If you go to the league breakdown, you'll see there are two tables, one for average and one for replacement.

You'd have to pull that data from the rankings themselves, I guess.

I'm not sure what valued you'd get from comparing against different RW slots (#1 RW, #3 RW, etc) though... either way you want a single "reference point" against which to compare a player, regardless of which RW spot they fill.

Hah, funny how perspective works -- I'd argue that's the advantage with z-scores. If a player is soooo bad at filling up a given bucket, even if they're filling a few other buckets, it should be a major hit to their value. Downplaying those "knocks" has a massive cumulative negative effect on the performance of a team.

__________________

Yeah definitely... but with that said, most leagues aren't cumulative based, you don't get 1 overall z-score as a score for the week, you break it down category by category...

So if I get 1 more goal than my opponent in H2H I win that category, so it's not about how much above the standard deviation I am... I can be 3 s.d. above in 3 categories, but 0.1 s.d. below in the other 3, and I still 50/50 my win/loss ratio, but my cumulative s.d. for a player would be huge because I was so high in the 3 but low in the 3 losses... or the other scenario where I might have a player that is really crappy in 2 stats (-3 s.d.), but good enough to secure me 4 stats (0.1 s.d), the overall picture would paint him to be a bad fantasy player, but in a H2H scenario he might be a "good own" cause he helps me in 4 categories at the cost of just 2...

which is where a player like Sedin for instance could provide you with such great value because in the areas that he is so strong in, he's so far above the rest of the alternatives that you could single handedly secure a couple of stats as opposed to being "across the board".

I find Thornton the same boat, which is why I'm constantly left scratching my head why his value he's constantly under-rated... Yes his G, SOG are very low compared to his tier of Cs but his A, +/- and PPP are so far above the average that it gives him such an edge that you're trading 3 stats for 2... In H2H it's about winning half + the tie breaker to secure victory, you don't need to win anymore than that.

Roto is a little bit different, because you are after higher "highs", but you also don't want low "lows" as well. You have to have an "across the board" team. So you kinda want to have players with higher standard deviations... but there's also a limit on those standard deviations as well, like you don't want a team that crushes everyone in goals, but you are crap in assists, +/- and PIM...

For me I want to secure enough to get me the victory, and grabbing the best player that will get it done for me.

That's where I find z-scores a bit of a dilemma, because you're adding all the z-scores to paint an overall picture of a player, but in fantasy, player values are judged by individual categories as opposed to a cumulative score. A scenario like Kessel would be great for H2H cause he helps out in 4 categories while sacrificing 2, which would lead to a small victory. The only problem for me is the 4 areas in which Kessel is strong in there is leeway for error, whereas an option like Sedin, because the areas of his strength are so much more than the average of the alternative, I can lock his strengths away and not have to worry too much about leeway for error.

__________________
Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

Great analysis Ryan, very interesting stuff.

This confirms what I've known all along... that Nash SUCKS

I dunno Nash is an interesting case, I don't think anyone can argue if the talent is there, but he's also never really had much help in CLB either.

Going to NY he'll have Richards and Gabby plus Callahan, Stepan, Kreider, Hagelin... so he'll have much more offensive support. With that said, he also isn't going to get the ice-time that he did with the Blue Jackets (19:05 and 3:27) in NY, so that might be a leveling factor as well.

Keep in mind that Gabby only hit 76 points last season and Richards only hit 66, so I mean you have to keep Nash's numbers in check and not expecting something overly unachievable as well.

One thing that's interesting with the Rangers is that under Torts they've been a very consistent team. 2.71 GF/G last season, 2.73 the year before, and 2.67 the season before that, now there's no evidence to prove that they have to be within that range heading into this season, but if you follow the trends that's probably where I would peg them. They did lose Anisimov's 36 points and Dubinsky's 34 points and Fedotenko's 20 points, so I mean there's 90 points to spread back around elsewhere within the team. Let's say Richards picks up a few more points (10-15), Nash posts 65-70 that essentially means everyone will stay status quo if the Rangers keep around the 2.70 GF/G mark. That's probably how I would approach it.

If I were a Nash owner, I'd probably prefer that he stayed in CLB (and garner a ton of ice-time being the "go-to guy") and hopefully get a bit more help around him than for him to go to NY and become a "role player".

__________________
Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

I think you need to be a little clearer here and draw an important distinction: value to your team is judged by individual categories. I'm not by any means saying you don't need to manage specific categories because you absolutely do, but I am saying that holistic player valuation happens separately from that. If you're running away with the A and PPP categories in a matchup and lacking in the PIM that'll seal the win, does that mean you should punt Henrik or Thornton for Konopka because the value to your team of Konopka is that much higher? Of course not! It's a simplistic example, but it demonstrates that "value to my team" and "player value" need to be separate concepts.

You're certainly right that each category is measured by the individual stats and that the margin of a win is a single point/shot/PPP/etc but those can still be expressed in terms of z-scores (ie standard deviations within that stat from a point of reference).

The inherent risk to managing as you suggest -- not giving full weight to extremely poor performance in "punt" categories -- is that your team is considerably more vulnerable to cold streaks and injuries. As long as you can accept/manage that risk you might be better off, but I'm not convinced.

My view has always been that you can maximize value on your team (independent of team needs) while managing to category needs (as you need to) - it lets you have strong trade value to address unforeseen needs and gives a better ability to manage variation.

Great discussion.

__________________

Definitely great discussion...

There isn't a right or wrong answer here, it's to each their own.

I certainly get what you're saying about the holistic player valuation. But for me I want to look at a the sum of all parts to generate a better holistic player valuation. I definitely agree with you on the argument of "value to my team" as opposed to "player value", I think there are many people out there that confuse the two. Much like "upside" and "actual production"...

I think z-scores are great since it's relative, but I think z-scores might need to be looked at from each individual stat perspective so a z-score for each of G, A, +/-, PIM, SOG and PPP rather than an amalgamation of all of the stats put together to generate an overall "player value". If you look at the Kessel example, he's pretty good at 4 stats, but because he's very below average in 2 categories, he's a 76th ranked player. I mean do you drop him 50 spots because of 2 weaknesses?

But I could see 2 different scenarios as well, H2H Kessel is much more valuable because he gives you an advantage in 4 of 6 categories, which is the key to winning, if you consistently win 4 of 6, you'll be lifting your league championship... but I wouldn't want him in Roto because his lows are so "low" that it's counter productive to own a player like him in Roto. You can't win a Roto league with top scores in 4 categories, but 1's in the other 2...

So league settings play a role in player values as well.

__________________
Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

I'm still at work at the moment, but once I get home I'll dig up a scenario where amalgamated z-scores might not be the best way of identifying player values.

__________________
Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

It's not just that he has 2 weaknesses. He's so horrible in those categories, calling them "weaknesses" doesn't do it justice. He's a few standard deviations below the waiver-level player in PIM and hits, so it's like saying a 20 goal scorer has a "weakness" when compared to a 40 goal scorer. Sure, we've typically got positive biases towards the categories that Kessel fills out, but a category win is a category win.

Look forward to it!

__________________

Here's the Z-Score table...

Attached Images

Top Players Z-scores.jpg (98.1 KB, 4 views)

__________________
Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

Aights home now.

Let's look at Eric Staal.

If you look at his z-scores for G, A, +/-, PIM, PPP and SOG, they're -0.4, 0.0, -2.4, 0.6, 0.2 and 0.4 respectively...

So if you amalgamated all of the z-scores for each of categories, you'd get an overall amalgamated z-score of -1.6, so if someone just went with amalgamated z-scores, they'd be whoa Staal's a -1.6, I'm not touching him with a 10-foot pole... It's not entirely accurate, when it's really +/- that's really letting him down. Everything else he's pretty good at, so is the value of 1 category really worth dropping him that much for? I know in H2H I'd definitely take him since he's advantageous to keep for 3 out of the 6 categories and keeps me on pace for 1 more, while hurting me in G and +/-, but gaining an advantage inf 3 of 6 isn't bad really...

With that said, you (FHG) have adjusted the rankings accordingly so 1 stat doesn't dominate which is good, I just ran default Yahoo! settings and Staal came out ranked 9th overall, so that's pretty good value and pretty much what I expected.

I dunno if I did it wrong but I ran Kessel's and he came out with a 57 FHG (18th) rating, which isn't bad either...

I'd still prefer to look at z-scores from an individual category basis, but I would be very hesitant to amalgamate the scores and use them as my only judge of player value...

__________________
Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12