rallymaster19
Guest
I’m all for comparing different players from different eras and across different positions. It’s interesting ranking Potvin against Coffey or Clarke against Lindros or of course Yzerman and Messier. But I don’t understand how “adjusted stats†are now commonly used when comparing players. Of course scoring a goal in 2003 was a lot harder to do than in 1983. The size of goaltender equipment is one reason for this. Physically larger players reducing free space on the ice surface and the dreaded trap are others.
But I now often see adjusted stats used to sway arguments one way or the other. For example, Sakic’s Hart season in 2001 was equivalent to or better than Yzerman’s 1989 season when “adjusted†for era because both register about 150-160 points for a 1980s base season. If you disregard all the other factors like PK time, quality of teammates, defensive analysis etc. (I’m not going to compare the two players myself, at least not today) and just look purely at the numbers, when adjusted they look about the same. But for anyone who actually watched hockey both those seasons, you cannot tell me 118 points in 2001 automatically equals 155 points in 1989.
People seem to believe the following:
Adjusted stats = A substitute for: (Actual stats + Observation)
This is not the case. There is NO mathematical formula that can accurately compare players’ points totals across different eras. I know there are several different methods people use to calculate adjusted stats. The one I hate/despise the most is also the simplest and goes like this:
Goals per game in 1989: 7.37
Goals per game in 2001: 5.51
Yzerman’s point total 1989: 155
Sakic’s point total 2001: 118
Therefore GPG (1989)/GPG (2001) * Sakic’s points total 2001= Sakic’s adjust points total 1989
7.37/5.51*118= 157.8 or 158 points
Therefore Sakic’s best year > Yzerman’s best year and the numbers prove it.
No, no and no. PLEASE STOP DOING THIS. There are too many variables that are unaccounted for when producing adjusted stats but regardless of how the different types of adjusted stats are calculated, there seems to be several important universal problems:
1. Adjusted stats always favour more recent times
These formulas overcompensate for the reduction in scoring in recent years. Malkin had a great season last year but no way in hell does his 113 points compare to Yzerman’s ’89 or Sakic’s ’01 seasons as adjusted stats would like you to believe. And Mark Recchi’s adjusted career numbers now look better than Esposito’s and Dionne’s. Really? Marcel Dionne has more than 300 actual points than Recchi but when adjusted Recchi’s got him beat. Really?
2. The quality of players is not accounted for
Certain eras simply have more depth in players than others. And staying with the 1989 and 2001 seasons as benchmarks, the top 10 scorers in 1989 were: Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman, Nicholls, Brown, Coffey, Mullen, Kurri, Carson and Robitaille. The 10 scorers in 2001 were: Jagr, Sakic, Elias, Allison, Kovalev, Straka, Bure, Weight, Forsberg and Palffy. I count 7 HHOFers/future HHOFers to 4 (which includes Bure). If you take out leeches Nicholls and Brown, the count becomes 9 to 4 with the addition of Hawerchuk and Messier in 1989. None of this discrepancy in depth is accounted for in adjusted stats and therefore Sakic racking up the points against inferior competition outweighs Yzerman finishing third amongst some of the best forwards to ever play the game.
3. The quantity of players is not accounted for
Expansion from a 21-league team in the 80s to a 30-team league and the repercussions of those decisions are not accounted for in adjusted statistics. The league is watered down to the point that about 40-45% of current players in the league today would not have made an NHL roster twenty years ago. As the Devils and almost every team has learned in the last 15 years, it is a lot easier to teach players to play defense than it is to score goals. That is why otherwise would-be AHLers are playing in the NHL and this has caused significant erosion in the talent of players today.
In the end, we all saw what we saw. When comparing guys, mention the raw stats with everything else (defensive game, special teams, trophies, cups etc.) and let people decide themselves how to compare across different times. It’s almost like a polygraph or lie detector test. If a suspect consents to it, the police can administer the test but it’s never admissible in court. Look at it on your own but dn’t bring up these highly questionable “adjusted stats†when ranking players in debates.
But I now often see adjusted stats used to sway arguments one way or the other. For example, Sakic’s Hart season in 2001 was equivalent to or better than Yzerman’s 1989 season when “adjusted†for era because both register about 150-160 points for a 1980s base season. If you disregard all the other factors like PK time, quality of teammates, defensive analysis etc. (I’m not going to compare the two players myself, at least not today) and just look purely at the numbers, when adjusted they look about the same. But for anyone who actually watched hockey both those seasons, you cannot tell me 118 points in 2001 automatically equals 155 points in 1989.
People seem to believe the following:
Adjusted stats = A substitute for: (Actual stats + Observation)
This is not the case. There is NO mathematical formula that can accurately compare players’ points totals across different eras. I know there are several different methods people use to calculate adjusted stats. The one I hate/despise the most is also the simplest and goes like this:
Goals per game in 1989: 7.37
Goals per game in 2001: 5.51
Yzerman’s point total 1989: 155
Sakic’s point total 2001: 118
Therefore GPG (1989)/GPG (2001) * Sakic’s points total 2001= Sakic’s adjust points total 1989
7.37/5.51*118= 157.8 or 158 points
Therefore Sakic’s best year > Yzerman’s best year and the numbers prove it.
No, no and no. PLEASE STOP DOING THIS. There are too many variables that are unaccounted for when producing adjusted stats but regardless of how the different types of adjusted stats are calculated, there seems to be several important universal problems:
1. Adjusted stats always favour more recent times
These formulas overcompensate for the reduction in scoring in recent years. Malkin had a great season last year but no way in hell does his 113 points compare to Yzerman’s ’89 or Sakic’s ’01 seasons as adjusted stats would like you to believe. And Mark Recchi’s adjusted career numbers now look better than Esposito’s and Dionne’s. Really? Marcel Dionne has more than 300 actual points than Recchi but when adjusted Recchi’s got him beat. Really?
2. The quality of players is not accounted for
Certain eras simply have more depth in players than others. And staying with the 1989 and 2001 seasons as benchmarks, the top 10 scorers in 1989 were: Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman, Nicholls, Brown, Coffey, Mullen, Kurri, Carson and Robitaille. The 10 scorers in 2001 were: Jagr, Sakic, Elias, Allison, Kovalev, Straka, Bure, Weight, Forsberg and Palffy. I count 7 HHOFers/future HHOFers to 4 (which includes Bure). If you take out leeches Nicholls and Brown, the count becomes 9 to 4 with the addition of Hawerchuk and Messier in 1989. None of this discrepancy in depth is accounted for in adjusted stats and therefore Sakic racking up the points against inferior competition outweighs Yzerman finishing third amongst some of the best forwards to ever play the game.
3. The quantity of players is not accounted for
Expansion from a 21-league team in the 80s to a 30-team league and the repercussions of those decisions are not accounted for in adjusted statistics. The league is watered down to the point that about 40-45% of current players in the league today would not have made an NHL roster twenty years ago. As the Devils and almost every team has learned in the last 15 years, it is a lot easier to teach players to play defense than it is to score goals. That is why otherwise would-be AHLers are playing in the NHL and this has caused significant erosion in the talent of players today.
In the end, we all saw what we saw. When comparing guys, mention the raw stats with everything else (defensive game, special teams, trophies, cups etc.) and let people decide themselves how to compare across different times. It’s almost like a polygraph or lie detector test. If a suspect consents to it, the police can administer the test but it’s never admissible in court. Look at it on your own but dn’t bring up these highly questionable “adjusted stats†when ranking players in debates.