Adjusted stats - how valuable?

[Rhiessan71]

That's rather authoritarian of you. Get over yourself, I'm not 8 and no one's gonna tell anyone which data they can or can't use.

I never told anyone anything of the sort.
I said and have said many times, that one of the major issues with AS's is that people tend to use them as a final answer and you did exactly that.
That's not what they were intended to be used as.

Rationalize what? Using adjusted stats as the best estimate of production, and (in context) using them as a large portion of my basis of evaluation? There's no pride involved, it's what I find to be the fairest, most objective evidence available to establish what production for forwards. Considering that offensive production and overall ES effectiveness (both in context) seem the main priorities of most top forwards, then the best estimates of such seem to be worthy of strong consideration as very important factors in the process of evaluation. If any of you want to ignore all data completely and pick numbers out of a hat, I can't prevent you from doing so. That won't prevent me from stating my position and reasons for that position founded in fact (data) and logic, not blurry memories or someone else's opinion.

No sir, I advocate the use of all data.
That is NOT your position on the matter and you got caught doing just that. Using only Adjusted Stats as an answer to which you continue to try and rationalize that decision/fact after the fact with posts like this.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think though, you aren't looking at a limited sample. It's more the case of people who have watched whatever being discussed for years.

I understand and respect those opinions, even what I saw with my own eyes. However, I also no that observation and memory can be quite selective at times. Perhaps more importantly, there's really no basis for people who disagree as to what they (think they) saw to come to an agreement.

The problem here is that the changing quality of talent is balanced by the fact that since the Original Six the NHL has expanded as fast as the talent pool has grown.

It's not been constant over time on a per-game basis, but yes the talent pool and league size have both increased in multiples since the O6.

Yet at the same time you end up disregarding the views of some very knowledgeable sports writers. It isn't necessary to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I don't disregard them completely, I just don't value them nearly so highly as other people, especially single seasons and/or "winning" awards. Multiple seasons near the top carries more weight, as it's less likely to be the result of fluke, bias, or a "career achievement" award of sorts.

It's interesting how one poster supposes he knows exactly how I evaluate players... so others assume that he's right. Worse is when some presume they can tell other people what's the right or wrong way to evaluate a player. I've never said anyone can't use raw data or ignore all data, only that adjusted data will be more informative (and therefore better) than raw data, which is why many prefer to use it. I've never said anyone should exclude all other context or info.

 

[Czech Your Math]

No sir, I advocate the use of all data.
That is NOT your position on the matter and you got caught doing just that. Using only Adjusted Stats as an answer to which you continue to try and rationalize that decision/fact after the fact with posts like this.

What are you talking about? I saw what I saw, and the numbers say what they say. We were comparing two players whose value is almost exclusively on offense... and the data showed that one was more valuable in terms of total adjusted production (although close) and the more context that was brought in (goals instead of points... ES production which I value more highly... ES effectiveness which is very important as well), the larger the gap got, until it becomes obvious who the better player was during that period. I know that there is no evidence which is going to convince me otherwise at that point, since the margin is too substantial, so there's no reason to include other inconclusive evidence.

If the comparison was Langway to Chara, then I can see why adjusted production wouldn't be very important, and that other more subjective data would need to be given added importance. Of course, the conclusion would be much less certain, since the data used is much more subjective.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Translation: You start with Adjusted Stats and discard anything that doesn't agree with them.
Exactly what I said you do, earlier in the thread.

That's what you see when he says "They all can be used for evaluation. I don't tell anyone else what to use or that it's "wrong" when context is properly considered."?

I'm good now, got the confirmation of my suspicions and won't continue "muck up" the thread any more.

We'll see.

You get confirmation, I think, largely by looking for it and only it. That's called confirmation bias.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That's what you see when he says "They all can be used for evaluation. I don't tell anyone else what to use or that it's "wrong" when context is properly considered."?

No, I saw exactly what he was saying. That he starts with AS's and then eliminates any info that doesn't agree with AS's because he doesn't hold much other information in high regard to begin with.

We'll see.

No, seriously, this is my last post in this thread.

You get confirmation, I think, largely by looking for it and only it. That's called confirmation bias.

Call it what you want but I cited this very thing as a major contributing issue as to why AS's gets a bad name very, very early in this thread.
Namely, its over and incorrect use.


Cya's

 

[Iain Fyffe]

No, I saw exactly what he was saying. That he starts with AS's and then eliminates any info that doesn't agree with AS's because he doesn't hold much other information in high regard to begin with.

For the record, no, that's not what he said. But there's little point in having a discussion if you have your mind made up going into it.

 

[habsfanatics*]

For the record, no, that's not what he said. But there's little point in having a discussion if you have your mind made up going into it.

I'm out too, great conversation, but it feels a bit too hostile in here now.

I love the discussions and the work everyone puts into these things. I don't see the problem in discussing ways to potentially improve them.

My problem when using these stats to compare players from season to season based on an adjustment to the league average goals is that they have no idea how the increased difficulty would hurt the players on an individual level. If it drops from 5gpg to 4gpg then goals became 20% harder to come by, but I don't see those numbers being distributed evenly.

How much that could throw off the numbers? I have no idea, but it seems like a pretty big sticking point to me. I could very well have no idea what I'm on about.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I don't see the problem in discussing ways to potentially improve them.

Absolutely. But to improve something you must first have a firm grasp on its weaknesses. Suggesting a weakness isn't enough, the suggestion has to be supported.

My problem when using these stats to compare players from season to season based on an adjustment to the league average goals is that they have no idea how the increased difficulty would hurt the players on an individual level.

Yeah, that's the tier adjustment that's been discussed. That and the lack of a league quality adjustment (which is arguably the same thing I suppose) are the biggest issues.

How much that could throw off the numbers? I have no idea, but it seems like a pretty big sticking point to me. I could very well have no idea what I'm on about.

No, you're quite right. But you're also right that we don't know how much it throws off the numbers. Which means the frequent claims that this makes AS fatally flawed are currently unsupportable. That's one of the biggest issues in this thread - assumptions about the severity of certain issues, assuming that any potentially small issues is a big problem.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Yet at the same time you end up disregarding the views of some very knowledgeable sports writers. It isn't necessary to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Sportswriters are journalists who happen to cover sports, not experts of hockey who benevolently decide to impart their knowledge to us. They have prejudices just like most fans. Using award voting to justify a player's ability is just repeating their past mistakes.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Absolutely. But to improve something you must first have a firm grasp on its weaknesses. Suggesting a weakness isn't enough, the suggestion has to be supported.


Yeah, that's the tier adjustment that's been discussed. That and the lack of a league quality adjustment (which is arguably the same thing I suppose) are the biggest issues.


No, you're quite right. But you're also right that we don't know how much it throws off the numbers. Which means the frequent claims that this makes AS fatally flawed are currently unsupportable. That's one of the biggest issues in this thread - assumptions about the severity of certain issues, assuming that any potentially small issues is a big problem.

Fair enough Iain, I would never dispute that I have a firmer grasp of what's going on here than yourself, czech, taco and the like, but my main complaint is how they get thrown around, for instance you say that AS are only to determine how much value the goals have in any given year related to the difficulty of the league in general and I think that the AS are probably as close to spot on as one should expect.

It's when posters say that so and so got this many points here and that equals this many here and so on that annoy me. If we can't determine exactly how the distribution correlates on the individual level, then how can we assume that the numbers are an accurate depiction of what's going on if we don't know how they impacted the individuals?

I'm having trouble wording this properly, so bare with me. lol. I get the idea of value ect, but think that the use of AS should be limited to that.

 

[pdd]

The problem here is that the changing quality of talent is balanced by the fact that since the Original Six the NHL has expanded as fast as the talent pool has grown.

There are two fewer North American major professional hockey teams right now than there were in 1975.

The WHA needs to be considered when talking about talent level and expansion.

When the WHA merged with the NHL, there were 21 NHL teams. There were 16 NHL teams in the WHA's first year. So the NHL would have needed to capture 76% of the "NHL-level" talent to maintain a talent level comparable to the 1980s. Given that players like Gordie Howe, Mark Howe, Bobby Hull, and Kent Nilsson jumped for the WHA, one wonders if that happened.