daver
Registered User
It fails to capture the variance in the # of PP called in different seasons which is not reflected in changes to the league GPG.
Okay. So it sounds like this can be adjusted for as well (despite the bombastic thread title).
Adjusted for how?
who knows, i tried to get answer once on some website that gave some low number for Joe Malone's era adjusted 44 goals in 20, i think they came up with less the a point a game. but using their formula i came up with at least 140 goals in a season
I don't know how you go from "one website had a weird adjustment" to "doing this is a useless endeavor".
I don't see how it comes close to looking at performance vs. peers with an appropriate peer sample segment and size. It seems to be used primary to back up assertions that scoring in the '80s was easy and/or scoring in the DPE was harder.
To your last point, scoring in the 1980s *was* easier (although not "easy" per your post), and scoring in the DPE *was* harder. People watching the games can see that - you don't even need to look at raw scoring numbers to tell you that.
However, the fact that a method doesn't account for all potential differences doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used (because it sounds like you're advocating for "no adjustment" - so please clarify). Reasonable people can look at adjusted statistics under a similar lens, and use them appropriately in context.
What I meant was the best scorers in the '80s seem to get looked down upon and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument. A prime example is Bossy's 147 point season in 81/82 which, once adjusted, would be good for 6th place in the 1998/99 season.
Conversely, the best players in the DPE are portrayed as better than players from other eras and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument.
My problem with the bolded (and more largely, the problem that I have with the entire premise of the thread) is that you suggest that there's only one way to do the adjusting, and that it was handed down to Moses on stone tablets or something.
What I meant was the best scorers in the '80s seem to get looked down upon and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument. A prime example is Bossy's 147 point season in 81/82 which, once adjusted, would be good for 6th place in the 1998/99 season.
Conversely, the best players in the DPE are portrayed as better than players from other eras and flawed adjusted stats can be used to prop up that argument.
I advocate for performance vs. peers as the primary metric for comparing players which assumes that the Top 20 to 30 scorers in any given year is at the same talent level as any other year.
makes sense when you put it that wayJoe Malone's era there was limited substitution. Many played all 60 minutes.
So adjusting for modern TOI where a #1 center may play 20-25 minutes a game in a four line rotation would bring the goals down to under 1 per game. Since assists were very sparsely distributed - Malone was awarded 4 the same season, his assists would be adjusted downward as well.
The average scoring rate in '82 was 8.02 goals per game. It's the highest scoring season since 1944. It was the season in which Maruk scored 136 points.
The average scoring rate in '99 was 5.26 goals per game, which is significantly lower.
There's a significant difference between "adjusting for GPG is useless" and "there's other methods that are better"
If your point is that a naive adjustment (divide by GPG in year, multiple by a common/goal GPG) doesn't have much value then, sure virtually everyone agree with that. But even then, it's not useless.
Except the scoring levels by the Top 30 players in both of those seasons is not lower by the same 8/5.26 ratio. Whatever the reason for the difference in scoring it did not affect the elite offensive forwards production levels as much.
That is the flaw in adjusting.
Except the scoring levels by the Top 30 players in both of those seasons is not lower by the same 8/5.26 ratio. Whatever the reason for the difference in scoring it did not affect the elite offensive forwards production levels as much.
That is the flaw in adjusting.
I'm sure you'll agree Maruk's goal total of 60 from 1982 cannot be compared directly to Jagr's goal total (44) from 1999 in any meaningful way. Their adjusted goal totals from those seasons (51 for Jagr in 81 games and 44 for Maruk) are a better representation of the impact of each player's goal scoring in 1982 and 1999 and a better indicator of each player's goal scoring aptitude as well in this case.
They can easily be compared by looking at where they placed among their peers. Maruk was 3rd in goals, 5 behind Bossy. Jagr was T2 in goals, 7 behind Bure. They seemed to have pretty similar goalscoring years when this is considered.
Say Bure gets hurt that year and Jagr finishes number 1 with the exact same goal total. Does that make Jagr's season more impressive? It shouldn't and that's why I don't think comparing scoring relative to their peers is really all that indicative of being a better player.
Unless I'm reading something wrong, this is not logically sound. If a greater percentage of league goals were scored by top scorers in 1982, then a greater percentages of goals in 1982 were scored by top scorers. You can't use proportional scoring by a subset of the league and compare it directly (or at all) to total decrease in scoring throughout the whole league. The top scorers in 1999 did not score a greater percentage of league goals.The decrease in the percentage of goals scored by the top 30 goal scorers between 1982 and 1999 (a decrease of 23%) is out of proportion to the decrease in the percentage of goals scored per game between 1982 and 1999 (a decrease of approximately 34%). This indicates that a larger percentage of goals were being scored by the top 30 scorers in 1999 than in 1982.