Who is the first after the big tree?

[tmurdeR]

green

[doulos]

The only way to stop your face from hurting it to stop smashing it against that chain link fence.

[doulos]

Hockeypoolgeek,

It looks like you had some wires crossed there, or perhaps I misread it.

From the list you gave it looked like you had Green with a 25 EV earlier on, but with a 30 in your top players list at the end.

I think given the criteria that you laid out that Brodeur would have been the optimum pick for #4.

Ya know someone should make a website where I can crunch these numbers and use it for my draft. OH wait. You already did!!

[Shoeless]

doulos wrote:

Hockeypoolgeek,

It looks like you had some wires crossed there, or perhaps I misread it.

From the list you gave it looked like you had Green with a 25 EV earlier on, but with a 30 in your top players list at the end.

I think given the criteria that you laid out that Brodeur would have been the optimum pick for #4.

Ya know someone should make a website where I can crunch these numbers and use it for my draft. OH wait. You already did!!

Geek might have used the original D average at 43 and Green\'s actual points at 73 to arrive at 30 EV but not sure.

I\'m really confused - Green gets 73 in 68 games and a fairly large number of folks are really sure he won\'t hit 70 this next season. Where is that coming from?

[doulos]

Perhaps, I totally get where he\'s coming from with the analogy, just thought it was interesting to note.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Sloppy editing! Green @ 70 points should be a 25 EV. I was just tyring to find some common ground...

Dutch and Joos are right though - it\'s not a no-brainer to take Green at #4, it\'s a matter of personal preference and comfort.

I\'m both a Green and Lundqvist owner, so I\'m happy either way.

Personally, I think he\'s good for at least 75 (if he\'s healthy, which I\'m not entirely convinced of but don\'t have any better information), which is at least worth 30. I\'ll stop monopolizing the thread with my poorly proofread geekery...

Thanks for the pimping, Doulos!

[pudge]

Good analysis Geek,

I would say that your projections are obviously highly debatable (but that doesn\'t matter)... here\'s what I\'d suggest for your site... buy all the magazines + Dobber and add the projections together to get an average projection? At least that\'s an objective (from your position) approach to the projections... obviously not possible now...

That said there is another level needed to the analysis...
and that is the extreme ends of each positional spectrum... When you are looking at only 24 goalies vs 48 defencemen and given the positional requirements (only 1 goalie gets credit for a win per game) it becomes more important...

Unfortunately for you I have no idea how you can nail down the formula to calculate for each round etc... but basically it\'s something along the lines of looking at combos of EV spread across positions... BrianSTC touched on it with his if you drafted Green and then every pick was a goalie until your next pick you could take Miller... basically it depends on the depth of the top end EV...

Here\'s an example:

If there are 8 goalies with an EV of 20... and everyone took a goalie in one round it would be a wash... if there were 7 with an EV of 20 and then it dropped to 10 for the next 9 goalies... whoever took the 8th goalie loses out... so it depends where the significant drops in EV lie and whether you can pass on a player and still get one with similar EV on your next pick...

There needs to be ranges of EV... because the bottom end guys obviously aren\'t gonna get taken until the later rounds... and the potential is there that they significantly distort the EV at the top end... this is especially the case for Goalies... Obviously you don\'t want to pass on a goalie twice, if you don\'t take your first goalie till 15 are already gone you\'re in trouble... but you can take Green and still land more than likely in the 4 or 5 spot for goalies...

So yeah I love the stat breakdowns but I think it\'s an oversimplification of the whole draft and obviously some of the things like when everyone takes their G\'s can change your process...

**** Pause for breath***

Ok... Now the next thing to look at is the advantage gained over what percentage of the field in terms of EV... this is easiest to see by lookin at one of the big 3 (I\'ll go with AO cause it\'s easiest to type, AND I\'m gonna give all of them the same EV)....

If you have 1st pick and you take AO, you look at the next 7 forwards
Malkin 45
Crosby 45
Iginal 25
Kane 20
St.Louis 20
Kovalchuk 20
Heatley 20.

So by taking AO first you can say that after round 1 (assume everyone takes an F) you have a 20 pt edge over 1GM, you have a 25pt edge over 4GM\'s and you are even with 2GM\'s...

This all needs to be taken into consideration... there are \"tiers\" of EV that you need to try and land yourself in.

[pudge]

Dutch wrote:

I never called anyone crazy, I said that I wish I was in a league with him. Because of the fact I think I would have the clear advantage with selecting the 2 players I think would be more valuable, over the 2 he thinks.

A: I didn\'t ever mention 2 players... I said to take Green.. you came out of nowhere with a 2nd player for me.

B: You are arguing the logic in this thread, you are just saying you think Green is overrated. That is fine, you can think whatever you want about any player... that\'s the point of fantasy hockey. But don\'t pretend like you\'re making a good case for the numbers of positional play...

C: I agree there is nothing personal here for me, and I haven\'t been offended by anything you\'ve said.... I don\'t think saying you wish you were in my pool was out of line at all...

Cheers!

[fantasyhockeygeek]

No doubt, pudge, no doubt. +1 (when I reload)

To me, that\'s just called watching a draft unfold and adjusting your strategy accordingly. The way I see it, just because one can hack apart the real contributing value of players on a team doesn\'t mean that\'s the order they should be drafted in.

The \"EV\" list I look at just describes what the position-adjusted value of the player is -- it\'s still up to the GM drafting to sort out who they should take and when based on how the draft is unfolding.

Wouldn\'t want to take all the fun out of it... :lol:

I also wouldn\'t want to pull together the average industry projections - it\'s more than a little unethical to take someone else\'s work and give it away for free. Not my style.

Am I the only one who is tempted to make a Chara joke based on this thread title?

[Shoeless]

I am intrigued. Wonderful thread for the most part. Not sure the answer is truly exposed yet but talk about providing fodder!!

Pudge you are a better man than I am. (stand alone thought)

Pudge, I agree that the model might simplify too much but certainly there is merit in that gap analysis is part of the solution to the puzzle. Your allusion to finding the way to weave the probabilities of selection by round into the mix is what now has my attention.

Geek - what can I say but thanks for all the hard work in this thread - I am very much a benefactor.

Edit: I am going for a long motorbike trip today and I know damn well my mind will be on means, modes, medians, correlations.

[doulos]

You know, if ever we could get all these brains on the same page we\'d have a Deep Dobber computer and would have solved fantasy hockey.

[Nieuwendyk]

I slept on it and revisited this thread again and realize that if I introduced any sort of stats, Green would always win out at the #4 slot. hockeypoolgeek definitely went to the moon and back with that EV stuff. A forward would be a little silly at the #4 slot because the point spread between the top 3 and the next best forward is not great enough in comparison to the value of the forward you can get at a later round.

There has to be a way to wrap all these individual stats up and consider all the individual pieces in the entire team, but I don\'t think this is possible until an entire draft unfolds... Stats are stats, but my gut still tells me that Green is not the right choice at #4 and a goalie is the more sensible choice.

I\'m now more curious to develop this topic on a more subjective level.

1) Once Green is nabbed at #4, the EV choice would be to select Kipper at #13. Would you do it?

2) I noticed with the EV analysis that after Green, the level of defensemen were more or less comparable with each other. However, the drop-off of EV falls quite dramatically past the 5th ranked goalie.

That\'s the beauty of being subjective, we can all argue that some of the lower EV ranked goalies can perform better than what they did last year and Green is going to play at a point-per-game clip for the next decade. But, going by stats, the scarcity of goalies or Green\'s abnormal dman stat may lean towards either or.

3) Another thought. Once Green is taken at #4, when will be the next round you will draft your next defenesemen? But mainly, I\'m concerned with what would be the point discrepancy between Green and the next dmen?

[BrianSTC]

I would just like to add a couple of more cents to this thread:

Dutch, the problem with your stance is that you have a bias against Green. Having a bias for or against any player in fantasy hockey is detrimental to your judgement...

Green hit 73 points in 68 games and he is only 23 years old!
To say that he has hit his maximum just doesn\'t make too much sense. Just based on stats it looks like if Green had an injury free season with another year of experience under his belt, he should be able to hit at least 80 points.

To say you have a \"feeling\" about a player you have made it known that you don\'t like...that is fantasy hockey disaster IMHO.

[saywhaaaaat]

The original poster indicated that its an 8 team league.

Thus, I present the average point total of the top 8 players at each skater position for the 2008-09 season:

C: 93.8
LW: 86.9
RW: 76.0
D: 60.0

Green put up 73 points last season That\'s 13 above the average total of the top 8 dmen. In other words, he\'s 13 points better than you\'d expect from a #1 fantasy dman in your league.

To match that RELATIVE production by position, one of your opponents would need to have a 106.8 point center, a 99.9 point LW, or an 89.0 point RW.

Only Malkin, Ovechkin and Iginla met those thresholds last season.

AND GREEN REACHED THIS ELITE THRESHOLD PLAYING IN ONLY 68 GAMES!

If you think he\'s a band-aid boy, or a fluke, obviously avoid him. Otherwise, he\'s pure gold, and an easy fourth pick among skaters.

[saywhaaaaat]

saywhaaaaat wrote:

The original poster indicated that its an 8 team league.

Thus, I present the average point total of the top 8 players at each skater position for the 2008-09 season:

C: 93.8
LW: 86.9
RW: 76.0
D: 60.0

Looking at that breakdown, its eye-opening to see just how crappy RWs are relative to LWs and Cs right now...

Off-topic, but I think Iginla is incredibly underrated in fantasy circles, and should get at least minor consideration for the #4 pick. He\'s one of two wings (with Ovie) to average 90+ points over the last three seasons... elite company.