Hockey Reference's Adjusted Points Totals For 2018-2019

[GlitchMarner]

Is there a reason the site is discounting outputs so heavily this season? The scoring rate was just above 6.00 goals per game (6.02) and it's knocking off quite a few points for the top scorers for this season in terms of adjusted points totals for the season. Hockey Reference seems to be treating this season as if it's an early or mid 90s season.


Examples: It gives Kucherov 119 adjusted points. He actually had 128 points. Last season the scoring rate was marginally lower (5.94 goals per game) and it gave him two more points for his adjusted total (which it always does when the scoring rate is under 6.00 goals per game) and gives him 102 adjusted points (he had 100 points).

For 2006, the last season in which the scoring rate was over 6.00, it doesn't take away more than four points for any players. Thornton put up 125 points that season and HR gives him 121 adjusted points. Jagr scored 123 points that season and HR gives him 120 adjusted points. The scoring rate in 2006 was 6.16 goals per game.

For 1996, the last season before that in which the scoring rate was over 6.00 goals per game, it also doesn't take away as many points from player' totals in terms of adjusted points. It gives Jagr 144 adjusted points (he had 149 points). It gives Sakic 115 adjusted points (he had 120 points). The scoring rate that season was 6.28 goals per game.

So what gives? I've been waiting for the site to make corrections, but it hasn't done so. Am I missing something? It seems to me adjusted points totals for this season should equal actual outputs or maybe be one point lower.

Rk	Season	Lg	GP	G	PP	PPO	PP%	PK%	SA	SV	SV%	GAA
1	2018-19	NHL	1271	3.01	0.58	2.91	19.79	80.21	31.3	28.5	.910	2.81
2	2017-18	NHL	1271	2.97	0.61	3.04	20.18	79.82	31.8	29.0	.912	2.78
3	2016-17	NHL	1230	2.77	0.57	2.99	19.10	80.90	30.1	27.5	.913	2.59
4	2015-16	NHL	1230	2.71	0.58	3.11	18.66	81.34	29.6	27.1	.915	2.51
5	2014-15	NHL	1230	2.73	0.57	3.06	18.66	81.34	29.8	27.3	.915	2.52
6	2013-14	NHL	1230	2.74	0.59	3.27	17.89	82.11	30.0	27.4	.914	2.56
7	2012-13	NHL	720	2.72	0.61	3.32	18.22	81.78	29.0	26.5	.912	2.54
8	2011-12	NHL	1230	2.73	0.57	3.31	17.31	82.69	29.7	27.1	.914	2.54
9	2010-11	NHL	1230	2.79	0.64	3.54	18.02	81.98	30.3	27.7	.913	2.61
10	2009-10	NHL	1230	2.84	0.68	3.71	18.23	81.77	30.2	27.5	.911	2.66
11	2008-09	NHL	1230	2.91	0.79	4.16	18.95	81.05	30.1	27.4	.908	2.73
12	2007-08	NHL	1230	2.78	0.76	4.28	17.75	82.25	29.0	26.3	.909	2.61
13	2006-07	NHL	1230	2.95	0.85	4.85	17.58	82.42	29.5	26.7	.905	2.77
14	2005-06	NHL	1230	3.08	1.03	5.85	17.68	82.32	29.9	27.0	.901	2.92
15	2003-04	NHL	1230	2.57	0.70	4.24	16.46	83.54	28.0	25.5	.911	2.46
16	2002-03	NHL	1230	2.65	0.73	4.42	16.43	83.57	28.3	25.7	.909	2.54
17	2001-02	NHL	1230	2.62	0.65	4.13	15.77	84.23	27.5	25.0	.908	2.51
18	2000-01	NHL	1230	2.76	0.76	4.59	16.64	83.36	27.6	25.0	.903	2.65
19	1999-00	NHL	1148	2.75	0.65	4.03	16.15	83.85	27.9	25.2	.904	2.64
20	1998-99	NHL	1107	2.63	0.69	4.38	15.81	84.19	27.8	25.2	.908	2.56
Rk	Season	Lg	GP	G	PP	PPO	PP%	PK%	SA	SV	SV%	GAA
21	1997-98	NHL	1066	2.64	0.70	4.64	15.08	84.92	27.3	24.7	.906	2.53
22	1996-97	NHL	1066	2.92	0.67	4.10	16.27	83.73	29.7	26.9	.905	2.80
23	1995-96	NHL	1066	3.14	0.90	5.04	17.93	82.07	30.2	27.1	.898	3.04
24	1994-95	NHL	624	2.99	0.77	4.36	17.73	82.27	29.3	26.4	.901	2.89
25	1993-94	NHL	1092	3.24	0.90	4.85	18.64	81.36	30.2	27.1	.895	3.14
26	1992-93	NHL	1008	3.63	1.03	5.28	19.57	80.43	30.9	27.4	.885	3.53
27	1991-92	NHL	880	3.48	0.97	5.02	19.24	80.76	30.4	27.0	.888	3.37
28	1990-91	NHL	840	3.46	0.89	4.57	19.44	80.56	29.7	26.4	.886	3.35
29	1989-90	NHL	840	3.68	0.95	4.58	20.77	79.23	30.3	26.7	.881	3.56
30	1988-89	NHL	840	3.74	1.06	5.04	20.99	79.01	30.4	26.7	.879	3.63
31	1987-88	NHL	840	3.71	1.11	5.46	20.29	79.71	30.4	26.8	.880	3.62
32	1986-87	NHL	840	3.67	0.90	4.30	20.98	79.02	29.9	26.3	.880	3.56
33	1985-86	NHL	840	3.97	1.02	4.62	22.08	77.92	31.0	27.1	.874	3.87
34	1984-85	NHL	840	3.89	0.89	4.01	22.20	77.80	30.5	26.7	.875	3.79
35	1983-84	NHL	840	3.94	0.92	4.20	21.91	78.09	30.5	26.7	.873	3.84
36	1982-83	NHL	840	3.86	0.89	3.87	22.92	77.08	30.5	26.7	.875	3.80
37	1981-82	NHL	840	4.01	0.91	4.00	22.85	77.15	31.1	27.1	.873	3.95
38	1980-81	NHL	840	3.84	0.96	4.25	22.53	77.47	30.4	26.7	.876	3.78
39	1979-80	NHL	840	3.51	0.77	3.50	21.86	78.14	29.3	25.9	.882	3.46
40	1978-79	NHL	680	3.50	0.77	3.38	22.72	77.28	29.3	25.9	.883	3.45

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nikita Kucherov Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
Jaromir Jagr Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
Joe Thornton Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
Joe Sakic Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Click to read more...

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Do they ever give an explanation for their calculations? Or do they just calculate stuff and present them without any sort of "this is what we did"?

 

[Khelandros]

How do you adjust points when the player played all 82 games?

 

[daver]

Adjusted scoring is deeply flawed and should never be used to rate players.

 

[Semantics]

Well they probably don't just naively multiply by goals per game. They are probably using some kind of statistical regression.

So the explanation then would be that scoring among high end players is higher this year than it was in 2006 despite overall GPG being similar.

Edit: that doesn't actually seem to be the case, I checked and the N-th best scorer has more points this in 2005-06 vs this year for most values of N. Maybe their formula takes into account PP opportunities then. 2005-06 was the year where they started calling everything initially, I'm pretty sure there are way fewer penalties this year.

 

[LeHab]

Do they ever give an explanation for their calculations? Or do they just calculate stuff and present them without any sort of "this is what we did"?

Here is the methodology:

Adjusted Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

we would need to known the total number of assists for the league to verify calculations. League total assists between this season and last one are likely what explain this difference despite gpg being only marginally higher.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Here is the methodology:

Adjusted Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

we would need to known the total number of assists for the league to verify calculations. League total assists between this season and last one are likely what explain this difference despite gpg being only marginally higher.

So do you think there was a drastic rise or fall in the average number of assists per goal this season compared to last season for whatever reason?

 

[LeHab]

So do you think there was a drastic rise or fall in the average number of assists per goal this season compared to last season for whatever reason?

Actually seems goals and assists are adjusted proportionally for Kucherov. 41g -> 38g adjusted and 87a -> adjusted to 81a.

 

[ijuka]

Actually seems goals and assists are adjusted proportionally for Kucherov. 41g -> 38g adjusted and 87a -> adjusted to 81a.

Goals going from 41 to 38 with their methodology makes no sense to me. The scoring isn't that high. He even got very little ice time, which surely is a more relevant factor than "roster size", which honestly is completely ridiculous.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Well, their algorithm is massively flawed and doesn't balance. Kucherov probably got burned by APG being rounded down to 1.67.

Edit. *Including shootout goals*

(7658-41)/1271=5.99

Kucherov's adjusted goals should be 41 as well based on their numbers.

*Excluding shootout goals*
(7564-41)=1271=5.92
6/5.92= 1.01

41*1.01=41.55, so 42.

Or 42 if they use the less stupid calculation.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Actually seems goals and assists are adjusted proportionally for Kucherov. 41g -> 38g adjusted and 87a -> adjusted to 81a.

Maybe they just screwed up.

 

[SI90]

Who cares about adjusted points? Actual points are better.

 

[Regal]

Here is the methodology:

Adjusted Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

we would need to known the total number of assists for the league to verify calculations. League total assists between this season and last one are likely what explain this difference despite gpg being only marginally higher.

I actually noticed this recently and was wondering about it myself. Points going up more than goals this season seems to suggest more assists are being handed out. Certainly could change how we view the season

 

[LeHab]

Maybe they just screwed up.

If I follow their formula I get for goals:

41*82/82*18/18*(7651-41)/1271

We don't have a clean number for league total goals number but we can estimate based on 3.01 * 1271 * 2 = around 7651 -> (7651-41)/1271 = 5.987.

41* 82/82 * 18/18 * 6/5.98 = 41.13 adjusted I think the average goals per team is closer to 3.02 but even then it is 41g adjusted which is different from reported 38g on HR.

Anyone wants to double check my calculations?

 

[Incognito]

Adjusted statistics are bogus (unless they've been Claude Giroux adjusted)

 

[GlitchMarner]

I sent the site a message about the (possible) issue. I'll post the response when I get it.

 

[vendetta]

Maybe has to do with 3on3 ot

 

[GlitchMarner]

They acknowledged an error and made corrections. Adjusted point totals for this season now correspond exactly to actual point totals (Kucherov's total of 128 adjusted points is the highest adjusted point total of the cap era).


"We took a look and did spot a glitch in the calculation that was causing the deflation, and that has been corrected. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
--
S-R Bugs
[email protected]"

 

[Midnight Judges]

Do they ever give an explanation for their calculations? Or do they just calculate stuff and present them without any sort of "this is what we did"?

They have extensive explanations on their website.

 

[wetcoast]

Adjusted scoring is deeply flawed and should never be used to rate players.

Flawed as it is, it is still one of the best tools to compare production totals from vastly different scoring seasons.

For example if one compares a player from this season to 81-82 by using counting stats, one would need to conclude that Denis Maruk would have been the MVP this current season with his line of 80-60-76-136 right?

His adjusted line is in fact 80-44-56-100 which is truer to actually comparing his value than simple counting stats.

 

[wetcoast]

They acknowledged an error and made corrections. Adjusted point totals for this season now correspond exactly to actual point totals (Kucherov's total of 128 adjusted points is the highest adjusted point total of the cap era).


"We took a look and did spot a glitch in the calculation that was causing the deflation, and that has been corrected. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
--
S-R Bugs
[email protected]"

Kind of ironic eh?

 

[daver]

Flawed as it is, it is still one of the best tools to compare production totals from vastly different scoring seasons.

For example if one compares a player from this season to 81-82 by using counting stats, one would need to conclude that Denis Maruk would have been the MVP this current season with his line of 80-60-76-136 right?

His adjusted line is in fact 80-44-56-100 which is truer to actually comparing his value than simple counting stats.

Performance vs. a decent sample of your peers is by far the best way, if not the only way, to compare players.

 

[wetcoast]

Performance vs. a decent sample of your peers is by far the best way, if not the only way, to compare players.

No that's flawed as well when comparing say top 10 finishes in a 6 or 30 team league.

I like to use multiple metrics when comparing different player season productions, that's the best way to do it (using 3,4,5 metrics instead of a single one).

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Who cares about adjusted points? Actual points are better.

Who cares about screwdrivers? Hammers are better.

(Translation: doesn't the question of "better" depend upon what you're doing with the numbers?)

 

[Rebels57]

Kinda funny that you can literally see the scoring fall off a cliff in 1995 thanks to Jacques Lemaire, the trap, and teams copy-catting it.