Question re: new Dobberprospects grading

[jman]

Hey guys, I just had a look at the new player and team pages at Dobberprospects. They are very impressive! Your work there is greatly appreciated.

I have a question regarding the 'fantasy upside' and 'NHL certainty' ratings. I suppose you can view these as relative, however, are there some comparisons to draw from or descriptions for each rating?
For example, let's take Miro Heiskanen. He has these ratings: fantasy upside 8.5 and NHL certainty 8.0. What do those numbers indicate and which current NHL player might that coincide with.

Thanks for your time.

[Jouko-Pouko]

All ratings are between 0 and 10. 10 is for the super elite prospects like McDavid, Matthews, Laine, Dahlin... Hopefully that explains things a bit.

[jman]

Thanks Juoko. So, I know you are a Heiskanen fan. 8.5 upside is comparable to...?

[lucafen4]

There does appear to be some homerism in the ratings to start. I'm not sure if a specific formula was issued to the writers of each team to follow (if not, I think there should be). I'm as big of a Leafs homer as anyone, but Dermott's fantasy upside is 8.0 - Heiskanen's is 8.5. What does that translate to? 55 vs 50pts? 50 vs. 45?

I think most would agree, there's at least a perceived larger gap between the two at their peaks. At least I believe Dermott's a decent bit behind Heiskanen in terms of upside.

Like any prospect list or rating - it's meant as a guide by those that make careers out of grading players. Yet there is still room for error and curve. You should still be making your own final interpretation and grade of prospects.

Sticking with the Dermott example.
Valimaki is listed at an 8.0;
Rasmus Andersson is listed at 7.5;
Mitch Vande Sompel 8.5;
Parker Wotherspoon 8.5
Julius Honka 7.0
Heiskaneinen 8.5.

I'm not sure I would put Wotherspoon's fantasy upside = to Heiskaneinen's.

The concept is good, I love the rating systems, but there's obviously bugs as writers etc merge to using the same measuring stick.

[Jouko-Pouko]

There does appear to be some homerism in the ratings to start. I'm not sure if a specific formula was issued to the writers of each team to follow (if not, I think there should be). I'm as big of a Leafs homer as anyone, but Dermott's fantasy upside is 8.0 - Heiskanen's is 8.5. What does that translate to? 55 vs 50pts? 50 vs. 45?

I think most would agree, there's at least a perceived larger gap between the two at their peaks. At least I believe Dermott's a decent bit behind Heiskanen in terms of upside.

Like any prospect list or rating - it's meant as a guide by those that make careers out of grading players. Yet there is still room for error and curve. You should still be making your own final interpretation and grade of prospects.

Sticking with the Dermott example.
Valimaki is listed at an 8.0;
Rasmus Andersson is listed at 7.5;
Mitch Vande Sompel 8.5;
Parker Wotherspoon 8.5
Julius Honka 7.0
Heiskaneinen 8.5.

I'm not sure I would put Wotherspoon's fantasy upside = to Heiskaneinen's.

The concept is good, I love the rating systems, but there's obviously bugs as writers etc merge to using the same measuring stick.

You're absolutely right about all the points here. Dermott and Wotherspoon especially seem high to me.

8.5 for defensemen means somewhere between 55 and 60 points. That seems good for Heiskanen but very few defensemen deserve to be that high.

[lucafen4]

You're absolutely right about all the points here. Dermott and Wotherspoon especially seem high to me.

8.5 for defensemen means somewhere between 55 and 60 points. That seems good for Heiskanen but very few defensemen deserve to be that high.

Maybe Leafs fans should have to cover Habs & Sens prospects? It'll even out over time I'm sure.. I am a huge fan of the added clarification on upside/NHL likelihood.

hockeyfutures had this, but I believe stopped updating the prospect pages and just continued with the forums. it was also NOT from a fantasy perspective, which left a lot for fantasy GM's to interpret on their own.

[ericdaoust]

Meh, this is version 1.0, I'm sure it will be corrected over time

[jman]

I agree, it is definitely a great upgrade to the site. I was going to mention the old Hockeysfuture thing too. Back when they had that, poolies always needed to try look at those ratings through fantasy goggles. Now, that filter is on for us.

I was going to say that Alex Nylander at 9.0 looks high to me. There's a few other too obviously. But like ericdaoust said, v1.0.

[Jouko-Pouko]

It's also good to remember that upside means absolute best case scenario, so it's not a realistic projection. Don't create rankings based on just upside or even based on upside and NHL certainty. Just because they reach the NHL doesn't mean they're going to hit their upside. Realistic projections are a completely different thing.

That being said, yes, there is still work to be done to get ratings standardized. It's not easy to get 31 people on the same page. We'll continue working on all of this. All the feedback (positive and negative) is good because that's how we know what works and what doesn't. Keep it coming, it's much appreciated.

[als_revenge]

Just spit balling, but would it be possible to use the power of the crowd to provide feedback to the writers on rankings? If 90 percent of Dobberheads think a rating is too high or too low, that writer might want to take another look at it.

Also, given this process has just started, I think people should be cautious about making comparisons across teams; it'll take awhile to standardize things. But the relative rankings within each team, by the same writer, can give very valuable insights from someone who is dedicated to that team.

My last thought is....while I think this product is wonderful, have you considered that if you actually perfect this thing...you could make Dobber's rookie guide somewhat moot?

(I lied). My last thought: if you combined dobber's rookie report with the team pages somehow, that's something I'd be willing to pay for via some annual subscription.

[c4rdsh4rk]

personally i liked the old version. the last part was what i looked forward to most, where it says nhl potential and lists them as what type player they would be with a short description like smooth skating high end passer or elite pp qb, etc. was a short description of what they could become but also what theyd need to overcome or concerns.

it seems that may be put on some of the new profiles at the top, so hopefully we dont lose that.



also i would keep the site free as that is ehat brings ppl here to start and ended up getting my money for the prospect report and fantasy pack. the paid for report sets itself well apart and is worth it.

[newper114]

Agree with c4. The last part calling a summary was the main thing I looked at. It gave an oppion and helped majorly. Now I see on some like one line but not enough info. The details and stats are great and ranking in depth chart look however that summary part was key for me.

Another thing when going on the site on my phone how I cannot scroll all the way down and link to teams that way. Much harder on the phone now to get to team profiles

- - - Updated - - -

Agree with c4. The last part calling a summary was the main thing I looked at. It gave an oppion and helped majorly. Now I see on some like one line but not enough info. The details and stats are great and ranking in depth chart look however that summary part was key for me.

Another thing when going on the site on my phone how I cannot scroll all the way down and link to teams that way. Much harder on the phone now to get to team profiles

[Jouko-Pouko]

personally i liked the old version. the last part was what i looked forward to most, where it says nhl potential and lists them as what type player they would be with a short description like smooth skating high end passer or elite pp qb, etc. was a short description of what they could become but also what theyd need to overcome or concerns.

it seems that may be put on some of the new profiles at the top, so hopefully we dont lose that.



also i would keep the site free as that is ehat brings ppl here to start and ended up getting my money for the prospect report and fantasy pack. the paid for report sets itself well apart and is worth it.

Agree with c4. The last part calling a summary was the main thing I looked at. It gave an oppion and helped majorly. Now I see on some like one line but not enough info. The details and stats are great and ranking in depth chart look however that summary part was key for me.

Another thing when going on the site on my phone how I cannot scroll all the way down and link to teams that way. Much harder on the phone now to get to team profiles

"Fantasy Summary" should have the same information that was previously there under Fantasy Outlook on the old page. Perhaps some writers (perhaps me more than others) have made it too short on the new pages. And perhaps it's missing from some of them. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll take a closer look.

Dobber is working with the developer trying to get the site mobile friendly.

[Dobber]

Just spit balling, but would it be possible to use the power of the crowd to provide feedback to the writers on rankings? If 90 percent of Dobberheads think a rating is too high or too low, that writer might want to take another look at it.

Good suggestion but I won't do this because my way of doing things is go high while far too many people are scared and go very low: every player would probably just have a 50-point upside other than the top 5%! My upsides allow for extremes - clicking on a line with Crosby while in his prime.

My last thought is....while I think this product is wonderful, have you considered that if you actually perfect this thing...you could make Dobber's rookie guide somewhat moot?
.

A) if this happened, I'd have to shut down my sites and declare bankruptcy
B) My Fantasy Prospects Report includes draftees, mock drafts, proper rankings, it also adds other stats such as % chance that the player reaches his upside. It's very presence allows for a full player audit every year - without the FPR we wouldn't have this. It keeps the profile pages honest.
C) Only the top, most trusted longer-term writers contribute to the FPR. About 15. Which means 15 or 16 only contribute to the site - and those ones are still trying to prove themselves and stay on top of things. I'm sure you've noticed that many teams and players are not updated regularly enough.


For Fantasy Upside:

1. No players will be below 2.0, except maybe defensive defensemen who will be lucky to be a depth player in the NHL and at best get 10 points. In fact, if a player is below 2.0 we shouldn't even be profiling him.

2. For forwards, we are to use the FPR here. If they can get 100 points (even if it's a loooong shot), then that's a 10.0. And 90 points is 9.0, 55 points is 5.5 - and less than 55 points for a forward you won't see in the Guide.

3. Some players not in the Guide have a decent upside but low chance of getting to (or "coming to", for Russians) the NHL. So we reflect that in NHL certainty, and do not let it taint our evaluation of their upside. No chance of being an NHLer but tearing up the AHL? Well, look at Moulson and Parenteau and what they did back when they looked like career AHers for sure. It could happen and in their case it did. Guys like that maybe get a 3.0 NHL Certainty, but 6.5 Fantasy Upside. Tearing up the KHL but not sure if they'll come over? Gusev, for example? 4.5 NHL Certainty, but 9.0 Fantasy Upside.

4. For defensemen, a 10.0 is if they can get 70 or more points (rare, obviously). We use:

9.5 for 65

9.0 for 62

8.5 for 58

8.0 for 55

7.5 for 52

7.0 for 48

6.5 for 45

6.0 for 42

5.5 for 40

5.0 for 37

4.5 for 35

4.0 for 32

3.5 for 30 points


5. For goaltenders - most will have an NHL certainty in that 3.0 to 6.5 range because goalies are such a crap shoot. But older goalies who were drafted high and are doing well in lower leagues will be higher (Samsonov, etc.). Fantasy Upside range is 5.5 to 9.5 for starting goalies, reserving 10.0 for only the elite like Samsonov. Backup goalies (potentially - and only if you're absolutely certain they won't be a starter) cap out at 5.5 but would generally be in that 3.0 to 5.5 range. Potential split-start 1A/1B goalies would be in that 5.0 to 7.0 range.



So can Dermott get 55? And is Heiskenen limited to 58? I'd probably eke Dermott down to 7.5 and Heiskenen up to 9.0. But I think there are worse examples, and I wouldn't call this a "homer" call. If you find some real extreme ones let me know. We are still vetting all of these and 31 different opinions are a lot to gather and organize.

[Dobber]

Agree with c4. The last part calling a summary was the main thing I looked at. It gave an oppion and helped majorly. Now I see on some like one line but not enough info. The details and stats are great and ranking in depth chart look however that summary part was key for me.

Another thing when going on the site on my phone how I cannot scroll all the way down and link to teams that way. Much harder on the phone now to get to team profiles

Thank you - This is released, but we are currently working on fixing this for different screen sizes. That is our current focus. Shouldn't be long.

personally i liked the old version. the last part was what i looked forward to most, where it says nhl potential and lists them as what type player they would be with a short description like smooth skating high end passer or elite pp qb, etc. was a short description of what they could become but also what theyd need to overcome or concerns.
it seems that may be put on some of the new profiles at the top, so hopefully we dont lose that.
also i would keep the site free as that is ehat brings ppl here to start and ended up getting my money for the prospect report and fantasy pack. the paid for report sets itself well apart and is worth it.

All profiles have this at the top. I've personally seen over 300 profiles and did find about five had them missing (so I fixed). If you find others let me know so I can fix. There are over 600 profiles that I have not seen.