2012-2013 Yahoo! Super Planner

[Pengwin7]

Below is several posts showing 12-team "rounds" by Yahoo! rank.
This colour-coded PDFs will allow you to get a visual on forecasting each round and where you might expect players to fall.

Round-by-round discussions reserved in the following posts.

-Pengwin7



Some notes:
*For sake of generalizing discussion, I typically consider the most common league to be 12-team with: 3C/3LW/3RW/4D/2G (+ 5 Bench: 1C/1LW/1RW/1D/1G)
*I started my own delving into Yahoo!s multi-position eligibility by using a running total of player positions. Most leagues will have about 144F in play: 48C/48LW/48RW.

#48C occurs first... at Yahoo! Rank #142 Derek Stepan
#48LW occurs next... at Yahoo! Rank #167 Brendan Morrow
#48RW occurs next... at Yahoo! Rank #171 Pascal Dupuis
#36G occurs next... at Yahoo! Rank #214 Richard Bachman. Farther down the goalie ranks are Reimer/Bernier/Gustavsson/Hedberg... these guys will be visually on a goalie-sort board.
#48D occurs next... at Yahoo! Rank #220 Slava Voynov

The actual 144th ranked forward occurs at Yahoo! Rank #240 Victor Stalberg.
But there are a lot of solid forwards that can be found by digging deeper.

***SIDE THOUGHT: One thing that annoys me is that these new Yahoo! ranks are actually very good... IMO.
Which means that they input some projections and re-sorted.
The annoying part is this: Where are the projections?
I've got a feeling that Yahoo! copied and pasted 2012-2013 projections from some (???) source. Now... what was that source?!?***

Of significant note: Yahoo groups a bunch of chump goalies between #314-#335 (with Devin Setoguchi mixed in there, LOL).
After that group, there are some nice forward sleepers to be had.

#339 Havlat, Martin
#359 Hodgson, Cody
#385 van Riemsdyk, James
#406 McDonald, Andy

And, there are lots of PIM goons.
Also, some of the kings of Hits/BkS leagues can be found way later:

#457 Schenn, Luke
#465 Greene, Matt
#482 Stuart, Mark
#494 Gorges, Josh
#519 Smid, Ladislav

I'll try to summarize those in their individual Rounds posts, as well.

[Pengwin7]

Rounds 01-04.

Players ranked too high (consensus):
-
-

Players ranked too low (consensus):
-
-


Discussion:
1. In the "all eligibilities counter", you can see that the quantity for Centers builds the fastest, with LW the next fastest.
For this reason, I believe that players that are:
C/LW should be considered LW.
C/RW should be considered RW.
LW/RW should be considered RW.
I have re-counted the players on this primary position. (yellow cells).

One thing I like about this is the impact it has on other teams:
RW is already the thinnest forward position... and drafting a C/RW can have two effects:
i) Drafting a C/RW and plunking him in your C spot will thin the RWs available, this will force the league to draft RWs farther down the list, but it also forces you to do the same.
ii) Drafting a C/RW and plunking him in your RW spot will not thin the RWs, but it will allow you to fill your C slots with a better value player (see Stepan vs. Dupuis ranks above).
It's a win-win. And in FOW pools, having a C/RW in your RW slot is a big bonus.

[Pengwin7]

Rounds 05-08.

Players ranked too high (consensus):
-
-

Players ranked too low (consensus):
#95. Getzlaf, Ryan (C-ANA)
-

Discussion:

[Pengwin7]

Rounds 09-12.

Players ranked too high (consensus):
-
-

Players ranked too low (consensus):
-
-

Discussion:

[Pengwin7]

Rounds 13-16.

Players ranked too high (consensus):
-
-

Players ranked too low (consensus):
-
-

Discussion:

[Pengwin7]

Rounds 17-20.

Players ranked too high (consensus):
-
-

Players ranked too low (consensus):
-
-

Discussion:

[Pengwin7]

Rounds 21-24.

Players ranked too high (consensus):
-
-

Players ranked too low (consensus):
-
-

Discussion:

[Pengwin7]

Rounds 25-28.

Players ranked too high (consensus):
-
-

Players ranked too low (consensus):
-
-

Discussion:

[Pengwin7]

Rounds 29-32.

Players ranked too high (consensus):
-
-

Players ranked too low (consensus):
-
-

Discussion:

[Pengwin7]

Rounds 33-36.

Players ranked too high (consensus):
-
-

Players ranked too low (consensus):
-
-

Discussion: