience much greater reductions to the point where the least talented players may barely produce any points at all or an almost 100% reduction.
Certainly a lot more than just the 31% or so mentioned above.

Top tier players goals from the 80's are being undervalued while lower tier players goals are being overvalued.
You're probably right, but it's difficult to say how a harsher scoring environment affects different players, since there are other factors present at the same time. If we can isolate the most likely factors and measure their effect on various tiers, and further adjust properly based on that information, then we may be able to speculate that the remaining effect is based on the harsher scoring environment. However, identifying and fairly quantifying those factors is no easy task.

My database has most of the best adjusted seasons from '80-'12. However, it's nowhere near comprehensive, so these numbers are more of an example than anything. There's a positive, but declining correlation between individual adjusted points and league gpg. However, if we remove Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr as "outliers" of sorts, then the cumulative correlation varies as follows:

Until season ~75 (i.e. the best 1-75 adjusted seasons) there's a lot of noise, both positive and negative correlation. Through season ~75-400 the correlation (starting from the best season) varies between +3% and -7% (season ~400 is the last where the cumulative correlation is neutral or positive). Through seasons ~75-850, the correlation has only varied between +3% and -8%. From season ~750 onward, it drifts lower (I stopped sorting before 1000).

We are mostly concerned with the better players in their better seasons. The correlation is still neutral to positive at season ~400 (which would be on avg. the 12-13th best season, aside from the players excluded, for each season '80-12). So for the best players' best seasons, it's not even clear that there's a significant negative correlation between the top individual adjusted point seasons and league gpg from '80-12. That's despite increase PP opportunities obviously helping the top players more than the bottom ones. That's going to make it very difficult to convince me that due to the harsher for the very top players (the type we usually compare in HoH and such) it is substantially easier to score adjusted points AND that the reason is the harsher scoring environment doesn't hurt them as much. The change in comparative scoring between tiers is likely due to the increased quality of top tiers relative to bottom tiers, caused by the composition of new talent from overseas. Any change due to the increased comparative quality of the top tiers should not a further adjustment for difficulty, since it's that increased quality of player that is causing the change, not a scoring environment that doens't hurt the top players as much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Also in my other post I said this...

Example:
Team from 80's scored 325 goals
1rst line 125g
2nd line 100g
3rd line 75g
4th line 25g

Now that team is taken to today and they are now adjusted to have scored 265 goals, which of following would you think is more accurate...
That there is an exactly equal drop off between all 4 lines like so...
265 goals
1rst line 102g
2nd line 77g
3rd line 63g
4th line 20g

Or that there is more of a filtering effect where the less talented players are having a lot more trouble maintaining their previous scoring level than the more talented players are like so...
265 goals
1rst line 117g
2nd line 85g
3rd line 53g
4th line 10g

No BS, no long winded possible solutions.
Just straight up answer these two questions...

1) Which example above much more accurately reflects scoring now compared to the 80's?
2) Which example is the way Adjusted Stats does it?
1) I haven't seen any numbers for total adjusted scoring by line, so I can't answer that. Using your initial numbers as a base, I would guess it's in between the last two (the one keeping comparative scoring proportional, and the one you apparently are suggesting would be the actual result). Maybe something like this:

110
83
56
16

2) Adjusted stats does it the way it's supposed to do. You are talking about how decreased opportunity or decreased comparative quality (to top lines) makes it more difficult for lower line players to score adjusted points now vs. the 80s. That's really not what adjusted stats is designed to do. However, it's still the best starting point to make further adjustments in order to determine the difficulty for various levels of players to score adjusted points in a given season/era.

It seems very possible that overseas/US talent made the top lines of comparatively better quality to bottom lines than they were before, due to the nature of the talent that was arriving in larger numbers starting in the mid-90s. If a class is graded on a curve (adjusted numbers) and a bunch of new A students arrive from China, the top tier may substantially improve in comparison to the lower tiers. It's going to be harder to get an A or B than before... and harder to get a C than before. Determining exactly how much more difficult it's going to be to get each grade is not an easy task, esp. as the number and variety of new students increases.

Sorry for yet another long-winded explanation, but I've been explaining the same concepts repeatedly, with mixed results. You seem to be looking for an easy to understand (and explain) solution to a complex application of a process/formula which I'm not sure you fully understand. The absence of such a simple solution seems to suggest to you that adjusted stats are massively and inherently flawed and should be left to the fringe elements of analysis or discarded altogether.

This would be like me telling you the game starts in 5 minutes, "so tell me what to do as a goalie to shut the other team out." If you can't do so, or if I let in a goal somehow, then you are a horrible goalie/coach/etc. and I'll regard any further advice on how to play goal as of little or no use.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-04-2012 at 03:24 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 06:50 AM
  #185
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
So let's see if I understand the latest definition of AS. Value of gs.

IOW a season with 12 gpg compared to a season of 6 gpg. The 12 gpg season goals would have half as much value as each gs in the 6 gpg. Is that right? All other variables being equal of course.

So if we had two seasons in which every single variable was identical. GP, number of teams, players, even every player scored exactly the same goals as the season before then the two seasons gs and gaa would have the same value.

Suppose the third season sees all or most of the worst goal scorers and best goalies replaced by much better goal scorers and/or much worse goalies. The result is a higher gpg. The goals are cheaper in this season.

What if this change is unequal? Confined to a couple divisions only. It obviously has the same effect on league wide gs and gaa.

The players in one division with no change in personnel have the exact same gs and gaa as the previous two seasons. They never get to play the teams in the divisions with the replaced personnel.

All their gs and gaa are devalued? This method is flawed. It treats everyone the same. That is because you use averages.

If you want to keep AS but fix it then you must account for uneven changes. You must account for outliers amongst tiers, seasons and personnel. Just dropping them because the data doesn't fit expectations is a proven error.


Last edited by Dalton: 11-04-2012 at 07:28 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 07:28 AM
  #186
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
I see little value in AS as per the definition that it is simply assigning value to gs as opposed to actually predicting what a player might score in a different season against different opponents. I think the definition of AS is a contrivance born from criticism.

Exactly how is the value of a player's gs different from a prediction of gs? I don't see it. It's not subtle, its splitting hairs.

Using simple fractions I can see that Howe's 49 is on the same level as Gretzky's 92 in terms of production vs peers or peformance vs peers if you prefer. Using common sense I can see how dominating his performance was. That it was similar to Gretzky. I can look at Orr the same way and Bourque and Lemieux too for that matter.

I can appreciate what those guys did but nothing but 93 beats 92 goals a season. The absolute number will remain the benchmark until someone else scores more. That is the context. I think we need to be careful not to lose sight of the forest here.

Howe scored 49 not 92. He blew away his opponents in the same fashion as Gretzky. But Gretzky got got 50 in 39 games IIRC. No equation will ever take that away from him. Perspective.

Once again I must point out that the value of GS, measures of productivity and actual results are apples and oranges.

The real question here is exactly what does AS measure? What use does it serve? It doesn't predict so one can't say 65 is the same as Howe's 49 in a 6gpg season. If it isn't the same then it isn't really of the same value is it? Is that too subtle?


Last edited by Dalton: 11-04-2012 at 07:42 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 07:34 AM
  #187
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
If a class is graded on a curve (adjusted numbers) and a bunch of new A students arrive from China, the top tier may substantially improve in comparison to the lower tiers. It's going to be harder to get an A or B than before... and harder to get a C than before. Determining exactly how much more difficult it's going to be to get each grade is not an easy task, esp. as the number and variety of new students increases.

Sorry for yet another long-winded explanation, but I've been explaining the same concepts repeatedly, with mixed results. You seem to be looking for an easy to understand (and explain) solution to a complex application of a process/formula which I'm not sure you fully understand. The absence of such a simple solution seems to suggest to you that adjusted stats are massively and inherently flawed and should be left to the fringe elements of analysis or discarded altogether.
Grading the class on a curve is a proven error. If a bunch of students 'from China' arrive it'll just simply mean that more students get A's not that it is more difficut to get A's or any other grade. If the teacher is bell curving then the 'students from China' who pay so much more should sue if their grades are lowered due to faulty, obselete thinking. If this is the thinking behind AS then it needs to be abandoned. Its been proven the wrong approach.

Bell curving is just to protect the participants, it has no other value. Never has.


Last edited by Dalton: 11-04-2012 at 07:46 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 10:48 AM
  #188
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I see little value in AS as per the definition that it is simply assigning value to gs as opposed to actually predicting what a player might score in a different season against different opponents. I think the definition of AS is a contrivance born from criticism.
Some time ago now I quoted from the original source of Adjusted Scoring, which stated that it was designed to compare players from different eras, not to make predictions.

You can keep ignoring that if you like, but it's been said several times now. So your last sentence above is essentially an insinuation of intellectual dishonesty, when in fact you yourself are choosing to ignore certain rather significant points that other have raised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Exactly how is the value of a player's gs different from a prediction of gs? I don't see it.
It answers the question: how much did each player's offence actually contribute to his team's efforts at winning hockey games? How does that compare to other players in other seasons?

This is a much different question than: what if we were able to magically transport a player from one time and place to another? How many goals would he score?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
I can appreciate what those guys did but nothing but 93 beats 92 goals a season.
If it's in the same season, at least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
The absolute number will remain the benchmark until someone else scores more. That is the context.
No, that's completely ignoring context. The highest absolute number is not necessarily the most impressive total ever. It depends on the context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Howe scored 49 not 92. He blew away his opponents in the same fashion as Gretzky. But Gretzky got got 50 in 39 games IIRC. No equation will ever take that away from him. Perspective.
If Howe blew away his opponents in the same fashion as Gretzky, why would you consider Gretzky's output superior?

You seems to have shifted your goalposts once again, saying that raw totals are still more important than any sort of adjusted figure, presumably including your proposed percentage method.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
The real question here is exactly what does AS measure? What use does it serve?
I think this has been answered enough times in this thread, in enough detail, that if you continue to ask the question it indicated you're not reading what other people are writing.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 10:53 AM
  #189
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Bell curving is just to protect the participants, it has no other value. Never has.
That may appear to be a poor example on CYM's part, because grading on a curve generally implies using a bell curve.

However, I will point out that it does not necessarily mean a bell curve. You could grade on a power-law curve, in which case CYM's point would be relevant to the discussion.

In fact, since CYM specifically referred to the curve of adjusted stats, I think the only reasonable interpretation of his post is that he meant a power-law curve, since it has been demonstrated in this thread, both logically and graphically, that adjusted stats follow a power-law curve. As such, you seem to be reading bell curves into things that do not involve them, and not for the first time.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 01:05 PM
  #190
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
So let's see if I understand the latest definition of AS. Value of gs.

IOW a season with 12 gpg compared to a season of 6 gpg. The 12 gpg season goals would have half as much value as each gs in the 6 gpg. Is that right? All other variables being equal of course.

So if we had two seasons in which every single variable was identical. GP, number of teams, players, even every player scored exactly the same goals as the season before then the two seasons gs and gaa would have the same value.

Suppose the third season sees all or most of the worst goal scorers and best goalies replaced by much better goal scorers and/or much worse goalies. The result is a higher gpg. The goals are cheaper in this season.

What if this change is unequal? Confined to a couple divisions only. It obviously has the same effect on league wide gs and gaa.

The players in one division with no change in personnel have the exact same gs and gaa as the previous two seasons. They never get to play the teams in the divisions with the replaced personnel.

All their gs and gaa are devalued? This method is flawed. It treats everyone the same. That is because you use averages.

If you want to keep AS but fix it then you must account for uneven changes. You must account for outliers amongst tiers, seasons and personnel. Just dropping them because the data doesn't fit expectations is a proven error.
If the change in scoring context was confined to several divisions, and the teams in those divisions only played one another and never against the teams in the other division (like the american and national leagues in baseball prior to interleague play), then, yes, it would make sense to make two separate adjustments - one adjustment for the divisions with the replaced personnel, and another adjustment for the division with the same personnel.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 02:40 PM
  #191
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Grading the class on a curve is a proven error. If a bunch of students 'from China' arrive it'll just simply mean that more students get A's not that it is more difficut to get A's or any other grade. If the teacher is bell curving then the 'students from China' who pay so much more should sue if their grades are lowered due to faulty, obselete thinking. If this is the thinking behind AS then it needs to be abandoned. Its been proven the wrong approach.

Bell curving is just to protect the participants, it has no other value. Never has.
It was a simple analogy, perhaps not best suited to adjusted stats, yet let me explain it further. What I meant by curve is that in a grading curve, there is essentially a fixed avg. GPA that is used. With adjusted stats there is fixed standard league gpg that is used. The curved grade tells us the performance of the student in relation to the class. If the avg. quality of students increases, it's going to be more difficult for each student to achieve a high grade than the same student in a class with a lower quality of avg. student. If the quality of the league increases, it's generally going to be more difficult for a player to achieve a higher adjusted point total than the same player in a league with lower quality.

There is no assumption of bell curve or any type of specific curve. It could be a 25% each A/B/C/D or any number of distribution patterns.

What I believe happened in the mid-90s was that in the case of scoring forwards, a lot more A & B quality of students arrived from overseas than did C & D students, yet the avg. non-curved grade went down. IOW, there appear to have been more high scoring forwards/d-men that arrived, at least in the earlier years, than did low scoring forwards/d-men and goalies. In the absence of other factors, this would be expected to increase the league gpg. Instead, scoring decreased, which suggests that there were other powerful factors at work (coaching, lack of rules enforcement, goalie equipment, etc.).

I think I, and others, have explained these concepts at enough length and in enough different ways, as well as responded to the concerns of doubters. If one can't or won't understand the more basic concepts being presented and discussed, then I'm not sure further explanation or discussion will help much at this point. You can put Galileo on trial or torture him, but that doesn't change the truth as to whether the Earth revolves around the Sun.

As far as comparing players across seasons, it's never going to be perfect. No one will ever be able to say with absolute certainty how a player would have exactly performed in another season. One can't even say with absolute certainty how a player would have played on another team, or with different linemates, or with a shuffled schedule, or with a change in many of the numerous variables. Does this mean it's wrong to attempt to make the best estimate possible? Some of you are basically asking the impossible. Work has been done (e.g. by plusandminus) on adjusting data due to differing schedules. There are many ways in which adjusted stats could be used as a starting point and improved by identifying and quantifying various relevant factors, in order to develop improved estimates of how various players would be expected to perform in different conditions (e.g. different seasons). Apparently the right approach in the minds of some is for them to internally assess the affects of numerous factors simultaneously and then for others to accept those mental estimates as fact. That may be deemed superior to the identification, analysis and quantification of factors (individually or as a whole) by some, but not by me. They might consider directing their energy into a direction that would actually improve the collective knowledge of hockey rather than attempt to destroy it.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 05:46 PM
  #192
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
84/85
Goals/Game: 7.77
Avg Power Play Goals/team: 71
Avg Power Play Opp/team: 321
Avg PP%: 22.2%
PP goals % of total goals:22.83%

11/12
Goals/Game: 5.47
Avg Power Play Goals/team: 47
Avg Power Play Opp/team: 271
Avg PP%: 17.31%
PP goals % of total goals: 20.98%

Total goals drop from '85 to '12: 29.6%
Total PP goal drop '85 to '12: 33%

Yeah....I think that will just about take care of any "theory" that PP goals or PP opportunities have anything to do with the top tier players holding a much greater % of league scoring today.
Not only are there LESS PP opportunities today but PP goals have actually DECREASED by a greater % than total goals have.

Scratch that off the list, moving on to next "theory" shortly...

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 06:30 PM
  #193
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
84/85
Goals/Game: 7.77
Avg Power Play Goals/team: 71
Avg Power Play Opp/team: 321
Avg PP%: 22.2%
PP goals % of total goals:22.83%

11/12
Goals/Game: 5.47
Avg Power Play Goals/team: 47
Avg Power Play Opp/team: 271
Avg PP%: 17.31%
PP goals % of total goals: 20.98%

Total goals drop from '85 to '12: 29.6%
Total PP goal drop '85 to '12: 33%

Yeah....I think that will just about take care of any "theory" that PP goals or PP opportunities have anything to do with the top tier players holding a much greater % of league scoring today.
Not only are there LESS PP opportunities today but PP goals have actually DECREASED by a greater % than total goals have.

Scratch that off the list, moving on to next "theory" shortly...
The factors and their magnitudes will vary by season. The past two seasons had lower % of special teams goals than in the prior two decades. 2011 was the lowest since 1985 and 2012 the lowest since 1980.

The top adjusted point players (according to HR.com) in each of following seasons (Euro/Russian players are bolded):

2012: 122, 109, 103, 94, 92, 91, 90, 90, 90, 86, 86, 86
2011: 113, 107, 106, 101, 99, 94, 92, 86, 86, 83, 83

1986: 170, 110, 108, 102, 97, 96, 91, 87, 82, 82
1985: 166, 108, 103, 101, 96, 93, 84, 83, 82, 81, 81, 81

Is it not the greater number of high-scoring Euro/Russian players in the top tiers (disproportionate to both other types of players and the % teams that are additional in 30 team league) that is a big reason for the higher scoring in the top tier? There is also more total teams (more opportunity for players to have career years), possibly more parity (opportunity more evenly distributed as TOI, PP time, etc.). There are numerous factors which are at play, working in harmony or against each other. You seem to be clinging to one single factor (possible influences of a more difficult scoring environment, which itself is due to various causes) as the reason for all the changes over all the various seasons. What proof do you have of this? Why do you seem to claim the burden of proof is on other people to disprove the fantastic notion that one single factor is the sole cause (or even the primary cause) of various effects across various seasons? If some of you would actually contribute some thoughtful study and analysis, instead of trying to discredit the whole idea of adjusted stats, maybe meaningful progress in this area could actually be made in a relative quick time. Instead, I see angry accusations and confusing posts that do nothing but muddle and obfuscate the important, complex factors at work.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-04-2012 at 06:38 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 06:46 PM
  #194
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
The factors and their magnitudes will vary by season. The past two seasons had lower % of special teams goals than in the prior two decades. 2011 was the lowest since 1985 and 2012 the lowest since 1980.

The top adjusted point players (according to HR.com) in each of following seasons (Euro/Russian players are bolded):

2012: 122, 109, 103, 94, 92, 91, 90, 90, 90, 86, 86, 86
2011: 113, 107, 106, 101, 99, 94, 92, 86, 86, 83, 83

1986: 170, 110, 108, 102, 97, 96, 91, 87, 82, 82
1985: 166, 108, 103, 101, 96, 93, 84, 83, 82, 81, 81, 81
And?

You argued earlier that PP points and opportunities afforded to top tier players could be one of the main reasons why top tier scoring hasn't decreased by any where close to the same as other tiers have decreased and why top tier players have had a steady increase of the % of total goals scored.
I just showed that not only is that not a possible conclusion but the data actually shows that top tier players should have experienced a drop because of the decrease in PP opportunities and PP goals that have actually decreased by more than total goals have.

This theory of cause is dead, move on.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 06:52 PM
  #195
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And?

You argued earlier that PP points and opportunities afforded to top tier players could be one of the main reasons why top tier scoring hasn't decreased by any where close to the same as other tiers have decreased.
I just showed that not only is that not a possible conclusion but the data actually shows that top tier players should have experienced a drop because of the decrease in PP opportunities and PP goals that have actually decreased by more than total goals have.

This theory of cause is dead, move on.
You showed that there were fewer PPs (and % of PP goals) in 2012 vs. 1985. Other than that, nothing was proved.

I think this is becoming a wild goose chase, but if you are truly curious, I will try my best to address possible reasons for changes between seasons. If so, then define the following:

- the exact seasons you want to compare
- the exact tiers you want to compare across those seasons (and provide the data by tier that you want explained)

Keep it simple, and I'll try to do this once, purely as an example. I thought we were talking about eras (large groups of seasons) before, not two specific seasons compared to each other.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-04-2012 at 07:30 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 07:21 PM
  #196
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
You showed that there were fewer PPs (and % of PP goals) in 2012 vs. 1985. Other than that, nothing was proved.

I think this is becoming a wild goose chase, but if you are truly curious, I will try my best to address possible reasons for changes between seasons. If so, then define the following:

- the exact seasons you want to compare
- the exact tiers you want to compare across those seasons

Keep it simple, and I'll try to do this once, purely as an example. I thought we were talking about eras (large groups of seasons) before, not two specific seasons compared to each other.
Ok, you go ahead and show me how a decrease in PP goals that is even greater than the decrease of total goals will increase the % of goals scored by top tier players in relation to lower tier players.

You know what it actually means?
It means that the top tier players % of total even strength goals is even higher than than their % of total goals.
Or to put it better, their decrease over the years, compared to the lower tiers, in even strength goals scored is even less than their decrease in total goals scored.
That's what it means.


Seriously, unlike the European factor or addition of top players vs expansion arguments, the facts and data are pretty black and white in regards to the PP for cause argument.

(And when you respond, try to stick to what I'm talking about here please. Namely how you could still believe that a decrease in PP goals (at a greater rate than total goals even) and opportunities could be a cause for why top tier scoring hasn't decreased as much as lower tier scoring has.)
Thanks


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-04-2012 at 08:02 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 07:58 PM
  #197
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Ok, you go ahead and show me how a decrease in PP goals that is even greater than the decrease of total goals will increase the % of goals scored by top tier players in relation to lower tier players.

You know what it actually means?
It means that the top tier players % of total even strength goals is even higher than than their % of total goals.
Or to put it better, their decrease over the years, compared to the lower tiers, in even strength goals scored is even less than their decrease in total goals scored.
That's what it means.

Seriously, unlike the European factor or addition of top players vs expansion arguments, the facts and data are pretty black and white in regards to the PP for cause argument.
Yes, it would seem that PP goals would not be a cause for scoring to comparatively increase for the top tiers in 2012 vs. 1985. There are numerous other factors at work. I believe the top 30 in adjusted scoring in 2012 had a slightly lower avg. than the top 21 in 1985. If so, then that would probably be due to the decrease in PP. In any case, we're never going to have a perfect way of comparing players across different seasons in terms of difficulty of their level of production. This is especially true for the very top playes, because there are so few (in some cases no) similar level of players whose production we can study. The best we can do is pick the most similar group of players for each factor identified and see how production changed for that group, and then assume that the specific player would likely change in a similar way. We can compare them to their peers, but must realize that the peer group changes (in quality, depth, etc.) over time. Do you have a fairer way to compare players across seasons?

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 08:29 PM
  #198
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Yes, it would seem that PP goals would not be a cause for scoring to comparatively increase for the top tiers in 2012 vs. 1985. There are numerous other factors at work. I believe the top 30 in adjusted scoring in 2012 had a slightly lower avg. than the top 21 in 1985. If so, then that would probably be due to the decrease in PP. In any case, we're never going to have a perfect way of comparing players across different seasons in terms of difficulty of their level of production. This is especially true for the very top playes, because there are so few (in some cases no) similar level of players whose production we can study. The best we can do is pick the most similar group of players for each factor identified and see how production changed for that group, and then assume that the specific player would likely change in a similar way. We can compare them to their peers, but must realize that the peer group changes (in quality, depth, etc.) over time. Do you have a fairer way to compare players across seasons?
Thank you!

And yes, I realise no system is going to be perfect. Which is why you don't just base comparisons on ONE system and you certainly don't abandon common sense in the process.

I am still going to continue to drive home the point that not all tiers of players are going to be affected equally in a harsher scoring environment.
I saw it all through minor hockey. As we got older, coaching sunk in better as we could better understand the implementation of systems and positioning.
As this happened, the lesser talented players found it increasingly harder to score while the more talented players were having a lot less trouble maintaining their production.
As a result, our team scoring became less spread out between all lines and more concentrated on the top lines. Our total goals scored decreased but that decrease was in no way, shape or from an equal decrease between all players.
This is reality and IMO, exactly the same thing has happened in the NHL over the last 30 years.

So you can continue to say that scoring has decreased between all players equally and I will continue to call ********

The Math aside, you KNOW this makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 09:45 PM
  #199
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Thank you!

And yes, I realise no system is going to be perfect. Which is why you don't just base comparisons on ONE system and you certainly don't abandon common sense in the process.

I am still going to continue to drive home the point that not all tiers of players are going to be affected equally in a harsher scoring environment.
I saw it all through minor hockey. As we got older, coaching sunk in better as we could better understand the implementation of systems and positioning.
As this happened, the lesser talented players found it increasingly harder to score while the more talented players were having a lot less trouble maintaining their production.
As a result, our team scoring became less spread out between all lines and more concentrated on the top lines. Our total goals scored decreased but that decrease was in no way, shape or from an equal decrease between all players.
This is reality and IMO, exactly the same thing has happened in the NHL over the last 30 years.

So you can continue to say that scoring has decreased between all players equally and I will continue to call ********

The Math aside, you KNOW this makes a hell of a lot of sense.
It makes sense that it's possible that scoring changes comparatively between tiers, for various reasons. You presume to know the direction of the change, but I doubt that the direction is constant. I also would guess the magnitude (at least that part of the magnitude due to the changing scoring environment) may be substantially less than you think.

Bottom line: more research and analysis needs to be done if one wants to compare players from different eras with increased confidence.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2012, 10:58 PM
  #200
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
It makes sense that it's possible that scoring changes comparatively between tiers, for various reasons. You presume to know the direction of the change, but I doubt that the direction is constant. I also would guess the magnitude (at least that part of the magnitude due to the changing scoring environment) may be substantially less than you think.
Overall you're prolly right but again, we deal mostly with outliers and the top 1% here so even a small number will exponentially change the overall picture for these players.
For example, based on the numbers Overpass presented here http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...39&postcount=8
Top tier players have a 13.4% increased share of total goals from 1983 compared to 2008.
You take Gretzky's 159 adjusted points from 1983 and that 13.4% increase changes his share so that he would have a projected 180 points in 2008 or a 9.3% increase projecting from 1983 to 2012 equaling 174 point projection.
Suddenly not so insignificant
Obviously this is just a rough example but even at about half that 13.4% at a 7% increase share, it changes that 159 to 170.

Quote:
Bottom line: more research and analysis needs to be done if one wants to compare players from different eras with increased confidence.
Definitely.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-04-2012 at 11:14 PM.
Rhiessan71 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 05:52 PM.

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.