[The Fantasy Food Groups] Cooking Rotisserie Style

[dyzfunctioned]

Get yer UHL talk outta here, not accepted in Metaldude's Diner!

(cause he didn't want to join )

Yea, apparently MD doesn't take money at his diner.

[GMGates]

Yea, apparently MD doesn't take money at his diner.

Naw, he's that nice! All of these services free of charge

Just wait until you see the menu expansions!

Nevermind the Diner, say hello to the Great MD Superstore! haha...

[horrorfan]

This is awesome, thanks guys. It is very well written and explained, and of course creative. Since rotisserie is my favourite type of league, I'm going to comment on my category likes and dislikes.

Firstly, in summary:

Like for offense: G, A, PPP, SOG, FOW, HIT, BLK
Undecided for offense: +/-, PIM
Dislike for offense: SHP, GWG

Like for goalies: W, GAA, SV, SV%
Undecided for goalies: NONE
Dislike for goalies: SHO

OFFENSE:

Like most of us, goals, assists and power play points are three categories that appeal as they are the bread and butter and reward the more offensively gifted and better players.

Shots on goal works because it tends to reward the more goal scorers, which adds to the strategy. I had thought about shooting percentage as an extra, but after a discussion in a previous thread, it seems too unpredictable.

However, if you are concerned that adding SOG will give too much value to shooters, and likely more wingers, then a perfect complimentary category is faceoffs won. This gives more value to playmakers, usually centremen, and tends to make you decide on team balance - there isn't just the emphasis on shooting or playmaking. Having both categories gives incredible value to wingers with dual eligibility who shoot and take faceoffs e.g. Sharp and Marleau.

As for more peripheral categories that, for those in Yahoo that were just added this season, I particularly like hits and blocked shots. Hits gives more value to grittier, more aggressive players, and potentially could replace PIM in some leagues. As for blocked shots, it gives a defender more value (depending on league depth) and not just focusing on a player's offensive talents.

I'm not sure about plus/minus, as it tends to be more focused on team play, rather than the individual player. However, given that it's a standard category, it tends to be accepted as an automatic entry. I'm still on the fence.

As for penalty minutes, normally I would accept this as a category since there wasn't a 'toughness' category in Yahoo leagues before (I know you could argue 'toughness', but you see my point). However, with the addition of hits, I'm not sure you need it any more, as you are rewarding those that hurt the actual team. To take the other view briefly, it's fantasy and it doesn't always have to reflect reality, so for those who want to reward more players who sent to the box, then there's nothing wrong with it.

Two categories I dislike are short handed points and game winning goals. Especially in a roto league, where each category is ranked equally, there are too few such points when short handed to go around that it has a more significant effect on the overall standings. Personally, I would be annoyed if I lost the league because my competition has nine short handed points to my eight.

Game winning goals are too random, especially as many of them occur in the early part of the game, and also isn't always predictable. Those reasons are enough for me to omit them from my leagues, or ignore leagues with it as a category.

GOALIES:

Wins is the most common goalie category, and some argue that it doesn't accurately reflect the quality of the goalie, but more on the team. However, being the only (well in Yahoo anyway) category that rewards the outcome, I'm happy to keep it. Goals against average is the other automatic in my books, as doesn't need explained any further.

I feel that saves and save percentage should always be included together. It makes you play your goalies regularly, but also makes you wary of playing them at the right time, as more games could mean a decrease in SV%, especially as the season progresses. If you only have saves, then you could play your goalies at will and not have to worry as much about matchups (you could argue this, but generally speaking). If you only had SV%, you might be inclined to sit your goalies more often if your SV% ranking is high enough. This would be the case especially if only three goalie categories, and only two of them were percentage based.

I don't like including shutouts for the same reason as short handed points. There are too few of them to go around, and thus gives too much importance to one category. Also it doesn't always reflect the quality of the goalie. A basic and general example, if goalie A has 6 shutouts (and 5 of them he made less than 20 saves), and goalie B has 1 shutout (but his GAA/SV% is better), who's the better goalie?

-------

Anyway, that about covers it. Feel free to agree/disagree with my reasoning.

This is a good topic and I feel could lead into another discussion (perhaps another column idea?) where you discuss how best to balance your categories between offense and goaltending.

Thanks for reading.

[metaldude26]

Horrorfan,

I definitely agree with most of your assessments and hopefully that was conveyed in the article.

Personally, I hate GWG as a category. It just doesn't make any sense. If they were to change it to true game winners, you know where the game is tied and the guy scores the goal that causes the difference, then I'd see the value but as it is it doesn't matter when the player scores but rather just that he does score. Case in point, in one league I am 2nd in goals but last in game winners. Are my guys not clutch? Maybe but it seems more likely I've just been unlucky. There's no rhyme or reason to GWG as a category and that's why it wasn't even on the menu. GWG are not allowed in my diner!

I disagree on SHP though. For me there is a distinction to when they are valuable and when they are not. It really depends on the type of league and how deep it is. I play a lot of Yahoo! H2H and in that format SHP makes no sense because you might only get one or two a week. In a shallower rotisserie league I think it can make sense. There are particular players (Mike Richards, Claude Giroux and Rick Nash, off the top of my head) who consistently produce strong SHP numbers. I agree they are fairly infrequent and too few in number to be a mandatory category but if you are looking to make things a little more interesting I think it adds value. Like if you play in a league with six skater categories and two of them are hits and blocked shots then that's a lot of value on defensive defensemen. You can hand some power over to the forwards again by adding SHP.

I also agree on +/-. It's a dietary staple but it's still annoying as hell. When the idea for +/- as vegetables popped into my head I knew I had something I could run with as a whole article.

I agree with your take on shutouts as annoying but I still think that they have value depending on the league. As I said, I play a lot of H2H. I love having shutouts as a category because any given week your goalie can bail you out with a big shutout on Sunday. For me that element is awesome. It's why I play a lot of H2H. In rotisserie though, I see why there's little value. Most goalies are consistently within a couple shutouts of each other for the year so there's very little distinction and often simply requires luck. Basically, it's only purpose is to add another goalie category to keep people honest. It serves it's purpose but yeah you don't need it. That's why we felt it was a lot like wine. When you want to get down and boogie shutouts are fun, but you only want them in moderation.

Ultimately what's so fun about cooking up a fantasy league is that you get to make your own meal. No dish is for everyone and that's why it's great that there's so many meal options available. Maybe you like a little bit of everything so you order the buffet or maybe you prefer to have your meal catered to your specific needs. You might even be lazy so you just order in a standard meal or maybe you get even lazier and you just take someone's leftovers. There's no "correct choice" just a complete menu of options.

Thanks for the read and the discussion. We are more than happy to bounce around ideas because that's what's going to help make this article series achieve its full potential.

[spencergough]

Hey MD - for Maitre'D, that is!

Nice work here. I think it's really important for Roto poolies to think about stats in groups. The menu approach is a neat way to think about how the categories relate, and I'm looking forward to reading through it a couple more times to get some new perspectives on how to approach strategies for next year.

For the sake of debate, I thought I'd bring up my point from February's Top 100 Roto Players thread (link here). There I argued that there was a greater correlation between goals and shots-on-goal than between Hits and PIM. Horrorfan's suggestion above - that including shots on goal as a category "tends to reward the more goal scorers" and thus by extension increases the value of the goals category - seems to support this idea, as does GMG's Market Buzz article in March's Top 100 Roto Keeper Players guide, on Roto studs who specialize in both goals and shots on goal.

So, in other words, why would SOG be a condiment if Goals is Water?

[metaldude26]

Hey MD - for Maitre'D, that is!

Nice work here. I think it's really important for Roto poolies to think about stats in groups. The menu approach is a neat way to think about how the categories relate, and I'm looking forward to reading through it a couple more times to get some new perspectives on how to approach strategies for next year.

For the sake of debate, I thought I'd bring up my point from February's Top 100 Roto Players thread (link here). There I argued that there was a greater correlation between goals and shots-on-goal than between Hits and PIM. Horrorfan's suggestion above - that including shots on goal as a category "tends to reward the more goal scorers" and thus by extension increases the value of the goals category - seems to support this idea, as does GMG's Market Buzz article in March's Top 100 Roto Keeper Players guide, on Roto studs who specialize in both goals and shots on goal.

So, in other words, why would SOG be a condiment if Goals is Water?

Solid question. The thinking I'm trying to get away from is that goals and SOG are directly related. Yes there is a correlation between the two. You have to shoot to score of course but they are also two mutually exclusive categories with a ton of merit on their own.

As outlined in the article Goals are water because they are essential as a category. One way or another you will incorporate them into your pool so put them on a whole other level. Unless you are ordering the water refill (points) you cannot ruin goals (or assists) as rotisserie categories. They are simply a must have.

SOG are condiments because they are a staple of rotisserie leagues. You don't have to use them but you'll find them everywhere and they are a perfect compliment to any meal. You just use them to fill in the gaps as necessary.

Remember that PPP and +/- also have direct links to Goals and Assists as categories. So don't think of SOG as merely connected to Goals and therefore redundant. Getting pucks on net is a skill unto itself and I personally believe it's indicative more of a player's actual value than it is of his goal scoring touch. There are plenty of players who put up huge SOG totals but a limited number of goals. These are often third line grinders that simply bring something else to the table but if they are getting any points, be it goals or assists, it's a direct result of their ability to get pucks on net because a lot of these grinders rely on traffic and generating rebounds.

I also think that SOG are simply the most dependable stat in the game making it an excellent rotisserie category. Think about it. Scoring streaks come and go but SOG are usually consistent week to week. To me no skater category is more important than the SOG category in rotisserie. If you control it your team can withstand any slump.

So just think of it this way. You have to have goals and assists that's just a given so what's the one thing you know you'll be able to count on when meal time comes? It's gonna be the ketchup and the salt and the pepper because those never go out of style.

[spencergough]

Getting pucks on net is a skill unto itself and I personally believe it's indicative more of a player's actual value than it is of his goal scoring touch. There are plenty of players who put up huge SOG totals but a limited number of goals. These are often third line grinders that simply bring something else to the table but if they are getting any points, be it goals or assists, it's a direct result of their ability to get pucks on net because a lot of these grinders rely on traffic and generating rebounds.

This is a fair point. It wouldn't be an old adage if it weren't true: "Get the puck on net!" I'm with you on SOG as one of the most dependable/predictable categories to bank on, which arguably makes it unlike goals. Some teams definitely use and rely on "shooters" to create goals; Dustin Byfuglien comes to mind - who on pace to be a Monster in shots even though he's a defenceman, and who also, not inconsequentially, leads all defencemen in goals. It's true that getting the puck on net generates offense. I'm intrigued also by Henrik Zetterberg's season (or last two seasons, more accurately): lots of points, but where have his goals gone? He shoots the puck a ton. It's probably just that he's a really good playmaker as well, so sometimes (or often) shooting the puck works to generate offense like making sweet passes can. Compare Marty St. Louis or Kopitar.

I'm a bit curious as to which third line grinders you meant who shoot a ton... the only guy I can think of who fits your description is Tyler Kennedy. Some other forwards who haven't scored a lot despite high shot totals this season include Booth, Pavelski, Hornqvist, Vrbata, Havlat, Steen and Frolik - but I have a feeling there could be team factors at play here, as these guys seem to be mostly of the offensive-minded type. Maybe Vrbata fits into your mold? I haven't really been following Phoenix's lines, but was surprised to see they're in the top third in the league in terms of goals for per game.

[metaldude26]

I'm a bit curious as to which third line grinders you meant who shoot a ton... the only guy I can think of who fits your description is Tyler Kennedy. Some other forwards who haven't scored a lot despite high shot totals this season include Booth, Pavelski, Hornqvist, Vrbata, Havlat, Steen and Frolik - but I have a feeling there could be team factors at play here, as these guys seem to be mostly of the offensive-minded type. Maybe Vrbata fits into your mold? I haven't really been following Phoenix's lines, but was surprised to see they're in the top third in the league in terms of goals for per game.

That's a solid question and I'll start off by saying that by "shoots a ton" I meant relative to their goal totals. The specific player I was thinking of when making that comment was Sean Avery who by all accounts is an excellent player in rotisserie but won't make a dent for you in goals.

Some other examples include Jason Blake (post-Islanders), Tyler Kennedy (as you mentioned), Brandon Dubinsky used to be one of these guys, Jochen Hecht, Adam Hall, Antti Miettinen and Matt Cullen all fit the bill for me.

I also like some of the more top line guys that won't go for huge goal totals but still manage a healthy SOG total. Guys like Mikko Koivu, Tim Connolly, Travis Zajac, and some of your examples. These guys simply understand the best way for them to make an impact is not always to be making passes even if it's what they are best at. Teams are looking for them to be passers and thus they have to shoot more to generate the scoring chances.

[You Know]

Great article, I particularly like the addition of the vintage wines. That brought a smile to my face!

I feel the same way about SHP. I like them as they given well rounded players some additional value, and they can be predictable to a point in that certain players rack them up every year.

I particularly dislike GWG given the dart board aspect of them, and not pro triple 20 darts, more like drunken, blindfolded throw reverse over your shoulder darts.

I tend to dislike SOs, as often goalies in my opinion are already overvalued given their limited number on a roster yet the high % of categories they are responsible for in most leagues. When there's a shutout you are almost assuredly to get a W out of the game, along with a 100% SV%, and 0.00 GAA, and a number of SVs, so in my opinion why throw a bonus on top of all of that?

Just as a suggestion, an interesting follow-up could include the balancing of different roster positions or other elements when setting up a league, as I'd really be interested on your take given your experience in various league set-ups.

Anyway, great creative article, a fabulous read!

[spencergough]

What about counting shoot-out goals (for skaters) or shoot-out saves (for goalies)? Surely this is a skill which matters in real hockey but is quite rarely valued in fantasy hockey...

[horrorfan]

Just as a suggestion, an interesting follow-up could include the balancing of different roster positions or other elements when setting up a league, as I'd really be interested on your take given your experience in various league set-ups.

This is a good suggestion. Firstly, you could have an initial article, say in late August, when people are doing research and thinking about what leagues to join/form. It would be helpful with setup as finding the right balance between roster positions/depth and categories could have an effect on the quality of the league.

You could then have three articles, possibly in early to mid September, highlighting three different league setups. Perhaps even keep the menu idea to describe it. For example:

League 1: One course - G,A,+/-,PIM,PPP,SOG
League 2: Two courses - G,A,+/-,PIM,PPP,SHP,SOG,FW
League 3: Three courses - G,A,+/-,PIM,PPP,SHP,SOG,FW,HIT,BLK

There are a couple different ways you can look at it:

1) Highlight players that are more valuable given the categories (e.g. Iginla, Brown, Backes), those that may be a bit overvalued (e.g. Thornton, Eriksson, Campbell), and a few sleepers as well for those late round picks.

2) Rather than looking at players individually, you can look at a roster as a whole to see what balance is best for the squad. Perhaps pretend you are at the draft table, and looking on how your team is shaping up and what players to target and which to avoid. Also you can include what categories to focus on early and what categories can wait until later or for FA pickups.

Thoughts?

[GMGates]

This is a good suggestion. Firstly, you could have an initial article, say in late August, when people are doing research and thinking about what leagues to join/form. It would be helpful with setup as finding the right balance between roster positions/depth and categories could have an effect on the quality of the league.

You could then have three articles, possibly in early to mid September, highlighting three different league setups. Perhaps even keep the menu idea to describe it. For example:

League 1: One course - G,A,+/-,PIM,PPP,SOG
League 2: Two courses - G,A,+/-,PIM,PPP,SHP,SOG,FW
League 3: Three courses - G,A,+/-,PIM,PPP,SHP,SOG,FW,HIT,BLK

There are a couple different ways you can look at it:

1) Highlight players that are more valuable given the categories (e.g. Iginla, Brown, Backes), those that may be a bit overvalued (e.g. Thornton, Eriksson, Campbell), and a few sleepers as well for those late round picks.

2) Rather than looking at players individually, you can look at a roster as a whole to see what balance is best for the squad. Perhaps pretend you are at the draft table, and looking on how your team is shaping up and what players to target and which to avoid. Also you can include what categories to focus on early and what categories can wait until later or for FA pickups.

Thoughts?

and this is why I keep you around, HF!

A lot of food for thought, and I'm sure something will definitely get cooked up with these top notch ingredients.

I'll make sure the Chef puts these in his recipe book!

haha

[horrorfan]

and this is why I keep you around, HF!

A lot of food for thought, and I'm sure something will definitely get cooked up with these top notch ingredients.

I'll make sure the Chef puts these in his recipe book!

haha

Cool. Yeah it's quite a bit but figured I'm giving enough notice.

[JagrBomb]

you guys...are INSANE! hahahah, love the menus.