DitchMarner
It's time.
I like HR's adjusted formula for valuing goals and points. Points and goals are worth more (ie more valuable) when scoring across the League is lower. This is simply a basic mathematical fact. There is really no subjectivity involved.
A 50 goal season in a league where 8.02 goals are scored on average per game is not equal in value to a 50 goal season in a League where 5.67 goals are scored per game. The latter season is unquestionably more valuable to a team.
However, when we get into making comparisons and asking which player played better, there will always be a degree of subjectivity involved. You cannot simply look at or consider one thing and say, "This says Player A was better; therefore, he was better; case closed."
When it comes to the 80-game era and beyond, the main flaw in Hockey Reference's adjusted formula seems to be the fact that it does not differentiate between scoring at different states of a game (ES, PP, SH). This is only a problem for the following reason: When there is a rise in PP opportunities, teams have a tendency to give increased PP time to their best scorers at a rate that is disproportional to the rate at which second-rate scorers receive an increase in PP time. This skew in additional PP time toward the best scorers has the effect of allowing them to score a greater percentage of the League's goals than the top scorers score in seasons where PP opportunities are lower, thus inflating their overall adjusted points as per HR in relation to the adjusted point totals of players playing in seasons with lower Power Play rates. If teams tended to distribute increased PP ice time uniformly between first and second-rate scorers, then it wouldn't matter for comparison purposes how much higher PPOs are in certain seasons than in others. If scoring was to rise considerably or significantly in seasons with more PPOs, top scorers would be in a free market type of competition against each other and against top scorers from other seasons to score as much as possible relative to the League-wide Goals per Game rate. If increased PP rates were to make little to no different to overall League scoring, then they wouldn't be relevant when comparing scoring across seasons.
This isn't to say other comparison methods aren't without their flaws. The strength of the top ten, top 15, top 20 and especially top five scorers will vary from season to season. Some eras simply have more high-end scoring talent than others.
A 50 goal season in a league where 8.02 goals are scored on average per game is not equal in value to a 50 goal season in a League where 5.67 goals are scored per game. The latter season is unquestionably more valuable to a team.
However, when we get into making comparisons and asking which player played better, there will always be a degree of subjectivity involved. You cannot simply look at or consider one thing and say, "This says Player A was better; therefore, he was better; case closed."
When it comes to the 80-game era and beyond, the main flaw in Hockey Reference's adjusted formula seems to be the fact that it does not differentiate between scoring at different states of a game (ES, PP, SH). This is only a problem for the following reason: When there is a rise in PP opportunities, teams have a tendency to give increased PP time to their best scorers at a rate that is disproportional to the rate at which second-rate scorers receive an increase in PP time. This skew in additional PP time toward the best scorers has the effect of allowing them to score a greater percentage of the League's goals than the top scorers score in seasons where PP opportunities are lower, thus inflating their overall adjusted points as per HR in relation to the adjusted point totals of players playing in seasons with lower Power Play rates. If teams tended to distribute increased PP ice time uniformly between first and second-rate scorers, then it wouldn't matter for comparison purposes how much higher PPOs are in certain seasons than in others. If scoring was to rise considerably or significantly in seasons with more PPOs, top scorers would be in a free market type of competition against each other and against top scorers from other seasons to score as much as possible relative to the League-wide Goals per Game rate. If increased PP rates were to make little to no different to overall League scoring, then they wouldn't be relevant when comparing scoring across seasons.
This isn't to say other comparison methods aren't without their flaws. The strength of the top ten, top 15, top 20 and especially top five scorers will vary from season to season. Some eras simply have more high-end scoring talent than others.