Comparing Fs and Ds

[reeveta]

I apologize for a bit of a long post. I was hoping to get some comments/suggestions on this ‘method’ to see if I should continue to use it.

I am trying to come up with a good way to compare value between defencemen and forwards. In a league that has positional requirements it can be really hard to decide how to move a defencemen for a forward or vica-versa. I like to try to limit subjective things like ‘gut feelings’ in my decisions and let stats do the talking so I have developed a bit of a number crunching system to help me make decisions.

Let me illustrate with an example:
I have Gonchar on my team. If someone were to offer me Jason Blake for Gonchar, should I take it? Let us assume for this example that all player’s value is exactly tied to their production as of March 12. (deciding if someone’s value is going up or down in the future is what places like www.dobberhockey.com are for)
Right now:
Jason Blake - 61 points in 68 games
Sergei Gonchar - 57 points in 68 games

In a league with no positional requirements it is easy. Jason Blake will get slightly more points then Gonchar - so go for it! . . . BUT, In my 12-team keeper league there are positional requirements: 12 forwards, 6 defencemen and 2 goalies. So losing a top defencemen leave a big hole on my team. Still, Jason Blake is a solid contributor. In order to compare them I look at what my ‘free agent’ replacement would be for them. There are forwards available of about the Mark Parrish caliber and blueliners become available at about the Dmitri Kalinin level. Meaning if I don’t get Blake I can pick up Parrish. Likewise if I trade away Gonchar he would be replaced with Kalinin.
So that means:
Mark Parrish – 36 points in 65 games (#135 among forwards)
Dmitri Kalinin – 21 points in 68 games (#64 among d-men)

So a quick calculation means that I would give up 36 points on defence to acquire 25 points at forward. An obvious no-go.

So what should I look for in return for Gonchar? Well I need someone who can give me at least a 36 point upgrade on the free agents available. That would suggest that I would need a forward who is presently in the low 70s like Paul Kariya or Pavel Datsyuk. I would of course shoot for something higher but at least I know what a fair value would be.

If anyone has any comments on the method please let me know. I have been using it as a tool (not a final decision maker) and I think it has really helped me value my defencemen appropriately this year but want to know if there are flaws in my logic. Do the results it comes up with make sense?

[hoopej2]

You make complete sense to me as I also use the same strategy. However, the guy who is leading my 10 team, 24 player league kept 8 forwards last year and is killing the rest of us. I\'m beginning to wonder if it\'s worth keeping a d man unless he\'s top 10 in the league, or maybe top 5.

If you find a GM in the league that values Blake at the same as Gonchar, take advantage of that and start trading him your worst forwards for better d men.

[reeveta]

There are two or three \'dumb\' GMs in our league but they get picked dry of worthy players pretty quickly by everyone else. In my opinion most other guys value their d-men too highly.

[mamon]

First, as a general rule, if you do not have to pick dmen for your team, don\'t pick them. Someone always takes them much higher than they should go.

But if you have to dress a number of d-men (as in most pools), the d-men are often the difference between a championship team and an average team. Why? Forwards are easier to replace than dmen. Think about it like this. Suppose you have Spezza and he goes down. You can just rotate in players who are hot like Cowan right now, and there will not be much of a difference (if you do it right). However, if you lose a top dman like Gonchar, you will be hard pressed to find a hot dman who can replace him in points.

While your logic does make sense, I think you might be oversimplifying it that just points up that that point in the season. There are other factors to consider (like trades, injuries, injured linemates, etc). In the end, I base my decisions on what I expect from each player in the future. While places like Dobber\'s hockey is nice, it\'s best to learn to evaluate players for yourself.

[hoopej2]

I think most guys anywhere value their own players too highly all the time. That is what makes most leagues hard to trade in. Basically guys get married to the thought of having a certain player and get blinders on.

[Screaming Jawa]

You could apply the same system I use when drafting for my football pool (as there are more than just 3 positions to be filled). I\'ll do this from a draft point of view. (You could alter it to suit mid-season needs.)

First, determine a baseline number. If there are 12 teams, and each team starts 6 defencemen, then look at how many points the 72nd rated defenceman is projected to score. In a perfect world, this is the worst of the best d-men. Now, take all those projections and give them a plus/minus compared to the 72nd player. He\'s zero, everybody above him is +X pts, everybody below is -X pts.

Next, do the same with the forwards. (Let\'s ignore goalies altogether.) How many points should the 144th forward score? Zero him and adjust all the points compared to him.

Now, all the skaters in the league have an equal baseline value compared the other positions. (In a football pool, this really helps one draft Kickers, TEs, and Special Teams/Defence at the right time.) As mentioned, this is easy to do with drafting, but trading mid-season would require a slightly different system.

Of course, I\'ve never put this to the test in a hockey pool, so... yeah.

[WhatThePuck?]

Great Post with great insight guys. This is the biggest issue with pools with position requirements. Dobber\'s rankings are invaluable tools but their one minor (very minor) flaw is the problem with positional requirement pools - the low rankings of D-men compared to Forwards (Stud D-men are way more valuable than 2nd liners). While I would love for Dobber to rank the players this way I don\'t expect it as it would skew the rankings for those not needing positional requirements. I guess it is best to leave a good thing alone & uses these posts to help fit teams needs. This post has several good ideas for owners to address this problem. Keep the ideas flowing.

Kudos all around for the topic & ideas

[J Status]

I am now in a league where 36% of the daily roster is dedicated to D. It really frustrates me. Over the years I have come to hate D more and more lol.

It is just sad to see 60-70 pt forwards sitting on the bench some nights when 30-40 pt D men get in the lineup every night they play.

I know it is realisitc to have 4 or more D in a fantasy league to be like the NHL but for fantasy... I prefer just use 3 or less.

[BC Bandits]

Hello

I love this right up. It would be good to see how Dobber look at this.

I like what Screaming Jawa Said and would like to try it.

Darren