Players 201-300

Attached Files

_2012-2013 DobberEntry League Drafts 201-300.pdf (18.7 KB, 21 views)

Players 301-400
*Players that were not drafted in a league are all marked as same rank, player #376 (waivers).

Attached Files

_2012-2013 DobberEntry League Drafts 301-400.pdf (17.5 KB, 19 views)

Nice job Pengwin. Your listing of hot and cold players got me thinking about expanding that somewhat more. So what I did was was I went through every team player by player and did the following calculation for every player:

draft position - average draft position

So if you managed to draft a player much later than where he went on average, you'd get significant plus and if you drafted much earlier than average, you'd get significant minus. Now sum these up for every team for every player and you end up with a cumulative total which essentially tells at where you managed to draft players relative to their average draft positions.

Now if the GM's are good at valuing players as a group, these totals could be used as predictions of the final standings. I hope we don't miss the whole season as I am interested to see whether these type of predictions have any predictive power. So it would effectively test how good the collective wisdom of this group is at valuing the players at the draft.

Here are the results for Entry leagues.

If you are interested in the spreadsheet I used to see your team's breakdown player by player for example, send me a PM.

I second this comment !! Awesome Job

__________________
12 team Dynasty Full Keeper
G A +/- PPP HITS SOG STP BS FOW PIM GWG. W/L save% gaa so

C:Crosby,Zetts,Benn,Brassard,Fisher,Matthias ,Vermette,Z.Smith,
RW:St.Louis,Alfie,Voracek,Seto,Zucc
LW:Ovechkin,E.Kane,Boedker,M.Foligno,Pouliot
D:Enstrom,Edler,OEL,JJohnson,Dillon.B.Smith,Orpik
G:Price,Halak,Crawford,Byzgalov
FARM:Nieds,Coyle,Silfverberg,Zucker, Hertl,Gallagher

Dobber Entry Adams Div

Crosby,Sedin,Kane,Plekanec,Brassard,
LW-Heatley,Perron,Baertschi,Boedker
RW-Selanne,Kessel,Jagr,Hodgson,Silfverberg
D-Keith,Enstrom,Faulk,,Emelin
G-Hiller,Crawford,Fasth

Do you want to do one for the experts as well, it'd be an interesting discussion point.

__________________
Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

Well, I didn't include Pro Campbell or Experts league since they don't have PIM as a category so some players would be drafted at somewhat later/earlier. One category shouldn't make that much difference though so I'll add Pro Campbell and Experts league to the results as well. Expect Expert league and Pro Campbell results sometime later today and I might adjust Entry league results as well since average draft positions would obviously change somewhat.

You know what's something that I find very interesting...

Most of the player's ADP is fairly close to the original Yahoo! rankings. I'm just wondering how much of a role that actually plays.

I wonder if you slotted someone fairly low say Stewart (176) and slotted him up say 100, if his ADP would naturally be at or around the 100 mark, or would it slip back down to the 170s...

__________________
Dobber Expert Pool Champion 2011-12

There were changes in Entry leagues as well, but nothing too significant.

It's a pretty neat exercise.

Then - when I saw my team listed 4th last in the Smythe, I knew something must be flawed.
(LOL, not being cocky - but I'm 100% certain, barring injuries & goalie flops, that I have a top-half team. And I'd bet that an FHG projection of teams would also peg my team in the top half).

There is indeed a considerable flaw here, IMO. This is because true fantasy-hockey multi-cat value is all about relative difference in those actual statistical values. You need to get more value out of your players than what you paid for them. However, actual player "value" is not tied linearly (i.e. unpowered) to their draft position (which is reflected here), so much as it is tied to their statistics (which is not reflected here).

One of my favourite lists on this site is Dobber's Top 300.
Let me list a few players for sake of discussion.

4. Steven Stamkos 237.5
5. Claude Giroux 200.9
...
...
201. Tyler Kennedy 40.1
...
300. Mason Raymond 23.3


OK, consider there are only two teams and in a couple spots they've deviated from their pegged draft pick.

1st Round, #4: Team D selects Claude Giroux (200.9pts)
1st Round, #5: Team E selects Steven Stamkos (237.5pts)

14th Round, #206: Team E selects Mason Raymond (23.3pts)
14th Round, #207: Team D selects Tyler Kennedy (40.1pts)


By the actual draft position math - ADP:
Team D gets -1pts for the Claude Giroux pick (4 - 5)
Team E gets +1pts for the Steven Stamkos pick (5 - 4)
Team E gets -94pts for the Mason Raymond pick (206 - 300)
Team D gets +6pts for the Tyler Kennedy pick (207 - 201)

Now, if the DobberTop300 values are accurate to H2H categories (say), then:
Team D has two players totalling a value = 241.0pts (ADP score of +5)
Team E has two players totalling a value of 260.6pts (ADP score of -93)

***By the ADP math, Team D has the considerably stronger two players.***
***By the statistical value math, Team E has the considerably stronger two players.***


As another example:
In the Smythe draft, Marek Zidlicky (ADP 259.0) fell all the way to pick #336 (drafted 226, 227, 249 in other leagues). So this gives Zidlicky's team a +77pts in the ADP math. But how much more REAL statistical value does Zidlicky REALLY have over defensemen that went between 226-336. The range goes from Dennis Seidenberg to Francois Beauchemin. I mean, can you really look at those two players and say there is a 100pt value difference between those guys??? Shouldn't there be more difference between Erik Karlsson and Alex Pietrangelo who have an ADP difference of a 30pt value (ADP 21 vs ADP 59)?


Overall, I think the math is very skewed.
Fantasy hockey statistical-value in the NHL falls in a Gaussian distribution with the elite players exhibiting the most relative difference in, say, a 20 spot range.
Evgeni Malkin (2) should be consistently better than Zach Parise (19), and we know this.
But is it a lock that Martin Erat (223) is going to be better than Sam Gagner (240)?
I'd say no and the actual value of those middling players are going to be all over the place every year, maybe 170 this year, 260 next year, 243 the following year... but yet the statistics don't have to vary much for them to move. The difference in a 50pt player vs a 40pt player could be 100spots, because the Gaussian distribution of NHL statistics is populated greatly in those middling (30-50pt) players.

In summary:
This ADP system suggests that there is a 77pt value in drafting Zidlicky at #336 (vs. his ADP = 259.0).
But, let's say somebody was able to draft Henrik Lundqvist at #79 (vs. his ADP = 2.5). That's also 77pt ADP value.
Should these be consider similar 77pt values?

As a post-logue
I think comparing projected FHG stats for an entire team of players is really the best forecast anybody can make. (assuming they also have a fairly solid set of projections). And even with projections, I believe that goalie statistics can be most misleading. For example, metaldude's team is forecasted as the #1 team in the DobberExperts league.... but if you go look at the project goalie rankings in the ROTO league, he's at the top of several - and goalie statistics are the ones most likely to NOT fall closest to predictions, IMO. When you've got 8 teams between 2.30 GAA and 2.40 GAA, those are pretty close. In a shortened season, if you have a goalie projected for 2.20 GAA and he puts out a 2.40 GAA, that'll move a team's goalies 0.10 GAA, which could be the difference between finishing 2nd in GAA & finishing 8th or 9th.


Final thought:
I actually considered doing the relative-ADP math myself, since it's set up very easily in the Excel sheet I have... but I recognized the flaw in draft position difference vs. actual value position (w.r.t. Gaussian distribution and separation of statistics).

ps. Sending you some REP anyways - because I love numbers.

I agree with it being quite flawed for many reasons with the linearity expectation being the main reason and I expect these "predictions" are most likely going to be pretty poor. I was mostly interested in whether there's any value in this kind of analysis or are these completely useless. To make these even somewhat useful, you'd probably have to do some kind of weighting system where earlier rounds would be weighted significantly more, but I don't think it's worth the effort.