HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Adjusted points

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2010, 07:45 AM
  #1
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
Adjusted points

The thread "what if Forsberg played in the 80s" sparked some interesting conversation about adjusted points. As we know adjusted points are by no means a perfect way for comparing eras. One of the points brought up was that when adjusting for average scoring level one fail to take into account that the distribution of points may shift between eras. Specifically, top-end players in the 80s scored fewer points than top-end players did in the 70s and 90s relative to the average scoring level (why that is is an interesting question). When using a simple way of adjusting that leaves an unfair adjustment downwards of the scoring in the 80s and similarly inflate adjusted numbers of players in the 90s.

To correct for this I, instead of adjusting for average scoring level each year, used the average scoring level only for the top 10% of the points scorers as adjustment factor. That should make for a better comparison over eras. The table below shows the top 50 point seasons using this new adjustment (the column Top-10 adj.) and also the common adjustment when adjusting for average scoring pace (All adj.) and finally the difference between the two measures. Points are adjusted to the 09/10 season.

  SeasonGames PlayedPointsTop-10 adj.All adj.Difference
Wayne Gretzky 1985/86 80 215 165 165 1
Wayne Gretzky 1984/85 80 208 161 157 5
Wayne Gretzky 1981/82 80 212 156 151 6
Wayne Gretzky 1982/83 80 196 156 151 4
Wayne Gretzky 1983/84 74 205 153 156 -3
Mario Lemieux 1988/89 76 199 152 165 -13
Wayne Gretzky 1986/87 79 183 150 151 -1
Wayne Gretzky 1990/91 78 163 136 139 -3
Mario Lemieux 1995/96 70 161 135 153 -18
Phil Esposito 1970/71 78 152 135 131 3
Jaromir Jagr 1998/99 81 127 133 145 -11
Mario Lemieux 1987/88 77 168 131 138 -7
Wayne Gretzky 1980/81 80 164 129 118 10
Wayne Gretzky 1988/89 78 168 128 139 -11
Jaromir Jagr 1995/96 82 149 125 142 -17
Phil Esposito 1973/74 78 145 124 122 2
Bobby Orr 1970/71 78 139 123 120 3
Guy Lafleur 1976/77 80 136 121 112 10
Steve Yzerman 1988/89 80 155 119 129 -10
Mario Lemieux 1992/93 60 160 118 129 -10
Phil Esposito 1971/72 76 133 117 119 -2
Mario Lemieux 1996/97 76 122 117 127 -10
Wayne Gretzky 1987/88 64 149 116 122 -7
Guy Lafleur 1977/78 78 132 116 112 4
Jaromir Jagr 2000/01 81 121 115 132 -17
Bernie Nicholls 1988/89 79 150 115 125 -10
Evgeni Malkin 2008/09 82 113 115 116 -1
Joe Thornton 2005/06 81 125 114 120 -6
Bobby Orr 1969/70 76 120 112 110 3
Teemu Selanne 1998/99 75 107 112 122 -9
Jaromir Jagr 2005/06 82 123 112 118 -6
Joe Sakic 2000/01 82 118 112 129 -17
Henrik Sedin 2009/10 82 112 112 112 0
Sidney Crosby 2006/07 79 120 112 122 -10
Gordie Howe 1952/53 70 95 112 98 14
Alex Ovechkin 2008/09 79 110 112 113 -1
Alex Ovechkin 2007/08 82 112 111 118 -7
Wayne Gretzky 1979/80 79 137 111 113 -2
Marcel Dionne 1979/80 80 137 111 113 -2
Bryan Trottier 1978/79 76 134 111 105 5
Wayne Gretzky 1989/90 73 142 111 121 -10
Bobby Orr 1974/75 80 135 110 107 3
Wayne Gretzky 1993/94 81 130 110 120 -10
Phil Esposito 1968/69 74 126 110 111 -2
Peter Forsberg 2002/03 75 106 110 116 -7
Pat LaFontaine 1992/93 84 148 110 119 -9
Brett Hull 1990/91 78 131 109 112 -2
Sidney Crosby 2009/10 81 109 109 109 0
Alex Ovechkin 2009/10 72 109 109 109 0
Marcel Dionne 1976/77 80 122 109 100 9

As can be seen, some seasons the difference is really large. For instance, for the 95/96 and 00/01 season this new adjustment scales down point totals with 17-18 points for a couple of players whereas Gordie Howe's 52/53 season is scaled up with 14 points. Using this new measure I can also calculate the adjusted career numbers which for the 50 highest scoring players:

  Games PlayedPointsTop-10 adj.All adj.Difference
Wayne Gretzky 1487 2857 2314 2379 -65
Gordie Howe 1767 1850 1793 1743 50
Mark Messier 1756 1887 1594 1673 -78
Ron Francis 1731 1798 1559 1644 -85
Jaromir Jagr 1273 1599 1514 1630 -116
Joe Sakic 1378 1641 1510 1625 -115
Steve Yzerman 1514 1755 1509 1604 -95
Mario Lemieux 915 1723 1430 1528 -98
Marcel Dionne 1348 1771 1429 1399 29
Phil Esposito 1282 1590 1385 1358 27
Mark Recchi 1571 1485 1378 1472 -94
Raymond Bourque 1612 1579 1314 1375 -60
Stan Mikita 1394 1467 1305 1279 25
Mats Sundin 1346 1349 1275 1367 -92
Mike Modano 1459 1359 1272 1364 -92
Adam Oates 1337 1420 1256 1350 -94
Brett Hull 1269 1391 1250 1343 -93
Brendan Shanahan 1524 1354 1246 1339 -93
Paul Coffey 1409 1531 1238 1284 -46
Luc Robitaille 1431 1394 1226 1315 -89
John Bucyk 1540 1369 1212 1191 21
Doug Gilmour 1474 1414 1212 1290 -78
Alex Delvecchio 1549 1281 1198 1176 22
Teemu Selanne 1186 1260 1198 1285 -87
Pierre Turgeon 1294 1327 1183 1276 -93
Dave Andreychuk 1639 1338 1144 1208 -64
Bryan Trottier 1279 1425 1140 1126 15
Jean Beliveau 1125 1219 1136 1129 7
Jeremy Roenick 1363 1216 1118 1202 -84
Dale Hawerchuk 1188 1409 1116 1159 -43
Norm Ullman 1410 1229 1109 1095 14
Jari Kurri 1251 1398 1109 1142 -33
Guy Lafleur 1126 1353 1107 1084 23
Al MacInnis 1416 1274 1102 1170 -68
Sergei Fedorov 1248 1179 1098 1179 -80
Rod Brind'Amour 1484 1184 1097 1178 -81
Jean Ratelle 1281 1267 1097 1071 26
Gilbert Perreault 1191 1326 1081 1056 24
Vincent Damphousse 1378 1205 1078 1158 -80
Mike Gartner 1432 1335 1073 1107 -34
Bobby Hull 1063 1170 1062 1048 14
Denis Savard 1196 1338 1057 1083 -26
Phil Housley 1495 1232 1045 1102 -58
Keith Tkachuk 1201 1065 1028 1103 -74
Larry Murphy 1615 1216 1014 1058 -44
Joe Nieuwendyk 1257 1126 1010 1081 -71
Nicklas Lidstrom 1412 1046 1007 1077 -70
Bobby Clarke 1144 1210 1000 976 24
Theoren Fleury 1084 1088 987 1066 -78
Daniel Alfredsson 1002 992 985 1046 -62

So what do you think, does this make more sense than common adjustments or do you think these numbers are still fundamentally flawed?

Disclaimer: I did this kind of fast so I can't be certain I didn't do anything wrong. I used the PPG pace as adjustment instead of GPG since I'm looking at point totals instead of goals. This should also make comparison a bit better with the O6-era since assists hasn't been calculated consistently throughout NHL's history. The numbers may not correspond exactly due to rounding off.

matnor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 08:01 AM
  #2
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
It certainly looks a lot more likely than some of the nonsense being spit out by the other lists to me.

It is interesting to me because it reflects pretty much what I have been guesstimating regarding how certain players would do in different eras.

At first glance it makes more sense to me than the other numbers being thrown around like in that Forsberg thread where people had him as a 160 point scorer in the 80s which is just a joke.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 08:21 AM
  #3
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
I think the hardest thing to adjust for is the years where Gretzky was clearing 200 and the next closest was like 120-130 and not that different than today's totals.
86/87 for example:
1 Wayne Gretzky 183 (I don't honestly see this only being 150 in today's NHL)
2 Jari Kurri 108
3 Mario Lemieux 107
3 Mark Messier 107
5 Doug Gilmour 105
6 Dino Ciccarelli 103
7 Dale Hawerchuk 100
8 Michel Goulet 96

Pretty cool though, I think it works pretty well for most of the players but I don't think it does justice to the freakshows named Mario and Wayne.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 07-21-2010 at 08:28 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 08:27 AM
  #4
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,511
vCash: 500
Adjustments

Just some more evidence that adjustments are rarely, if ever, a function of getting a clear picture, rather they are what they are - presenting data from a pre-determined agenda of narrowing the gap between A and B, either players,teams or eras.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 08:55 AM
  #5
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Can you take the 09-10 totals and adjust them back to the mid eighties using the same method to see how the numbers then compare to actual?

And also where the Crosbys and Forsbergs end up?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 09:10 AM
  #6
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Can you take the 09-10 totals and adjust them back to the mid eighties using the same method to see how the numbers then compare to actual?

And also where the Crosbys and Forsbergs end up?
Sure, here is the same table adjusted to the 85/86 season:
  SeasonGames PlayedPointsTop-10 adj.All adj.Difference
Wayne Gretzky 1985/86 80 215 215 215 0
Wayne Gretzky 1984/85 80 208 210 205 5
Wayne Gretzky 1981/82 80 212 203 197 6
Wayne Gretzky 1982/83 80 196 202 197 5
Wayne Gretzky 1983/84 74 205 199 203 -4
Mario Lemieux 1988/89 76 199 198 216 -18
Wayne Gretzky 1986/87 79 183 195 197 -2
Wayne Gretzky 1990/91 78 163 177 181 -5
Mario Lemieux 1995/96 70 161 176 200 -24
Phil Esposito 1970/71 78 152 175 172 3
Jaromir Jagr 1998/99 81 127 173 189 -15
Mario Lemieux 1987/88 77 168 170 180 -10
Wayne Gretzky 1980/81 80 164 167 155 13
Wayne Gretzky 1988/89 78 168 167 182 -15
Jaromir Jagr 1995/96 82 149 163 185 -22
Phil Esposito 1973/74 78 145 161 160 1
Bobby Orr 1970/71 78 139 160 157 3
Guy Lafleur 1976/77 80 136 158 146 12
Steve Yzerman 1988/89 80 155 154 168 -14
Mario Lemieux 1992/93 60 160 154 168 -14
Phil Esposito 1971/72 76 133 152 155 -3
Mario Lemieux 1996/97 76 122 152 165 -14
Wayne Gretzky 1987/88 64 149 151 160 -9
Guy Lafleur 1977/78 78 132 150 146 5
Jaromir Jagr 2000/01 81 121 150 173 -23
Bernie Nicholls 1988/89 79 150 149 163 -14
Evgeni Malkin 2008/09 82 113 149 151 -2
Joe Thornton 2005/06 81 125 148 157 -8
Bobby Orr 1969/70 76 120 146 143 3
Teemu Selanne 1998/99 75 107 146 159 -13
Jaromir Jagr 2005/06 82 123 146 154 -8
Joe Sakic 2000/01 82 118 146 169 -23
Henrik Sedin 2009/10 82 112 146 146 -1
Sidney Crosby 2006/07 79 120 145 160 -14
Gordie Howe 1952/53 70 95 145 128 17
Alex Ovechkin 2008/09 79 110 145 147 -2
Alex Ovechkin 2007/08 82 112 145 155 -10
Wayne Gretzky 1979/80 79 137 144 147 -3
Marcel Dionne 1979/80 80 137 144 147 -3
Bryan Trottier 1978/79 76 134 144 138 6
Wayne Gretzky 1989/90 73 142 144 158 -14
Bobby Orr 1974/75 80 135 143 140 3
Wayne Gretzky 1993/94 81 130 143 157 -14
Phil Esposito 1968/69 74 126 143 146 -3
Peter Forsberg 2002/03 75 106 143 152 -9
Pat LaFontaine 1992/93 84 148 142 155 -13
Brett Hull 1990/91 78 131 142 146 -4
Sidney Crosby 2009/10 81 109 142 142 -1
Alex Ovechkin 2009/10 72 109 142 142 -1
Marcel Dionne 1976/77 80 122 142 131 11

matnor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 09:13 AM
  #7
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I think the hardest thing to adjust for is the years where Gretzky was clearing 200 and the next closest was like 120-130 and not that different than today's totals.
86/87 for example:
1 Wayne Gretzky 183 (I don't honestly see this only being 150 in today's NHL)
2 Jari Kurri 108
3 Mario Lemieux 107
3 Mark Messier 107
5 Doug Gilmour 105
6 Dino Ciccarelli 103
7 Dale Hawerchuk 100
8 Michel Goulet 96

Pretty cool though, I think it works pretty well for most of the players but I don't think it does justice to the freakshows named Mario and Wayne.
Well, think of a player scoring 150+ points 6 seasons (as this suggests Gretzky would do) in todays game. I think that would be absolutely amazing.

matnor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 09:15 AM
  #8
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Just some more evidence that adjustments are rarely, if ever, a function of getting a clear picture, rather they are what they are - presenting data from a pre-determined agenda of narrowing the gap between A and B, either players,teams or eras.
Does that mean you think raw point totals are better?

matnor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 09:17 AM
  #9
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
Sure, here is the same table adjusted to the 85/86 season:
It actually looks pretty reasonable to me. It adjusts the adjusted totals back pretty closely to the real values for the players of that era and doesn't skew Crosby and Ovechkin into Gretzky and Lemieux like so many people on the boards strangely believe.

At least to my eye at first glance it looks a lot more like what I would expect than the other adjusted totals.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 09:19 AM
  #10
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
Well, think of a player scoring 150+ points 6 seasons (as this suggests Gretzky would do) in todays game. I think that would be absolutely amazing.
Agreed.. I had been saying in a few other posts on the boards that I thought Gretzky/Lemieux would be topping out around 140-160 in todays game.. which is still dominant vs. the stars getting 100-120 post lockout.

Pretty interesting way of looking at it.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 09:28 AM
  #11
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
Well, think of a player scoring 150+ points 6 seasons (as this suggests Gretzky would do) in todays game. I think that would be absolutely amazing.
Of course it would but at the same time I still don't think it can accurately project or reflect just how far ahead of everyone else Wayne and Mario truly were.
They are the anomalies and to be quite honest I believe both of them and especially Gretzky would still be within ear shot of 200 even in today's game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Agreed.. I had been saying in a few other posts on the boards that I thought Gretzky/Lemieux would be topping out around 140-160 in todays game.. which is still dominant vs. the stars getting 100-120 post lockout.
See this is where I tend to disagree, especially in regards to Mario in 95/96 but I'm going to find that info on overall league scoring by year first before talking out of my ass


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 07-21-2010 at 09:39 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 09:30 AM
  #12
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I still don't think it can accurately project or reflect just how far ahead of everyone else Wayne and Mario truly were.

They are the anomalies and to be quite honest I believe both of them and especially Gretzky would still be within ear shot of 200 even in today's game.
Just out of curiousity why do you think that? What is the reasoning you go through?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:26 AM
  #13
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Just out of curiousity why do you think that? What is the reasoning you go through?

Ok found what I was looking for.
League scoring average per game:
95/96 = 6.29 goals per game
05/06 = 6.05

I was trying to find a post lockout year that was closest in overall scoring to a relatively healthy 95/96 Mario that was for all intent and purposes still in his prime.

Joe Thornton led the league in scoring in 05/06 with 125 points in 81 games or 1.54 ppg (127 over 82)
Lemieux led the league in scoring in 95/96 with 161 points in 70 games or 2.3 ppg (189 over 82)

This is why I don't believe Mario and Gretzky would actually be capped in the 150-165 range in today's NHL.

You also have to take into account that while the the "Dead puck" era wasn't quite in full swing yet, there was still a hell of a lot more clutching, grabbing and dead puck era crap going on in 95/96 than in 05/06 which to me only makes Mario's totals even more impressive.

It most definitely does not jive with the only 135 adjusted point total for 95/96 in the first chart imo.

Now, I'm not saying those charts aren't a pretty decent indicator for most players.
I just don't think it works well with the freakish anomalies known as Gretzky and Lemieux. They are just too far above anyone else imo.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 07-21-2010 at 10:42 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:33 AM
  #14
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Ok found what I was looking for.
League scoring average per game:
95/96 = 6.29 goals per game
05/06 = 6.05

I was trying to find a post lockout year that was closest in overall scoring to a relatively healthy 95/96 Mario that was for all intent and purposes still in his prime.

Joe Thornton led the league in scoring in 05/06 with 125 points in 81 games or 1.54 ppg (127 over 82)
Lemieux led the league with 161 points in 70 games or 2.3 ppg (189 over 82)

This is why I don't believe Mario and Gretzky would actually be capped in the 150-165 range in today's NHL.
Based only on average goals per game I guess you could make the case that it would be possible for them to go higher.

I just think there are a lot of other factors at play which is why I generally guesstimate they would be topping out 140-160 range today. For the same reason why I have to pour water on the people that say Forsberg would have 160 back in the 80s.

There is some part of the equation we're missing.

I also wonder what Lemieux and especially Gretzky or Orr would be able to do with two line passes.. they would have ruined teams with that I think.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:34 AM
  #15
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,511
vCash: 500
No

Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
Does that mean you think raw point totals are better?
It means that raw point totals are what they are or what they were. They balance perfectly with the games, seasons,era in question.The perception of scoring balances with the perception of defense and goaltending. While adjusted numbers can be jigged to show what someone wants them to show.Then they conveniently stop.They do not balance at the end of the process.

Using your example. You adjusted the scoring because you had an agenda to show nineties scoring in a different light. But did you adjust the resulting goaltending numbers? Defensive numbers? No you did not.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:34 AM
  #16
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You also have to take into account that while the the "Dead puck" era wasn't quite in full swing yet, there was still a hell of a lot more clutching, grabbing and dead puck era crap going on in 95/96 than in 05/06 which to me only makes Mario's totals even more impressive.
I think being so big that Mario suffered a lot less from that style of play in the league than Gretzky.

At least Mario was big and strong enough to power his way through it somewhat. But I still agree with you. A more open game helps players on that creative level more.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:37 AM
  #17
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

Using your example. You adjusted the scoring because you had an agenda to show nineties scoring in a different light. But did you adjust the resulting goaltending numbers? Defensive numbers? No you did not.
Adjusting the scoring automagically adjusts defensive numbers and goalie numbers somewhat.

Obviously if the amount of goals being scored goes up and down the defensive and goaltending numbers look better or worse by default, no?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:47 AM
  #18
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,511
vCash: 500
No

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Adjusting the scoring automagically adjusts defensive numbers and goalie numbers somewhat.

Obviously if the amount of goals being scored goes up and down the defensive and goaltending numbers look better or worse by default, no?
In actual play the defensive and goaltending numbers are reflected by the scoring levels which are dictated by on ice meritocracy.

In adjustments this is not so. You just have a phantom adjustment that does not reflect anything that actually happened on the ice. The goals/points are not earned, scoring chances are not prevented,saves are not made, they are simply awarded or taken away by an arbitrary calculation.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 10:49 AM
  #19
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
In adjustments this is not so. You just have a phantom adjustment that does not reflect anything that actually happened on the ice. The goals/points are not earned, scoring chances are not prevented,saves are not made, they are simply awarded or taken away by an arbitrary calculation.
I think everyone agrees that adjustments are only estimates.

If you can spend the next 100 years of your life trying to model everything down to the level of detail of each save and broken scoring play... let me know how you make out.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:03 AM
  #20
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I think being so big that Mario suffered a lot less from that style of play in the league than Gretzky.

At least Mario was big and strong enough to power his way through it somewhat. But I still agree with you. A more open game helps players on that creative level more.
See, here's the other thing, especially when talking about Gretzky. He wasn't what you would call the most physically talented player, not by a long shot.
Even in the 80's Gretzky was not a very strong or even a very fast skater. Agile as hell yes but not fast.
Nor did he even have a superior shot, pinpoint accurate like his passes yes but not even close to overpowering.
You couldn't even call Wayne overly impressive one on one either, he didn't go "through" people, certainly not on the level of Yzerman or especially Mario.

What Gretzky did have was absolutely incredible guile and deceptiveness with an almost superhuman "hockey sense" bordering on precognition on the offensive side of the game.
This kinda stuff transpires through any era and where Gretzky out shines everyone offensively and why I truly don't believe his numbers drop that much, even in today's game.
I mean even in 97/98 which was most definitely a certified "dead puck" year, a 37 year old Gretzky, very near the end of his career, is 3rd in scoring and leading the league in assists still.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 07-21-2010 at 11:17 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:07 AM
  #21
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post

What Gretzky did have was absolutely incredible guile and deceptiveness with an almost superhuman "hockey sense" bordering on precognition on the offensive side of the game.
This kinda stuff transpires through any era and where Gretzky out shines everyone offensively and why I truly don't believe his numbers drop that much, even in today's game.
Yeah the amount of times you'd see Gretzky go against the grain and just be thinking to yourself.. "What is he doing?" and then the puck would be in the net... I wish he was still able to play it was something to see.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:39 AM
  #22
Doctor No
Mod Supervisor
Retired?
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 24,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
It means that raw point totals are what they are or what they were. They balance perfectly with the games, seasons,era in question.
To some degree. But (for example) in the 1980s, it "cost" more goals in order to gain a win, and therefore, 1980s goals were worth less than present-day goals.

50 goals in 1982-83 wouldn't buy you as many wins as 50 goals today.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 02:45 PM
  #23
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,511
vCash: 500
Quaint

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor No View Post
To some degree. But (for example) in the 1980s, it "cost" more goals in order to gain a win, and therefore, 1980s goals were worth less than present-day goals.

50 goals in 1982-83 wouldn't buy you as many wins as 50 goals today.
So people recognize "cost" as opposed to "value". No big surprise.

Pythagorean metric disagrees with you very strongly since the real "value" is in giving up the least number of goals regardless of time or circumstance. Old adage that the team, in any sport, that gives up the fewest goals, points, runs, etc has the best chance of winning usually carries the day.

Be it today, 1982-83 or earlier the real value of 50 goals is in the number of wins that can be bought after the goals against are factored out.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 02:50 PM
  #24
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,077
vCash: 500
Thanks for taking the time to do this. The numbers using this system do pass the smell test, I think, unlike the previous adjusted points that keep being thrown around.

With the one caveat, of course, that they are only relevant for Top 10 scorers.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 02:53 PM
  #25
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,428
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I think the hardest thing to adjust for is the years where Gretzky was clearing 200 and the next closest was like 120-130 and not that different than today's totals.
86/87 for example:
1 Wayne Gretzky 183 (I don't honestly see this only being 150 in today's NHL)
2 Jari Kurri 108
3 Mario Lemieux 107
3 Mark Messier 107
5 Doug Gilmour 105
6 Dino Ciccarelli 103
7 Dale Hawerchuk 100
8 Michel Goulet 96

Pretty cool though, I think it works pretty well for most of the players but I don't think it does justice to the freakshows named Mario and Wayne.
I was just looking at this again and thinking how ridiculous that looks.

The fact is you aren't going to incorporate Gretzky, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Lemieux into a good statistical model because they are the definition of outliers lol.. 183 to 108.. that is mind boggling.

BraveCanadian 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 04:04 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.