HPG - Team Evaluation Tool

[horrorfan]

Figured I'd make this question public so others can contribute and/or easily see the answer(s).

Does the team evaluation tool incorporate the maximum number of games per positional slot? My roto team has a 70 game maximum, but checking the 'selected' category totals, it seems to count the entire season's projection rather than the adjusted totals. Comparing them to the 'required' totals, I'm not sure if these numbers have considered it as well. Without incorporating the games limit prevents us from accurately determining what are our strengths and weaknesses. I have double checked my league details and have correctly inputted 70 games per position.

Thanks in advance.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Hi Brandon,

This is an interesting point you've raised. The GP maximums are used currently in the calculation of the bench utilization: in a max GP league, if there are more games available than your players will play then you get more use out of the bench.

We haven't considered the flip-side in the detail you're talking about, mostly because we simply hadn't considered the case of a league where the starting players would outproduce the available GP slots.

So the question then refines to how it makes sense to treat the "average player" in this league - is it the player themself, or a player down-weighted to 70 GP (if their GP is projected to be more)? Is it better to leave the player valuation calculations in tact (ie based on the players actual projected number of GP) or to scale them down to a 70-GP base?

If you leave the player valuation as-is, then what is the sensible way to adjust the targets? Just scale it down to the 70-GP base for each position? I'm not sure if that's the sensible way to go, because then the players you enter would be with their actual numbers (based on their individual GP numbers) against 70 GP targets.

The challenge here is that the internal consistency within the system needs to be maintained. I'd suggest that the most rational fix is to feed in a set of statistics that has every player with >70 GP, "down-adjusted" to 70 GP.

What are your thoughts?

[horrorfan]

That seems like the simplest, and probably the best solution. Obviously the tool is a snapshot and uses projections so the only thing required is to be based on the exact settings. A simple adjustment of their numbers to a 70 game average would be fine.

From then, it's up to us how or whether we want to use it, but at least we can properly compare what is projected to what is 'likely' required to be successful in such a league.

Thanks.

[Shoeless]

I think this whole thing is going to get screwy on you in any case, because of dual eligibilities and the fact that there are some generic positions like UTIL or F or W in your league, Brandon. Having Ovechkin playing 70 games at LW and 12 games at Util is going to make it tough for the system to generate anything really accurate for production.

[horrorfan]

Rick, yeah I know because of the different positions it won't be perfect and I don't expect it to account for such positional adjustments. However, it would at least give me a general idea if I'm particularly strong or weak in specific categories, and can manually adjust slightly based on whom I feel will play more or less than 70 games in my starting lineup.

Of course most of my decisions will be made by my own analysis and instinct along the way, however this early snapshot can put my team into perspective, and maybe there are some glaring weaknesses that I have not considered. Since this league is the one where you are an NHL team and can only roster current or former players, the standard roto evaluation goes out the window, as some top guys like Ovechkin are not owned (no Capitals team).

Paul, if this is a lot of work for you with little gain, then you don't have to do anything, and I can evaluate it differently. Just thought it would be interesting to see how it would look with an adjusted set of data.

[Shoeless]

In that case, doesn't an 82 game max give you the comparative strength anyway?

[horrorfan]

In that case, doesn't an 82 game max give you the comparative strength anyway?

Interesting, I didn't think of that.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Paul, if this is a lot of work for you with little gain, then you don't have to do anything, and I can evaluate it differently. Just thought it would be interesting to see how it would look with an adjusted set of data.

It's not trivial to implement; we'll stick it on the development list (which is constantly growing!) but not right at the top.

In that case, doesn't an 82 game max give you the comparative strength anyway?

Yup, certainly would accomplish what you're after.

Is this all relatively intelligent to you horrorfan?

[horrorfan]

It's not trivial to implement; we'll stick it on the development list (which is constantly growing!) but not right at the top.



Yup, certainly would accomplish what you're after.

Is this all relatively intelligent to you horrorfan?

Yep, funny how something that I felt might have been more complicated, but the easy answer was right in front of me. Thanks guys.