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
11-08-2012, 03:30 PM
  #251
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Wow really? Still only using AS's to base your conclusions on eh? Whatever dude.
What else would you like him to base his conclusions on?

More to the point, what else are *you* basing your conclusions on? Please be specific (and hopefully more tangible than "I know what I saw, and you can't change that.")

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 03:34 PM
  #252
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
What else would you like him to base his conclusions on?

More to the point, what else are *you* basing your conclusions on? Please be specific (and hopefully more tangible than "I know what I saw, and you can't change that.")
Read above^ I edited in some more.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 03:35 PM
  #253
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Read above^
I read above, and I'm not satisfied, because you haven't answered my question.

Was it the "LOLOLOL!" that you edited in, or was it the sarcasm emoticon (I see that the "Whatever dude" was there to begin with)?

Those were both helpful, not at all condescending, and I'm sure will help to further an intelligent conversation.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 03:37 PM
  #254
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,540
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Wow really? Still only using AS's to base your conclusions on eh? Whatever dude.

But yeah, you're right, there are plenty of top players in the last 20 years that could of topped 150 points...IF they were playing with Gretzky

I would absolutely LOVE to hear the arguments or what adjusted stats says for how these top players would break 150 points playing with Gerrard Gallant and Paul MacLean???
I see these peak seasons from the 70s, 80s & early 90s:

Bucyk 116
Clarke 119, 116
Sittler 117
Nilsson 131
Bossy 147
Maruk 136
Goulet 121
Hawerchuk 130
Nicholls 150
Messier 129
Br. Hull 131
Lafontaine 148
Oates 142
Turgeon 132

That excludes the players who played with Gretzky & Lemieux. Given my estimation of the skills of many of those individuals in comparison to most of the more recent players which I listed, I don't see seasons in the ~150 range as highly improbably in a similar environment. I don't based it solely on adjusted stats, but they do confirm the conclusion IMO.

Remember also, the 70s, 80s and early 90s includes environments where:

- multiple defensemen had over 100 points (and that's besides Coffey's 120+ points multiple times while playing in large part with Gretzky... including his high of 138)

- players who are almost never discussed among history's better players hitting 100 points: MacMillan, Chouinard, Stoughton, Rogers (3x), Broten, Ogrodnick, Juneau, etc.

Players don't often hit 100 points and/or finish in the top 5-10 simply because they play with one of the top 2-3 current stars in more recent years. You can't just stick any Larry, Curly or Moe on the line and expect him to hit 100 points, because usually only the very best players hit 100 points (and sometimes none do).


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-08-2012 at 04:03 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 03:46 PM
  #255
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
I read above, and I'm not satisfied, because you haven't answered my question.

Was it the "LOLOLOL!" that you edited in, or was it the sarcasm emoticon (I see that the "Whatever dude" was there to begin with)?

Those were both helpful, not at all condescending, and I'm sure will help to further an intelligent conversation.
Fair enough, the LOLOLOL was uncalled for.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 04:01 PM
  #256
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I see these peak seasons from the 70s, 80s & early 90s:

Bucyk 116
Clarke 119, 116
Sittler 117
Nilsson 131
Bossy 147
Maruk 136
Goulet 121
Hawerchuk 130
Nicholls 150
Messier 129
Br. Hull 131

That excludes the players who played with Gretzky & Lemieux. Given my estimation of the skills of many of those individuals in comparison to most of the more recent players which I listed, I don't see seasons in the ~150 range as highly improbably in a similar environment. I don't based it solely on adjusted stats, but they do confirm the conclusion IMO.
Nicholls played with Gretzky.
Bossy is the only one that truly came close to 150 and he even had Trots and Potvin helping.

Not only are you saying that there are all these players that are equal to or better than Bossy but that they could also do it without the help of a Trotts and Potvin.
Meanwhile, Nilsson's talent and skill level in the 80's could not only match up to but dwarfs that of most of the top players today and the best he could do in the 80's was 131.
Sorry, not buying it.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 04:08 PM
  #257
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,540
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Nicholls played with Gretzky.
Bossy is the only one that truly came close to 150 and he even had Trots and Potvin helping.

Not only are you saying that there are all these players that are equal to or better than Bossy but that they could also do it without the help of a Trotts and Potvin.
Meanwhile, Nilsson's talent and skill level in the 80's could not only match up to but dwarfs that of most of the top players today and the best he could do in the 80's was 131.
Sorry, not buying it.
And I'm not buying that there haven't been players outside the big 3 in the past two decades who were at least 10% better offensively than Dennis Maruk... or 25% better offensively than the defensive Bobby Clarke... or 15% better offensively than Messier.

Nicholls didn't play on Gretzky's line at even strength. Yes, I think there were even more productive offensive players than Bossy or Nilsson over the past two decades.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 04:22 PM
  #258
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
And I'm not buying that there haven't been players outside the big 3 in the past two decades who were at least 10% better offensively than Dennis Maruk... or 25% better offensively than the defensive Bobby Clarke... or 15% better offensively than Messier.

Nicholls didn't play on Gretzky's line at even strength. Yes, I think there were even more productive offensive players than Bossy or Nilsson over the past two decades.
And yet Mario Lemieux was only able to break 150 in the 80's twice and 4 times for his career.

How about this...using Adjusted stats against you, how many of Jagr's seasons break 150 points in the 80's according to them?
Just eye balling it, looks to be about 3-5 of them.
What was that you said again...oh yeah, that multiple recent top players could of broken 150 over a 3-5 year peak in the 80's.
So now, not only are there all these players better than Bossy aided by Trotts and Potvin but they are also on par with Jagr AND outpointed Lemieux most seasons.

Again, not buying it.

(Oh and for Nicholls, none of his 150 points were from Gretzky and he certainly didn't benefit from the other team throwing their best defensive players at Gretzky's line and not his right?)


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-08-2012 at 04:33 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 04:39 PM
  #259
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
(Oh and for Nicholls, none of his 150 points were from Gretzky and he certainly didn't benefit from the other team throwing their best defensive players at Gretzky's line and not his right?)
This conversation would be a heck of a lot more productive if you'd quit putting words in other people's mouths.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 04:46 PM
  #260
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
This conversation would be a heck of a lot more productive if you'd quit putting words in other people's mouths.
I did not!
He clearly listed Nicholls on a list, that I quote "That excludes the players who played with Gretzky & Lemieux."

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 04:49 PM
  #261
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I did not!
He clearly listed Nicholls on a list, that I quote "That excludes the players who played with Gretzky & Lemieux."
And he had already clarified his comment, had he not? (it's in the post that you quoted in your response)

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 05:00 PM
  #262
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
And he had already clarified his comment, had he not? (Hint: it's in the post that you quoted in your response)
Gimme a break.
He tried to use Nicholls not always playing on Gretzky's line to eliminate all the other benefits Gretzky provided for him.
Such as PP points and the greatly decreased attention Bernie and his line would face on a nightly basis.
His name does NOT belong on that list, period!
He played with Gretzky and his points total was directly and indirectly affected by it.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-08-2012 at 05:06 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 05:07 PM
  #263
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Gimme a break.
He tried to use Nicholls not always playing on Gretzky's line to eliminate all the other benefits Gretzky provided for him.
Such as PP points and the greatly decreased attention Bernie and his line would face on a nightly basis.
His name does NOT belong on that list, period!
He played with Gretzky and his points total was directly and indirectly affected by it.
You realize that this isn't a fight, right? And that we're all on the same team?

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 05:16 PM
  #264
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,540
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And yet Mario Lemieux was only able to break 150 in the 80's twice and 4 times for his career.

How about this...using Adjusted stats against you, how many of Jagr's seasons break 150 points in the 80's according to them?
Just eye balling it, looks to be about 3-5 of them.
What was that you said again...oh yeah, that multiple recent top players could of broken 150 over a 3-5 year peak in the 80's.
So now, not only are there all these players better than Bossy aided by Trotts and Potvin but they are also on par with Jagr AND outpointed Lemieux most seasons.
Just glancing at the numbers, I'd say Jagr had 3 seasons that equate very probably to 150+, 3 more that are possible (borderline), and 2 others that were probably if not for injury (where he still played > 3/4 of each of those seasons).

So, he had 3-8 seasons at roughly that level, and probably could have had at least 3-5 seasons of 150+ as you said.

Yes, there are other players who IMO might have scored ~150 once or twice, or averaged ~150 in their best ~3 seasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
(Oh and for Nicholls, none of his 150 points were from Gretzky and he certainly didn't benefit from the other team throwing their best defensive players at Gretzky's line and not his right?)
If Nicholls got an extra ~20 points on the PP due to Gretzky, then that's still 130 points... and still plenty enough to convince me that other, better players could have scored 150 at their very best.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 05:46 PM
  #265
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
See, this is where common sense takes over.
An appeal to common sense. Here's one discussion of it. I like this particular passage:

"And that demonstrates the appeal of saying that something is common sense: It removes the burden of proof from the person making the assertion, and places it on anyone who disagrees with it. Essentially, it abdicates any responsibility for backing up your position. More than that, it demeans anyone who disagrees, as they obviously lack common sense (whatever that might be)."

Now, if you're not simply appealing to common sense despite using that term, I'd urge you to be more careful in your choice of words. There's really no such thing as "common sense". What one person considers to be common sense is simply their own take on things, informed by their own biases and experiences. That's why appeals to common sense should be avoided. If you have a reason for believing a thing, state that reason. Don't resort to saying that it's something anyone with any sense should believe, at the least because it makes it sound like you don't actually have a reason.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 06:12 PM
  #266
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Just glancing at the numbers, I'd say Jagr had 3 seasons that equate very probably to 150+, 3 more that are possible (borderline), and 2 others that were probably if not for injury (where he still played > 3/4 of each of those seasons).

So, he had 3-8 seasons at roughly that level, and probably could have had at least 3-5 seasons of 150+ as you said.

Yes, there are other players who IMO might have scored ~150 once or twice, or averaged ~150 in their best ~3 seasons.
Agree to disagree.
If it could have been done, it would have already.
In '06 when scoring took a jump back to mid 90's levels, a declining Jagr finished all of 2 points behind the leader and a whopping 14% ahead of anyone else.
That Jagr was a far cry from the Jagr that had a 149 point season in '96 or even the Jagr that had a 127 point season in '99.

I mean who are we talking about here?
Crosby? Sure, I see that being possible but that is only based on a half season where he looked like he was matching Yzerman's level of play in '89 and that of Jagr in SOME of his seasons.
Ovechkin, Stamkos? On a purely goal scoring level, sure they look great in the 80's but either of them converting that to an actual 150 point total...doubtful.
Malkin? Where's the consistency you would need?
Forsberg, Lindros? They get "killed" in the 80's playing their styles even worse than they were playing it in the late 90's/early 2000's. Suffice to say, they spend even more time on the injury list.
The Sedin's? Don't get me started.
Selanne, Kariya? There's some consistency there but they were both a clear step behind Jagr at all times.
Sakic? A guy who DID play at the time and managed all of 109 points during...I think not.

Honestly, I just don't see who you're referring to?


Quote:
If Nicholls got an extra ~20 points on the PP due to Gretzky, then that's still 130 points... and still plenty enough to convince me that other, better players could have scored 150 at their very best.
And again, out of the remaining 130, how many were because Nicholls had a hell of a lot more room and received a hell of a lot less attention playing behind Gretzky than he would have as a 1rst line center on another team?
You just simply can't include Nicholls on that list, end of story.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 10:35 PM
  #267
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
If it could have been done, it would have already.
Another logical fallacy.

But beyond that, this is just a bizarre response when discussing hypotheticals. Aren't you discussing what post-80s seasons might hypothetically have cracked 150 points in the 80s? Saying that if it could have been done it would have makes no sense, since you're talking about taking players back in time to a time when they did not actually play.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:12 AM
  #268
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Another logical fallacy.

But beyond that, this is just a bizarre response when discussing hypotheticals. Aren't you discussing what post-80s seasons might hypothetically have cracked 150 points in the 80s? Saying that if it could have been done it would have makes no sense, since you're talking about taking players back in time to a time when they did not actually play.
Look, I don't really take issue with the idea that one of these top players (outside of 99, 66, 68 and 87) might have cracked 150 once in the 80's.
What got me going was the statement that there are multiple players that would of done it multiple times each.

I look over the list of the best players over the last 20 years and quite frankly I just don't see it.
There's just not enough consistency and too many injury issues on that list to accomplish what is being said.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:24 AM
  #269
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,540
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Look, I don't really take issue with the idea that one of these top players (outside of 99, 66, 68 and 87) might have cracked 150 once in the 80's.
What got me going was the statement that there are multiple players that would of done it multiple times each.

I look over the list of the best players over the last 20 years and quite frankly I just don't see it.
There's just not enough consistency and too many injury issues on that list to accomplish what is being said.
I don't mean to say, nor do adjusted stats imply, that the more recent stars (except possibly Jagr) would have been piling up ~150+ point seasons left and right. However, there are multiple players who had more than one season that may have potentially been a ~150 point season in the 80s.

However, it wouldn't be easy. Of course a player's going to need the "stars to align" to some extent:

- It would help to peak during the five seasons '82-86, when league scoring was at its peak, rather than other seasons when it was generally lower

- the player would have be healthy, and miss no more than a couple/few games

- it never hurts to be on a strong team, or at least have some capable linemates

Bossy scored 147 in '82, the absolute peak in NHL gpg, didn't miss a single game, and played with Trottier & Potvin. That's why he came within 3 points of 150, not because he was a "better" regular season point producer than several players since.

Oates scored 142 in '93, which was very kind to high scoring players, didn't miss any of the 84 games, and played with Brett Hull. Nicholls scored 150 in '89, which again was a season that seemed to help high scoring players, missed only one game, and played on the same team as Gretzky, Robitaille, etc. Again, these players were mostly in the right place at the right time for their peak seasons (although put Hull & Oates in '82, and Oates likely hits 150), not superior to all players since.

However, that's not the only way a player can put up an amazing total. Someone still needs to explain Maruk's 136 point campaign. He fit 2/3 criteria ('82 was THE peak season, and he didn't miss a game), but the only big name teammate was Gartner who scored only 80 points that year. Maruk never hit 100 points again, either before or after that season. I guess that sort of contradicts the whole "high scoring seasons help lower tier players more than higher scoring players" hypothesis.

However, I have no doubt that more bird shot will be sprayed into the sky in the hopes of actually hitting something.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 03:00 AM
  #270
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I don't mean to say, nor do adjusted stats imply, that the more recent stars (except possibly Jagr) would have been piling up ~150+ point seasons left and right. However, there are multiple players who had more than one season that may have potentially been a ~150 point season in the 80s.

However, it wouldn't be easy. Of course a player's going to need the "stars to align" to some extent:

- It would help to peak during the five seasons '82-86, when league scoring was at its peak, rather than other seasons when it was generally lower

- the player would have be healthy, and miss no more than a couple/few games

- it never hurts to be on a strong team, or at least have some capable linemates

Bossy scored 147 in '82, the absolute peak in NHL gpg, didn't miss a single game, and played with Trottier & Potvin. That's why he came within 3 points of 150, not because he was a "better" regular season point producer than several players since.

Oates scored 142 in '93, which was very kind to high scoring players, didn't miss any of the 84 games, and played with Brett Hull. Nicholls scored 150 in '89, which again was a season that seemed to help high scoring players, missed only one game, and played on the same team as Gretzky, Robitaille, etc. Again, these players were mostly in the right place at the right time for their peak seasons (although put Hull & Oates in '82, and Oates likely hits 150), not superior to all players since.

However, that's not the only way a player can put up an amazing total. Someone still needs to explain Maruk's 136 point campaign. He fit 2/3 criteria ('82 was THE peak season, and he didn't miss a game), but the only big name teammate was Gartner who scored only 80 points that year. Maruk never hit 100 points again, either before or after that season. I guess that sort of contradicts the whole "high scoring seasons help lower tier players more than higher scoring players" hypothesis.

However, I have no doubt that more bird shot will be sprayed into the sky in the hopes of actually hitting something.
It's no easier to explain Maruk than it is to explain Cheechoo's 56 goal season. I mean you can say Thornton came over a 1/4 of the way into the season but he played a full season with Joe the next year and only mustered 37, then 23 the following year.
Or Briere's 95 point season that he cashed in on.
I don't know what to tell you.
All I do know is that it's been a lot more common over the years for a good player to produce a single anomaly elite season than it is for an elite player to produce a single anomaly great season.

I don't know what to tell you except that I saw what it took for Yzerman to get 155 with who he played with that year and other than Jagr, I haven't seen a player capable of repeating that over an entire season.

Only 15 times in history has the 150 point plateau been surpassed and 13 of them were by Gretzky(9) and Lemieux(4).
I think it's a lot more of a select company to break than you're giving it credit for.
Bossy with the help of Trotts and Potvin couldn't do it, Nilsson couldn't do it, Peter Stastny with the aid of both of his brothers and Goulet couldn't do it, Lafleur on a powerhouse Habs team couldn't do it and Dionne as a member of the Triple Crown line couldn't do it.

That's some pretty heady company and some pretty insane circumstances to beat to achieve what you're talking about man.
Maybe looking at the long list of elite players with extremely favourable circumstances to boot that couldn't do it will allow a better grasp of it, I don't know.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-09-2012 at 03:09 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 08:55 AM
  #271
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 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.
This is what I have a problem with. I have 20 students and 2 get As. I have the same class next year. Those two students still deserve As. But 10 students have come to the class from a foreign land rumoured to be really, really good at the subject I'm teaching. The rumours hold out for the most part and 7 of them deserve As.

You would bell curve the class downwards and deny them what they earned. I would give all deserving students an A or whatever grade they earned according to whatever rubric I had been using up to that time.

Giving students a B,C or D when they actually earned an A based on past practices is what's wrong with bell curving or a misplaced belief in averaging. It has deeper implications on society as the study I've referenced suggests.

If you are doing this with raw hockey data then there can be no doubt whatsoever that your interpreted data is in error. You are saying that you would manipulate data to satisfy an irrational urge for normalcy at the expence of truth.


Last edited by Dalton: 11-09-2012 at 10:07 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:19 AM
  #272
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
You seem to be missing the concept of adjusted stats. Basically, the increased competition increases the difficulty of the "curve", since disproportionately more high scoring forwards should (other things being equal) increase the league avg. GPG, which would lower adjusted stats for any given level of raw production.



I can see arguments going both ways. The argument as to top players would be disproportionately adversely affected would probably be as follows. Three main reasons often cited for the decrease in league scoring in the 90s, and their possible implications are:

1. More defensive systems/coaching- These probably focus more on preventing the top lines from scoring, since they tend to do most of the scoring.

2. Lack of rules enforcement- Clutch and grab, hook and hold type play that was allowed in that era may hurt top players more, since it neutralizes those players' speed and skill, while lower line players may get more garbage goals and be used to that type of playing style (since they may play that way themselves more than top line players do).

3. Better/bigger goalie equipment- Larger coverage of the net due to larger goalie equipment and quicker reactions allowed by lighter equipment may hurt top players more, since they have much better aim and can "pick corners" and deke goalies more effectively. Players who may be getting a large % of goals in front of the net, off their stick or bodies, or who are throwing pucks blindly and/or randomly at the net and hoping to get lucky, may be less affected by such changes.
I think expansion/dilution should be included. In the past some teams- Oilers, Habs, Isles had a lot of talent playing together. Dilution caused by expansion often leaves teams with very little high end talent playing together.

Lemieux and Jagr, Malkin and Crosby, those Detroit wingers. The Pens with their third all-star at center won a cup. Having two or three outstanding players makes a difference these days. It used to be that having an outstanding starting 6 and some excellent guys on the second and third unit was required.

Dilution is a factor and another reason why applying a fixed average (AS) fails. Adding players from non-Canadian countries has just served to stem the tide towards mediocrity. Defensive systems also counter dilution. As do rule breaking or bending such as the recent NYR attempt to win by everyone laying down in front of the net when the other team comes calling. That's an increased talent pool?

AS fails to take into account these changes.

Every tree in every forest is treated the same regardless of the weather or human intervention.


Last edited by Dalton: 11-09-2012 at 10:08 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:27 AM
  #273
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
I understand your position, because I feel very similar about common ways of evaluating players:

- awards, which are tallying of votes, usually by sportswriters: to me these are often mistaken, biased, and based on reputation (since they don't see most players for more than a few games at most), and there are drastic differences in competition for awards in different eras

- ranking amongst their peers: usually this totally ignores the drastic differences in competition during various seasons/eras, so that Howe & Richard's rankings are deemed just as valid as those of the past 2-3 decades

- the good ole "eye test": do I even have to explain that this is as subjective as it gets, and does little to get closer to any reasoned consensus in most cases?

- Cup counting and the like: of course, when one points out that playing in a 6 team league with two rounds of playoffs is going to lead to a lot more Cups for most top individual players, it is usually summarily dismissed as irrelevant
The difference between the POVs you aren't comfortable with is that they don't come to the debate with a table of stats and an arcane methodology claiming 'I brought math therefore I've won.'

This is not a math problem. This an HR issue. Determining the value of work performed vs peers and making value judgements comparing work done in different social, economic and political times. Hockey has all these variables but they are not reflected in AS in any way whatsoever.


Last edited by Dalton: 11-09-2012 at 09:51 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:30 AM
  #274
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
This is not a math problem. This an HR issue. Determining the value of work performed vs peers and making value judgements comparing work done in different social, economic and political times. Hockey has all these variables but they are not reflected in AS in any way whatsoever.
You're in the wrong forum, then:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1237235

This forum is about quantifiable efforts to measure hockey-related issues.

If your claim is that it can't be done, and that everyone should just shut up about it, then there are hundreds of other subforums here that you might enjoy.

Otherwise, feel free to pitch in and help.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:31 AM
  #275
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
When someone demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding of the basic concepts of adjusted stats, it's much more difficult to take their opinion seriously.

Also, some critics of adjusted stats appear more interested in maintaining their (and others') lack of understanding and/or in derailing the discussion toward confusing, unproductive tangents.

However, there are legitimate criticisms of adjusted stats when trying to compare the quality the production of different players in different seasons. I believe more progress can be made in identifying the most important complicating factors, studying them, and properly quantifying them in a way that allows for further adjustment in a fair manner.
You are assuming that adjusted stats the answer. This is a huge problem in this debate. The assumption that AS is absolutely true and that if you don't buy into that and argue from that POV then you are (fill in the blank).

Hard to have a debate about the value of something when one side won't acknowledge that their value is the debate.

Dalton 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 03:11 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.