What do you look for?

[Maaaasquito]

Pengwin brought up an interest thread the other day that made me think about what factors do poolies look for in order to gain an edge or identify fantasy value.

For me I look at TOI, PP TOI, SOG... first.
Then secondary stats like SH% and PPP.
Then historical trends, does player X have a consistent point production rate?
Then team depth, an offense by committee team vs. a top heavy team...
Then team numbers, so where does their offense rank and whether there's room for improvement or not... Or did their team over-achieve or under-achieve...

Within the season, I place a big emphasis on split stats (especially for goalies). So if teams are on home stands I tend to play them a lot more, or make a play for a trade for players in half vs. half splits. That's what I did with TB last season, taking advantage of the scheduling...

Just curious what other Dobberites out there use for their analysis?

Fire away!

[Chili con Carne]

Assuming standard cats, for skaters I look to SOG and PPP/first PP time, with an obvious preference for proven track record. These usually equate to more points (given the PP time) with a leaning towards goals. If a bunch of guys seem more or less equal to me then I look to another cat where they are stand outs (e.g. +/-, good shot at SHP, PIM etc.).

I usually like to secure one of the top SOG d-men in the first four rounds.

[OldSkool]

TOI, PP, SOG and linemates ( this is situation by situation ) these are key factors I look at.

I want to know player health and his health track record, let's me get a good idea what to expect from him in that regard. ( Durability )

[ericdaoust]

I've been a big believer in the BPA (Best Player Available) approach at all levels from one-year leagues to prospect drafts. I read a few publications and follow stats and then add in my own intuition (league context + my own scouting abilities) to develop a ranking for each player in my mind. Then it becomes a gut feeling thing.

Generally I think that splits and schedules over-complicate matter, but that's just me. Even if Lundqvist has a tough week, he's still Lundqvist.

[Jason_Banks]

Personally, I don't like to pickup or draft players I've never seen... I don't like going by the word of others, but I use them to mark a few players to watch...

Luckly I watch alot of hockey at all levels (AHL, OHL, WHL, QMJHL, NCAA, Swedish Elite and KHL) both live, on TV/internet feeds...

Stats are away of tracking a player and are the proving grounds of a players ability...

If you see the player and connect it with what is said about him, you look for new things un-mentioned and then I look for downsides to a players game...

I also like to put myself in the GM position and decide if that player fits on my NHL team now/future and where...

I also try to avoid to watch superstars, everybody sees them and knows what they do... If I want to gain an advantage I wanna find guys no one knows...

In my lg I've been lucky to snap guys like Hemsky, Erat, Desharnais, Stepan, Kunitz, Cammilleri, Plekanec, Carlson, Del Zotto, Green, Scandella and Niemi before they were on anyones radar over the years... Some were good Jr prospects, but for what ever reason were overshadowed by many others... guys like Erat, Kunitz, Green and Plekanec were only picked up to fill bottom roles on my teams, and I was well rewarded with them being much more... (I've also been at a disadvantage of never having a good draft position to take top end star players, I either need to take stars that fall to me like Oshie, Perry, Little or reletive unknowns and make the best of what I got with pacients and constantly adding support players)

[Maaaasquito]

Originally Posted by ericdaoust

I've been a big believer in the BPA (Best Player Available) approach at all levels from one-year leagues to prospect drafts. I read a few publications and follow stats and then add in my own intuition (league context + my own scouting abilities) to develop a ranking for each player in my mind. Then it becomes a gut feeling thing.

Generally I think that splits and schedules over-complicate matter, but that's just me. Even if Lundqvist has a tough week, he's still Lundqvist.

What do you mean by BPA, like what kinda stuff do you look for, is what I'm trying to get at? Like what standards do you use to separate one player from another...

Like when you say Lundqvist is Lundqvist, would Lundqvist in playing in NY be the same as Lundqvist playing in Columbus? So would you consider team environment a factor in determining player value?

[Maaaasquito]

Originally Posted by Jason_Banks

Personally, I don't like to pickup or draft players I've never seen... I don't like going by the word of others, but I use them to mark a few players to watch...

Luckly I watch alot of hockey at all levels (AHL, OHL, WHL, QMJHL, NCAA, Swedish Elite and KHL) both live, on TV/internet feeds...

Stats are away of tracking a player and are the proving grounds of a players ability...

If you see the player and connect it with what is said about him, you look for new things un-mentioned and then I look for downsides to a players game...

I also like to put myself in the GM position and decide if that player fits on my NHL team now/future and where...

I also try to avoid to watch superstars, everybody sees them and knows what they do... If I want to gain an advantage I wanna find guys no one knows...

In my lg I've been lucky to snap guys like Hemsky, Erat, Desharnais, Stepan, Kunitz, Cammilleri, Plekanec, Carlson, Del Zotto, Green, Scandella and Niemi before they were on anyones radar over the years... Some were good Jr prospects, but for what ever reason were overshadowed by many others... guys like Erat, Kunitz, Green and Plekanec were only picked up to fill bottom roles on my teams, and I was well rewarded with them being much more... (I've also been at a disadvantage of never having a good draft position to take top end star players, I either need to take stars that fall to me like Oshie, Perry, Little or reletive unknowns and make the best of what I got with pacients and constantly adding support players)

So do you base decisions on stats, or by mostly just what you see when watching them live?

[coldsquad2002]

You have to agree that people on this site are usually very dedicated, knowledgeable hockey fans.

My approach is to rely on my knowledge of the game on the players. I read at least one yearbook before the draft and get a lot of help from sites like this one. We all know the top players, but that information helps with prospects and when you are deep in a draft.

From there I look at the scoring stats of the league and usually win or at least very competitive.
My only other philosophy is to compete to win every year even in keeper leagues. I find that you need good top end depth to win rather than relying on a superstar.

I just took over a keeper team this summer. It only had 3 players worth protecting. Crosby, Thornton, and Lundqvist.

So I let the other teams know I was accepting offers for Crosby. A couple weeks later, after receiving several offers, I traded Crosby for Bobby Ryan, Eric Staal, Hossa, and Nash.

[Fast Tony DeNiro]

I usually just go by who I think the best players are. In later rounds, I try and nail down who may be in for a breakout, usually taking into consideration the last couple months of the previous season, the team's projected lineup, and players that under-performed the season before but I feel can bounce back or take the next step.

In terms of stats, SH% is usually the biggest for me. TOI and PPTOI are huge but those are a given, of course someone who plays 20 minutes and 3 on the PP is probably more valuable than someone at 15 and 30 seconds. Those stats are fairly easy to form an opinion off of, you just have to find the numbers.

SH% can be huge. It's on a player by player basis though....not every player in the league is going to shoot 12%, so when a player is at 7.5% for a season, you have to decide if you think they can up the percentage a bit, or if they're just not a great finisher.

That's a big reason why I'm not overly pumped about Landeskog, for example. He'll be a great NHL player, but I think that 8.1% he shot last year is legit, he just doesn't have a ton of skill or finishing ability. He'll get goals through pure volume (future 350 shot player? probably), and he might bump up to 10% or so eventually, but I never think he'll be a 14% shooter like most true goal scorers.

That's just a random example, but it's the kind of thought that I put into younger players especially, usually players in their first 5 years in the league. After that they've typically established a pattern that makes that sort of projection pretty obsolete. But for the most part when I draft it's just gut and things that are fairly easy to find like previous year splits by month, projected TOI, and lineup.

[Jason_Banks]

Originally Posted by Gotlaid

So do you base decisions on stats, or by mostly just what you see when watching them live?

Live...

Stats are past preformances, they are good to go by as a indicator of who to watch, but seeing what a player can do while compiling stats is very good indicator of future preformance...

I'll use stats to grade players into catigories, but I rank players based on what I've seen and how I feel they can, should/hopefully produce in the future...

Examples:

I traded for Artem Anisimov at the start of two years ago when he only put up 28 points in his first season, but I had seen him play with Hartford the 2 years before and was very aware of his skill set, growth, size, style, and liked the direction he was heading... I've since been rewarded with only 44 and 36 points, but I feel now in Columbus, with an expected return to center with more responsiblity where his talents will help him, he will produce 45-65 points in the near future even tho his linemates/supporting cast have been downgraded...

The player I traded away was Marc Savard, knowing he had an injury history and he was getting up in age, but had a history of being a point per game player for me... Marc Savard was also a player I picked up the season he went to Atlanta, after seeing him in New York and Calgary, I was familer with what he could do and what I seen him capable of with more resposibiliy and talented linemates (who turned out to be Slava Kozlov and Ilya Kovalchuck)

Stats showed Anisimov was able to produce and Savard was above average player, but my assesment of them over others made them attractive to me and I've been rewarded by both....

Stats did not show the impending fall of Marc Savard as he was still precived as a point per game player or just below on a Stanley Cup talented offencive team, but my familiarity of him and what he was doing and where I seen him going, I expected his decline and frailty...

The manager who took Savard for Anisimov was not familer with either of them, he picked up Anisimov as a low end player that was young and produced enough to make him startable, and thought he was getting a huge return with Savard's past statistics despite his known injury history...

On your other comment... Lundqvist on any team is still Lundqvist... the numbers may rise and fall from the surroundings, but Lundqvist on the worst team is still a talented player capable of stealing games and posting solid-respectable numbers...

Howard/Crawford on Columbus... quickly become 'do not touch with 100 foot pole' goalies...