Comments for Top 100 Roto Hockey Players - November 2009 at http://hockey.dobbersports.com , comment 1 to 27 out of 20 comments http://hockey.dobbersports.com Sun, 19 May 2013 19:47:57 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3340 I'll give some thought to posting my list... I'm the defending champ in a keeper league that's been going for many years, and many league members use this website. I'd be surrendering some tactical advantage, in all likelihood, but I am interested on getting some feedback on my own rankings (then again, who isn't, right?). - D M Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:07:23 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3337 DM id like to see your list posted, not to critisize it, or insult you. but just out of currosity. wondering if its something i can mimick by collecting my own stats. If you do decide to post in the forums, please post a link here. Thanks! - Chandan Singh Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:57:41 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3331 "If you really want to calculate how valuable an individual stat is, you don't use aggregate NHL totals. You need to use the totals for the top however many players that your fantasy league drafts." Extremely good point. This has actually occurred to me in the past, as well, but its very difficult to account for. It would be interesting to see if the ratios I described pertain to both owned players and unowned players, or if a distinction can be drawn between the two groups. - D M Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:53:29 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3330 Praba: "the point i am trying to get across is if someone is posting their findings you don't go and bash them. how would you feel if you posted yours and a bunch of dobberites started critisizing it?" Well, I'm not 8 years old, so I'd either explain my reasoning and present arguments for my own rankings or admit my error. I think you're still way off base, though, in basically equating (a) criticizing a ranking as flawed with (b) bashing the poster as an individual. Where did I say anything negative about the author himself, or his effort? - D M Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:51:12 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3326 If you really want to calculate how valuable an individual stat is, you don't use aggregate NHL totals. You need to use the totals for the top however many players that your fantasy league drafts. I find it simplest to assign dollar values to everything (and those of you who are still doing drafts instead of auctions should REALLY try to make the time for an auction). Then you divide whatever amount you've chosen (in an auction league, this is total budget divvied by # of categories) by the total in that category, and voila, you know how much a goal is worth, or an assist, or a shot. Add up a player's value in all categories and you have his overall value, which can be compared to other players' values on an apples-to-apples basis. Yes, even across positions, though some people like to tweak it to reward position scarcity. But if your arithmetic (yes!) is sound, there's no way around the fact that what you'll get simply IS what those guys are worth, by definition of how your standings are calculated. The main problem is that the numbers have to be hard numbers, so it's only 100% accurate with stats that have already been accumulated. But if your own projections are good, then you can pick up some nice off-the-radar players for very little. Which is usually how you win your pool. If you've ever done fantasy baseball, you've probably already been through this. Fantasy hockey seems to still be in its infancy wrt. baseball, so the analysis is still a lot more subjective. Even having calculated the relative values of players in this way for a few years, I usually still get surprised by some of the results. Likely because of the disparity between a player's rep and his actual value to my league, illusions under which I too am labouring. A goal may very well be worth 1.7 times an assist. But it will depend on the player population of your own league. I hope Chris will deign to tell us which categories he is using, and how many players are in his 'typical' league, so we can make the most of his research. - Finnbar Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:50:04 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3322 D M, like i said earlier if it takes no time at all and you already have your own list why don't you post it for all to see? the point i am trying to get across is if someone is posting their findings you don't go and bash them. how would you feel if you posted yours and a bunch of dobberites started critisizing it? - praba Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:40:24 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3316 Well played sir... I did mean it in terms of the ratio is 1:1. ie They are both equal to each other. However they are not both equally as valuable. Which is clearly what I said. So you are spot on... You win this round Hahaha But yes, I have nothing else to say other than - I was wrong. I enjoyed the debate though, Cheers - HyperScythe Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:57:14 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3315 Thanks for the response, Hyper. One minor point: "It still doesn't change the fact that in a ROTO league goals are no more valuable than assists." Again, I disagree. Approximately 1.7 assists are awarded for each NHL goal. Thus, assists are 1.7 times more common, and thus far easier to procure, whether through trades or waivers or the free agent pool. They're 1.7x less valuable, in a real, tangible sense. If two players have identical PIMs, TOI, FW, SOG, etc., and one has 20 goals and 60 assists, and the other has 40 goals and 40 assists, the latter is actually far, far more valuable. Why? Because 20 goals are equal to approximately 34 assists, in real terms. You see the same phenomenon in points-only pools. A 70 point defenseman is far more valuable than a 70 point center because of their relative scarcity. - D M Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:50:02 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3314 That should have been 15-20. Not 25-30. I am not sure why I ended up posting that. It was my mistake. Thank you for taking the time to research. I didn't think it was quite as low as 14 though. I was thinking a lot more along the lines that one minor would be closer to an assist. Props for the research though. It still doesn't change the fact that in a ROTO league goals are no more valuable than assists. So goal scorers going early in a draft in a Roto league would have to do a lot more with the fact that they also take more SOG and most of the big goal scorers are fairly multi-category guys. I haven't taken the time to analyze every single guy on that list - so I can not say without a shade of doubt that the list is correct. Perhaps Chris made an inputting error. I doubt it though. And no - I am not one of Chris's 'buddies' I don't know him at all. And I was referring to Chris and when he was saying 'I don't care what stats you are counting'. That is the point that is being made here. This list is based on the stats that ARE being counted. So they might not be valid in your pool, or be the same as what you are counting and expecting Anyway - we know nothing for sure until Chris lets us know what stats he used and included. Multi-Category guys are always more valuable than Joe Thornton :) - HyperScythe Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:19:01 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3311 Everyone can be right, there are so many different Roto pool formats it is impossible to put together a definitive list without at least referencing the format, the number of teams, the categories etc..... The fact remains that no one would ever trade Nabokov for Bryzgalov, never mind Brodeur, so the list is of no use? - Adrian Keogh Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:01:53 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3309 I have my own rankings in an excel file. I'll post them if Dobber so requests. And if people see obvious flaws, I would invite them to point them out. And I wouldn't want forum regulars to hysterically jump all over them for doing so. As to your points, Hyper, I politely disagree. In the 07-08 season, there were (in aggregate) 6,691 goals scored, 11,561 assists, and 34,333 PIMs. (Apologies, I'm at work and don't have the 08-09 numbers with me - you can look them up for yourself or take my word that they're similar). Thus, in a real, tangible sense, a goal is 1.728 times rarer than an assist, and thus worth 1.728 times as much due to its relative scarcity. A penalty minute is worth about 5.131 times less than a goal. "Having 40 PIM is probably worth adding 25-30 assists." No. 40 PIMs is worth less than 14 assists. That's the kind of subtle comparison that the above list totally misses. You can pick up on this phenomenon anecdotally as well. Goal scorers tend to go earlier in drafts, as well they should. The above list is severely flawed. Not sure if it's a severe misweighing of stat categories or what. I assume that the flaws are unintentional. I don't think I went off on a "rant" or failed to use "tact" or failed to do any "research." Posting lists on here is an open invitation for people to disagree. And when they do, the last thing anyone wants to read is whiny BS from the list-maker's buddies. Oh, and Praba - You again seem to sarcastically indicate that these lists take a lot of time. I'm sure that's true for Dobber's forward-looking list, but when you are ranking people by current production, all you do is apply a formula to their stats. It's a basic excel spreadsheet function. It really does not take any time at all. Peace. - D M Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:43:20 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3305 You guys clearly fail to recognize PIM and SOG as a stat don't you? Surprised to see Pronger so high? What about Blake? There is a reason. Thornton is a one-category performer. He is poor in PIM and poor in SOG and poor in PPG. Surprised to see Ryan Clowe up there or Wayne Simmonds? Oh yeah - its the PIM. You had better believe it. Yes Staal has been bad - but you had better believe that yes that one game and all those PIM skew his stats. You can not argue with that - they just do. It's a fact. You can't say "I don't care what the stats say" How retarded... Fantasy Hockey is all about stats. Atleast the past months are. So yes - Staal looks out of place up there, but he only has 30 shots less than Ovie and Carter and Parise. PLUS those PIM. Again - PIM = Assists. So yes having 40 PIM is probably worth adding 25-30 assists. So that would put him around Thornton. And then you can add on things like SOG and TOI... Before you go calling out someone on ANYTHING - try doing a little research first to back your claims. Not everything is about points. Clearly Like it was previously mentioned - this list is based on STATS. Not on someones opinion. You might want to start acknowledging them if you want to win a FH pool Use a little more tact next time you go off on a rant ffs. - HyperScythe Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:25:56 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3304 chris and D M, feel free to post your own lists. apparently they take no time at all so i am very anxious to see your top 100. - praba Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:48:47 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3303 Praba - I think the point here is why do something if you are not going to spend the time and get it right? Anyone can throw a list together and say " you know how long it took me to do this?" The list has some serious flaws that should have been caught and fixed before it was added to this site. If you are not going to spend the time and do something right dont bother doing it at all....its that simple. - Chris Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:10:59 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3302 praba -- It's not "pathetic" to point out obvious flaws, regardless of whether site content took a while to create. Get over yourself. I just feel bad for anyone out there with limited hockey knowledge who stumbles upon this list and mistakenly relies on it in any way. For example, someone who wonders if Joe Thornton will finally turn it around in December and begin outplaying Ponikarovsky. LOL. "i'm not going to critisize his work because atleast he took the time to do this for us." First of all, that's a pathetically low threshold, as you could say that about ANYTHING. Second, contrary to your non-sense, this list should NOT have taken a lot of time, because it is only intended to track current value based on past returns and not to make any predictions whatsoever about the future, as the disclaimer suggests. Its just a regurgitation of current facts -- only a dramatically inaccurate/off-base one. - D M Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:54:15 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3301 it's pretty pathetic to see so many people bashing this list. do you know how long it takes to make one of these? there may be a few mistakes in there, not every list is perfect, but it is supposed to be a guide for you when making your decisions. if you combine your knowledge with this list then it should help you. if you don't like the list then don't use it, simple as that. i am also surprised to see staal ahead of thornton, but i'm not going to critisize his work because atleast he took the time to do this for us. i'd love to see everyone here who disagrees formulate their own list, and then post it for the forum members to read. i'm sure they will rip your list apart as well. - praba Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:10:59 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3298 Eric Staal is #50. Thornton is #80. At the end of November, Staal had 3 G and 8 assists in 18 games. Thornton had 7 G and 30 assists in 28 games at that time. Thornton was a +3, Staal a -7. ABSOLUTE INSANITY!!!!!! Was it Staal's one game with lots of PIMs or what? I'm sorry, I tend to give nothing but positive feedback, but these rankings are seriously, seriously flawed. To the point of being unusable. - D M Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:21:46 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3295 In normal roto pools, you have 4 goalie categories, so that's why Bryz is ranked so high. Also ,if you go to your pool and check out the MVP list (players who appear most often on leading teams), Bryz is in the top 3 in Rotisseries AND Head-To-Head pools. I understand why Thornton is 88th though... - Evan H Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:38:13 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3291 Yeah those SOG really increase Bryz's value? We don't have TOI or FW's in our pool, probably the two most common that we don't include. However I think you will find that 9 categories is quite comprehensive? Especially as we only have one Goalie category! - Adrian Keogh Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:06:04 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/17-archives-other-articles/2434-top-100-november#comment-3290 Gotta love these guys who go in a 9-category pool and proceed to ignore things like TOI and SOG, probably because they forget about them. You know every category counts the same in roto right? Thanks for doing up the list CB. Always good for a pleasant (and unpleasant) surprise or two..... there's a lot of value in the difference between perception and actual performance; the smart money jumps all over that and trades for some of those underappreciated players! - Finnbar Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:55:22 +0100