HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
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
11-12-2012, 04:59 PM
  #301
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
All I said was that based on such production as Lafontaine & Oates
in '93 (and other player-seasons) that I see ~150 points as attainable by some more recent players at some point(s) in their career. Laftonaine scoring 141/80 doesn't really change my opinion.



You attributed the increase for Oates & Lafontaine to Ottawa's presence, but this reason appears to have been refuted. There were other reasons that many stars saw increases in their PPG that season. Oates & Lafontaine's production equates to ~135-140+/80 at the height of the 80s in terms of value, the only question is what is the fairest estimate of the quality/difficulty of that level of production in comparison to ~150 in '82. Simple adjusted stats are the best estimate, the agreed upon base summit, until higher ground is reached. Until the direction and magnitude of changes due to various reasons are determined, I don't see how one can properly arrive at a better estimate. I believe that at some point better estimates may be calculated.



I give value to other things besides adjusted points. It seems the detractors of adjusted stats look for flaws in its context and disagree with the significance others may place on them in their evaluations of forwards, yet they weight much more flawed (IMO) data with almost no thought to the vast differences in context for rankings, awards, team success, etc. I'm not ranking players based on a single season of adjusted stats, but based on multiple seasons in multiple categories.
Cherry pick which arguments and points to respond to and then, to top it all off, you attempt to spin my argument back onto me?
That the people that try and factor in ALL information are the ones with the flawed outlook...don't make me laugh.

Seriously, you have spent the better part of 4 pages now trying to come up with solutions for how Adjusted Stats could be fixed or made to be more realistic and accurate while the whole time completely double talking and avoiding admitting that there are issues with them in the first place.
Issues that most certainly DO affect how much value they should get. Which just so happens to be what the purpose of this thread was supposed to be about.
Funny stuff.

But hey, by all means lets just continue to call Glenn Murray's 02/03 season more valuable than 8 of Bossy's 10 seasons


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-12-2012 at 05:13 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:19 PM
  #302
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Cherry pick which arguments and points to respond to and then, to top it all off, you attempt to spin my argument back onto me?
That the people that try and factor in ALL information are the ones with the flawed outlook...don't make me laugh.
How do you imagine I "spun" your argument back at you? Unless you mean the reasons you gave for Oates & Lafontaine's production being obviously wrong. A bunch of lesser players increasing their scoring doesn't prove anything. Players like Gretzky, Messier, Hull, Nicholls, Hawerchuk, Stastny, Savard, Sakic, Roenick, etc. had a decreased PPG in '93. Some increased, some decreased. Overall it was a favorable year for many forwards, but you haven't proven anything by listing a few players in one division who increased their totals... esp. when the expansion team increased the production of Oates & Lafontaine by < 2% and less than the league avg. gpg increase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Seriously, you have spent the better part of 4 pages now trying to come up with solutions for how Adjusted Stats could be fixed or made to be more realistic and accurate while the whole time completely double talking and avoiding admitting that there are issues with them in the first place.
Issues that most certainly DO affect how much value they should get. Which just so happens to be what the purpose of this thread was supposed to be about.
Funny stuff.
I don't know how significant the issues are without further study. Apparently advocating such and trying to actually create something of value is not as valuable as your buckshot theories based on nothing but your imagination, biases, and guesses? There's nothing wrong with guessing, but the point is to use that as an intuitive basis for further research which can quantify and verify/disprove those guesses, not to cling to one's beliefs in the face of all evidence while declaring one's own unsubstantiated opinions as fact.

As I've explained, without further evidence, we don't know how or even whether to make further adjustments in terms of quality, until there is some solid quantitative research which explains the reasons for and magnitude of the changes.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:41 PM
  #303
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
How do you imagine I "spun" your argument back at you? Unless you mean the reasons you gave for Oates & Lafontaine's production being obviously wrong. A bunch of lesser players increasing their scoring doesn't prove anything. Players like Gretzky, Messier, Hull, Nicholls, Hawerchuk, Stastny, Savard, Sakic, Roenick, etc. had a decreased PPG in '93. Some increased, some decreased. Overall it was a favorable year for many forwards, but you haven't proven anything by listing a few players in one division who increased their totals... esp. when the expansion team increased the production of Oates & Lafontaine by < 2% and less than the league avg. gpg increase.
Yeah, you're right. When every player on every top line in a entire division has career years and better all at the exact same time. It's just luck and should have no bearing in a discussion about the value of some of those players doing it.
Forget I mentioned it, that kinda stuff happens allll the time

Either way, it was your last paragraph that I was referring to about detractors of Adjusted Stats and once again you completely missed the boat.
What you keep calling detractors aren't even attacking AS's themselves. We're attacking the value you and others constantly assign to them. We're attacking the removal of almost all other info in favour of AS's that is done far too often.

Quote:
I don't know how significant the issues are without further study. Apparently advocating such and trying to actually create something of value is not as valuable as your buckshot theories based on nothing but your imagination, biases, and guesses? There's nothing wrong with guessing, but the point is to use that as an intuitive basis for further research which can quantify and verify/disprove those guesses, not to cling to one's beliefs in the face of all evidence while declaring one's own unsubstantiated opinions as fact.

As I've explained, without further evidence, we don't know how or even whether to make further adjustments in terms of quality, until there is some solid quantitative research which explains the reasons for and magnitude of the changes.
I rest my case.
You just did it again. You're going on and on about evaluating what's wrong, what could be wrong or what could be done to make them better. You circle and circle saying you can't be sure if there is anything wrong but you also can't say they're right either.
So despite you not being totally sure of them either way, you still advocate them as the best and a lot of the time, the only way of comparing players.
You'll excuse me if I'm sitting here shaking my head in frustration.
Especially since my BIGGEST point in this whole thing has been not to ignore any of the info and to look past just the numbers to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:55 PM
  #304
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
But hey, by all means lets just continue to call Glenn Murray's 02/03 season more valuable than 8 of Bossy's 10 seasons
You forgot to mention that Murray's 01-02 is a good or better than six of Bossy's ten.

Murray's 2006-07 is also pretty strong (28G, 29 AG in 59 GP), and probably would have been notably better had Thornton stayed in town.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:58 PM
  #305
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Yeah, you're right. When every player on every top line in a entire division has career years and better all at the exact same time. It's just luck and should have no bearing in a discussion about the value of some of those players doing it.
Forget I mentioned it, that kinda stuff happens allll the time
So according to you, there should be some sort of one-time "division effect" for which you want to adjust (whether explicitly or implicitly), yet the reason you suggested did not seem to directly affect the two highest producing players which were the ones I actually used as (part of the) example. When you focus strictly on the what without the why, you can end up sacrificing livestock to the sun god, since that may appear to cause the sun to rise the next day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Either way, it was your last paragraph that I was referring to about detractors of Adjusted Stats and once again you completely missed the boat.
What you keep calling detractors aren't even attacking AS's themselves. We're attacking the value you and others constantly assign to them. We're attacking the removal of almost all other info in favour of AS's that is done far too often.
"We" seems mainly to be you, and someone whose posts I struggle to partially understand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I rest my case.
You just did it again. You're going on and on about evaluating what's wrong, what could be wrong or what could be done to make them better. You circle and circle saying you can't be sure if there is anything wrong but you also can't say they're right either.
So despite you not being totally sure of them either way, you still advocate them as the best and a lot of the time, the only way of comparing players.
You'll excuse me if I'm sitting here shaking my head in frustration.
Especially since my BIGGEST point in this whole thing has been not to ignore any of the info and to look past just the numbers to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
You rest your case on a foundation of quicksand.

One can't know exactly how accurate are "simple" adjusted stats in terms of comparing players across seasons, until one:

- defines the players and seasons
- studies and quantifies to a large degree the changes and the reasons for such

Estimating the quality of different player-seasons using adjusted stats is sort of like estimating a tree's height by its shadow and the time of day (sun's angle). It's not likely to be 100% accurate, but it's the best estimate with the given info. There may be factors which distort the shadow, but unless one knows what those factors are and how they affect the measurements, it's not going to help much when you go to measure different trees at a different time. Without proper knowledge, what is already a very accurate estimate is as likely to be distorted further as improved.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:31 PM
  #306
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
So according to you, there should be some sort of one-time "division effect" for which you want to adjust (whether explicitly or implicitly), yet the reason you suggested did not seem to directly affect the two highest producing players which were the ones I actually used as (part of the) example. When you focus strictly on the what without the why, you can end up sacrificing livestock to the sun god, since that may appear to cause the sun to rise the next day.



"We" seems mainly to be you, and someone whose posts I struggle to partially understand.




You rest your case on a foundation of quicksand.

One can't know exactly how accurate are "simple" adjusted stats in terms of comparing players across seasons, until one:

- defines the players and seasons
- studies and quantifies to a large degree the changes and the reasons for such

Estimating the quality of different player-seasons using adjusted stats is sort of like estimating a tree's height by its shadow and the time of day (sun's angle). It's not likely to be 100% accurate, but it's the best estimate with the given info. There may be factors which distort the shadow, but unless one knows what those factors are and how they affect the measurements, it's not going to help much when you go to measure different trees at a different time. Without proper knowledge, what is already a very accurate estimate is as likely to be distorted further as improved.
Are you seriously saying that if I don't put the same weight in AS's that you do, that I might as well be praying to the Sun god for answers. C'mon.
Unlike you, I don't ignore anything. I assign weight to every piece of info including Adjusted Stats. I find the context of each piece of info.
I determine the weight of each stat and piece of info in each situation based on how well they compliment each other.
I don't start out by assigning a high unchanging weight to one and then TRY to fit the rest of the info around it.

What's more, you keep going on about how I can't prove AS's are as inaccurate as I keep saying.
Well, I got news for ya, you can't prove they are as accurate as you keep saying either.

So again, when the purpose of the thread is to ask what value Adjusted Stats have and neither of us can prove their accuracy one way or the other...should that not be a huge factor in determining that value?


And honestly dude, are you still saying that all those players in the same division having career years at the exact same time doesn't warrant further investigation before simply determining that Oates and Lafontaine's seasons were worth 150 in the 80's?
You don't think some context should be determined first before just letting Adjusted Stats say so?


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-12-2012 at 06:37 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 06:43 PM
  #307
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Are you seriously saying that if I don't put the same weight in AS's that you do, that I might as well be praying to the Sun god for answers. C'mon.
Didn't you used to be in Spin Doctors?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Unlike you, I don't ignore anything. I assign weight to every piece of info including Adjusted Stats. I find the context of each piece of info.
I determine the weight of each stat and piece of info in each situation based on how well they compliment each other.
I don't start out by assigning a high unchanging weight to one and then TRY to fit the rest of the info around it.

What's more, you keep going on about how I can't prove AS's are as inaccurate as I keep saying.
Well, I got news for ya, you can't prove they are as accurate as you keep saying either.

So again, when the purpose of the thread is to ask what value Adjusted Stats have and neither of us can prove their accuracy one way or the other...should that not be a huge factor in determining that value?
You use your ways and value weightings, and others will use theres. I don't know why you continue to portray me as someone who only uses adjusted stats and not other data/info, both with as much context as possible. Your imagined assertions don't make them fact.

The value of adjusted stats lies in that very word: VALUE. They give you exact value of offensive contribution based on the player's actual production and scoring context. They also are the best estimate of the quality of a given level of production in a given season, compared to other seasons. You can't prove the worth or accuracy of any of your metrics, so why must those who consider AS very valuable prove their exact accuracy and/or defend their importance in their own evaluations? Meanwhile, you may give increased weight to measures that I would consider inferior... with no quantification of the drastic changes in context/competition, and little appreciation of such, or the fact that the last-minute ballots of some hungover sportswriters are not going to be given more weight than objective, value-based metrics by some people.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 07:37 PM
  #308
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Didn't you used to be in Spin Doctors?
You tried it first and that was only after using the ole disguising multiple paragraphs as answers that were anything but answers wasn't working anymore

Quote:
You use your ways and value weightings, and others will use theres. I don't know why you continue to portray me as someone who only uses adjusted stats and not other data/info, both with as much context as possible. Your imagined assertions don't make them fact.
You have tried to use them at face value. The Gretzky vs Jagr scoring in the 90's that I mentioned earlier in this thread just for starters heh.


Quote:
The value of adjusted stats lies in that very word: VALUE. They give you exact value of offensive contribution based on the player's actual production and scoring context. They also are the best estimate of the quality of a given level of production in a given season, compared to other seasons. You can't prove the worth or accuracy of any of your metrics, so why must those who consider AS very valuable prove their exact accuracy and/or defend their importance in their own evaluations? Meanwhile, you may give increased weight to measures that I would consider inferior... with no quantification of the drastic changes in context/competition, and little appreciation of such, or the fact that the last-minute ballots of some hungover sportswriters are not going to be given more weight than objective, value-based metrics by some people.
Yep, you're right, you just go on believing that Glenn Murray's 02/03 season holds more value than 8 out of 10 of Bossy's seasons.
You keep on believing that OV, Forsberg and Sakic would have been capable of cracking what Lafleur, Dionne, Bossy and Stastny under incredibly favourable conditions including weaker goaltending, superior team strengths and an overall all out offensive league mentality couldn't do.
Or that dozens of top line players all having career years in the same division at the same time doesn't warrant further investigation.
Yeah, I'm the one ignoring info or neglecting context am I?
Sorry if I believe the value of Adjusted Stats should be determined by the case and not before hand.


So what's the actual answer to the question posed in this thread?
It's that AS's Value is not constant, that's the answer.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:35 PM
  #309
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
When you're trying to project an 84 game season total into an 80 game season total...





There's more to it than that though. Take 3 more seconds and look over the teams in the Adam's division that year. It wasn't just Oates, the Bruins and Lafontaine, the Sabres. Look at the amount of players also on the Habs, Nords and Whalers that posted career years or pretty much matched their previous career years in 92/93. I'm not just talking about slightly better than their norm kinda thing either, most of them spiked well above anything they had done before or after.
It's like 2-4 players per team for pete's sake and again, Adam's division scoring increased by 23% not the league 4%.
Sundin(21% better), Ricci(39%), Lafontaine(41%), Mogilny(19%), Damphousse (3%), Muller(matched his career high), Lebeau(38%), Oates(23%), Juneau(42%), Sanderson(33%), Cassels(25%), Zalapski(14%).
The list goes on and on for that year in that division.
You can't just ignore this many concentrated anomalies. It has to be accounted for before you can simply say Adam's and Pat's season are worth 150 in the 80's because the value Adjusted Stats assigns those points, says so.
That's ridiculous, seriously.




But you're not just using them as a starting point are you! You're using them as the start and the finish and THAT is my whole problem with it all in the first place.

Again, for hopefully the last time...it's not so much the math or the value that AS's assigns that is flawed(even though it most certainly is in the way it handles the top 1% and outliers). It's the value that AS's gets in the equation far too often, that is.
There has to be context!


You keep saying there are all these indications that it could be done yet ignore the indicators that say it wouldn't like Dionne, Lafleur, Bossy and Stastny who are as good or better than anyone you mentioned and each of them had better help and sometimes far superior circumstances to do it but didn't.
I'm not spending much time on this thread because math really bores me and I don't understand all the technical mumbo jumbo (more due to a lack of interest than anything else) but I do understand the concepts.

But if you want to go down the unbalanced schedule route with Ottawa being in that division you better look at the early Oilers more closely with the Jets, Cancuks and Kings as whipping boys for the Oil.

My bet is that you won't do that. Or that you move the goalposts again.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:03 PM
  #310
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I'm not spending much time on this thread because math really bores me and I don't understand all the technical mumbo jumbo (more due to a lack of interest than anything else) but I do understand the concepts.

But if you want to go down the unbalanced schedule route with Ottawa being in that division you better look at the early Oilers more closely with the Jets, Cancuks and Kings as whipping boys for the Oil.

My bet is that you won't do that. Or that you move the goalposts again.
That's my whole point though, the goal posts don't stay the same but apparently Adjusted stats can magically line them all up.

Obviously, that's not the point you're trying to make though.
Of course we have to evaluate those factors but if you draft Wayne Gretzky today, are you going to just plug him into your team or are you going to build around him?
And when you have huge success, not only is every team in the league going to emulate you but the teams in your division are going to even more so.
I mean it wasn't even a matter of everyone in that division emulating the Oiler's. It was the Jets that led the way and it was their style in the WHA and early in their NHL debut that inspired Sather and the Oilers.
And the Kings were already running a high octane offense with Dionne and the Triple Crown line before they were even moved into the same division as the Oilers.

And I guarantee you comes back to the chicken or the egg argument again. Was Gretzky the product of this so called "perfect storm" or was he the creator of it?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:08 PM
  #311
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That's my whole point though, the goal posts don't stay the same but apparently Adjusted stats can magically line them all up.

Obviously, that's not the point you're trying to make though.
Of course we have to evaluate those factors but if you draft Wayne Gretzky today, are you going to just plug him into your team or are you going to build around him?
And when you have huge success, not only is every team in the league going to emulate you but the teams in your division are going to even more so.
I mean it wasn't even a matter of everyone in that division emulating the Oiler's. It was the Jets that led the way and it was their style in the WHA and early in their NHL debut that inspired Sather and the Oilers.
And the Kings were already running a high octane offense with Dionne and the Triple Crown line before they were even moved into the same division as the Oilers.

And I guarantee you comes back to the chicken or the egg argument again. Was Gretzky the product of this so called "perfect storm" or was he the creator of it?
Not to mention the Nordiques were running and gunning from 1980 onward.

Different division but still: It's not like the Oilers were unique in that.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:59 PM
  #312
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That's my whole point though, the goal posts don't stay the same but apparently Adjusted stats can magically line them all up.

Obviously, that's not the point you're trying to make though.
Of course we have to evaluate those factors but if you draft Wayne Gretzky today, are you going to just plug him into your team or are you going to build around him?
And when you have huge success, not only is every team in the league going to emulate you but the teams in your division are going to even more so.
I mean it wasn't even a matter of everyone in that division emulating the Oiler's. It was the Jets that led the way and it was their style in the WHA and early in their NHL debut that inspired Sather and the Oilers.
And the Kings were already running a high octane offense with Dionne and the Triple Crown line before they were even moved into the same division as the Oilers.

And I guarantee you comes back to the chicken or the egg argument again. Was Gretzky the product of this so called "perfect storm" or was he the creator of it?
Any stats come with context and context involves everything we all know were you stand on Adjusted Stats.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:12 PM
  #313
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Any stats come with context and context involves everything we all know were you stand on Adjusted Stats.
And where is that?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 12:25 AM
  #314
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You tried it first and that was only after using the ole disguising multiple paragraphs as answers that were anything but answers wasn't working anymore
I address as many points of yours that I deem worth response and try to bring context to the discussion. You want to isolate perceived flaws and then it's off to the next often incorrect point. I think your strategy is basically guerilla warfare and hoping that I'll give up and go home. Since I'm tired of repeatedly explaining the same concepts to you, I will likely soon cease discussion for now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You have tried to use them at face value. The Gretzky vs Jagr scoring in the 90's that I mentioned earlier in this thread just for starters heh.
I've already explained why using raw points even over the same range of seasons can be misleading. Every season is different, and in seasons with higher scoring it's easier to create a substantial gap in raw points than a lower scoring season (with the same % advantage). Gretzky was better in the early 90s and Jagr better in the mid-late 90s, which creates an illusion in raw points for the 90s due to the change in league scoring level. Daniel Sedin's scoring title in 2011, when Crosby & Malkin were injured and Ovechkin began his decline, had a different "quality" than Lemieux beating Gretzky & Yzerman in 1989 and they each had a different quality than someone winning one in depleted O6 during WWII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Yep, you're right, you just go on believing that Glenn Murray's 02/03 season holds more value than 8 out of 10 of Bossy's seasons.
The value of Murray's goals was greater than those of Bossy in many seasons. One could attribute some of that value to Thornton instead, but that doesn't change the fact that the actual goals had more value due to the lower scoring environment.

Murray is an oft-cited anomaly, but it's not really a flaw of adjusted stats. He finished 2nd and 5th in goals in consecutive years. In '02 he beat out top 20 finishers like Naslund, Bondra, Tkachuk, Lindros, Shanahan, Alfredsson, Demitra, Modano, Bure, Gagne, Kariya, Palffy, Kovalev, Briere, Yashin, etc. In '03 he beat out top 20 finishers like Heatley, Kovalchuk, Palffy, Sundin, Hull, Kovalev, Jagr, Fedorov, Thornton, Jokinen, Demitra, Iginla, St. Louis, Mogilny and Kovalev. He had a couple of amazing years relative to his peers, but that's not the fault of adjusted stats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You keep on believing that OV, Forsberg and Sakic would have been capable of cracking what Lafleur, Dionne, Bossy and Stastny under incredibly favourable conditions including weaker goaltending, superior team strengths and an overall all out offensive league mentality couldn't do.
Or that dozens of top line players all having career years in the same division at the same time doesn't warrant further investigation.
Yeah, I'm the one ignoring info or neglecting context am I?
Sorry if I believe the value of Adjusted Stats should be determined by the case and not before hand.
These favorable conditions only reinforce my position that subsequent players may have been able to achieve a substantially higher level of raw points during the 80s. You seem anchored to the position that those players were all as good or better than later group of players which I previously listed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So what's the actual answer to the question posed in this thread?
It's that AS's Value is not constant, that's the answer.
AS has a different value to different people, I think that much is obvious. Some people basically completely discard them and use raw points or don't consider such data at all. I think most of us who consider them superior to raw data know that there is additional context needed when comparing different player-seasons. Most may prefer to do some additional mental adjustments, but in the longer run I believe it would be better and more useful to have explicit, quantified data that allows for fine-tuning of the numbers when comparing the quality/difficulty of various player-seasons. Until that time, it's still a common ground for many to plan routes to the "final summit", whether those are implicit, mental routes or explicit, quantified routes.

IMO the process should be as follows:

- hypothesize reasons that AS distorts the quality/difficulty of adjusted production in various seasons for various types of players (particularly top tier players)

- analyze and quantify the effects of these possible factors, preferably simultaneously via regression, since many of them may overlap substantially in terms of when they changed (PP opportunities, league GPG, Euro influx, most recent expansion all occurred roughly around the same time).

- use reason to assess the results of the analysis and, if necessary, apply the results to players in a fair way via an adjustment to the formula when used for the purposes of comparing the quality of various player-seasons

I think someone well-versed (better than I) in regression could help tremendously in this effort, but it seems those posters are few and far between, which is one reason such a process could take a while. Such posters may not be inclined to themselves pursue such a project, which would mean that they must be willing to assist before/during such a project when it is undertaken by (an)other individual(s).


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-13-2012 at 12:33 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 01:22 AM
  #315
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I address as many points of yours that I deem worth response and try to bring context to the discussion. You want to isolate perceived flaws and then it's off to the next often incorrect point. I think your strategy is basically guerilla warfare and hoping that I'll give up and go home. Since I'm tired of repeatedly explaining the same concepts to you, I will likely soon cease discussion for now.
I know how you feel, I'm getting pretty sick of asking questions or bringing up other context only to be fed more concepts disguised as answers.


Quote:
I've already explained why using raw points even over the same range of seasons can be misleading. Every season is different, and in seasons with higher scoring it's easier to create a substantial gap in raw points than a lower scoring season (with the same % advantage). Gretzky was better in the early 90s and Jagr better in the mid-late 90s, which creates an illusion in raw points for the 90s due to the change in league scoring level. Daniel Sedin's scoring title in 2011, when Crosby & Malkin were injured and Ovechkin began his decline, had a different "quality" than Lemieux beating Gretzky & Yzerman in 1989 and they each had a different quality than someone winning one in depleted O6 during WWII.
Dude, they played in the league together at the same time from 90/91-98/99. 9 of the 10 years of the 90's and you want to convert them to adjusted stats?
The only illusion being created is by you by using adjusted stats!
You're trying to take what actually happened for both players under identical conditions, against the exact same competition and complicate it by converting it to a system that is far from perfect to begin with.
There is absolutely no logical rational for doing this period!
If we were comparing a 26 year old Gretzky to a 26 year old Jagr, that's a whole different ball game but we are not!
Seriously dude, I know I'm stubborn and have some trouble admitting when I'm wrong but you take the cake as well as the whole bakery on this one.
Unbelievable!

Quote:
The value of Murray's goals was greater than those of Bossy in many seasons. One could attribute some of that value to Thornton instead, but that doesn't change the fact that the actual goals had more value due to the lower scoring environment.

Murray is an oft-cited anomaly, but it's not really a flaw of adjusted stats. He finished 2nd and 5th in goals in consecutive years. In '02 he beat out top 20 finishers like Naslund, Bondra, Tkachuk, Lindros, Shanahan, Alfredsson, Demitra, Modano, Bure, Gagne, Kariya, Palffy, Kovalev, Briere, Yashin, etc. In '03 he beat out top 20 finishers like Heatley, Kovalchuk, Palffy, Sundin, Hull, Kovalev, Jagr, Fedorov, Thornton, Jokinen, Demitra, Iginla, St. Louis, Mogilny and Kovalev. He had a couple of amazing years relative to his peers, but that's not the fault of adjusted stats.
So you begin by calling it an anomally and yet still try and defend it...killin me man.
Soooo Bossy scores 20% of the Islanders goals and is in on 39% of their total in 82/83 compared to Murray's 18% of Boston's goals and 38% of their total in 02/03.
Despite that, you are perfectly fine believing/defending that Murray's 02/03 season is valued to be 8% higher than Bossy's 82/83?
See I don't know about you but it sure looks to me like Bossy contributed more and had more value to his team winning than Murray did his


Quote:
These favorable conditions only reinforce my position that subsequent players may have been able to achieve a substantially higher level of raw points during the 80s. You seem anchored to the position that those players were all as good or better than later group of players which I previously listed.
Actually yeah...I am anchored to the idea that Lafleur, Bossy, Stastny and Dionne are as good and/or better than anyone you named.
I think you'll find I am far, far from alone on that.


Quote:
AS has a different value to different people, I think that much is obvious. Some people basically completely discard them and use raw points or don't consider such data at all. I think most of us who consider them superior to raw data know that there is additional context needed when comparing different player-seasons. Most may prefer to do some additional mental adjustments, but in the longer run I believe it would be better and more useful to have explicit, quantified data that allows for fine-tuning of the numbers when comparing the quality/difficulty of various player-seasons. Until that time, it's still a common ground for many to plan routes to the "final summit", whether those are implicit, mental routes or explicit, quantified routes.

IMO the process should be as follows:

- hypothesize reasons that AS distorts the quality/difficulty of adjusted production in various seasons for various types of players (particularly top tier players)

- analyze and quantify the effects of these possible factors, preferably simultaneously via regression, since many of them may overlap substantially in terms of when they changed (PP opportunities, league GPG, Euro influx, most recent expansion all occurred roughly around the same time).

- use reason to assess the results of the analysis and, if necessary, apply the results to players in a fair way via an adjustment to the formula when used for the purposes of comparing the quality of various player-seasons

I think someone well-versed (better than I) in regression could help tremendously in this effort, but it seems those posters are few and far between, which is one reason such a process could take a while. Such posters may not be inclined to themselves pursue such a project, which would mean that they must be willing to assist before/during such a project when it is undertaken by (an)other individual(s).
Or of course the simple answer, that AS's value is not a constant in every case


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-13-2012 at 01:32 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:45 AM
  #316
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I know how you feel, I'm getting pretty sick of asking questions or bringing up other context only to be fed more concepts disguised as answers.
If you don't understand the concept well, then you may not understand the answer very well either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Dude, they played in the league together at the same time from 90/91-98/99. 9 of the 10 years of the 90's and you want to convert them to adjusted stats?
The only illusion being created is by you by using adjusted stats!
You're trying to take what actually happened for both players under identical conditions, against the exact same competition and complicate it by converting it to a system that is far from perfect to begin with.
There is absolutely no logical rational for doing this period!
If we were comparing a 26 year old Gretzky to a 26 year old Jagr, that's a whole different ball game but we are not!
Seriously dude, I know I'm stubborn and have some trouble admitting when I'm wrong but you take the cake as well as the whole bakery on this one.
Unbelievable!
Who was the better point producer over these two years (they each played all 80 games each season)?

Season 1:
league avg. 50 gpg
player A 250 goals
player B 225 goals

Season 2:
league avg. 5 gpg
player A 20 goals
player B 40 goals

I would say player B was better, because he was 10% behind in season 1, but doubled player A's production in season 2. Yet, player A actually scored more total goals in the two seasons, because he was better when scoring was higher and it was easier to have a larger raw margin for any % margin he had.

The concept is the same during the 90s, but you refuse to even acknowledge that obvious fact, let alone accept the results.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So you begin by calling it an anomally and yet still try and defend it...killin me man.
Soooo Bossy scores 20% of the Islanders goals and is in on 39% of their total in 82/83 compared to Murray's 18% of Boston's goals and 38% of their total in 02/03.
I don't see the difference as significantly large. It's possible that Murray had a season or two in which his goals had roughly the same value as Bossy's 2nd-7th best goal seasons. That isn't a flaw with adjusted stats, it's a couple seasons where Murray rose up and had very good years. Do you think using raw stats corrects this by instead asserting that Maruk was better than Ovechkin?

I don't use a single season of the exact adjusted number to decide who the better player is. Yet, you continue to imply that's how I evaluate players. I reference adjusted numbers more, because more people understand that concept than understand and adjust for the massive change in competition in other categories (awards, rankings in scoring, etc.). If you explicitly stated your criteria for evaluating players, I'm guessing it could be critiqued and ridiculed using underhanded tactics. However, you're free to use logical fallacies and misleading portrayals, if that makes you feel better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Despite that, you are perfectly fine believing/defending that Murray's 02/03 season is valued to be 8% higher than Bossy's 82/83?
See I don't know about you but it sure looks to me like Bossy contributed more and had more value to his team winning than Murray did his
Again, the difference is minor... I calculate 4% (using my numbers or the rounded HR numbers), not 8%. If you want to use team scoring context instead of league scoring context, then one must also contend with more factors (such as the team's offensive depth and defensive quality).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Actually yeah...I am anchored to the idea that Lafleur, Bossy, Stastny and Dionne are as good and/or better than anyone you named.
I think you'll find I am far, far from alone on that.
I respect your position. It's possible even those players may have achieved 150 points:

Lafleur- maybe if he's a center... or peaked a few years later... or was required to play less defense
Bossy- he almost did it anyway, but maybe if he was a center... or bit better playmaker
Stastny- maybe if he was a bit better goal-scorer... this may have prevented Forsberg as well
Dionne- maybe if he had peaked just a tad later... or if Simmer had played full seasons in most of Dionne's peak years

These players were all less than 15 points away from 150, and Bossy just 3 points shy. It wouldn't have taken a lot for them to be in that range.

More subjectively, I would guess:

Jagr- he would have topped 150 multiple times and probably been in that range in several seasons
Lindros- if he stayed healthier (forwards in the DPE tended to have a lot of injuries), he probably would have topped 150... even with injuries I think he at least gets pretty close
Sakic- he would have a good chance to hit 150 and the healthier he was, the more/better chances he would have
Forsberg- he would have probably had to be healthier, but I think he would have made some runs at it, just not sure he was a good enough goal scorer during the season
Selanne- I like his chances to score ~150 at least once... he was a better player/scorer in the mid-late 90s, despite his previous injuries

Kariya- I think he falls short, but still has some impressive seasons ~130-140
Bure- not enough of a playmaker, although some monster goal seasons

note: Kariya and Bure would probably be helped by the less restrictive play in the 80s more than players like Lindros

Ovechkin- I like his chances at his peak, esp. with his durability... such a great goal scorer and a good enough playmaker to tally 150
Malkin- I like his chances at his peak, and he's still in his peak/prime years... can balance goals/assists well
Crosby- I like his chances at his peak, but injuries don't help... usually more of a playmaker, so a top wing could put him over the top
Thornton- he has the durability and playmaking, and the numbers suggest he would make a couple runs at it... a top wing really helps his chances... my main concern is how well he can balance goals/assists in the same season[/QUOTE]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Or of course the simple answer, that AS's value is not a constant in every case
I'm never sure exactly what people mean by "value" ITT. The value of the actual points/goals by an individual in the league/team context? The value in terms of quality/difficulty of the player-season vs. other player-seasons? The value of AS as a whole compared to other methods of evaluating player value? I think the definition of value has not been constant, which makes it so much more difficult to fairly respond to the plentiful assertions you've made.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 05:20 AM
  #317
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
If you don't understand the concept well, then you may not understand the answer very well either.
It's not about concepts man, it's about answering questions with more questions and never getting any where.
You haven't even been able to concede the smallest of points that I have been right about. If you disagree, you say why you disagree like it should be but if you don't have a counter you skirt the question with huge walls of text.


Quote:
Who was the better point producer over these two years (they each played all 80 games each season)?

Season 1:
league avg. 50 gpg
player A 250 goals
player B 225 goals

Season 2:
league avg. 5 gpg
player A 20 goals
player B 40 goals

I would say player B was better, because he was 10% behind in season 1, but doubled player A's production in season 2. Yet, player A actually scored more total goals in the two seasons, because he was better when scoring was higher and it was easier to have a larger raw margin for any % margin he had.

The concept is the same during the 90s, but you refuse to even acknowledge that obvious fact, let alone accept the results.
But the whole conversation was about who was the best point producer in the 90's. Not who was the better player.
We're not comparing players from different era's here, it's not about prime vs prime or what each did at a certain age.
It was simply a conversation as to who the top point producer in the 90's was and it was Gretzky, end of story.
You don't bring AS's in to compare players that were playing against each other at the same time, it's ridiculous!
When you compare Crosby to OV since the LO, you don't convert it to AS's.
When you compare Gretzky to everyone else in the 80's, you don't convert it.
Why would you, you already have it EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED!!!
There's no need to guess or estimate or adjust, no need what so ever!!!

Just admit you were getting a little silly there, that sometimes you have this need to do more with the numbers than needs to be and move on.


Quote:
I don't see the difference as significantly large. It's possible that Murray had a season or two in which his goals had roughly the same value as Bossy's 2nd-7th best goal seasons. That isn't a flaw with adjusted stats, it's a couple seasons where Murray rose up and had very good years. Do you think using raw stats corrects this by instead asserting that Maruk was better than Ovechkin?
See, once again, here you are implying that you can only use AS's or Raw stats and not both. That's the difference between you and I, I don't replace raw stats with AS's or vice-verse. I USE IT ALL to find a conclusion. I go through the raw stats by checking PP abnormalities/spikes, teammates spikes in goals, whatever I can get my hands on. I think back of what I remember of him from that season. I look at his teams record (pretty bad btw in Maruk's case) and I look at what value AS's gives him. I look at the rules and rules enforcement for that year or years.
I get it all and THEN I make a conclusion on how good/bad his season really was.

Quote:
I don't use a single season of the exact adjusted number to decide who the better player is. Yet, you continue to imply that's how I evaluate players. I reference adjusted numbers more, because more people understand that concept than understand and adjust for the massive change in competition in other categories (awards, rankings in scoring, etc.). If you explicitly stated your criteria for evaluating players, I'm guessing it could be critiqued and ridiculed using underhanded tactics. However, you're free to use logical fallacies and misleading portrayals, if that makes you feel better.
No, what you do is take AS's and hold to it like glue, no matter what any other info is saying including out right throwing away any info that isn't "in line" with your original AS's conclusion.

Quote:
Again, the difference is minor... I calculate 4% (using my numbers or the rounded HR numbers), not 8%. If you want to use team scoring context instead of league scoring context, then one must also contend with more factors (such as the team's offensive depth and defensive quality).
The official site has Murray at 103 and Bossy at 95 for those years, an 8 point increase on 95 is 8.42%

Quote:
I respect your position. It's possible even those players may have achieved 150 points:

Lafleur- maybe if he's a center... or peaked a few years later... or was required to play less defense
Bossy- he almost did it anyway, but maybe if he was a center... or bit better playmaker
Stastny- maybe if he was a bit better goal-scorer... this may have prevented Forsberg as well
Dionne- maybe if he had peaked just a tad later... or if Simmer had played full seasons in most of Dionne's peak years

These players were all less than 15 points away from 150, and Bossy just 3 points shy. It wouldn't have taken a lot for them to be in that range.

More subjectively, I would guess:

Jagr- he would have topped 150 multiple times and probably been in that range in several seasons
Lindros- if he stayed healthier (forwards in the DPE tended to have a lot of injuries), he probably would have topped 150... even with injuries I think he at least gets pretty close
Sakic- he would have a good chance to hit 150 and the healthier he was, the more/better chances he would have
Forsberg- he would have probably had to be healthier, but I think he would have made some runs at it, just not sure he was a good enough goal scorer during the season
Selanne- I like his chances to score ~150 at least once... he was a better player/scorer in the mid-late 90s, despite his previous injuries

Kariya- I think he falls short, but still has some impressive seasons ~130-140
Bure- not enough of a playmaker, although some monster goal seasons

note: Kariya and Bure would probably be helped by the less restrictive play in the 80s more than players like Lindros

Ovechkin- I like his chances at his peak, esp. with his durability... such a great goal scorer and a good enough playmaker to tally 150
Malkin- I like his chances at his peak, and he's still in his peak/prime years... can balance goals/assists well
Crosby- I like his chances at his peak, but injuries don't help... usually more of a playmaker, so a top wing could put him over the top
Thornton- he has the durability and playmaking, and the numbers suggest he would make a couple runs at it... a top wing really helps his chances... my main concern is how well he can balance goals/assists in the same season
Like I said previously, I don't see a single person on that list other than Jagr and Sid(for half a season) that have reached the level of play and more importantly the level of effort required to do what Stevie did in '89 for a full 80 games.



Quote:
I'm never sure exactly what people mean by "value" ITT. The value of the actual points/goals by an individual in the league/team context? The value in terms of quality/difficulty of the player-season vs. other player-seasons? The value of AS as a whole compared to other methods of evaluating player value? I think the definition of value has not been constant, which makes it so much more difficult to fairly respond to the plentiful assertions you've made.
Simply this...the value or weight you assign to AS's(or any info for that matter) in any given situation should be determined by how it fits with all the other information.
If AS's is conflicting with all the other info, then its weight has to be reduced. Same if it was the raw point total in conflict.

There's other factors at work besides just the numbers.
Like during the height of the DPE, you had Jagr finishing ahead by large margins because he was so big and strong, all the clutching and grabbing had a lot less effect on him.
Take away the clutching and grabbing from that time, scoring goes up and suddenly those margins of Jagr become much smaller.
Jagr is not going to increase his points by the same amount that say a Kariya will because the C&G going on was a much bigger factor on Kariya's point totals than it was for Jagr's.
The value that is being assigned to Jagr in one of those heavy DPE is accurate for that season and anyone you bring into that season should have to deal with that value of Jagr's.
However, that value shouldn't carry him to 160 or 170 points in 1990 because the advantage he has on most other players in those DPE years doesn't translate to simply an increase in overall league scoring.
He was already ahead because the reason why those years were lower scoring had a lot less affect on him to begin with.
You have to temper those AS numbers with reality sometimes and you know as well as I do that some of those DPE number values are just whack. Not completely whack but there's some major inflation going on.

I hope I said that with enough clarity. I'm about to go to bed.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-13-2012 at 05:27 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:32 AM
  #318
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Before I respond to anything else you need to see this.

He is taking Concordia to Quebec small claims court, demanding to be reimbursed $342 the amount he paid to take the course during the 2011 fall semester. He argues the school arbitrarily downgraded his final mark to meet an unofficial grade quota imposed by the chair of political science, Csaba Nikolenyi.

As I had suggested in an earlier thread a student is suing because he was bell curved or averaged downwards. He discovered his A had been made a B because of policy and wants to be compensated for his efforts to achieve an A as defined by the school when he enrolled in the course.

Averaging just doesn't work for humans whether its an individual or the whole group (an NHL season).

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:07 AM
  #319
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
Honestly, most of your % work was too confusing more me to follow. Some of it seemed very similar to adjusted stats though.

The problem with strictly using performance vs. peer group is that the quality of the peer group has changed substantially over time. The quality and depth of Howe's peers during his prime was likely much less than those during Gretzky's prime, etc.



I definitely agree with that.



Again, the quality (and distribution) of the peer group makes all the difference. The same quality of performance will appear much more dominating against a lesser quality group of peers.



The units aren't really important, but using a "realistic looking" number gives some kind of reference point... it's as good as any.

The peer comparison tells us nothing of comparative value. As far as comparing performances from different seasons, it doesn't tell us much unless we can confidently estimate the magnitude and nature of the change in quality of the peer groups.




I see two main uses for adjusted stats:

1. It gives a value estimate, based on the fixed proportion of production vs. scoring environment. 30 goals in a 6.00 gpg league should have about the same value as 40 goals in a 8.00 gpg league or 20 goals in a 4.00 gpg league. AS is perfect at this relatively simple function.

2. it is a potential starting point for comparing players' seasons, but it is complicated by many factors which affect the difficulty of attaining various levels of adjusted production in each season.



Be careful when using terms like "devaluing", because adjusted stats are very clear and useful when it comes to the value of production in each season. Where it's not so clear is when trying to determine which player-season was of higher quality/difficulty.



Most great accomplishment were achieved by standing on the shoulders of giants, that is true.

All I'm saying is that just because standard physics becomes inadequate when studying the very big (cosmology) or the very small (quantum physics), is no reason to discard it. Similarly, just because simple adjusted stats don't automatically tell us which player-season was of higher quality... or may have increased error when dealing with extreme outliers... does not mean they are inherently flawed and practically useless. They are perfectly good as a measure of value. I don't see any measure at this point that can tell us with nearly absolute confidence how production in different seasons varied in quality/difficulty. More study should be done in this area if that is the goal, but in the meantime I believe adjusted stats are as good as any metric in helping to assess that.
Responding to my post (most any posts) line by line ignores the actual message or betrays the responders inability to respond to it.

The mere fact you cannot understand fractions does not prove anything about my work. It more likely speaks to the insidious truth of the conclusions and purpose of the study I often quote.

Howe's peers being 'more likely' anything is not the best response. It suggests you don't know and are erring on the side of a disproven line of thinking involving means.

Your next couple of responses are indecipherable as I use 'quote' to respond. Please make an effort to answer the post as opposed to individual sentences that taken together make up the post. It is disingenuous, misleading and wastes everyone's time.

I think I can respond to your numbered AS points.

1. I've argued against this and I believe proven it obviously false by using examples of eras involving outliers from science and hockey. The study I've quoted also shows this thinking to be in error. Case closed.

2. Sounds very weak. No real points here. Perhaps obfuscation. Just an attempt to defend a methodology proven to be in error by a massive study that included hockey players.

AS use averages by averaging seasons hence they are of several magnitudes in error by virtue of a study that has not been challenged. You have yet to respond to this with anything that I could post online as an offer to prove the study wrong. I'm sure the authors would be grateful to answer any challenge.

Bottom line is you keep ignoring the results of this massive HR study and appear to trying to convince somebody that AS gets a pass, that it somehow has found a loophole.

You're thinking is exactly what the study is showing to be an error.

Your final point is complete nonsence as an example. Who said classical physics is inadequate as an example to discuss the invalidity of AS? Not me. The attempts (string theory) to unite quantum and gravitational models in physics has nothing whatsoever to do with anything in this debate. I never addressed that issue at all. I used established thinking from other fields of study to try to help you understand your error in thinking and that it has been overcome in other fields without the use of the study. In fact that study gives many examples of people understanding the error of averaging human performance whether individual or collective in its premise.

Have you even read it? You don't seem to understand it at all. Its as obvous as a sunset that AS is wrong. Averaging seasons is just avergaing players collectively. The study addresses that when it points out that its resutls (hockey players included) hold true whether talking about a team, a season or across seasons. I think you should actually read it before commenting further.

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:09 AM
  #320
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Just like raw stats. Adjusted stats do not take everything into account, but they take some things into account that raw stats do not, which gives them their value.


You made it a math problem by making claims about the math that are simply wrong.


Massive misrepresentation. Many of us have discussed the flaws in the system, while pointing out that many of the flaws you say it has are not actually real.


Again averaging does not mean what you seem to think it means. Lose this mindset.


Once again, that study does not say what you claim it says. We've been over this.


Indeed, but since adjusted scoring does not make such predictions, it's not much of a problem. Again, we've been over this before.


Since adjusted scoring uses a player's results when playing against peers in their own era, this is exactly what adjusted scoring does. "Comparing to peers in their own eras and then comparing those results" is an excellent, succinct statement of what adjusted scoring does.

So what's the issue?


This is mathematically false. It would be the result if adjusted scoring actually normalized results, but of course, as we've been over and over again, adjusted scoring does not normalize.

Some of the best players have their output increased, and some decreased. Some of the lesser-tier players have their output increased, and some decreased. You're still hung up on the idea that normalization occurs. It does not.


And indeed adjusted scoring does do this in a very small way. If you think it should be more, please provide something other that "it should be more".
If you average seasons and adjust them to a specific target like 6gpg fpr eaxmple then you are most certainly normalizing or bell curving. Prove this assertion wrong.

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:13 AM
  #321
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 eva unit zero View Post
*rimshot*


Whoa!!!

How about you explain what averaging actually means then. Further the debate.

I average by adding up all the gs in a season and dividing by the number of games played. What is my error?

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:15 AM
  #322
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You realise that both Oates and Lafontaine both played 84 games that year right?
On an 80's 80 game sched, Lafontaine only has a 141 raw and an adjusted 113 point season and Oates only has a 135 raw and 110 points adjusted.

And of course it's not at all suspicious that both of these guys just happen to have a spike in their scoring in the same year while members of the same division.
Hmmm...I wonder if something changed in their division that year like say...the 398 goal allowing Senator's coming in that both of them piled up 14 points in 7 games each against.
It's not like the scoring of the existing 5 teams in the Adam's division didn't spike by a whopping 23% from 91/92 to 92/93 or anything.


Took me all of 3 seconds to figure that out by looking at the story the raw numbers were saying.
But hey, lets just look at the Adjusted stats numbers without any other context and conclude those seasons were worth 150 in the 80's despite that the reasons they even scored that much that year (4 extra games and 7 games to beat the crap out of the Sens) wouldn't have even been in the mix for them.

So tell me, at the end of the day, which information would you consider more valuable in gauging the actual worth of Oates and Patty's 92/93 seasons? The story Adjusted Stats is telling you or the story the raw data is telling you?
Do you think AS's is giving you an accurate "value" of their points that year?

And again, I'm not doing this to bash AS's. Just stop trying to use them as the be end all or base so much, if not all of your final answers on them so often.
They definitely have their place but it sure as hell is not always going to be at the front of the line.
This is a rimshot.

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:20 AM
  #323
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 barneyg View Post
What are the correlations between those variables? I'd assume Xp is strongly correlated with them if it becomes the least significant variable once the others are included. That said, with 30 data points any t-stat above ~2 will be significant and the t-statistic on Bp seems to be 1.5*5.5 = 8.25 (square root of 30 = 5.5).




I'm not an econometrician (I don't play one on TV either), but I know that R-square doesn't mean squat when no intercept is included in the model. Was there one in yours?

I have seen a measure such as 'incremental R-square' i.e. (new-old)/old where 'new' is the R2 from the full model and 'old' is the one with only an intercept or something.

In models with stable time series, people often calculate first differences i.e. Y'(1985) = Y(1985) - Y(1984) and run the model on those changes instead of the level. It changes the narrative because 'last year' is the benchmark for each observation but since your objective is often 'what makes Y change' it works. There's a deeper econometric(al?) reason that justifies first differences as well.

I'll try to find time to look at the other thread too.
This is not an argument. This is assuming that your methodology is true. No one is questioning your math. Its your thinking that drives you to use proven wrong math technique to analyze human performance and predict past or future performance.


Last edited by Dalton: 11-13-2012 at 09:31 AM.
Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:33 AM
  #324
Dalton
Registered User
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ho Chi Minh City
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 2,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
It's not about concepts man, it's about answering questions with more questions and never getting any where.
You haven't even been able to concede the smallest of points that I have been right about. If you disagree, you say why you disagree like it should be but if you don't have a counter you skirt the question with huge walls of text.




But the whole conversation was about who was the best point producer in the 90's. Not who was the better player.
We're not comparing players from different era's here, it's not about prime vs prime or what each did at a certain age.
It was simply a conversation as to who the top point producer in the 90's was and it was Gretzky, end of story.
You don't bring AS's in to compare players that were playing against each other at the same time, it's ridiculous!
When you compare Crosby to OV since the LO, you don't convert it to AS's.
When you compare Gretzky to everyone else in the 80's, you don't convert it.
Why would you, you already have it EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED!!!
There's no need to guess or estimate or adjust, no need what so ever!!!

Just admit you were getting a little silly there, that sometimes you have this need to do more with the numbers than needs to be and move on.




See, once again, here you are implying that you can only use AS's or Raw stats and not both. That's the difference between you and I, I don't replace raw stats with AS's or vice-verse. I USE IT ALL to find a conclusion. I go through the raw stats by checking PP abnormalities/spikes, teammates spikes in goals, whatever I can get my hands on. I think back of what I remember of him from that season. I look at his teams record (pretty bad btw in Maruk's case) and I look at what value AS's gives him. I look at the rules and rules enforcement for that year or years.
I get it all and THEN I make a conclusion on how good/bad his season really was.



No, what you do is take AS's and hold to it like glue, no matter what any other info is saying including out right throwing away any info that isn't "in line" with your original AS's conclusion.



The official site has Murray at 103 and Bossy at 95 for those years, an 8 point increase on 95 is 8.42%



Like I said previously, I don't see a single person on that list other than Jagr and Sid(for half a season) that have reached the level of play and more importantly the level of effort required to do what Stevie did in '89 for a full 80 games.





Simply this...the value or weight you assign to AS's(or any info for that matter) in any given situation should be determined by how it fits with all the other information.
If AS's is conflicting with all the other info, then its weight has to be reduced. Same if it was the raw point total in conflict.

There's other factors at work besides just the numbers.
Like during the height of the DPE, you had Jagr finishing ahead by large margins because he was so big and strong, all the clutching and grabbing had a lot less effect on him.
Take away the clutching and grabbing from that time, scoring goes up and suddenly those margins of Jagr become much smaller.
Jagr is not going to increase his points by the same amount that say a Kariya will because the C&G going on was a much bigger factor on Kariya's point totals than it was for Jagr's.
The value that is being assigned to Jagr in one of those heavy DPE is accurate for that season and anyone you bring into that season should have to deal with that value of Jagr's.
However, that value shouldn't carry him to 160 or 170 points in 1990 because the advantage he has on most other players in those DPE years doesn't translate to simply an increase in overall league scoring.
He was already ahead because the reason why those years were lower scoring had a lot less affect on him to begin with.
You have to temper those AS numbers with reality sometimes and you know as well as I do that some of those DPE number values are just whack. Not completely whack but there's some major inflation going on.

I hope I said that with enough clarity. I'm about to go to bed.
Slam dunk.

Nicely done!

Dalton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:33 AM
  #325
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
If you average seasons and adjust them to a specific target like 6gpg fpr eaxmple then you are most certainly normalizing or bell curving. Prove this assertion wrong.
I already have, despite the fact that the onus of proof is on you. You're making the claim that adjusted scoring normalizes player scoring results. This is your assertion. Prove your assertion right.

I have already provided mathetical, logical and graphic evidence that adjusted scoring does not normalize player scoring results.

Prove your assertion right.

I can save you some time: you cannot prove it right, because it is wrong. But so long as you continue to make this unfounded assertion, I will continue to point out how wrong it is.

Iain Fyffe 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 02:52 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.