NHL leaders in career goals adjusted for era: Howe 2'd, Jagr 3'd, MARIO is NOT TOP 10!

This is close to a strawman though. What the die-hard adjusted stats crowd seems to overlook is that just because someone doesn’t worship those adjusted numbers, it doesn’t mean they’re looking at things only at face value. Nothing wrong with acknowledging them as the heavily flawed figures they are that lack plenty of season to season to context, while also recognizing that yes, 153 points now is worth more than Yzerman’s 155 thirty five plus years ago.
I think we're in agreement. I've made a number of posts criticizing the approach used by hockey-reference.com (both for adjusted points, and especially their ill-conceived Point Shares). But in fairness, it doesn't sound like anybody here is "worshipping" that website, or any other specific methodology for adjusted stats. We can recognize that adjustments are needed, even if the exact mechanism of calculating that adjustment is unclear.
 
I think the issue I am having with it, is that while it is interesting on the point of view of the top 20 scorers or whatever from every era. I have a hard time believing that 4th liners from a league that has 21 teams would statistically be worse than 4th liners from a 32 team league.

How does adjusted stats deal with anomalies like Player A played 4 games and had 6 points? Does every player get adjusted to 82 games?
A player who played 4 games and had 6 points only gets adjusted so that the player played 4 games.

Hockey reference will adjust a player to have a standardized season length (ie. all seasons are 82 games) - but only if the LEAGUE had less or more games than 82, not an individual player.

For example - look at Crosby's adjusted stats:
-> In 2012 he missed 3/4 of the season and scored 37 points. The adjustment they use increases his adjusted points by 4 points due to it being a lower scoring season. But it does NOT change how many games he played - which is why you don't see an over 100 point season adjusted for here.

-> But the very next year, was the lockout year where the league only played 48 games. Crosby scored 56 points that year. The adjustment will assume Crosby played the same % of the overall games (ie. 36/48 = 75% of the games). So it assumes he plays 75% of 82 games = 62 games.

1744224501102.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: qcal1427
Hilarious how Ovechkin haters are "adjusting". f*** off, guy has the most goals in NHL history. He will have that honor well over yours and my expiration dates.

f*** are you even talking about

This makes Ovie look better if anything

Try reading next time instead of whatever this embarrassing shit is
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanscosm
I think we're in agreement. I've made a number of posts criticizing the approach used by hockey-reference.com (both for adjusted points, and especially their ill-conceived Point Shares). But in fairness, it doesn't sound like anybody here is "worshipping" that website, or any other specific methodology for adjusted stats. We can recognize that adjustments are needed, even if the exact mechanism of calculating that adjustment is unclear.
Exactly. I think Hockeyreference is just nice because it's close enough - and very easy to draw stats and numbers from.

If I was doing a research paper I wouldn't use it. But to waste time arguing with people on HFboards? It's good enough and still miles more representative than Raw stats are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast
Not in Canada. The youth pool was four times denser than it is today (more births, more dominant hockey culture). And since Canada still produces 40% of the world's elite... that more than compensates for the lower level of the others at the time.

The Canada of Gretzky's generation was a Canada with four children per woman, 450,000 births per year for a population of 20 million, and young people who played hockey much more. The NHL also had fewer teams, so elite talent was less diluted.
Registered youth players is the appropriate metric. Which is down in Canada but not even close to down 4 times.

This is the most talented NHL that has ever existed. Look at the game, look at the speed. Theres ONLY talent. Gone are the days of drafting grinders, hitters and fighters.

If you could sit glass side at a game in the 80s and then now today, you'd realize how undeniably better the talent is. Multitudes less space and time, faster, defensive structure, goalies. The list could go on forever.

Gretzky is Gretzky and would dominate any era. But he absolutely benefited from playing when he did.
 
Registered youth players is the appropriate metric. Which is down in Canada but not even close to down 4 times.

This is the most talented NHL that has ever existed. Look at the game, look at the speed. Theres ONLY talent. Gone are the days of drafting grinders, hitters and fighters.

If you could sit glass side at a game in the 80s and then now today, you'd realize how undeniably better the talent is. Multitudes less space and time, faster, defensive structure, goalies. The list could go on forever.

Gretzky is Gretzky and would dominate any era. But he absolutely benefited from playing when he did.
The user was talking about a talent density six times lower. So I'm only talking about talent density.

In Canada, the Gretzky generation is by far the most talented in the history of Canadian hockey. Current Canadians are far from matching them. And Europeans were starting to appear.

The league had only 20 teams.

So in terms of talent density, there was no increase with the significant decline in the density of Canadian players and the dilution of talent in a 32-team league.

Gretzky didn't benefit any more than the players of his generation. When you score 1,000 more points than your best contemporary, that says something.


Overall, boomers born in 1960s outperform players born in 1990s/2000s in sports.

Twice as many and ten times more active in sport.

Current generations benefit from better coaching, but the talent density is lower. It's just that if you put Gretzky in today's hockey, he's even better because he's better coached. But he faced a dense generation. The top 30 players born in the 1960s outperform the top 30 players born in the 1980s.

GK : Roy, Hasek, Moog, Fuhr, Vanbiesbrouck, Vernon, Barrasso, Hextall, Belfour, Joseph, Burke
DF : Bourque, Coffey, McInnis, Leetch, Murphy, Chelios, Suter, Housley, Stevens, Jonsson, Babych, Patrick, Duchesne, Hatcher, Schneider, Blake
FW : Gretzky, Messier, M.Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, Fedorov, Kurri, Goulet, Savard, Oates, Hawerchuk, Andreychuk, Gilmour, Hull, Hunter, Ciccarelli, Carbonneau, Loob, Larionov, Kerr, Nicholls, Larmer, Sutter, Nieuwendyk, Francis, Thomas, Bellows, Verbeeck, Tocchet, C.Lemieux, Tikkanen, Lafontaine, Robitaille, Richer, Kamensky, Damphousse, Recchi, Fleury, Mogilny, Shanahan, Leclair, Turgeon

Spread across an NHL with 50% fewer teams (30 to 20)...
 
Last edited:
NHL fans have this really bizarre obsession with putting down players from the past.
Sometimes it’s valid. NHL D largely didn’t skate backwards until probably the late 80s. And don’t get me started on goaltenders lol.

I was watching Bobby Orr footage the other night. He was still a buttery smooth skater, even by today’s standards, and probably one of the fastest the NHL had seen up to that point, but he wasn’t as fast as even average skaters today.

The reason that he was so effective then, and part of the reason why he revolutionized the game, was because that level of skating was enough to blow by defenders on the regular. In the footage, opposing D would literally just stand stationary until he got to them, and then turn around and chase him. Either that, or they would collapse deep into the zone by turning around and skating toward the net, then 180 and coast backwards trying to stay in front of him. When they did this, Orr would just hang back and start meandering East-West, free to find an angle for a shot or pass, using the dumbass opposing D coasting backwards toward their net as screens. Opposing forwards mostly just ignored him, or would hang back and float behind the play for some reason - forwards apparently weren’t required to defend or get back when the team lost possession back then. It’s like no one but Orr had any hockey IQ at all back then. There was essentially zero backskating or man to man coverage, no stick work, no cutting off passing lanes, or angling guys to the outside. Most D didn’t actively try to block shots either because they didn’t have helmets or visors. There was barely any hitting either, and when there was, it was usually more like jockeying for position and/or nudging and pushing with elbows, not the full body high speed hits we see today. To be frank, the defensive side of the game back then was a complete joke. All the techniques I just mentioned were slowly popularized and developed out of a necessity to defend against great skaters like Orr (and the ones that came after him).

Another thing I noticed that is just crazy, is how often Orr would enter the offensive zone, circle around because he couldn’t find an opening, and then EXIT THE ZONE, instead of just passing the puck, meaning all his teammates would have to follow him back out across the blue line, and wait for him to carry the puck into the offensive zone again. Sometimes he would do this 2 or 3 times until he found the iso opening or scoring chance that he wanted. Just ridiculous. I don’t see how any player could get away with this stuff these days; coaches would tear you a new one if you tried it. If I had a teammate that was constantly doing this, I’d f***ing hate the guy lol.

On another occasion, Orr entered the zone along the boards, skated all the way down, looping behind the net and then back up along the boards on the other side. When he got back to the blue line, he turned and skated toward the center along the blue line and just fired a weak ass backhand that skimmed along the ice, AND BEAT THE GOALTENDER WITH IT. All this, while everyone else just pretty much stood stationary and watched this entire sequence and did nothing lmao.

I know this all might seem like sacrilege, but f*** it, it’s the truth. Hockey today isn’t even the same sport that it was back then. And don’t get me wrong, nothing against Orr or anyone - they played in the systems of the era. They’re still great, but when you look at them through today’s lense, it’s shocking. The game back then was pretty much played at warmup pace, with warmup effort. Players like Orr played a little above this effort and pace, and that, along with his exceptional skating (for the era), allowed him to dominate.
 
Last edited:
I think we're in agreement. I've made a number of posts criticizing the approach used by hockey-reference.com (both for adjusted points, and especially their ill-conceived Point Shares). But in fairness, it doesn't sound like anybody here is "worshipping" that website, or any other specific methodology for adjusted stats. We can recognize that adjustments are needed, even if the exact mechanism of calculating that adjustment is unclear.
Do you have a better metric than point-shares that can capture the relative value of a career?. Have you tried to contact the guys at Hockeyreference and pitch them the replacement to point shares. Just curious, because I used to go through old drafts and I’d look at point shares to try gauge the value of some players I wasn’t familiar with before.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a better metric than point-shares that can capture the relative value of a career?. Have you tried to contact the guys at Hockeyreference and pitch them the replacement to point shares. Just curious, because I used to go through old drafts and I’d look at point shares to try gauge the value of some players I wasn’t familiar with before.
Here's a thread that summarizes the issues with point shares. At a high level the biggest problems are:
  • the "replacement level" for goaltending is set far too low, which means goalies can get really high scores just by playing in a lot of games. That leads to some wacky conclusions (ie Roberto Luongo > Gordie Howe, Hendrik Lundqvist > Mario Lemieux, Joe Thornton > Dominik Hasek, Blake Wheeler > Ken Dryden etc)
  • the calculation of defensive point shares is meaningless. There are many different flaws with it (see that thread for details). The biggest issue is players get credit for playing lots of minutes, even if that's from powerplay time (which doesn't tell you anything about their defensive value). Phil Housley has more defensive point shares than Rod Langway. Paul Coffey and Sergei Gonchar are in the top fifty, but Borje Salming, Derian Hatcher and Adam Foote aren't. Jagr is the all-time leader among forwards. These conclusions are plainly nonsensical.
  • offensive point shares penalize players for playing on the penalty kill - out of the three components, OPS is the least inaccurate. Even here, players get penalized for playing on the penalty kill (ie their offensive production gets downgraded because they "used up" more minutes - even though, obviously, most players aren't deployed on the PK to score points). This hurts good two-way forwards (and defensemen).
The end results aren't terrible if you're trying to do a high-level comparison. But you'll see that goalies are systematically overrated, and defensive play is completely mis-evaluated. If you're trying to learn more about hockey history, it's not a bad way to start, but don't place too much reliance on it.

(And yes, I've sent feedback to hockey-reference.com a few times. As far as I can tell, they never acted on it. I can't blame them, it's a for-profit website and Point Shares are good enough for the purposes of gaining views. But it shouldn't be used as a serious method for cross-era comparisons).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheLegend27
Lol!

Can I ask you to recommend a book or movie before we part ways?
Movie? Watch Falling Down (starring Michael Douglas and Robert Duvall). It's from 1993, but it feels more relevant today than it did back then. It's a story about a man who snaps. What makes it such a good movie is it's nuanced. It would have been easy to portray Douglas's character as crazy. It also would have been easy (maybe less so) to portray him as a renegade hero. The film strikes the right balance - you feel his (legitimate) frustration, but ultimately condemn his actions. Or at least that's my takeaway.

A small number of book reviews can be found here.
 
Movie? Watch Falling Down (starring Michael Douglas and Robert Duvall). It's from 1993, but it feels more relevant today than it did back then. It's a story about a man who snaps. What makes it such a good movie is it's nuanced. It would have been easy to portray Douglas's character as crazy. It also would have been easy (maybe less so) to portray him as a renegade hero. The film strikes the right balance - you feel his (legitimate) frustration, but ultimately condemn his actions. Or at least that's my takeaway.

A small number of book reviews can be found here.

The problem with it being released in 93 is that compared to movies of today it's star rating is down to a 3 instead of a 4.5... so kinda still good, but kinda mid.
 
The user was talking about a talent density six times lower. So I'm only talking about talent density.

In Canada, the Gretzky generation is by far the most talented in the history of Canadian hockey. Current Canadians are far from matching them. And Europeans were starting to appear.

The league had only 20 teams.

So in terms of talent density, there was no increase with the significant decline in the density of Canadian players and the dilution of talent in a 32-team league.

Gretzky didn't benefit any more than the players of his generation. When you score 1,000 more points than your best contemporary, that says something.


Overall, boomers born in 1960s outperform players born in 1990s/2000s in sports.

Twice as many and ten times more active in sport.

Current generations benefit from better coaching, but the talent density is lower. It's just that if you put Gretzky in today's hockey, he's even better because he's better coached. But he faced a dense generation. The top 30 players born in the 1960s outperform the top 30 players born in the 1980s.

GK : Roy, Hasek, Moog, Fuhr, Vanbiesbrouck, Vernon, Barrasso, Hextall, Belfour, Joseph, Burke
DF : Bourque, Coffey, McInnis, Leetch, Murphy, Chelios, Suter, Housley, Stevens, Jonsson, Babych, Patrick, Duchesne, Hatcher, Schneider, Blake
FW : Gretzky, Messier, M.Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, Fedorov, Kurri, Goulet, Savard, Oates, Hawerchuk, Andreychuk, Gilmour, Hull, Hunter, Ciccarelli, Carbonneau, Loob, Larionov, Kerr, Nicholls, Larmer, Sutter, Nieuwendyk, Francis, Thomas, Bellows, Verbeeck, Tocchet, C.Lemieux, Tikkanen, Lafontaine, Robitaille, Richer, Kamensky, Damphousse, Recchi, Fleury, Mogilny, Shanahan, Leclair, Turgeon

Spread across an NHL with 50% fewer teams (30 to 20)...
You talk about those 4-th liners, who’s still used to smoke between periods in early Gretzky time? :)
Isn’t one of the reasons Gretzky was so good, is because majority of players, when he started, where still from old era, smoking, drinking , zero exercising in summer etc , while he was much more modern athlete, ahead of time in many aspects? Although even for him pre-game meal was still a McDonalds burger or something like that (Although, Ovi isn’t much different with his buckets of pasta, and the rest).
 
Last edited:
And, in general, if argument about 20 teams is valid, then original 6 times….. must beat 3.5 times 21-tram league :)
 
This is close to a strawman though. What the die-hard adjusted stats crowd seems to overlook is that just because someone doesn’t worship those adjusted numbers, it doesn’t mean they’re looking at things only at face value.
Except this is the type of response many get when adjusted stats are brought up

The big thing with accuracy is being able to test it against a known measurement. Since we can't do that for era comparisons, it literally can't be accurate. It's literally no different than throwing a dart at a blank wall and claiming you hit the bullseye.




To me, this is clearly projection. You obviously aren't grasping the extremely basic concepts of "players in a team sport like hockey will score more when they have better teammates" and "skilled people making something look easy isn't the same as it actually being easy". And this is why you're resorting to bad faith "gotcha" questions to pretend I'm wrong instead of actually explaining why era adjustments are warranted.
The bad faith arguments seem to come form the other side with drive bys and the well it's not eprfect so it's like throwing a dart agasint as wall.

Scoring levels are different in different seasons and adjusted stats is one approach to look objectively at these scoring difference's, no one is seriously saying there are the definite conclusion but they point us to the right direction.



Nothing wrong with acknowledging them as the heavily flawed figures they are that lack plenty of season to season to context, while also recognizing that yes, 153 points now is worth more than Yzerman’s 155 thirty five plus years ago.
Heavily flawed is a very loaded was to phrase things don't you think?

Also the difference between 153 and 155 points in the same season is basically random luck, who is making that comparison besides you here?
 
You talk about those 4-th liners, who’s still used to smoke between periods in early Gretzky time? :)
Isn’t one of the reasons Gretzky was so good, is because majority of players, when he started, where still from old era, smoking, drinking , zero exercising in summer etc , while he was much more modern athlete, ahead of time in many aspects? Although even for him pre-game meal was still a McDonalds burger or something like that (Although, Ovi isn’t much different with his buckets of pasta, and the rest).
Ovechkin plays in a 32 team NHL where 4th liners would be American league players in the 80s.
Gretzky scored over 1,000 points more than hockey legends.

The talent density in Gretzky's generation is enormous. Even more so than Ovechkin's generation.

The Hockey Canadian generation born in the 1960s will probably remain the biggest Canadian generation in history.
 
Last edited:
The bad faith arguments seem to come form the other side with drive bys and the well it's not eprfect so it's like throwing a dart agasint as wall.

Scoring levels are different in different seasons and adjusted stats is one approach to look objectively at these scoring difference's, no one is seriously saying there are the definite conclusion but they point us to the right direction.

People adjust the stats based on the opinion that "it was easier/harder to score", which literally makes it totally subjective. The formulas used to calculate the numbers, also totally subjective. For something to actually be objective, it needs to be verifiable, which none of the era adjustments are, for obvious reasons. The fact that the math seems to justify your opinions doesn't mean it isn't bullshit math.
 
People adjust the stats based on the opinion that "it was easier/harder to score", which literally makes it totally subjective.
The number of goals scored in any NHL season isn't an opinion, it's a statistical fact right?

If you don't understand that then there is zero reason to continue this conversation as statistical facts aren't subjective.

the method of adjusting does have subjective inputs but that's a manner of process not throwing the baby out with the bathwater..



The formulas used to calculate the numbers, also totally subjective.
Nop wrong again see above they use a baseline based on actual scoring rates and sure any inputs in any system will be "subjective" but they aren't throwing darts on a blank wall like you surmise.


For something to actually be objective, it needs to be verifiable, which none of the era adjustments are, for obvious reasons. The fact that the math seems to justify your opinions doesn't mean it isn't bullshit math.
You seem to be confusing 100% verification, which is impossible to having a clearer and more accurate picture, something that it doesn't sound like you are interested in given your posts.
 
The number of goals scored in any NHL season isn't an opinion, it's a statistical fact right?

If you don't understand that then there is zero reason to continue this conversation as statistical facts aren't subjective.

the method of adjusting does have subjective inputs but that's a manner of process not throwing the baby out with the bathwater..

Yes, the number of goals actually scored is a statistical fact, because we can watch the games and verify how many goals were scored. But as soon as you start manipulating the numbers using subjective inputs and formulas to produce answers that cannot possibly be verified to be correct, it is no longer a statistical fact.

Nop wrong again see above they use a baseline based on actual scoring rates and sure any inputs in any system will be "subjective" but they aren't throwing darts on a blank wall like you surmise.

If there is no way to measure that the answers are correct, then claiming the untestable answer is both correct and proves what you claim it does is exactly like throwing darts at an imaginary dart board and claiming you hit exactly what you were aiming for. That's the great thing about making things up.

You seem to be confusing 100% verification, which is impossible to having a clearer and more accurate picture, something that it doesn't sound like you are interested in given your posts.

I'm very interested in having a clearer, more accurate picture to use to compare between eras. I just don't believe that 3rd grade math based on unprovable assumptions is accurate, nor do I believe a simple answer to a complex situation makes things clearer, especially when the answer is wrong nearly as often as it's right.
 
Yes, the number of goals actually scored is a statistical fact, because we can watch the games and verify how many goals were scored. But as soon as you start manipulating the numbers using subjective inputs and formulas to produce answers that cannot possibly be verified to be correct, it is no longer a statistical fact.
No one is arguing that adjusted stats are a statistical fact here that's just your strawman blocking your already made up mind going from your previous posts.


If there is no way to measure that the answers are correct, then claiming the untestable answer is both correct and proves what you claim it does is exactly like throwing darts at an imaginary dart board and claiming you hit exactly what you were aiming for. That's the great thing about making things up.

I'm very interested in having a clearer, more accurate picture to use to compare between eras.
No you most certainly aren't.

I just don't believe that 3rd grade math based on unprovable assumptions is accurate, nor do I believe a simple answer to a complex situation makes things clearer, especially when the answer is wrong nearly as often as it's right.
I'll wait for you to verify that the answers are clearly wrong here since you can't prove it.

Also once again no one is saying that adjusted stats are definitive or 100% objective facts, they just get us closer to comparing different players scoring level between different seasons using a statistical model that it we ll beyond grade 3 math.

But since you think it's 100% wrong based on your entirely subjective opinion of certain players I think we are done here.

People adjust the stats based on the opinion that "it was easier/harder to score", which literally makes it totally subjective.
This statement is the crux of the matter as the facts and opinions are 2 different things that you haven't demonstrated a difference in understanding.
 
No one is arguing that adjusted stats are a statistical fact here that's just your strawman blocking your already made up mind going from your previous posts.

If they aren't statistical facts, then why bother with them? For that matter, why even do the math if you can't possibly know if the answer it gives is right?

No you most certainly aren't.


I'll wait for you to verify that the answers are clearly wrong here since you can't prove it.

The fact that no one can prove the numbers right or wrong is exactly the problem.

And not being able to prove something wrong doesn't mean it's right. That's the same type of idiotic argument that people use to claim there are unicorns and bigfoots and loch ness monsters. With that kind of thinking, I'm not even remotely surprised that you also believe you know what someone you've never met is actually interested in.

Also once again no one is saying that adjusted stats are definitive or 100% objective facts, they just get us closer to comparing different players scoring level between different seasons using a statistical model that it we ll beyond grade 3 math.

If you can't prove whether they are right or wrong, how do you know these models are actually getting you closer to the truth, and not just giving you a different wrong answer?

And I remember learning how to multiply and find averages in 3rd grade. I also helped both of my children with multiplication and averages when they were in 3rd grade. Maybe your schools wait until later, but it's still extremely basic.

But since you think it's 100% wrong based on your entirely subjective opinion of certain players I think we are done here.

You quoted me literally saying "it's wrong almost as often as it's right", so I'm baffled as to where you get the idea that I think they are 100% wrong. My issue is that they aren't 100% right, and we have no way of determining which numbers are right and which are total bullshit. Literally the only thing anyone can ever do is compare the adjusted number to their entirely subjective opinion.

This statement is the crux of the matter as the facts and opinions are 2 different things that you haven't demonstrated a difference in understanding.

You'll have to excuse me if I'm not going to take lessons in understanding things from someone who seems to believe that not being able to prove something wrong must mean it's right. I'd probably be better served signing up for a bigfoot biology class.
 
If you can't prove whether they are right or wrong, how do you know these models are actually getting you closer to the truth, and not just giving you a different wrong answer?
What I can say is that by using adjusted stats one gets a more "accurate" answer when comparing 2 players scoring between scoring levels of say 3 GPG or 4 GPG, its literally as simple as currency rates as an overall basis as both are statistical facts.

The leagues averages are there and if we compare them to a baseline the stats are actually correct for the group, just some of the players might be off a little bit.

Sure the dispersion of the players between the 2 seasons might be slightly different but the overall differences aren't wrong in the current context of same rosters sizes, player usage ect... except one can and should add something like 3 on 3 scoring and maybe top 6 players for each team instead of team totals but these aren't huge differences either and some of this scoring is already baked into the cake as it were.


You'll have to excuse me if I'm not going to take lessons in understanding things from someone who seems to believe that not being able to prove something wrong must mean it's right.
Try reading sometime as I've always stated that adjusted stats get one closer to a more realistic comparisons of players you are the one adding absolutes to people who aren't;t making those statements.

When comparing scoring rates across different seasons we have 2 options presented.

Actual stats with zero context for goals value across time or adjusted states.

One helps much more for comparative comparisons than the other one plain and simple.


I'd probably be better served signing up for a bigfoot biology class.
I 100% agree here.
 
3) Another one: in 1993 there were SIXTY SEVEN 30-goal scorers. In 2015 there were only FIFTEEN. You honestly want to tell me that the explanation is “skill”? Why skill, and why not that goalies sucked more back then?

Corollary to this: if scoring more goals back then meant everyone had more skill in those eras, wouldn’t a similar examination of goal prevention conversely indicate that everyone in the high scoring eras just so happened to suck at defense and goaltending?

So the forwards back then were evidence of a far superior talent pool that - in an astonishing phenomena - did not extend to defensemen and goalies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: qcal1427
What I can say is that by using adjusted stats one gets a more "accurate" answer when comparing 2 players scoring between scoring levels of say 3 GPG or 4 GPG, its literally as simple as currency rates as an overall basis as both are statistical facts.

And every time you claim advanced stats more accurate, I can easily point out that accuracy requires being able to measure it against a known value, which we do not have in this case. Therefore, your claims of it being a more "accurate" answer is simply your opinion.

I also know for a fact that you can put perfect data into a formula and get absolute garbage results. It's also almost trivially easy use the same verifiable, measured data to support diametrically opposing viewpoints, depending solely on how we set up the math. This is why there's the old saying about "lies, damn lies and statistics".

The leagues averages are there and if we compare them to a baseline the stats are actually correct for the group, just some of the players might be off a little bit.

How do you determine whether they are actually correct for the group? What objective measurement can we take to verify it's right?

Sure the dispersion of the players between the 2 seasons might be slightly different but the overall differences aren't wrong in the current context of same rosters sizes, player usage ect... except one can and should add something like 3 on 3 scoring and maybe top 6 players for each team instead of team totals but these aren't huge differences either and some of this scoring is already baked into the cake as it were.


Try reading sometime as I've always stated that adjusted stats get one closer to a more realistic comparisons of players you are the one adding absolutes to people who aren't;t making those statements.

If it were even remotely realistic, we could actually measure it and check the math for accuracy.

When comparing scoring rates across different seasons we have 2 options presented.

Actual stats with zero context for goals value across time or adjusted states.

One helps much more for comparative comparisons than the other one plain and simple.

If neither one can be trusted to actually be true, why should we accept those as the only two options? Why not admit that they both kind of suck and keep looking for something better?

I 100% agree here.

You 100% agree that listening to you when it comes to understanding things is about as useful as a class on bigfoot biology? That isn't something most people would readily admit to, so kudos for your self awareness, I guess.
 
Corollary to this: if scoring more goals back then meant everyone had more skill in those eras, wouldn’t a similar examination of goal prevention conversely indicate that everyone in the high scoring eras just so happened to suck at defense and goaltending?

So the forwards back then were evidence of a far superior talent pool that - in an astonishing phenomena - did not extend to defensemen and goalies?

What if it doesn't mean that everyone had more skill? If we could take the exact same team in the exact same league, with the only exception being one has prime Ryan Getzlaf and one has prime Mario Lemieux, I would expect most of the other players on the team with Mario to score a lot more points on the season, despite having the exact same talent level. And, I expect that Mario team would also make defenses and goalies look a lot worse by comparison, even if the other team has elite defensemen and goalies.

And, I don't believe anyone would seriously claim Ray Bourque sucked at defense. He just wasn't going to stop Mario Lemieux.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad