Adjusted Points

[BraveCanadian]

You guys still don't get it. It's about comparing talent across eras, not who would have scored this much in whatever year or whatever era.

Based on this statement you are the one that doesn't get it.
That is exactly what adjusted stats attempts rather poorly to do.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Based on this statement you are the one that doesn't get it.
That is exactly what adjusted stats attempts rather poorly to do.

Sorry but no. You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Sorry but no. You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Oh then please let me know how adjusted stats compare "talent" if they don't try to estimate how much each player in a comparison would have scored in a year with the same scoring level?

I'll be truly interested to see the answer.

 

[canucks4ever]

Goals per game has a flaw in that it doesn't record the amount of assists players put up in game.

In 2000 and 2001, the goals per game was the same, yet players were clearly scoring more points in 2001.

1998 was also clearly a lower scoring season than 1999, despite the same goals per game.

 

[seventieslord]

I see them more as a stat that attempts to answer: "what is more statistically impressive? scoring 80 points in this season, or 100 points in this season?"

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Oh then please let me know how adjusted stats compare "talent" if they don't try to estimate how much each player in a comparison would have scored in a year with the same scoring level?

I'll be truly interested to see the answer.

Well, you're not going to get one. Keep living in you're dream world where raw stats tell more of the story than adjusted stats.

 

[Rhiessan71]

So wait a minute, if you disagree with how much Gretzky goes down by and think it's absolutely Pejorative Slured if people agree to this, why is it so crazy to believe Forsberg's adjusted stats. The adjusted stats are made to compare talent across era's, not deduct from what previous greats of the game did. When will people understand this? Your the guy that think's hockey doesn't change overtime and Gretzky could jump exactly as he was from the 80's and dominate today. You sir, haven't got a clue I can tell you that.

I'm not going through all that crap again when it's right here at length and full detail....
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=795182&highlight=forsberg

Oh look, it was you that got shot down throughout that thread to begin with...hmmm.

Look man, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, Adjusted stats are a tool, they are not the gospel and must be viewed with logic and more importantly, good ole common sense.

 

[Derick*]

Goals per game has a flaw in that it doesn't record the amount of assists players put up in game.

In 2000 and 2001, the goals per game was the same, yet players were clearly scoring more points in 2001.

1998 was also clearly a lower scoring season than 1999, despite the same goals per game.

I already said this, but don't worry, I don't blame you for not reading my novel-length posts.

And the difference would be much bigger for the really old days when the average goal had less than one assist compared to the 1.7 assists per goal today. 2.7 points per goal / 1.7 points per goal = ~160% as many points being given out.

So I ran some numbers for my 3rd-18th system. Based on that ratio, Gretzky's 215 point season in 85-86 comes out to 174 points in 2009-10 numbers. More than a 60 point lead over Sedin. Is that plausible for you Rheiss? I'll do the 86-87 season next. Considering the massive overall scoring drop between those years, that may end up higher.

Edit: Gretzky's 183 points in 1986-87 comes out at 170 points in 2009-10 numbers, so Gretzky's decline from the previous year is almost perfectly in line with the decline in league scoring.

I'll do more later and make a thread out of it. None of you better steal my system and do it yourself in the meantime (or at least don't publish the results )

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not going through all that crap again when it's right here at length and full detail....
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=795182&highlight=forsberg

Oh look, it was you that got shot down throughout that thread to begin with...hmmm.

Look man, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, Adjusted stats are a tool, they are not the gospel and must be viewed with logic and more importantly, good ole common sense.

Agreed with the bolded 100%. This new use of "adjusted stats" as gospel is the worst thing to hit the HOH board since I've been a regular here.

 

[Derick*]

I agree that they're a tool to be taken with a grain as salt just as much as unadjust stats and not gospel, but I haven't noticed anyone who really thinks otherwise.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm not going through all that crap again when it's right here at length and full detail....
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=795182&highlight=forsberg

Oh look, it was you that got shot down throughout that thread to begin with...hmmm.

Look man, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, Adjusted stats are a tool, they are not the gospel and must be viewed with logic and more importantly, good ole common sense.

My favourite is:

If you're adjusting Forsberg's 2003 year so that he gets 160 points in 1986, then that means Naslund would've gotten 157 points that year, Thornton 152 points, Hejduk and Bertuzzi 148 points, Pavol Demitra 140 points, and Glen Murray 139 points.

I mean, I agree that memories can be faulty, but as a general rule of thumb, if your adjusted stats are telling you that Glen Murray was a better offensive player than Stastny, Dionne, Trottier, Hawerchuk, and Savard at their peaks, you might want to rethink your method.

 

[Rhiessan71]

My favourite is:

My favorite was when I asked the one dude to recite a poem for us

 

[DJ Man]

It seems to me that you should also make adjustments for the schedule, in regard to the quality of the opposition.

If the divisions or conferences are disparate, the goals per game could be substantially different. In the years following the 1968 expansion, a good scorer in the Western Division was essentially playing against the best minor leaguers.

The schedule hasn't been balanced since the Original Six days.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I mentioned two methods of getting a baseline rate for top end scorers, fixed tiers (e.g. an average of the 7th-24th scorers each year) and proportional tiers (e.g. using the 7th-12th scorers in O6 and the 31st-60th scorers today), and then suggested combining the two.

Another possibility would be to use an exponent < 1 (like a square root) of the number of teams and using this to determine which tier to use. Here is an example:

N = number of teams in league

first player in tier = [(6N)^0.5]+1
last player in tier = 3*[(6N)^0.5]

In the O6, the first player is #7 and last player is #18, so would take the 7th-18th scorers and average them.

Today, the first player is #14.4 and last player #28.4, so if rounded would take the 14th-28th scorers and average them.

Since most believe the number of teams is less of an influence than the total talent pool, it might be better to use an exponent < 0.5. If you used an exponent of 0.25:

First player = [(216N)^(0.25)]+1
Last player = 3*[(216N)^(0.25)]

This still suggests the 7th-18th scorers in O6, but today would suggest the 10th-27th scorers. Of course, there are endless variations on this method.

The simple fixed and proportional tiers are mostly in agreement about adjusted points of near-top scorers for most eras since WWII:

O6: sideways to down, bottoming out in mid-late 60's
Mid-70s to Mid-80s: steadily down, bottoming in mid-late '80s
Glory Years: significant increase in late 80's and early 90's
2000's: basically sideways

The two methods are really in conflict during two periods.

The first is the O6 expansion, when the fixed tiers show a mammoth increase while the proportional tiers show a small but significant increase. This is no surprise given that the number of teams immediately doubled with further expansion soon after. The fact that even the proportional tiers (e.g. #7-12 in O6 vs. #13-24 after) is clear evidence that top scorers had a much easier time of it after expansion, which is not close to being addressed by present methods of adjusting points.

The other is during the decrease in league scoring from the early 90's until about 2000. Proportional tiers mostly peak in '93 at levels at or below the previous few decades and drift down to sideways from there. Fixed tiers hit post-WWII peaks in '93 and '96, decrease and then level off from there.

Finally, there is another method that has been used in some capacity before which could be quite useful and perhaps most fair. Using individual players as the constant, with the variable being the season. By looking at changes in PPG from season to season of a large group of top players, we may have further insight into how adjusted statistics can be further adjusted. For example, I looked at 44 of the best players from '67 to '68 and by various metrics calculated the increase in adjusted PPG to be ~13-17%.

It's best to select a large sample of top players (at least 40-50 in each two consecutive seasons compared) to help offset the many factors that can cause changes in adjusted PPG (age, injury, team, linemates, luck, etc.). Also, I looked at medians, such as the middle third or middle half of players in terms of % change in PPG.

So for '67 to '68:

Player --- % change in adjusted PPG
=======================
McKenzie 84.0%
Cournoyer 74.3%
Provost 73.5%
Beliveau 72.5%
Bathgate 66.0%
Duff 66.0%
Hodge 60.0%
Gilbert 58.6%
Ingarfield 56.8%
TremblayG 49.6%
Hadfield 48.2%
Esposito 38.0%
Prentice 30.2%
Delvecchio 29.7%
Nevin 28.2%
Bucyk 26.6%
Howe 26.3%
Armstrong 25.0%
MahovlichF 21.3%
Goldsworthy 17.4%
BackstromR 16.2%
Marshall 14.9%
Goyette 9.6%
WilliamsTo 9.4%
Wharram 8.2%
Pulford 8.2%
Orr 7.9%
Ullman 5.7%
Pappin 4.1%
Ellis 3.5%
Westfall 3.1%
Rousseau 2.2%
Nesterenko 0.5%
Oliver -0.4%
MartinP -0.4%
Keon -1.7%
HullBo -6.3%
Mikita -6.4%
Mohns -10.9%
HendersonP -13.4%
HullD -20.1%
Pilote -27.1%
RichardH -33.9%
Larose -44.0%

So one method was to use the median half (since their were 44 players, this would be the middle 22 or players #12-33) and either sum and average their % change in adjusted PPG (this was +15.3%) or sum their games and points and then calculate the difference in adjusted PPG (this was +15.1%).

Alternatively, you could use simple PPG instead of adjusted PPG, then factor out the change in league scoring.

Perhaps someone with a complete database and the appropriate statistical/computer knowledge can further one of these ideas.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I would just like to clarify that I am not against doing adjusted stats what so ever and I think the people that put a lot of work into them deserve a huge pat on the back.

They really are a great tool that helps the perspective of some of the numbers over the years.

It's how far some people want to take them and/or use them for their actual basis in an opinion or argument that I take issue with.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

My favourite is:

That was just one year and I've never heard anyone try to argue Glen Murray was a better offensive player than any of those guys. Yes adjusted stats aren't perfect, but no stats are really. It just seems like you think they're a pile of crap, which they really aren't.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That was just one year and I've never heard anyone try to argue Glen Murray was a better offensive player than any of those guys. Yes adjusted stats aren't perfect, but no stats are really. It just seems like you think they're a pile of crap, which they really aren't.

They are a pile of crap because people are misusing them left and right as the basis of every argument on here lately.

They are a very very rough tool for comparison and there are many cases where they are complete bunk compared to reality.

ie. Forsberg as a 160 point player in the 80s would be a perfect example. If you saw peak Gretzky and Lemieux play and you saw Forsberg play it should be obvious. He is not on their level offensively. Period.

Most likely he'd be a 120-140 point guy during that era in my opinion. Thats assuming he could ever put together an actual full season.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

They are a pile of crap because people are misusing them left and right as the basis of every argument on here lately.

They are a very very rough tool for comparison and there are many cases where they are complete bunk compared to reality.

ie. Forsberg as a 160 point player in the 80s would be a perfect example. If you saw peak Gretzky and Lemieux play and you saw Forsberg play it should be obvious. He is not on their level offensively. Period.

Most likely he'd be a 120-140 point guy during that era in my opinion. Thats assuming he could ever put together an actual full season.

Even if what your saying is true, they are still closer to the truth than raw stats, by a longshot. You guys love selling him short, but he'd be between 130-150 points any given year he played atleast 70+ games, but more often than not in the 130's somewhere. However, in a full healthy peak season, he'd score between 155-165 IMHO. If Yzerman in a peak year got 155, I'd say Forsberg at his peak could top it if he played all games healthy. Everything I've seen in Forsberg's game over the years, especially in the playoffs indicates that he is as skilled offensively as ANYONE but Gretzky and Lemieux. You guys don't even take into account how good he was defensively and physically as well. The most underrated player in the History section by a fair margin. Just because random people on the main board think he's the best player ever doesn't mean he should be discredited where it matters.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I'm not going through all that crap again when it's right here at length and full detail....
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=795182&highlight=forsberg

Oh look, it was you that got shot down throughout that thread to begin with...hmmm.

Look man, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, Adjusted stats are a tool, they are not the gospel and must be viewed with logic and more importantly, good ole common sense.

Well than quit complaining when people post adjusted stats then. You and others complain about people posting adjusted stats as 'gospel'. I've never seen anyone post adjusted stats and claim they are indisputable facts, yet, everytime someone has to complain. The funny thing is, when people use raw stats to compare players yeah someone might jump in and post the adjusted one's (and then proceed to get jumped all over for doing so), but I don't see people saying OMG those are so flawed they need to be taken with a grain of salt you need to quit posting them as the truth etc etc, when if anything, that's exactly what should be going on more often than the other way around. Whether adjusted stats are flawed or not, and they are a bit without a doubt, THEY ARE UNARGUABLY closer to the truth than raw stats. So you, and everyone else quit posting raw stats as 'gospel'.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Let's all take it down a level, and treat one another with respect.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Not sure if anyone noticed, but I actually edited that last post 5 or 6 times over the span of an hour lol. Trying to get my point across as well as possible.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

As I said in the other thread, Adjusted stats are all well and good for most players and will give you a ROUGH idea through the era's.

However, when you try and apply what is essentially an averaging formula to anomalies like Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux who are so far above even just the average of the top 5% it fails badly.

For example, it's already been presented in this thread that Gretzky's highest assist total would of been only 127 instead of 163....I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.

Not only can you not rely on the rest of the league to dictate their numbers but you would be better off just eliminating those guys from the equations before hand and you'll get much more accurate and believable results.

Take Gretzky's 183 point year for example, the next highest scorer had only 108 and after adjusted stats are applied, all those guys hovering around 100 points lose like 4-6 total each but somehow Gretzky loses like 30-40 points.
In what world does that seem remotely accurate or right?

Seriously, anyone that thinks Gretzky in his prime playing today couldn't at least get within ear shot of 200 points is fooling themselves imo.

Lemieux less than a decade ago after recovering from cancer, major back problems, at the height of the DPE at the age of 35 was still able to score at almost a 150 point pace.
Have adjusted stats explain that one.

Lemieux's the exception not the rule. You have to remember as well he was in the best shape of his life, played with Jagr every game, and was outscored by Jagr by a point in those games. Lemieux's my favourite player of all time, but using this as an example to discredit adjusted stats, really makes no sense at all. Are you using this to indicate that most of the 80's/early 90's players would score closer to their 80's/early 90's numbers than the dead puck ones?

If so that's nonsense.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Even if what your saying is true, they are still closer to the truth than raw stats, by a longshot. You guys love selling him short, but he'd be between 130-150 points any given year he played atleast 70+ games, but more often than not in the 130's somewhere. However, in a full healthy peak season, he'd score between 155-165 IMHO. If Yzerman in a peak year got 155, I'd say Forsberg at his peak could top it if he played all games healthy. Everything I've seen in Forsberg's game over the years, especially in the playoffs indicates that he is as skilled offensively as ANYONE but Gretzky and Lemieux. You guys don't even take into account how good he was defensively and physically as well. The most underrated player in the History section by a fair margin. Just because random people on the main board think he's the best player ever doesn't mean he should be discredited where it matters.

So Peter Forsberg, who was barely better offensively than Markus Naslund could quite easily top one of the best seasons in NHL history? Okay then.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

So Peter Forsberg, who was barely better offensively than Markus Naslund could quite easily top one of the best seasons in NHL history? Okay then.

What's the main reason it's one of the best seasons in history? I'll see if you can guess, I think you can.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Markus Naslund was almost as good offensively as Forsberg? For his three peak seasons when he played on the best line in hockey I guess he almost was. I guess that makes Joe Sakic barely better offensively than Kevin Stevens.