Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 60 of 60

Thread: Average Numbers from Top Positional Players

  1. #46
    Maaaasquito's Avatar
    Maaaasquito is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,377
    Location
    Melbourne, Austra
    Rep Power
    29

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by horrorfan View Post
    I'd argue that depending on your situation, stage of the draft etc, that a perceived more valuable player based on your rankings may not be the most valuable player for my roster. They may have a better spread across all categories, but if I have a different strategy and feel can structure my squad in a different way, then perhaps a more offensive player has more value. So, if I were to use your FHG rankings as guidance, I may dispute some of them. Value can go beyond just the straight numbers.

    I know and respect that you are trying to come up with a system to keep this distinct, as it can help others gauge players and their contributions across the board to give them a specific value, or FHG number/ranking. I feel that it's not as clear cut as just assigning a number on someone (based on a set of conditions) and say that player x is more valuable than player y. Maybe the number is not as necessary in general (regardless of conditions), rather just list players using a set of categories based on strength/value and let us determine who we consider valuable. I don't know, might defeat the purpose of the rankings, but just trying to look at it from a different perspective.

    That's just my opinion on how I value players. It's the reason I've debated some of Terry's earlier articles on assigning value to a player based on their FHG number. For example, having a 18th ranked FHG doesn't mean the player is the 18th most valuable in the league. It means he's 18th given the conditions set out to create that value, without considering how others may perceive the importance on specific categories. To others depending on how they evaluate based on categories and strategy, he could be 30th, 50th or even 70th (just random numbers, no specific player in mind). But any of those numbers could be irrelevant as it's highly situational.

    Anyway, it's a good discussion and happy to contribute to it by highlighting a different perspective. It would be boring if we all agreed.
    I think that's what FHG was arguing... That we're mixing up "player valuations" with "team value"... What he's saying is that these rankings are based on player value given a and even across the board ranking. So there's no bias to certain stats over others. When you take into account having a "bias" in certain stats then of course these rankings won't work for you. Cause you're placing an emphasis on certain stats over others, whereas FHG's rankings are based on "across the board" contributions.

    Horror I think you're just expecting too much from these numbers, at the end of the day everyone's always going to have their opinions, so these numbers should basically be used as guidance to help you justify or criticize your own beliefs. I don't think anyone should be using them as gospel. "Maybe the number is not as necessary in general (regardless of conditions), rather just list players using a set of categories based on strength/value and let us determine who we consider valuable." I think that's exactly what FHG actually does. It paints a picture, but ultimately you're the one that needs to consider the value. The ranking changes if you add in owner bias.

    One thing that I find interesting is there is starting to become an overemphasis on owners trying to seek "across the board" players or are overpaying in order to land them.

    I could see how Roto leagues would want "across the board" production as you want "high" highs, but you don't want "low" lows... You kinda want an above average team in every category. I haven't seen very many Roto winners who have tanked 2-3 categories.

    But I'm starting to see a lot of H2H teams trying to go "across the board" which is interesting to me, cause at the end of the day you only need to 50/50 plus win the tie breaker and you essentially win the week...

    FHG has a strong emphasis on "across the board" production, but that's not what vitally important for H2H...

    Let's say you grab Perry, Lucic and Backes (who are 3 of the "big name" across the board producers out there) you'd end up with a stat-line of:
    87 G, 88 A, +15, 363 PIM, 51 PPP and 660 SOG.

    Now if I grabbed 3 "soft" guys in Daniel, Henrik and Thornton, I'd have a stat-line of:
    62 G, 163 A, +54, 54 PIM , 75 PPP and 498 SOG.

    I'd essentially 50/50 those stats if I had a trio of "across the board" players in Perry, Lucic and Backes compared to Sedin, Sedin and Thornton, so there's little to no advantage in grabbing "across the board" players compared to focusing on straight offensive players in H2H. I could certainly see it useful for Roto leagues, but H2H I don't see it...

    Of course this is all based on default settings, if you added in hits and BS it could definitely add more value to the more physical "across the board" types, but in standard leagues over-reaching for those types of players does nothing...
    Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

  2. #47
    horrorfan's Avatar
    horrorfan is online now
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    8,744
    Location
    Scotland
    Rep Power
    40

    Moderator

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maaaasquito View Post
    I think that's what FHG was arguing... That we're mixing up "player valuations" with "team value"... What he's saying is that these rankings are based on player value given a and even across the board ranking. So there's no bias to certain stats over others. When you take into account having a "bias" in certain stats then of course these rankings won't work for you. Cause you're placing an emphasis on certain stats over others, whereas FHG's rankings are based on "across the board" contributions.
    I guess my main argument is that there is becoming a trend for people who are looking at these values and basing most of their decisions around them or suggesting improvements revolving around a particular value. I've even seeing it in Terry's articles in particular (don't mean to pick on him, but since he represents FHG it's important). I feel he's crossing the line from, as you put it, 'player valuations' to 'team value'. He's using the FHG value alone to indicate how valuable players are in a specific league setup, and then suggesting that he should be drafted/higher lower accordingly. I disagree with that because he's taking all the categories together equally (which FHG value does), but you cannot always look at it that way since it depends on a manager's strategy and situation. So, in a way, that's his own bias by using FHG to suggest ways of managing our teams, when it's not as straightforward as that. Of course, it's up to the manager to decide whether it has value or not.

    All this being said, FHG, I really do think it's great what you have done and where the site is going to help managers. But I also feel that it's important to look at other perspectives to highlight possible issues that could arise in this age where people are relying on all these tools to make their own decisions.

    I could see how Roto leagues would want "across the board" production as you want "high" highs, but you don't want "low" lows... You kinda want an above average team in every category. I haven't seen very many Roto winners who have tanked 2-3 categories.
    Yep, that's true. Though, across the board production doesn't have to mean picking an 'across the board' player each time. Even if you go more offensive early and peripheral late you can still have an 'across the board' squad and be a contender for the title. Some people will argue that it's a less efficient way of building a balanced team, and I would argue that there are plenty of ways of building a balanced team if you have a clear strategy.

    But I'm starting to see a lot of H2H teams trying to go "across the board" which is interesting to me, cause at the end of the day you only need to 50/50 plus win the tie breaker and you essentially win the week...
    I agree with this as well. I think that some people feel that if you have a player with more category contributions, and they have a weaker offensive week, they could still help your squad. A lot of this comes down to league and roster depth, and the number of categories used.
    Last edited by horrorfan; November 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM.
    DobberHockey Tiered Invitational 2016/17: 10-Year Anniversary!
    Do you want to compete against your fellow Dobberites for a chance to become ultimate champion?

    COMING SOON!: A feature article with full details, including its changes and how to join, will appear in August. Stay tuned!

  3. #48
    Rep Power
    9

    Dobber Sports Apprentice

    Default

    Yeah H2H is it's own animal which really is hard to create reliable values for. I don't really like H2H, I'm more of a roto guy (been playing fantasy baseball much longer than hockey and I just find it a much better strategic game). H2H is definitely more dynamic though. I guess i like the simplicity of roto; I want to be great in every category, and so does everybody else. We all have the same goal and we'll see who is best at achieving it. It also makes analysis more universal. With H2H every league and setup and team is different.

    I'd be interested in hearing the rationale from those who target scorers and put less emphasis on peripherals like hits, PIM, blocks. I usually assume it's just a residual bias from watching hockey on TV and recognizing that most of the great players are great scorers. But maybe there are other reasons.

  4. #49
    Location
    Sudbury, Ontario
    Rep Power
    40

    Administrator

    Default

    I think the key is that no valuation system is 100% perfect. No matter what you have to interpret the numbers in the way that best suits your team - either now (punting categories, cap hit, etc) or in the future (potential, age decline, future opportunity, etc).

    I use FHG rankings and had huge draft success but it is not a replacement to using your brain to make decisions. But even if the "BPA" wasn't the #1 guy available in the FHG output spreadsheet, the BPA that I selected wasn't far from the top.

    If I want a great PIM option, why not get a the best overall PIM option instead of a one-dimensional goon?
    Send me a PM if you have any issues or requests for Frozen Pool!

    UHL Calgary Flames
    24-team H2H Roto Dynasty (G, A, GWG, SHP, PPP, PIM, +/, SOG, Hits, Blks, FOW, W, SV, SV%, GAA, SO)

    Eastern Edge article archive

    Find me on Twitter for questions and chatter @DH_EricDaoust.

  5. #50
    Location
    Vancouver
    Rep Power
    33

    Dobber Sports Veteran

    Default

    Great discussion, guys. Horrorfan, your point is fair. I guess I need to qualify that there are now three separate and distinct (though intertwined) issues here:
    1. Market (perceived) value
    2. Intrinsic (overall) value
    3. Team need value


    When we talk about player value I think most people focus on 1 and 3, and quite frankly I think it's because there are very few effective tools out there to judge intrinsic value.

    Team need value also varies a huge amount as a team unfolds -- a team that has only one roster spot filled out of say twenty has many needs, and their priority is less clear. You're certainly right that it comes to personal preference as to how each GM wants to use their grasp of market value and intrinsic value to motivate their choices.

    I've thrown the line out there a few times but nobody has yet bit on it: I assert that maximizing the intrinsic value on your team -- which typically, though not exclusively, means players without such high "peaks" in specific categories, while minimizing "troughs" in others -- while managing to team-need category targets provides a better result because it inherently reduces the volatility (and thus production risk) in each scoring category and leaves more flexibility to make trades to address real needs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasquito
    Let's say you grab Perry, Lucic and Backes (who are 3 of the "big name" across the board producers out there) you'd end up with a stat-line of:
    87 G, 88 A, +15, 363 PIM, 51 PPP and 660 SOG.

    Now if I grabbed 3 "soft" guys in Daniel, Henrik and Thornton, I'd have a stat-line of:
    62 G, 163 A, +54, 54 PIM , 75 PPP and 498 SOG.
    You're right that it would be a 3-3 category split, but which do you think you'd be able to get more bottom-line contribution out of in a trade: 25 G, 309 PIM, 162 SOG or 75 A, +39, 24 PPP? There is inherent value in each of those different pots than can be traded for production value for your team needs.

    I feel he's crossing the line from, as you put it, 'player valuations' to 'team value'. He's using the FHG value alone to indicate how valuable players are in a specific league setup, and then suggesting that he should be drafted/higher lower accordingly.
    To back my man T-Camp here, he often argues that players should be taken higher than their average draft position (ADP) but never counsels to take them at their intrinsic value, because if they'll be around the next time you pick that would be stupid.
    Last edited by fantasyhockeygeek; November 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM.


  6. #51
    blayze's Avatar
    blayze is online now
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    12,282
    Location
    Toronto
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Samurai

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fantasyhockeygeek View Post
    Isn't that oversimplifying? If companies are worth something in $, what is the currency we use in fantasy hockey?
    Draft position

    Quote Originally Posted by fantasyhockeygeek View Post
    Eventually, so goes the theory, market value will come to align with intrinsic value.
    I don't think that's necessarily true... not in the real world nor fantasy hockey (Rick Nash will always be overvalued), but that's a whole other discussion altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by fantasyhockeygeek View Post
    Again, I'd say there is a distinction to be drawn between player value and market value (be that draft, trade, or whatever). They make a contribution to your roster, and exploiting the gap between how the market values that contribution and the actual value of that contribution is the key to success here.

    In your own example, you implicitly validate that point. Nobody has asserted in this thread that you should draft in order of "intrinsic value" or anything like that.
    Yup, we're saying the same thing. For whatever reason when I was reading your exchange with HF above, it came across different.

  7. #52
    Location
    Prairies
    Rep Power
    40

    Yoda

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maaaasquito View Post
    But I'm starting to see a lot of H2H teams trying to go "across the board" which is interesting to me, cause at the end of the day you only need to 50/50 plus win the tie breaker and you essentially win the week...

    FHG has a strong emphasis on "across the board" production, but that's not what vitally important for H2H...

    Let's say you grab Perry, Lucic and Backes (who are 3 of the "big name" across the board producers out there) you'd end up with a stat-line of:
    87 G, 88 A, +15, 363 PIM, 51 PPP and 660 SOG.

    Now if I grabbed 3 "soft" guys in Daniel, Henrik and Thornton, I'd have a stat-line of:
    62 G, 163 A, +54, 54 PIM , 75 PPP and 498 SOG.

    I'd essentially 50/50 those stats if I had a trio of "across the board" players in Perry, Lucic and Backes compared to Sedin, Sedin and Thornton, so there's little to no advantage in grabbing "across the board" players compared to focusing on straight offensive players in H2H. I could certainly see it useful for Roto leagues, but H2H I don't see it...
    There's not much to pick from for disagreements to keep this post moving... so... I choose this one.

    LOL (sorry Ma)

    I'd disagree with your line of thinking here that a trio of soft-players who are heavy in three categories can compete with across the board players.

    In any given week, the Perry/Lucic/Backes trio should win G/PIM/SOG against most competition (not just the soft-trio, but most)... those are fairly consistent categories.

    In any given week, the Sedin/Sedin/Thornton trio should win A/PPP against most competition (not just the gritty-trio, but most).

    But what category did I leave out... oh, +/-.
    Over the course of a season, the best players will have great +/-, but week-to-week can vary with competition.

    So now you are looking at a trio that only grabs 2/6 categories with consistency. Ugh, not sure what my comfort level is in those guys.

    My personal strategy in both H2H & Roto is to (if anything) punt assists.
    I'm not passing on Henrik Sedin if he's there in the 3rd round because he's (normally) great in 3/6... but I AM passing on Brian Campbell, who at best, is 2/6.

    Also - across the board players are a little easier to replace.
    If you have a Henrik Sedin go down, how easy is it to replace his Assists & PPP & +/- with a waiver wire player? I'd say, not too easy.
    If somebody loses a Perry/Backes/Lucic, how easy is it to replace them? Not easy either... but easi-er, I'd say. PIM & SOG are almost always there on the waiver wire. And often goals can be found from a player promoted to a line with a great passer.

    Anyways - I think across the board-value is important in H2H... assuming you are going to clean 3/6 categories with a soft trio is a big mistake, IMO.
    If you only win 2/6 some weeks (due to +/- randomness), you are now below 50%... and perhaps out of playoff contention.

    The gritty team is going to accidentally steal +/- some weeks... which will put them a little over 50%.

    That's my argument (sheerly to keep the thread rolling).

    ps. When do we get to talk more about Shoeless' Ott reach in the Rocky Horror Roto Show? We need to get him fired up & back in this thread again!

  8. #53
    Location
    Vancouver
    Rep Power
    33

    Dobber Sports Veteran

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blayze, paraphrased
    ... the currency we use in fantasy hockey is draft position...
    Really? So no transactions are possible once the draft is over? Or we should hold a player's value consistent with the round they were drafted in, even though that was an event in the past? Come now...


  9. #54
    blayze's Avatar
    blayze is online now
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    12,282
    Location
    Toronto
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports Samurai

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fantasyhockeygeek View Post
    Really? So no transactions are possible once the draft is over? Or we should hold a player's value consistent with the round they were drafted in, even though that was an event in the past? Come now...
    Come on now... you know I was referring to a player's initial valuation at draft time

    Although there is a lot of truth to the notion that many owners actually do hold a player's value consistent with where they originally drafted them (similar to how people do not want to sell stocks at a lower price than they acquired them). It is an emotional mechanism... to value them lower than they they were drafted would be to admit they made a mistake, and given the egos that we tend to carry, most of us are not willing to admit that.

  10. #55
    Location
    Vancouver
    Rep Power
    33

    Dobber Sports Veteran

    Default

    Yeah, yeah I know you were, but I was trying to point out how nuts that is. Fantasy hockey is considerably longer than a draft, just like value of a business/stock/commodity isn't tied to the initial acquisition.

    You're totally right about ownership bias though... but that's another thread entirely!


  11. #56
    Rep Power
    9

    Dobber Sports Apprentice

    Default

    There's no universal currency in fantasy hockey. A player worth $20 to me might be worth $5 to most other teams. Usually the difference isn't that drastic in roto, but can be in H2H. When you run into diminishing returns and other types of SGP (standings gained points) issues, player values are usually different than their intrinsic values. I'd say that the best you could get as far as measuring currency would be to associate a dollar value with players' intrinsic value. This is something I always do.

    In H2H it's important to determine the value of all players to your team, and then find a rough estimation of the value to the average team, and/or a team that is focused on certain categories such as goals/assists. I do this in my draft spreadsheets/league spreadsheets by having all sorts of columns for perceived value, actual value, ratios of them all, etc. You pretty much need a decoder ring to be able to understand the damn spreadsheet with all the acronymed column headings, haha. But it enables you to locate the pockets of value not only in the draft, but in trades during the season.

  12. #57
    Maaaasquito's Avatar
    Maaaasquito is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,377
    Location
    Melbourne, Austra
    Rep Power
    29

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fantasyhockeygeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek View Post
    You're right that it would be a 3-3 category split, but which do you think you'd be able to get more bottom-line contribution out of in a trade: 25 G, 309 PIM, 162 SOG or 75 A, +39, 24 PPP? There is inherent value in each of those different pots than can be traded for production value for your team needs.
    But you also can't base it on trade value as well, as trades "rarely" happens in higher quality fantasy leagues. I mean in the Dobber Experts league there were 11 trades during the entire season... and I was responsible for 6 of them... So most people I would argue draft their players to keep for an entire season as opposed for trade value.
    Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

  13. #58
    Maaaasquito's Avatar
    Maaaasquito is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,377
    Location
    Melbourne, Austra
    Rep Power
    29

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pengwin7 View Post
    In any given week, the Perry/Lucic/Backes trio should win G/PIM/SOG against most competition (not just the soft-trio, but most)... those are fairly consistent categories.

    In any given week, the Sedin/Sedin/Thornton trio should win A/PPP against most competition (not just the gritty-trio, but most).

    But what category did I leave out... oh, +/-.
    Over the course of a season, the best players will have great +/-, but week-to-week can vary with competition.
    I can't argue with the +/- category as it is one of the most random stats in fantasy hockey, but I could argue the same thing with goals as well...

    Between Side A and Side B there was a difference of 25 goals, so let's say over the course of a full fantasy season, that would be about 25 weeks, if you average it out 25 goals over 25 weeks, it might work out to be an extra goal a week advantage for "across the board" over "softies"... So I wouldn't trust that "every given weak they would win the G category", I'd give you PIM and SOG (since they have such a massive lead), but not G... With that said you could counter argue that it's the same thing with PPP...

    So I guess it comes down to personal preference... For me I'd still argue that there isn't a real statistical advantage in making an emphasis in owning "across the board" guys over "softies" in standard leagues (or if there is on it's only negligible)... Not enough to buy into it and believe that it's an "surefire" winning strategy.
    Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

  14. #59
    Maaaasquito's Avatar
    Maaaasquito is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,377
    Location
    Melbourne, Austra
    Rep Power
    29

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blayze View Post
    Come on now... you know I was referring to a player's initial valuation at draft time

    Although there is a lot of truth to the notion that many owners actually do hold a player's value consistent with where they originally drafted them (similar to how people do not want to sell stocks at a lower price than they acquired them). It is an emotional mechanism... to value them lower than they they were drafted would be to admit they made a mistake, and given the egos that we tend to carry, most of us are not willing to admit that.
    Hey I'm right 100% of the time that I'm not wrong...
    Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

  15. #60
    Maaaasquito's Avatar
    Maaaasquito is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,377
    Location
    Melbourne, Austra
    Rep Power
    29

    Dobber Sports Expert

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skin Blues View Post
    In H2H it's important to determine the value of all players to your team, and then find a rough estimation of the value to the average team, and/or a team that is focused on certain categories such as goals/assists. I do this in my draft spreadsheets/league spreadsheets by having all sorts of columns for perceived value, actual value, ratios of them all, etc. You pretty much need a decoder ring to be able to understand the damn spreadsheet with all the acronymed column headings, haha. But it enables you to locate the pockets of value not only in the draft, but in trades during the season.
    Hit it right on the button! It's about making the "right"/best decision for your team. With H2H there's much more leeway for "punting" than there is for Roto... You can get away with punting 49.9999999% of the league stats and still win, no chance for that in Roto.
    Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •