Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Comparing NHL Forwards - Thank You!

Expand Messages
  • trittium96
    Thanks for the comments Doug. I will fully admit that this is one downside of the parameters I ve picked for my system, and that it might lead to some
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 8, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the comments Doug. I will fully admit that this is one downside of the parameters I've picked for my system, and that it might lead to some disagreements for certain seasons. I thought about that as I went through it. I could easily change this parameter to be for 75% of the season, or even 90%, and we might get slightly different results. However, I still think the results are pretty interesting (prompting this discussion). For example, while Cam Neely was being rested quite a bit, would anyone doubt the amazing season Mario Lemieux had when he played only 60 games due to injury? In that case, I have even greater respect for the effort given his health. But it is a point well taken! Thanks for checking it out!

      --- In hockey-databank@yahoogroups.com, "dsreyn" <dreynolds@...> wrote:
      >
      > If I'm understanding your system correctly, the one objection I have is that you're basing your seasonal results on each player's per game average, not on the raw totals. I assume this is why Cam Neely ranks #1 in goals for 1993-94 - he led the league in goals per game by a wide margin, but did not lead in goals scored (he only played in 49 games). This essentially rewards players for results that would theoretically have been achieved in games that they didn't play in.
      >
      > For example, in Neely's case (and by the way, I'm a Bruins fan, so I certainly don't hate Cam Neely), I think it's unrealistic to assume the same goal-scoring pace over 84 games. Among other things, the Bruins generally avoided playing him on consecutive days, which presumably meant he was fresher when he did play. I know he was more or less playing on one leg, but regardless - playing the full schedule would wear anyone down more than playing 49 games.
      >
      > The other point, which sort of goes along with what I said already, is that durability is a "skill", of sorts. Or at least, it's a valuable characteristic. Projecting results achieved over fewer games takes that advantage away from the players who managed to stay healthy.
      >
      > Doug
      >
      > --- In hockey-databank@yahoogroups.com, "trittium96" <trittium96@> wrote:
      > >
      > > The data from this database allowed me to answer a few long-standing questions. Please check out my work, all data derived from this database, at:
      > >
      > > http://id.mattmelchiori.com/?p=47
      > >
      > > Thanks!
      > >
      >
    • trittium96
      Hi Doug - I sent you a reply...I m not sure why it didn t post. I won t rehash it in case it does, but the long and short of it was - I agree with you. I was
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 8, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Doug - I sent you a reply...I'm not sure why it didn't post. I won't rehash it in case it does, but the long and short of it was - I agree with you. I was looking for a different way to present data, and these types of things will show up. We could easily make this work with your point below by changing the threshold for "games played" to 75% or more of the season. At the very least, I think I intended it just to help foster conversation (which it's clearly doing)! Thanks for the comments!


        --- In hockey-databank@yahoogroups.com, "dsreyn" <dreynolds@...> wrote:
        >
        > If I'm understanding your system correctly, the one objection I have is that you're basing your seasonal results on each player's per game average, not on the raw totals. I assume this is why Cam Neely ranks #1 in goals for 1993-94 - he led the league in goals per game by a wide margin, but did not lead in goals scored (he only played in 49 games). This essentially rewards players for results that would theoretically have been achieved in games that they didn't play in.
        >
        > For example, in Neely's case (and by the way, I'm a Bruins fan, so I certainly don't hate Cam Neely), I think it's unrealistic to assume the same goal-scoring pace over 84 games. Among other things, the Bruins generally avoided playing him on consecutive days, which presumably meant he was fresher when he did play. I know he was more or less playing on one leg, but regardless - playing the full schedule would wear anyone down more than playing 49 games.
        >
        > The other point, which sort of goes along with what I said already, is that durability is a "skill", of sorts. Or at least, it's a valuable characteristic. Projecting results achieved over fewer games takes that advantage away from the players who managed to stay healthy.
        >
        > Doug
        >
        > --- In hockey-databank@yahoogroups.com, "trittium96" <trittium96@> wrote:
        > >
        > > The data from this database allowed me to answer a few long-standing questions. Please check out my work, all data derived from this database, at:
        > >
        > > http://id.mattmelchiori.com/?p=47
        > >
        > > Thanks!
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.