Four types of Fantasy Players to Avoid

[Michael Amato]

Sometimes what's more telling than a player's stats, is his overall situation or what type of player you are dealing with. Variables like team, career point, and contract status all can play a factor as to what type of production to expect from someone. Name recognition alone should not be the soul reason for selecting a player to your fantasy squad. Take someone like Dany Heatley for example. He is going to be a different type of player in Minnesota then he was in San Jose, and he was a different player in San Jose then he was in Ottawa or Atlanta. Many times a players best season is often frozen in time and thats the way we view that player. Is Dany Heatley a 50 goal scorer like he accomplished for two seasons in Ottawa? Or were those two seasons a product of all the stars aligning just right and is he actually more of a realistic 35-40 goal man?

Of course there are players like Sidney Crosby who are truly elite and any situation they are thrown in will most likely produce high-end results. Crosby is the exception to the rule however and more often than not a player's situation will have a direct correlation to their results being either positive or negative. Here are four types of players to avoid and banish from your fantasy roster.

The Empty Calories Player

Players with above average goal totals but low assist totals make for a player who won't help your team out in the long run. It's kind of like eating a donut. Man they taste good and can be tempting but at the end of the day the aren't going to provide much to your body.

An extreme example of this would be Rick Nash's 2003-04 season where he put up 41 goals and only 16 assists. How many Rocket Richard winners finish with just 57 points and a minus 35? Well Nash did just that. Ok so 41 goals are nothing to sneeze at but it is very easy to get blinded by a decent goal total and forget about other statistics.

This past season two players caught my eye in this category: Nikolai Zherdev 16G and 6A, and Brian Boyle 21G and 14A. To delve even further with Boyle, he has never had an NHL season where his assist totals exceeded his goals.
The whole problem with these kinds of players is that they dissapear for large stretches of the season but when you look at their overall totals it kind of leaves you thinking they had an alright year.

The I just got Paid Player

It always bothers me to see a player have a career year in the final year of their contract in hopes of getting a big raise in the off-season. It happens in every sport and it can be the most frusturating thing for fans to endure. Why can't they play this well all the time?!

Once that deal is signed it is not uncommon to see a drop in a player's production. It seems the bigger the deal and the longer the term, the more of a drop off you see. After Ilya Kovalchuk inked that massive deal last summer, he promptly followed it up by posting a 60 point campaign. It was his worst total since his rookie season in 2001-02.

Sergei Gonchar signed a big deal with Ottawa last summer also, only to post 27 points which was his lowest sin 1997-98. You could argue Ottawa was a weak team but then how did rookie Erik Karlsson put up 45?

With all the money that was thrown around July 1st there are bound to be a few more who fall into this category this season. I'm looking at you Ville Leino and Christian Ehrhoff.

The Now I'm the Top Dog Player

I'm always cautious of a player being dubbed 'The Guy'. Or when a team trades away key players because they feel someone is ready to handle all the responsibility.

This year the player I'm a little scared of is Claude Giroux. With Jeff Carter and Mike Richards long gone it will be up to Giroux to carry the load. His 76 point breakout season was impressive but I wonder if it had more to do with favorable matchups as Richards and Carter would have attracted opponents top checkers. Now with the Flyers acquiring young talent but sacrificing depth, Giroux will have a target on his back every night.

Another guy to watch out for is the aforementioned Dany Heatley. His production was already slipping but now without Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau to play with, it may drop off even more.

The We Couldn't Get the Guy we wanted so were settling for this player

So the Leafs desperately needed a number one center and wanted Brad Richards. When they couldn't land him they picked up Tim Connolly who is.... well no Brad Richards. I'm sure the Leafs will dress him up and promote all the skill he has to try and convince people he is the answer they have been desperately looking for, but a number one center he is not.

Another example is Mike Smith down in Phoenix. He may get the bulk of the starts and play the majority of the minutes, but Smith is not a number one goalie. He is a solid backup but out of necessity the Coyotes are going to try and bamboozle him into thinking he is a legitimate number one.

[GMGates]

Four excellent points.

Thanks for sharing Amato!

[mister_mcgoo]

good list, I would add in the 'oops I cut myself shaving and will miss 4-6 weeks' player, that's always a good one to avoid too

[ross10019]

Nice job, and yes I would add the "I cut myself shaving" category as McGoo suggested. Other titles are "I am a Thoroughbred and so can't go unless I'm 100%" (I'm looking at you Joni Pitkanen).

[Shake]

good list, I would add in the 'oops I cut myself shaving and will miss 4-6 weeks' player, that's always a good one to avoid too

haha I like it.


Amato - nice piece of work

[ericdaoust]

good list, I would add in the 'oops I cut myself shaving and will miss 4-6 weeks' player, that's always a good one to avoid too

I think Andrei Kostitsyn is this type of player, and when he's out his neighbour fills in for him.

[Shoeless]

Sorry Michael but I think your article is seriously flawed. How dumb would it be if everyone took your advice and avoided and banished Heatley so that he wasn't in play at all?

Now before you jump up with "Yeah, but you know what I meant.", I have been around the game long enough to understand that in each of these types of players there is a value point that they come into play in most drafts and I do believe you were implying that you need to know where the value point is and not overpay in the draft for them. But you didn't say it.

All sorts of folks come onto these forums to glean insight into fantasy hockey from the experts and those with a lot of experience - many of them new to fantasy hockey. Are they going to get it? Likely not - don't draft Heatley means don't draft him, if Mike Amato says so.

From the beginning of these forums there has been a lot of effort to nurture the new or less experienced fantasy hockeyists - it continues today but to my chagrine that focus has been sliding away bit by bit. Particularly in the area of on-site journalism, I really think the recent wave of new Black Aces journalists tend to write to the mid to upper experience levels in the user group. I think that's unfortunate. Where there is no harm done - such as implying you are only going to be a good fantasy hockey GM if you watch a lot of hockey games - there isn't much of an issue - can't ever hurt to watch lots of hockey. But to have some rook go into his first draft and completely avoid Heatley or Connolly or Leino or Ehrhoff because of something that was published on this site seems just a tad concerning to me.

Dear Black Aces - I get it that you want to be hockey journalists and I am all for it - there has been really good stuff come out of the Black Hole and it certainly has diversified the site in a most positive way, but please, don't forget the ethics that come with - it matters in the end.

[GMGates]

Nothing but respect for the above, Shoeless.

Thank you for being real and honest.

At the end of the day, you can't fix something without knowing it needs fixing.

Constructive criticism goes a long way to establishing best practices.

[Shoeless]

Constructive criticism goes a long way to establishing best practices.

Don't get me wrong, I value Mike's article for the thesis, I just think he stumbled on the recommendations part.

Anyway I have wondered for a while about where the Black Aces thing is going - I don't have an answer but still have the question - are we feeding budding sports journalists or are we feeding the fantasy hockey reader here? Not mutually exclusive for sure but I think there is great value in writing for the reader instead of writing for the writer.

I wonder if it's time for the Black Aces to put their heads together and come up with a mission statement and some guiding principles? How do you evaluate what gets posted and what doesn't otherwise?

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Very good stuff, Shoeless.

Further to your point: you know how everyone gets from being a newbie to being damn good at fantasy hockey? Teaching others. That's the best way to raise your game, because if you can express and defend an opinion, then it naturally becomes an opinion that is well-founded and understood. I know that for me, participation in these forums raised my game from close to nothing to where it is today.

I think part of this is the "dog days of summer" phenomenon that happens every year.

[Dobber]

Shoeless, once again you bring up good points and give food for thought. You had me thinking along your lines and wondering how to proceed.

Then I started thinking of the columns that currently get posted. Ryan Ma's, my ramblings, Lucarelli's, etc. Do they assume a more advanced user? Often they do. But then I wondered if a certain word could be changed here or there - did the writer say "Dany Heatley should not be drafted at all" and if so, could it be changed to "Heatley should be drafted lower than his reputation would entail"? Not those precise words, but that was what I was thinking.

With that in mind, I combed through Michael's column looking for examples that I could use for these suggestions...and I was surprised that I could not find any. I couldn't find any spot where it was encouraged that Heatley not be drafted at all.

Then my thinking on the matter did a complete 180.

The site has always been for the advanced user. My ramblings are often written under the assumption that the reader is already aware of the latest news, and I give my slant on that. Ryan Ma writes about the top six on each team and what that means, and who could potentially break into that top six. Not exactly something that helps a newcomer.

A newcomer to fantasy hockey gets immersed into the culture here, not unlike a young English child going to French Immersion school where not a word of English is spoken. Are there tools for them? Sure, I have keeper league rules posted, and occasionally post a column on the basics. But I don't know how often I can re-hash the same advice that has already been written (draft from a limited amount of teams for your playoff pool, limit your exposure to Band-Aid Boys, etc etc).

So it comes down to wording. Can a word here or there be changed to make things less a "definite command", and more a "mild influence"?

I don't know if that can be effectively placed in a guideline. It's more instinct or style.

I would be interested to hear from any members who began their fantasy hockey adventure right here at DobberHockey. Those members would have the best opinions of this idea.

[bondon]

Well Dobber I can give you my opinion as a person who has only done fantasy hockey for approx 3 years now and the first two I wasn't too competitive, didn't even know there were leagues where you could keep your players from year to year LOL. I think the extent of my hockey knowledge included up to the top 5 players on each team and for some teams maybe top 3.

The way I found this site earlier this year was actually through a friend of mine (we were co-managing a team together because he had time constraints). I believe at the time he had only been reading the ramblings. There were times at the start of the year that he would come to me and say "Dobber thinks...According to Dobber, etc." and i was like who the hell is this Dobber guy?

So I came to your site and for a couple of weeks just did the same thing he did, read the ramblings and read the odd article that I felt was in my ballpark. I found it great and pretty easy to get a grasp on except for the prospect stuff (I didn't know prospects for shit, still not even close to knowing it all or even being well-attuned but I'm learning).

I think the key is if you want to improve and learn more you have to WANT to learn more just like everything else in life. Reading the ramblings and articles were fine but to me the real kicker was when I joined the forums. Trial by fire, you gotta put yourself out there and make mistakes in order to learn. I started off only posting in the One-Year and Injury forums, then it was a stepwise progression. Proceeded to Goalies, then General Hockey Chat/Lounge etc. All the while I was reading threads in the Keeper League section, trying to soak up all the knowledge and information that everyone on here was providing. Now I feel comfortable posting on most threads.

Using the forums is great because instead of just managing your team, it allows you to get the experience of managing thousands of teams when going through the thought process of reading threads and seeing the type of advice given out, and also voicing your opinion on what you would do and seeing if it is the same things others would do. Like you said its all about immersing yourself in the culture.

Got my first copy of the prospect guide which is helping me immensely since I haven't even heard 4/5 of the guys in it. I swear to god, when playing NHL on gaming consoles I used to think guys like D.Savard and J.Moore were made up people based on existing NHL'ers last names (in all fairness to my ignorant self they didn't have pictures).

I think the most important thing is like you said to immerse yourself in the culture. While using the site why not take advantage of some of the best hockey minds out there by using these forums.

Anyways that was my "Dobber experience" if you would like to put it that way. My #1 tip is to not be shy or afraid of lookign stupid. Even now, I don't know if anything I said was remotely relevant. I might just come off right now as a douche with too much time on his hands and I'm cool with that lol. I hope it gives you a little bit of insight into a perspective of someone who learned most of his fantasy knowledge from this site though

[GMGates]

I started my fantasy hockey adventure here and I went through all the "steps" too.

From being an occasional viewer, to frequent viewer, repeated when stumbling upon the forums. Then I started posting bit by bit, took long breaks in between, then got more into it, eventually leading up to PG Advised and the Black Aces.

I won't lie, my writing is still (and always will be) a work in progress. Although every article I write, I pride myself on bettering the technique. I have received many tips along the way from the likes of HPG, Dobber, Angus etc... I continually learn to apply them every day.

For those who know me, if I am not satisfied with my product, I won't post it.

~

In terms of the contributors here in the PG Advised, the original "members" could arguably be myself, Tim, Steve, Brendan and Praba.

Tim, Steve and Brendan are now columnists for DH.

Myself, while not a regular "columnist", I oversee the Black Aces project (PG Advised and NHL Team Coverage) as well as contribute monthly Roto Keeper Monsters / Top 100 Roto.

Now that the original members have been "called up" permanently, a second wave of aspiring writers hit the show. Think of it as prospects trying to hone their skills to make the team - there will be learning curves.

As "coach" I have always been open to explore ideas with those who ask. I was given a chance to write and I wish nothing more than to share that opportunity with others - that is my "coaching" philosophy. Without naming names, some of PG Advised's best and unique work has come from lengthy discussions about direction, niches and untapped potential.

As of now, I would say I screen about 60/40 of articles before they get posted in this section. The ones that hit my inbox are from members who have been around for awhile (horrorfan, shakedown, TK, 4T2, DL and before that MD and DY). That means most of the "new" guys post on their own, which I equally respect.

Either way, like Dobber stated, this thread gave a lot of food for thought, and I hope the discussion continues.

Michael, it just so happened that this discussion occurred in your thread. Do not get discouraged, if anything soak it all in and continue working towards your next article.

I'll end it here for now, my honest take on the situation.

Gates

[InForAPenny]

This site has been a huge influence on my keeper career (hmmm perhaps I should have said hobby; feels like a career though). I have participated in pools for a long time now and found this site just after I drafted my first ever keeper team. The change on my team has been incredible. I have used the help on the forums like I use any source of information...carefully.

I belong to the school of thought where you don't just believe or follow someone's thoughts blindly. I read as much as I can of all posters and articles. When central themes or ideas start meshing I pay a bit more attention and after a while you start to get a picture of which posters and writers really know their stuff. Even then when I see a suggestion from Angus or Dobber for example, I still take time to study and look more in depth at the players in question. Doing your due diligence is important in life decisions and I don't see that hockey pool decisions are any different.

I followed a similar pattern to the previous posters in terms of my interactions here. As I said, I started here after my keeper draft so the first thing I did was use the site to dig up what I could on my own team's players. I quickly found out I didn't know nearly enough about players beyond the few more known guys. My prospect knowledge was severely lacking and strategy less than stellar (I picked Gilbert Brule in the 3rd round 15th overall of all available players in the NHL 6 years ago! - won this year so am much more knowledgeable now)

I listened/read what other poolies were experiencing. It took along time before I started posting in response to other poolies questions as I didn't think my knowledge was good enough to be valuable...I have since learned that expressing another point of view can help with the thought process when a person has a question and find myself posting a bit more advice when I can.

To get back to the point of "is this site valuable to newbies?", it most definitely is. I am still learning everyday on here and I think while responsible article writing is important; it is equally important to be responsible poolie. Think for yourself. Just because Dobber says something is so, doesn't necessarily mean it is (sorry Dobber). If I take that approach to the head guy of the site, you can bet I will to all writers.

I am not saying that my way is the best or only way, only that it is the most logical.

Just my thoughts on the matter....take what you will.

[Shoeless]

Shoeless, once again you bring up good points and give food for thought. You had me thinking along your lines and wondering how to proceed.

Then I started thinking of the columns that currently get posted. Ryan Ma's, my ramblings, Lucarelli's, etc. Do they assume a more advanced user? Often they do. But then I wondered if a certain word could be changed here or there - did the writer say "Dany Heatley should not be drafted at all" and if so, could it be changed to "Heatley should be drafted lower than his reputation would entail"? Not those precise words, but that was what I was thinking.

With that in mind, I combed through Michael's column looking for examples that I could use for these suggestions...and I was surprised that I could not find any. I couldn't find any spot where it was encouraged that Heatley not be drafted at all.

Then my thinking on the matter did a complete 180.

The site has always been for the advanced user. My ramblings are often written under the assumption that the reader is already aware of the latest news, and I give my slant on that. Ryan Ma writes about the top six on each team and what that means, and who could potentially break into that top six. Not exactly something that helps a newcomer.

A newcomer to fantasy hockey gets immersed into the culture here, not unlike a young English child going to French Immersion school where not a word of English is spoken. Are there tools for them? Sure, I have keeper league rules posted, and occasionally post a column on the basics. But I don't know how often I can re-hash the same advice that has already been written (draft from a limited amount of teams for your playoff pool, limit your exposure to Band-Aid Boys, etc etc).

So it comes down to wording. Can a word here or there be changed to make things less a "definite command", and more a "mild influence"?

I don't know if that can be effectively placed in a guideline. It's more instinct or style.

I would be interested to hear from any members who began their fantasy hockey adventure right here at DobberHockey. Those members would have the best opinions of this idea.

Well I think the most dramatic line was: "Here are four types of players to avoid and banish from your fantasy roster." and Heatley is twice referred to as one of those types of players.

Generally, Mike's article is fine and pretty damn insightful and almost anyone can learn from it or at least have things they know reinforced. But I would take some hard convincing to accept that targeting a higher and less common denominator is particularly supportive of continuing to develop a fantasy hockey business.

I think about questions like: Is your retention rate of registered users as good as it could be? 73,000 registered users and 8,000 active. How many users click off when they don't fully grasp what they are reading? Should one feed the roots or the leaves? Can you do both to good effect? Ya you are always going to get the stories of the guys who burrow in and take nothing as completely gospel to great success in their fantasy lives - but what percentage is that of the whole and what could it be if those that don't take that approach are left to drift?

Dobberhockey has been a culture of nurturing growth in the forums - respect and acceptance and patience and in the articles and products - informed yet readable at a low common denominator. For as much as folks say well ya just have to jump in and make your way - sink or swim - I would ask those same folks if the culture was harder than it is, would you have stuck it out? Saying something idiotic and being coached through it is a damned sight different than getting creamed for it.

I honestly believe that the strength of this site for a long time has been to build it on the backs of the common everyday user and not the elite. You say the site has always been for the advanced user and I call bull to that. In the early days you were on the forums a lot, working to help the newbies fit in and get it. Even today when time hardly permits it, you still manage to bounce in on a newbies thread (I am guessing close to 50% of your posts now) to do the same thing. You understand the value of growing your customers. You have to write articles that appeal to the advanced user otherwise you would get killed by attrition, but writing advanced articles without trying to ensure the lowest common denominator can grasp what you are really saying doesn't make much sense.

I dunno, maybe I am just an old fool but I think if the Blackaces said a primary goal for them was to help people develop their fantasy hockey ability through the articles they write and they are guided by the principle of serving readership first, that would be enough for folks to be at least conscious of what they are producing and they can hold up their own measuring stick. Now I grant you that writing is often a matter of instinct or style and yes if you heed your readership you will massage it along the way, but I am also not talking about prescriptive guidelines - more of a principles kind of thing - why are we here, why are we doing this, how can we assess our impact?

I am one of those that cut his fantasy hockey teeth on Dobberhockey. I had been introduced to fantasy hockey about 2 months prior to finding this site which was a few months before you quit your job and went fulltime. I had never played fantasy sports before then. I didn't know squat when I joined (some will say I don't know squat now ) and in that first draft season if someone had suggested I not draft Heatley I wouldn't have and then I would have been really pissed at the end of the season and wondered what hare-brained idiot would say that - I would not have got that it might have been okay to draft him in the 3rd round based on practical value. And I likely wouldn't have been around much longer - I don't suffer that shit easily.

I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. God knows I like it here as evidenced by the fact that I am still here - but I have to tell you that you and Russ and Malthais wrote to keep me here in the early days - you helped my game because you made it easy to understand what you were talking about - and that was a boon because back then I didn't have the knowledge or experience to figure out something that wasn't direct. You weren't writing to impress me, you were writing to infuse me.

And another thing while I am on a rant - I now consider myself an advanced user and when I read articles with absolute statements that don't hold water, I am less than impressed and wonder if I should bother reading on. I am a really big fan of "say what you mean and mean what you say." I don't know where I am on the scale of advanced but I know I am still a learner in this game and I do appreciate insightful articles like Mike wrote - yeah I got it because I see things the same way, but would it detract from his article to perhaps dumb it down a little for all to get? I don't think so.