New Feature - Rankings/Midseason Guide

[Dobber]

I'm introducing a new rankings system that involves the variable "probable three-year peak". This will co-exist with my "upside" in the player rankings.

Upside: The absolute max that a player can produce in the ideal situation over the course of a season. Only 15% of all players will reach this number and only 5% of all players will surpass it. If a player surpasses the upside I give them, then I take it as a failure. Because the word "upside" should mean what it says.

3-year peak avg (3YP): The average of the likely three best FUTURE 82-game seasons. This is a "likely" number and I hope to get over 50% of these right. This number is much more versatile than the upside. An upside I hope to keep steady for all players, only changing it for extreme cases (such as Byfuglien) or tempering it downward as prospects start to find their range (such as Brassard). The 3YP will be adjusted and shifted a couple of times per year for players, as they show more (or less) in different situations over the course of time.

Essentially, what this means is that the upside in the rankings will have a slightly smaller influence, as it will now be shared with the 3YP. This puts a little more realism in the rankings. It's good to have a player with 100-point upside, but wouldn't you rather have a player with 100-point upside and a 92 3YP as opposed to a 100-point upside and an 86 3YP? I'm happy with how it is looking so far, and will be interested in your comments when the rankings go up tomorrow (New Year's Day).

This new 3YP number will be given to you in the Midseason Guide as a new feature. Again, I hope this helps - and I think it will immensely - in evaluating your players.


On another note...
My first stumbling block is Nikita Filatov. Now here is a guy who I'm 50/50 on even being in the NHL long enough to succeed. So do I give his 3YP a 20? That means he plays two years in the NHL, gets 20 points one year, 40 the next and then is gone (so average over three years is 20). Or, do I assume NHL success, in which case his 3YP is probably going to be in the mid-70s in his three best seasons.
It's a tough one - 75 or 20? I can't split the middle. Or...can I? Interested in your feedback on how to tackle such situations.

[Bomm Bastic]

Essentially, what this means is that the upside in the rankings will have a slightly smaller influence, as it will now be shared with the 3YP. This puts a little more realism in the rankings. It's good to have a player with 100-point upside, but wouldn't you rather have a player with 100-point upside and a 92 3YP as opposed to a 100-point upside and an 86 3YP? I'm happy with how it is looking so far, and will be interested in your comments when the rankings go up tomorrow (New Year's Day).

I'm diggin' it. Puts things in a much better and more fantasy-applicable perspective. 3 years is a good time frame to refer.

Thanks, Dobbs.

[Dean Youngblood]

Cool stuff

As for the filatov example I would prefer you are honest with the situation. For me his risk of leaving is really high so his 3YP should reflect that (20). I would much rather you include the most likeliness situation. Otherwise it neglects the point of doing the 3YP to a certain degree. Filatov is a tough situation though

Going to be interested to see these. Are you doing the Top 300?

[dyzfunctioned]

Very cool.

So will this be available in the top 300 players example or only in the guides?

And as for filatov, I'd say put him in the 70's... I think most people know his flight risk and stuff anyway so will naturally adjust.

[ericdaoust]

Perhaps include a "Comment" column next to 3YP to briefly explain why Filatov would get an average of 20. You could write "KHL risk... 3YP could be 50".

[wendelclark17]

I like the idea a lot. The 3 year timeframe is perfect and it will serve as a nice counter measure to the LTU number. Great idea and cant wait to see it in action in the mid-season guide

[arctic_rogue]

Perhaps include a "Comment" column next to 3YP to briefly explain why Filatov would get an average of 20. You could write "KHL risk... 3YP could be 50".

I think this is a fantastic idea. He is such a question mark, so a 3YP of 70 or an 3YP of 20 cannot do this guy justice.

Looking forward to the guide!

[metaldude26]

This sounds like a great feature and I think most people will find this more useful than the upside ratings ever were.

As for cases like Filatov, you are really going to encounter similar scenarios with other players based on timing when they'll get to the NHL full time and when they'll have their big breakout. Just go with your gut and somehow acknowledge the fact that this is where you will be most likely to have your errors. I think most of us can appreciate that. The reality of it is whether you go with the high, the low, or split it down the middle, you're unlikely to be right more than half the time.

[Thai Domi]

Great idea.

3-year peak avg (3YP): The average of the likely three best FUTURE 82-game seasons.

So, 3YP does not equal the average of the three NEXT seasons?

And by 82 game season you mean regular season, not eg a Connolly-type player's numbers projected over an 82 game season?

As for Filatov et al, I think the upside number captures the (positive) potential and you go with your gut on 3YP, weighting for negative and positive contingencies on a case by case basis.

[Dobber]

The 3YP is the BEST three seasons going forward, not the next three seasons. Although, for old guys like Selanne, it would be the next three seasons...and I assume that he plays them.

So I guess, in that spirit, I should assume Filatov plays them. The more I think about it, the more I think I should split the middle - and adjust one way or the other as the picture becomes clear. So instead of 75 or 20 as a 3YP I go with 47.

Regarding health and 82 game seasons - I assume his three best regular seasons. With Connolly, I would never assume 82 games...but I think his three best future seasons will actually average in the mid- to high-50s



These will be reflected in the new formula for the rankings, but not broken out for you to see.

You will only see them broken out in the Midseason Guide, the Prospects Report and the Fantasy Guide.

[ericdaoust]

It's going to be interesting to see how this 3YP thing plays out for someone like Kabanov. His upside was listed at 100 and it made him a high draft option in the eyes of several people I've talked to. But his 3YP could be as low as 40. Interesting to say the least. I think it's a big step forward as it gives more of a true picture of what could realistically happen instead of knowing what the perfect storm scenario would be like and having to decide which players will approach their upsides and which others will likely fail to be anything despite the talent to do better.

[TheRook]

i like the idea and am looking forward to it.

i wish you were doing the next 3 years as apposed to the 3 best years. I think it would be easier to evaluate the accuracy of your projections and allow us poolies to evaluate players based on the 3 yr window to build successful teams. We always talk about evaluating your team in a 3 year window and this would be another valuable fantasy tool to build on that evaluation.

It would also allow us to weigh the next three year estimated production with the upside when evaluating young prospects and determining when they will be effective for our squads. We can more easily identify which prospects we want to be patient with and their expected return for our squads in the next three years.

It would also be easier to adjust based on a players role with the team, and the different minutes they start to get as they mature and become a key piece of the teams success. Projecting what a player may do in one of his best seasons 10 years from now can almost be impossible when you take into consideration the changes to the game, the team he may be on, the role he plays, and the league he plays in.

Dont get me wrong i like what your doing here and think it will provide a better sample data than using upside. Keep up the good work and i look forward to seeing it.

[Atomic Wedgy]

Interesting element. I'm keen to check it out.

[tryhard87]

i like the idea and am looking forward to it.

i wish you were doing the next 3 years as apposed to the 3 best years. I think it would be easier to evaluate the accuracy of your projections and allow us poolies to evaluate players based on the 3 yr window to build successful teams. We always talk about evaluating your team in a 3 year window and this would be another valuable fantasy tool to build on that evaluation.

It would also allow us to weigh the next three year estimated production with the upside when evaluating young prospects and determining when they will be effective for our squads. We can more easily identify which prospects we want to be patient with and their expected return for our squads in the next three years.

It would also be easier to adjust based on a players role with the team, and the different minutes they start to get as they mature and become a key piece of the teams success. Projecting what a player may do in one of his best seasons 10 years from now can almost be impossible when you take into consideration the changes to the game, the team he may be on, the role he plays, and the league he plays in.

Dont get me wrong i like what your doing here and think it will provide a better sample data than using upside. Keep up the good work and i look forward to seeing it.

I have to agree with this. I think the Next Three Years would be more valuable than the 3 Best Years. You pretty much summed up my thoughts TheRook.

[Dobber]

It's going to be interesting to see how this 3YP thing plays out for someone like Kabanov. His upside was listed at 100 and it made him a high draft option in the eyes of several people I've talked to. But his 3YP could be as low as 40. Interesting to say the least. I think it's a big step forward as it gives more of a true picture of what could realistically happen instead of knowing what the perfect storm scenario would be like and having to decide which players will approach their upsides and which others will likely fail to be anything despite the talent to do better.

This is exactly what makes this new variable so effective. It deadens how much a longshot prospect gets skewed upward, and at the same time some of the surer prospects actually did move up as opposed to the veterans with lower 3YP


You guys bring up an excellent point on next three years vs. three best years. But since the projection for this year is included, the immediate future is covered reasonably well. Still, you give me something to think about.