Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.11:"Merry Fantasy Christmas!" or "Happy Birthday, Baby Tebow!"

Christians, Jews, Muslims and miscellany unite: there is a higher power that calls to you today - the power and glory of Fantasy Hockey. Put away all those presents you just opened, they will leave you feeling nothing but empty inside when compared to the 11th and final 2011 episode of Definitely Offside. Kev, Mike and Ross bring the gold, frankincense and myrrh along with all their usual sass and smack as they face-off over streaky players - when to hold 'em or fold 'em, as it were - more coaching hoopla (a monolingual debate, sorry, Quebec) and some of the strange behaviour of the broadcast personalities that bring us our goodly games night in and out. And finally, they wrap up by gathering around the ol' Christmas tree for some carols and eggnog! The slurping noises are going to make you feel like you're right at home! Stay away from that manger, Jerry Sandusky, this is no place for that kind of behaviour! This is Definitely Offside - the Baby Jebus is our Goalie. He saves everything. See you in the New Year, jerks.

Oh, and here's your New Year's Eve party dance mix. All at once. Courtesy of Gersy.

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/every-beatles-song-ever-all-p.html

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.10.5:"Look On The F***ing Bright Side!"

Whether you think the glass is half-full or half empty, it's only a half a glass of water and I'm gonna find the jackass that cheaped out on the water and ask him with my fists who he's saving all the extra water for! Like I wouldn't notice? Like I'm some kind of dromedary who stores up water in my hump, so no thanks, I don't want the whoooole glass! What, you gotta be the Pope to get a whole freakin' 12 oz glass of water?! Goddammit!

DO shoves some positivity down yer gullet, whether you like it or not. Namaste.

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.10:"Mr.T's Commandments"

And then there was 10! How the Hell have we gotten this far? Moxie and delusion, I'd say! It's surprising how far they can carry you - just ask Stephen Harper. Random political attacks aside, #10 was so good, we split it up into two - half an episode for each digit! Part one finds Smitty, K-Mac, Finsy (returning special guest Rhys Finnick) and Soresy (Shawn Sorensen back from U-rope) tangling over manager strategies, home-team versus fantasy-team loyalties and the question of whether fantasy sports changes how we actually watch sports - yeah, that's right, we're going balls-deep into the tough topics! Also, current events with Ryan Kessler and a ring tone that prompts a probing discussion on Mr.T... who would, of course, pity the fool that doesn't listen to this episode. Do it! D.O. it.

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.9:"Home Moon Advantage"

Once in Germany someone said, "Nein!" That's a Wilco quote; this is our ninth episode! Gersy and Smitty take on the week in hockey like only the most intrepid duos can. Batman and Robin, Hall and Oates, The Hart Foundation - they all tremble at the analytical and comedic prowess of Mike and Ross as they wrassle with another mind-boggling trade in the DO fantasy league, the fallout from ongoing coaching changes and a wacky new NHL realignment plan! Plus, a special inside look at trade negotiations between the Brothers McCartney - are they cheating? Yes. Time and space are no boundaries to our intrepid adventurers as they fly like eagles into your mind and snatch out your brain like a field mouse for them to feast on. That's championship spirit, people. I assassin down the avenue. That's a Wilco quote.

The Goalie Debate Continues

This debate slowed down in November as we all go caught up in other league business and that thing... not-hockey? Is that what it's called?

I wanted to present two images as my argument against 2 active goalie slots. Both images come from the Free Agent pool of a Yahoo! fantasy league I'm playing in this year. The league is of high-end owners (like us) recruited through a Fantasy Hockey advice website. It has 12 owners, 20 player rosters of which 11 skaters and two goalies can be active each week. It is very similar to us, where we have 22 man rosters and 13 active skaters. There are 8 scoring categories for skaters and 4 for goalies.

Shots below.

Expansion Draft Ideas

At this year's draft, we voted to expand the league after this season to 14 teams. Dale and I were tasked with coming up with ways to organize that expansion draft, but we haven't had time to get together about it. In the interest of getting things started, I've drafted these four options up on my own and am submitting them for discussion and consideration. Nothing official yet, just spitballin'. Each suggestion is purposefully divergent but of course can be tweaked. Don't feel pressure to take one off the shelf, but for the purposes of debate, I tried to make them substantively different from each other.

The first three of these ideas work from the idea that all 14 teams will start the regular draft in September with 8 keepers and 15 draft picks (we voted to increase our roster size to 23).

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.8:"Gumballs!"

This week DO goes international! It's a spicy meat-a-ball as Mike, Kev and Ross get all steamy over trade etiquette! You'll blow your salsa as they ponder a rookie's fantasy value! You'll pinch a perogie over coaching shake-ups! You'll be hard as a baguette when we get an international Fantasy Update from France - that's right, France! The one in Europe! This show is a real dynamo, even if none of us really know what that means. Strap on your electro-skates and kick that 'Roo right in the pouch! This is the pimped-out episode you've been craving!!

Show Notes: This is posted a little later than normal, so recent events, like Boudreau landing in Anaheim, were unknown to us Monday - we're not psychics, people, we can't touch your hand and know that the ice... is gonna BREAK!! Also, I noticed near the end of the episode that I reference Shawn's hockey story that was actually cut out - sorry, Shawn. I'm sure if anyone is curious, he'll tell you it personally. Finally, the contest is real and it's open! Whoever comes up with the best name for the "oldest profession fantasy league" will get a free Edmonton Block Heater t-shirt and CD. I know you want that, bitches! Those shirts are coveted! Post your comments to the page or send an e-mail, as always, to: definitelyoffside@gmail.com

Best Fantasy Players in November

In keeping with the first post, this is meant to be a public record of each month's leading fantasy point getters. If someone starts trying to trade you Sheldon Souray in February, you'll be able to look back and see the month where he got all his points. Below are your outliers for November.

Top 12 Fantasy Point Totals:

Zdeno Chara (31.4)
Tomas Fleischmann (30.3)
Shea Weber (29)
Jonathan Toews (28.8)
Marian Hossa (28.4)
Ryan Suter (28.2)
Joffrey Lupul (27.7)
Patrick Sharp (27.3)
Brian Campbell (27)
Evgeni Malkin (26.9)
Johan Franzen (26.8)
Nicklas Lidstrom (26.2)

Top 12 Fantasy Point Averages:

Sidney Crosby (3.5) **Only five games played
Zdeno Chara (2.6)
Evgeni Malkin (2.2)
Ian White (2.2) **Only 9 games played
Tomas Fleischmann (2.2)
Steven Stamkos (2.1)
Joffrey Lupul (2.1)
Tyler Seguin (2.1)
James Neal (2.1)
Shea Weber (2.1)
Johan Franzen (2.1)
Nicklas Lidstrom (2.0)
Ryan Suter (2.0)
Brad Marchand (2.0)

Okay, that was 14, but two of them played fewer than 12 games in the month! Plus, exactly 14 players scored 2.0 or higher.

Top 5 Goalies:

Mike Smith (37.6 / 3.4)
Tim Thomas (31.3 / 3.9)
Jimmy Howard (34.3 / 2.6)
Henrik Lundqvist (27.3 / 3.0)
Niklas Backstrom (26.7 / 3.3) ** Only played 7 games
Brian Elliott (24.6 / 4.1) ** Only played 6 games


The only players or goalies to show up in both October and November? Joffrey Lupul and Evgeni Malkin. My brain tells me one of these guys is for real, and the other has a closing window on getting traded for Pronger a third time in his career. Also, we notice team trends on these lists so far. The Leafs and Capitals were well represented in October, and now the Blackhawks, Bruins, Panthers, Predators, Red Wings and Penguins are all present with multiple players.

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.7:"We're Out Of Napkins"

Smitty, Gersy and K-Mac are back on the mics to rock you, Amadeus! That's right, you'll groove to this episode like it's funky 80's Eurotrashpop or like Gary Bettman dancing to the music of cash registers ringing with the returns of Sid's return! This week: Kessel covers R-Kelly, Lucic drops a beat on Ryan Miller's face, Milbury has Col. Parkeresque advice for Rick Nash, Jesus and Marx work together like ebony and ivory and we end up puttin' on the ritz by puttin' unsuspecting DO Leaguers on the spot! Surprises galore, not the least of which is Dale potentially saving a life with a well-timed phone call. Now get up outcha chairs and dance, bitches!



Show Notes: "Der Kommissar" was a Falco song, covered a year later by a British band called "After The Fire" - the latter was the version I knew first. Also, no animals were hurt in the taping of this episode, though some feelings may have been - single tear. 


Also, send us e-mails, gentle listeners! We want to know your thoughts and dreams - except for the pervy stuff. Or only the pervy stuff. Defintelyoffside@gmail.com

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.6:"Human-Penguin Hybrid"

Aw, our little podcast is growing up so fast! Now 6 episodes old, it can tie its own shoes and fart when you pull its finger - cuuute! Come on and take a magical mustache ride with Kommissioner Kev, Gersy and Smitty! This week: Tampa and Philly confuse the lot of us; we dig into Fantasy Hockey player selection and see who performs waiver wire work like Jet Li in a Tsui Hark movie; we interview a very special celebrity guest on all things Crosby-related; we fail to find much to laugh about at Penn State* - but that's okay, we're only "horsing around".

C'mon and celebrate Movember in fine DO style - with some music by Moe Berg while watching Mo' Better Blues and drinking a Flaming Moe. In the midnight hour, she cried mo, mo, mo... podcast shenanigans! (Hey, Billy Idol, pull my finger.)



*Show notes: Penn State was originally our third period topic but given the serious tone smack-dab in the middle of the silliness, we thought it might be better to slot it into Overtime. So if a discussion on child abuse doesn't sound super fun to you, fair enough, you can bail out early. For the more intrepid - stick around, we think you'll find it worthwhile. Special thanks this episode go out to Chris Ham - his stuff glows.


New to the podcast? Questions? Comments? E-mail us, please, we'd love to hear from you!
definitelyoffside@gmail.com 

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.5:"Release The Kraken!"

What happens when you unleash a large, angry bear into a windowless room filled with unsuspecting hockey nerds? Pure carnage. Well, maybe we had our suspicions. And maybe we shouldn't have left that pot of hunny out in the open, it was only ever going to provoke him. Ladies and gentlemen, may we present Jason Sullivan. Hear him fight off the flu to wax poetic and nonsensical on Georges Laraque, fantasy hockey domination, players he's never heard of, contract negotiations and the intake of alcohol through unlikely orifices. Ross, Mike and Kommissioner Kev fight to keep our own little Pooh Corner from becoming Jason's piss corner. Bonus: Mike outs all NHL steroid-users by deciphering the Laraque Code! Ooh, controversy! It's the stuff of juicy Hollywood thrillers. And by juicy, I mean injected with Human Growth Hormone.

Best players in October

Just so that we can reflect back on the each month's scoring leaders, I thought it would be nice to put together a quick list each month. Below are your overlords for through October.

Top 12 Fantasy Point Totals:

Phil Kessel (33.9)
MA Bergeron (29)
Joffrey Lupul (28.7)
Claude Giroux (28.6)
Kris Letang (27.8)
Thomas Vanek (27)
Alex Edler (26.8)
Dion Phaneuf (26.7)
Daniel Sedin (25.9)
Erik Karlsson (25.7)
Nicklas Backstrom (25.2)
Patrick Kane (25)

Top 12 Fantasy Point Averages:

Phil Kessel (2.6)
Kris Letang (2.3)
Nicklas Backstrom (2.3)
Evgeni Malkin (2.3)
Thomas Vanek (2.3)
MA Bergeron (2.2)
Joffrey Lupul (2.2)
Claude Giroux (2.2)
Dennis Wideman (2.1)
Mike Green (2.1)
Dion Phaneuf (2.1)
Sheldon Souray (2.0) (tied with Pominville, Pronger, and Pavelski)

Top 5 Goalies:

Nik Khabibulin (31 / 3.9)
Jonathan Quick (32.2 / 3.2)
Pekka Rinne (32.2 / 2.7)
Kari Lehtonen (29.1 / 2.8)
MA Fleury (26.3 / 2.6)

*Note, the next highest scoring goalie (Lundqvist) is a full 5 points (or 20%) behind Fluery.

So, for the record, this is bat shit crazy. Khabibulin, who was the 71st best goalie last year, is now the undisputed champ for one month. And three Leafs (including FUCKING LUPUL!) at the top of the scoring race. Phaneuf and Souray... is this 2007?!

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.4: "Raffi Jolson"

Shake off your candy-coated Halloween hangovers and get down with the spookiest, scariest DO episode yet! The Kommish and Ross talk Raffi's Banaphone-pas, mustaches, Oilers, Leafs, Sens, ice cream, Cowboys & Injuns and pedophilia! Now isn't that just the Halloweeniest podcast you could ever wish upon a Snickers bar for? You bet it is, partners, you bet it is. As a bonus you can make a drinking game out of it by doing a Yagger shot every time Ross says a variant of the word "particular" or every time you hear Kev click his pen off-mic! You'll be hammered in no time! We're here to help. Get you drunk. Again.

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.3: "P.P. & Pujols"

Wowzers, this episode is a lengthy, epic play-off classic! Kommissioner Kev (K-Mac), Ross (Smitty) and Mike (Gersy) dipsy-doodle up and down the ice like The Oilers kid-line! Off-season acquisitions Wil Wheaton, Albert Pujols, Richard Park and the reanimated corpse of Moammar Ghadhafi help take this game into triple overtime against DO's fiercest rival: coherent logic. Up next on the grueling road schedule: The Seattle Commodores!

Just turtle and relax... this will all make sense by the end of the episode. And, as always, your favourite team wins.

Goalies

I had been intending a better researched, more edited post on this topic, but never seem to make time, so instead you get the poorly written version.

I want to use Kevin's post about goalies as a springboard to offer some possible solutions. Specifically, I want to suggest that, if we accept Kevin's summation, we should look at these issues as possible forms of competitive advantage.

One - owners don't appreciate goalie value. I think that this is true - I also think that, from my perspective, at different times, owners have not appreciated the relative value of centres, rws, lws, d, older players, rookies, draft picks. I have seriously, at some point in these three years, lamented that people have different feelings than I about all of these things. I have come to accept that this is a good thing. That is why this league is fun - because there are so many different ways to win. For a current example - Sarah has only six wingers for her six positions. I think that she should be offering me all of her top picks right now for my depth wingers, because I can't imagine not having a back up at either wing position. Yet she has not made such an offer. Now, the proof is in the pudding - I think my team structure makes more sense than hers, but I have not won, and she is on her way to 2-0. Her strategy, to this point, has offered a competitive advantage to her. I might wish that she valued my players more, but she doesn't, and my feelings are my problem. Til my strategy wins, I can't say anything to her.

With the goalies, those of us who have not valued them (like me) were, when we consider Kevin's numbers and the points made during this discussion, CLEARLY WRONG. I have wrongly valued goalies. It took this sort of discussion for me to realize that, and now I am trying to find a way to rectify it (I wish we had done all of this before the draft...)

So, Sarah, when you are ready to trade a goalie for a depth winger, give me a call....

Two, Number of games: I think this is again an issue of competitive advantage. Obviously, a goalie who plays a lot is its own skill. Just like a player who never gets injured, they are more valuable than a player who is injured regularly (just ask Kevin). I appreciate that this a much more significant issue with goalies than players, but I still feel like it can be solved through research and preparation, which (theoretically, though J may prove this wrong) separates successful owners from less successful owners. Mostly it is guesswork, but there are some easy signs - back to backs, for example, or the proclivity of teams to play their backups in the middle of road trips or occasionally against opponents that are important to them/in their hometown/on hockey night in Canada.

That said, I recognize that there is randomness and it has a huge effect on the results of the week (more on that below). So I do think we should do something to rectify this. I don't like the "draft the whole team" solution, because it essentially means we want to pick the best defensive teams, not the best goalies (as individuals). And I don't like the idea of playing two goalies at a time - that means goalies will immediately be the most valuable players in the league, and I don't think that goalie dominated leagues are as fun as the one we play in now.

I do like the idea of creating another roster spot, though, that can only be used for a goalie. I like this because it exaggerates the existing scarcity (more on that in a second too); because it mirrors actual NHL rosters (23 man rosters, everyone carries at least two goalies); and it does not upset the positional balance of scoring, but does ensure that having a really strong goalie is harder to do, and thus more valuable.

Which brings me to my last point of this rambling post. When we discussed this at the draft, we all agreed that we wanted more positional scarcity among goalies. But I think our discussion, and Kevin's stats, suggest that this is not an issue. That is to say, there already IS positional scarcity. As Kevin said, having the best goalie last year (not counting Thomas, who had an historically amazing season) was worth .5pts/g more than having the 13th best goalie. In comparison, having the 2nd best centre last year was worth .6pts/g. So we are (roughly) in the range of the scarcity at the other positions.

In fact, last season, I went from having one of the best goalies (Jonas Hiller) to one of the worst (Miika Kiprusoff, who I plucked off the waiver wire) and immediately faltered. I picked up Niemi (available very late because he did not have a steady job until February last year) and immediately recovered, then outsmarted myself in the playoffs and played Kipper, and went the way of, well, the Flames. Now, because I misunderstood this issue, I didn't realize that goaltending was what had caused my collapse. But it is clear to me now that part of the reason I was knocked out of the playoffs last year is because I had misunderstood this important part of roster building.

My point is, I feel like we have a lot of what we want from goalies already, and to the extent that we don't, we need to make minor tweaks (adding that goalie bench slot) rather than major ones (adding a second playing goalie or playing teams instead of individual goalies). Especially when we add two more teams next year, having a bench spot that can only be used for a goalie will mean we dig really deep into the goalie market, and the scarcity will be felt keenly by teams who are not well prepared.

Who wants to trade me a goalie?

Dale

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.2.5: "Occupied"

The bonus episode! What was too taboo for episode two? The sounds of Ross talking too much about nothing in particular as he struggles vainly to unify the topics of Steve Bartman, the Occupy movement, the Vancouver riots and fisting! More stunning evidence of the cryptozoological wonder: Racist Jason Sullivan! Rhys goes for a poop! Now that's a podcast, folks.

Episode 3 taping tonight, up by Tuesday!

Returning to the Goalie Debate

Drawing from Dale's post about what we really want, I thought we could start some active listening and then some active problem solving around the goalie situation.

The comments to Dale's question, 'What do we really want?' are summarized below. Please speak up if I've misunderstood the issue or your point.

Matt argues that goalies are undervalued (as keepers, trade bait, and on the waiver wire) such that even elite goalies are not sought after commodities. He wants to see a system in which the best goalies are among the most valuable assets in the league (alongside elite players). Andrew agreed, as did Sean. Sean also thought this was a function of having only one goalie slot and suggested we add a second.

Ben voiced that fluctuations in per week goalie games have a disproportionate effect on whether a team wins or loses. Specifically, a team is twice as likely to lose if they have even one fewer goalie game. He also echoed Matt's point about the value of goalies being messed up, but was cautious in suggesting we grow the number of goalie slots.

To further summarize, I see two issues:
1) People are concerned that other owners don't value goalies.
2) People are concerned that goalie performance has too great an effect on weekly matchups, a problem made considerably worse by the very up-and-down nature of a one goalie system.

Is that an accurate depiction of the comments made on Dale's post? Further, is that a fair summation of how you (Matt, Ben, Andrew, and Sean) actually feel about the currently goalie system?

The future of the blog

Ross and your Commish met to discuss what I will now term the 'Blog Project.' Right now this blog serves as a 'community' where we can share thoughts and resources with each other. I know that Ross would like to start making some of our community available for public consumption, including the podcast and blog. The when and how are still up in the air, but Ross has some great ideas for turning our fantasy hockey league into something accessible. Plus there has been talk in the past about our podcast graduating from the farm system of our 13 person community into the big leagues on Hockey Gods. I may have read that on Eklund, so don't quote me on it.

Still, it feels like it might be time to open up the discussion about what people want from the project again.

Definitely Offside Podcast Ep.2: "American American"

This week, Mike and Ross are joined by Kommissioner Kev and his boy-toy Rhys! We further the legend of Racist Jason Sullivan and discover that one league member may be Richard Nixon. The Jets, the Sabres, Don Cherry and Mike Millbury all get the DO treatment - they like it rough, after all.

**There is an edit near the end where we veered off into a very tangential conversation. I felt the episode ran a little long, so I snipped it, but there's some good stuff there so I'll post it later this week as a bonus!

Hey, gang, you might like this new bit I've written about sports movies, as referenced on the podcast.

Go Oilers.

Link it up: Base Hits and Beatdowns!


Smithee

Down Goes Brown Gets Down

I really enjoyed this video on a number of levels.



Have a watch!

The Rouge!!

For your reading pleasure - a nice piece on AC and our quirky, modest li'l CFL.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7082619/the-best-passing-quarterback-ever

Definitely Offside: The Podcast!

Because absolutely no one demanded it! Here's our first stab at podcasting featuring Ross and Mike. Constructive feedback is more than welcome but go easy on us, we're new to this! Apologies to Mr. Sullivan - we know you're not a racist. Or do we...?

1,000 Page Views!

Me again.

Our little blog has a little analytics engine that tells us who and how many people are viewing our little corner. I haven't told anyone outside the league about it, so its just us. Still, without tracking my own views, we've just reached 1,000! We're not so little anymore. Since we only have 24 posts, I suppose people are checking often for new updates and comments. In other words, I think its working as a platform to have discussions like the one going on about goalies currently. Keep up the chatter and the checking people!

Also, just out of interest, Batarangs' post about what else could be done with his $50 is the most viewed post so far. And pretty much nothing I write is ever read. So I think its time for some fresh (and more funny) voices. Remember we can all be authors and its super-duper easy to post anything and everything you want. Post links to other stuff you're doing, share videos, whatevs. Maybs (probs) you'll get mad props, yo.

Sloppy Seconds Second Gig

Hey all,

Mike has a new piece up on Bet Fair:

http://www.betfairblog.com/nhl-betting/the-nhl-is-finally-starting-to-grow-up/

It's a solid recap of some of the controversial hits in the Stanley Cup Final re-framed by this year's rules and context. All I can hear is Milbury and Cherry yelling about how if it was up to them, they'd just shoot any hockey player who came up lame because of a head injury.

Enjoy!

Happy October!

Season's Greetings!

I just wanted to wish everyone a very merry and happy October 6, the first day of the NHL season.  I've been waiting impatiently for this for many months and still somehow I can't believe it has finally arrived.

I look forward to trouncing you in fantasy hockey this year, but I'd be even more excited to catch a game or two with everyone.

M.Mori

Background on the Goalie Debate

I would call attention to two reference videos:

Video 1

Video 2

And in conclusion: "It's one of the reasons we got the red sweatsuits. There was no way we couldn't."

What, exactly, do we want?

Hi everyone,

Andrew's comment on the Campbell Conference Prospectus, as well as the great discussion between Kevin and the Bealls, made me wonder if we are all working towards the same goals in this goalie issue. What makes this worse is the comment Sean placed on an earlier piece, in which he indicated that I had failed to explain this debate to him at the time. It seems clear that we don't all agree on why we want to reform the goalie position.

Could people who have an opinion on this issue place the reasons they want to reform the goalie slot in the comments below? You don't necessarily have to offer a model of how to reform it - we are working through that - but just to specify what you want to be different.

Possible options might include a desire for positional scarcity; a desire for the gap between the best and worst goalies to be greater, so that playing a bottom rung goalie hurts your fortunes more; a desire to make goalies' points a larger part of the pie, and thus to make them more important to the results each week; or a desire to try to avoid the common issue of goalies playing fewer games than expected, resulting in uneven performance from week to week. Or anything that I am missing.

Thanks everyone,

The Mercs.

Re: Moron Goalies

I can't include an image in the comments, so I had to make this a post. Sorry folks.

My personal feeling (always open to being out-voted) is that the variation in goalie scoring is not so wild as to create a structural problem. Experientially, I feel like the number of games can *generally* be anticipated at the start of the week, but I have no real evidence for that and I'm sure we've all been surprised on occasion. To explore Matt's larger point a bit about the variation in weekly scoring, we can actually go to the ESPN system itself (for an 'all you can anecdote' festival of small samples). Pick your favorite goalie and your favorite skater, and use their 'Charts' function to compare weekly scoring. You can see Rinne vs Ovechkin below.

Goalies do have higher peaks and lower valleys (crossing the 0 plane in most cases), but its partly their higher averages (4 vs 2 games at 2.4pts creates more visual up-and-down than 4 vs 2 games at 1.9pts). If Ben has the data from his last analysis, we could run some simple descriptives to get a better account. Still, I'm not convinced the flux is totally out of proportion with skaters. I'd be interested to see more examples as well as more rigorous evaluation.

(PS: Nice meme, Matt)

Season Prospectus - Clarence Campbell Division

Following my outlook on the season for the Prince of Wales Division, this piece will cover the other six teams.  Lets again remember that I took last in 2010/11, and clearly can predict player performance like Irving Fisher can predict the stock market. (That is the only way in which I'm at all like Irving Fisher, by the way).

Projected Standings

Young Guns (15-7)

Edmonton Mercury's (14-8)

St Albert Stultifiers (12-10)

REMS (11-11)
Mama Ramotswe (9-13)
Catville Cats (8-14)

The Campbell Division is coming out of the shadows this year with exceptional drafts by the Stultifiers, Ramotswe and the REMS (for a second year running). All the teams in this division have major star power, with only depth and balance separating the top of the division from the bottom. It will be hard to win those divisional match-ups in the CCD. Collectively, I've projected them to take home 69 of the 132 available wins in the regular season - the same number of wins by the Wales Division in 2010/11. Move over Welchmen, it's time for a rich guy name Clarence to shine.

See my reasons why after the break.

Moron Goalies

Kev, thanks for the post. Good that people (other than me) are thinking about this very, extremely important issue. This was originally a comment on your last post. Then it got out of hand. Now I've promoted it to be a post of its own! And so:

I have a few thoughts, too (surprise, surprise):

As you noted, your proposal does not address the issue that Ben presented to us, which I think is the most significant in this discussion (and certainly one of the reasons goalies aren't really valued higher than a 10th player on a roster).

A number of teams have carried two goalies (including ours, yes) and have tried to manage the slot like any other position. I imagine this has reduced, by at least some small amount, the likelihood that those teams have a game disadvantage for any given week. I doubt it's been by much, however. For instance, here's a easy to imagine a scenario as our league is currently configured: Team A has two goalies, one with 3 games, one with 4 for the coming matchup; Team B has only one goalie, who has 3 games; at the end of the week, Team A only got two goalie games, despite choosing the 4-game goalie, while Team B got 3.

Anyway, without getting into it much further at this point, the above scenario shows two main flaws in our current setup: (1) we have only one slot with which to accumulate points for the week for a particular position, and (2) goalies, unlike other players, often do not even play in games for their team (and owners rarely have the opportunity to know when those missed games will be).

By retaining the one-slot, lock-in roster position and current scoring system, even if we 'force' owners to hold at least two goalies, I doubt we'll significantly reduce the rather nasty games-in-hand advantage, nor will we address the high volatility of weekly scoring by goalies (something that Ben didn't talk about, but which I think exists, and which also hurts the balance of the league at bit -- stats people? more sweet graphs?)

A change that would remedy, at least in part, all three of those problems (game advantage, missed games, scoring volatility) is allowing teams to play two goalies per week -- hence my initial suggestion. To tweak the goalie scoring per game to keep balance in the league (in terms of player position output relative to contribution to winning) in this scenario would be trivial -- we could just adjust it to work for us. I'm not convinced that the concern about goalies' value overriding that of all other players in a two-slot scenario is warranted, either (especially if we balance the scoring relatively well). Sure, having two 2.0 goalies vs two 1.5 goalies would great, but so is having three 1.8 centres vs three 1.4 centres -- almost nobody in the league is "rich" enough to have 3 C's at 1.8+, but everyone is rich enough to have 1.4's. Any team that wanted to spend their pool of player value on good goalies would have to do so at the expense of other talent. (Another small reason: even with a powerful relative scoring position, goalies' year-to-year scoring variability will always suppress their market value to some degree -- are you going to get 2010 Ryan Miller or 2011 Ryan Miller?)

All that said, where this idea might fall down is with league expansion. As we move to 14 (or 16) teams, even with a two goalie per team maximum, I doubt the pool will be deep enough to accommodate two starting goalies. Here's the number of goalies starting 50 or more games from the last five seasons:

• 2010-11: 24
• 2009-10: 18
• 2008-09: 19
• 2007-08: 22
• 2006-07: 22

So, I'm not sure where that leaves us. I don't as of yet have an alternative to suggest. Looking at some past stats and other scoring models will probably help. So, I guess I'll do that...

Recap: Oilers/Canucks, Oct.1

Last night I had my first chance to see this year's model of the Oilers play against the Canucks and here's my assessment of my cherished Oil on the brink of regular season play: they're gonna lose a lot again this year. They are exciting as hell, have tons of talent and grit and assertiveness and if they can maintain the last two, they won't finish in last place just near it.

What was obviously missing, as demonstrated all too effectively by the Canucks, is structure and patience. The Canucks looked like Zen masters out there. There were some lapses in their play, defensively mostly, but nothing more than early-season rust. While the Oilers kept coming in mad flurries, the Canucks were like Steven Segal, eating a meatball sub with one hand and sending Taylor Hall crashing over the bar with the other, just guiding him there with his own momentum.

Or if the players were lovers and not fighters, the experienced lady-killer needs to take the young buck aside with a little advice. Segal to Hall, heart to heart:

"Hey, man, in the words of the legendary New Edition, you got to cool it now. I know you want to score, We all want to score. and you're here, you're in the show, this lady wants you in her boudoir. It's not about living up to the hype now, it's about making her forget everyone else. You can't just pounce on her! You got to coax her, figure out what's working and let her come to you. This is love aikido, man. Ain't no sense in throwing all your tricks at her at once, just keep it simple, baby. Say sweet things to her, kiss her all over, get the juices flowing and then, only then, work the clit. (for the Canucks this is getting the puck to Daniel.) You can't go straight to the anal pile-driver! You just can't! She is not into that! Give it time, son."

I look forward to the day when the Oilers can dominate and go straight to the anal pile driver, hoagie in hand, greased-back pony-tail shining in the pool hall light, but it's still a long way away. More importantly, I look forward to when they realize they don't have to but they can if the lady is feelin' freaky. Love Aikido. Hard to kill. Cool it now.


Game notes:

• Taylor Hall is the dumbest looking player in the NHL. I'm not saying he's dumb, just dumb looking. Those pneumatic lips and glazed eyes make him look like he's on the cusp of drooling at all times.
• Nugent-Hopkins is going to be fierce. Once they get some weight on him, he's going to impose his will on people.
• Is Lapierre going to be a goal-scorer this year? Looks plausible. Likewise Hamuis? He looked good on the point. Stay healthy, boys!
• Everybody in Rogers Arena is still holding their breath any time a puck gets near Luongo. No pressure, Lou, no pressure.
• No mullet for Ryan Smyth - hey, Asshole, we paid good money for that mullet, you grow that shit back! Ryan Jones presence doens't mean your follicles get the season off!
• The Pirate Malholtra was strong in face-offs. I guess maybe the key dominating the circle is just to squint.
• Mark Lee and Kevin Weekes continue to be the most stilted duo in broadcasting. Every game is like Lee just lobbed a racial slur at Weekes right before airtime and now they have to work through it. Because they're professionals, dammit!
• I sill don't know how to spell Piejaarvi. Mmmm... pie...

Possible Goalie Compromise

Me again. I had an idea for resolving some of the debate around goalie slots that I want to share for feedback. It's not perfect, and it doesn't address Ben's concern at all. I think it's worth hearing out that discussion before we try to ratify any ideas around goalies, but I hope Ben won't mind me stepping in with this idea a bit early.

THE IDEA!:

What about having a designated bench slot for goalies?  Every team would still only play one goalie per week, but would also have a second goalie bench slot that cannot be filled with a player. I prefer a system in which teams can ONLY hold two goalies and can only have a maximum of 21 skaters, (for a maximum of 23 players of any position).

Season Prospectus - Prince of Wales Division

With the draft a few days past and the lotion and tissue supply dwindling, I thought it might be fun to look at each team critically and make some predictions in the standings.  It's still September, and I took last in 2010-11, so take this with a fist full of rock salt.

Projected Standings

Vancouver Batarangs (14-8)

Memento Mori (13-9)

Santorum Sloppy Seconds (10-12)

Billcago Hawksby (9-13)

Eric Staal Resplendent! (9-13)

Team Seamus (8-14)

During 2010/11, this division could be considered the more competitive division.  These six teams posted a total of 69 wins of the 132 available in the regular season.  This year, the Wales division is set to swap places with the Campbell Div'ers.  Look for them to lose the inter-conference show down and post only 63 of the 132 wins available.

My explanations for each team are after the break.

$50 well spent.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

My case for a second goalie spot

Kevin's analysis showed the relative value of goalies, under the current scoring system, to be reasonable and in the spirit of DO. I think, however, Matt's rationale for proposing the second goalie spot was not a complaint against the current G scoring and the market forces, but rather a comment on the mechanics of the head-to-head system and the roster. Matt, if I am mis-quoting you in spirit or in specific, jump on it.

In what is becoming a tradition, I will attempt to analyze some data while drinking. Matt's argument was that the single goalie spot exposed managers to the vagaries of game scheduling and starter-backup cycling. A skillful manager, nurturing their team to greatness with special care for the G-spot, would suffer unfairly when their teams' schedule had few games for their stud G, or worse.

Presented below is a summary of (almost) all the match-ups in the 2010-2011 season. For each weekly match-up, I calculated the difference between the number of games played by the goalie of Team A and the number of games played by the goalie of Team B. The column represent the frequency of wins (light bars) or losses (dark bars) for Team A in the weekly match-ups.

If the numbers of games started did not matter, then the distribution of the light and dark bars should be the same and centered around 0. Sadly, Team A's who had more goalie-games did significantly better – having a goalie-game in-hand in a weekly matchup increased the probability of victory by 90% (±44% for the 95% confidence interval). Look how often a team with a 2 goalie-game deficit won the match-up (pro-tip, look for the smallest light bar). And remember, these data ignore the performance of the goalies in each match-up.

Matt's proposal to add a second goalie spot would likely reduce the week-to-week variance in number of goalie-games. How much? I don't know. I could look at the games-played pattern for some or all of the skating positions, which would give an idea on the effect of scheduling (but not the backup issue). I can't seem to find a good source for those data from the league website (Kev?), so that might have to wait.

The current scoring system for goalies is balanced and fair, but I think the mechanics of the h-t-h system is distorting the ultimate value of goalies. A couple of weeks of bad luck with scheduling and a few backup starts and your team is in a big hole, even though your goalie is a 2.0 ppg. Let us design a system that rewards skillful drafting, crafty trading, and epic bullshit, rather than punishing teams for the vagaries of scheduling.

I support Matt's proposal to add a second goalie spot. I think it will diminish this games-started effect I describe here, and returning the focus of the match-up to the players and their performance. We will likely need to re-scale the goalie scoring to reflect the larger inputs of total positional scoring to team performance, but I think with the fantasy wizards McCartney at the helm, we will not be steered wrong.

My case Against a second goalie slot

One idea that was raised at the AGMM this year was to add a second starting goalie slot, bringing our total starting roster to 15 players.  I don't like this idea, and feel strongly (as strongly as people feel about fantasy hockey) that it will change the balance of the positions considerably, as well as the balance of scoring week-to-week.  I understand there to be a few specific reasons to add this slot, so I will address each as I understand them.  Please feel free to point out my mistakes, respond, critique, etc.  Let's get this conversation going.

1) Anyone can get a good goalie so there is no scarcity

I get that we don't plumb the depths of the goalie market as much as we do players. This year, only 5 goalies were kept by teams.  Another 14 were taken in the draft. But we are expanding, so next year we can reasonably expect to take 2-4 more goalies.  More importantly, we already have a substantial spread in the quality of goalies taken and started, which is strong evidence that scarcity is already at work.

By pure subtraction, 11 starting goalies are on the waiver wire.  In actual fact, I only see 6 true starters (and 5 platoon situations). These are for Toronto, Dallas, Winnipeg, Columbus, Florida and the New York Islanders. Only one of those scored more than 100 fantasy points last year and he can reasonably be expected to do worse this year (Kari Lehtonen).  There are flyers, sure, as Dubnyk or Mike Smith might start.  But as it stands, we have left the very worst goalies on the pile and still have a spread from Tim Thomas's 2.9 pts per game last year to Kiprusoff's 1.6.  In a three game week, that's a 4 pt per week spread in fantasy output - larger than even the difference between Ovechkin (1.9) and Steve Sullivan (0.8) last year.  And Steve Sullivan was once called the 'worst player on any team in the whole league' by Jason Bay.

As well, Tim Thomas led all players with his 2.9 per game average, and was only second to Daniel Sedin in total points (a Hart Trophy finalist on the President's Trophy winning team).  Goalies are valuable.  They have absolute value in the league as the highest scoring position and they have relative value to each other in that the top goalies score way more than the bottom goalies.  It already pays to have a good goalie, and some teams don't have one. That is the consequence of scarcity we desire.  It's hard to win with a crappy goalie, just as it's hard to win with a crappy LW core, or crappy D.

2) Maybe the worst goalies are bad, but the top 12 are roughly equal, so scarcity is still not working

Okay, lets just consider starters and ignore the outliers.  If we take Thomas out (because his season was record setting), and go from Luongo and Rinne (2.4) down to the 13th best goalie (a four way split at 1.9), we have a difference of 0.5 per game (or 1.5 per 3 game week).  If we go from Stamkos (second best C) to the 37th best C, we have a difference of 0.6 (or 1.8 per 3 game week).  Same if we go from the 2nd best D to the 49th best D - we come out with a 0.6 difference in per game average.  That's remarkable balance in starters.  Starters are just better than bench players, whether they are at Centre or Defence or Goalie.  LW and RW both have more outliers and so break the mould a little. If we remove the 4 guys at the top who are markedly better than the rest, the difference is again 0.6.  Some funny math, maybe, but just as Thomas skews the numbers for goalies, Hart nominees skew things for players.  Plus, that's why those 2 positions are so valuable.  We all know it.

The point is, this scoring system is remarkably balanced.  I dare say that it's the most balanced system I've played under in fantasy hockey.  If we add a goalie slot, goalies become much more important than they currently are, and honestly, I think much more important than any but the top 6-8 wingers plus Crosby.  I don't want the difference between a Vokoun-Miller pairing and a Backstrom-Montoya pairing having more sway on a week than how your other 13 player match up.  

3) Even the very best goalies are not the difference makers we expect. We can tweak the point scoring system.

I sort of heard this rumbling today and I was surprised.  The top 4 Vezina finalists from last year are the top 4 point getters by per game average.  We are accurately accounting for the best individual goalies, independent of team performance.  Isn't that what we want?  Goalies aren't solely responsible for Wins (a frequent problem in goalie scoring), and their job is to make saves, not make a better % of saves than a goalie he's not even playing against in real life.  Our scoring system is doing very well for goalies.

When I set up the league, one of the things I worked hardest to avoid is over valuing goalies.  This is one of the most common attributes of other fantasy hockey leagues: goalies are king, and goalies from good teams are better than goalies from bad teams.  In our league, this isn't currently true and I like that.


I feel like adding a goalie slot doesn't make more ways to win the league, it makes fewer.  I accept that some teams have a vested interest in generating greater value of goalies as they have invested heavily, but I don't think letting different teams win is the same as affording more teams the chance to win.

I officially vote against adding another starting goalie, and suggest that we consider other ways to create more scarcity at the position if that is desired.  Expansion is a start.

2010/11 Draft Review Part 6: Variance by Manager

In this series, we'll look at how valuable draft picks are by round and to each manager. Who does the best job of drafting, and how likely is any given manager to find a starter in each round?

Okay, so I skipped parts 3-5.  My SPSS license expired and my old excel won't do the graphs I wanted.  Plus, I use excel like Shawn drafts.  But the show must go on. Specifically, this show is about how well each manager did during the 2010 draft.

For the most part, these findings support Ben's Opportunity Cost Model, only with less depth and fewer interesting findings.  Still, this descriptive account is focused on how managers themselves did, irrespective of where their draft picks landed.  So instead of asking whether managers were able to maximize their assets, we're starting with the premise that where you picked doesn't matter.  Let's just compare how we did against each other.

To those who are prone to losing their confidence: you might want to look at this after Sunday's draft.

REMS To Make First Pick... again

For a second year in a row, the REMS have taken first round pick against the odds.  Last year, they beat out Santorum Sloppy Seconds to select Taylor Hall first overall (and later package him for Alex Semin).  Can we expect more youth from these improbable lottery masters?

1st Round Draft Order for 2011/2012:

REMS
Eschatologists
Ramotswe
Cats
Seamus
Guns
Stultifiers
Sloppy Seconds
Eschatologists (From Billcago)
Batarangs
ESR!
Batarangs (From Mercury's)

9 days and counting...

Draft Lottery

This is the Official Draft Lottery for the Definitely Offside 2011/2012 season.

You won't believe the result.

Trading Draft Picks

In the 2009-2010 season, 15 trades were made that involved draft picks.  In that first season, managers were fairly conservative in this area and particularly reticent to deal high round picks. Only 9 of those 15 trades involved a pick inside the top 6 rounds, and only 2 trades involved picks inside the top 4 rounds.

Immediately after the draft on September 26, 2010, I was asked to look into what those draft picks became so that we could retroactively evaluate the trades and perhaps even begin to settle the raging debate about the value of a draft pick relative to present roster players.  With more systematic analysis of the value of draft picks on-going, this review will focus on evaluating trades based on what those draft picks became. [Total fantasy points and/or Fantasy points per game average in brackets]

I've struggled all year to find a better way to present this data.  For now, you're stuck with a list of trades.  I've broken them up into different periods of the season to establish some context for the trade (ditching extra keepers vs. acquiring depth players etc.).  I've also listed the trades according to what each team acquired, rather than what each team gave away.  I've assigned (guessed at?) winners for the stats presented.  I've not considered whether players are/will be kept or their chance at getting better or worse.

So, you think you know hockey

In the interests of full disclosure, I sure-as-fuck do not know hockey. I might know a little about data analysis and in my now-travel-and-distraction-free life, I thought I would dig into last year's draft. Inspired by Kev's thoughtful analysis, I travelled a bit of a different path.

My take was to look at individual picks by their opportunity cost – the value of that pick relative to the most valuable player still available. I chose total point production over the entire season as the measure of value and scored opportunity cost as the difference between the value (i.e. TOT) of that pick and the TOT of the most valuable still available in the draft. Good picks, by my approach, have positive OC values because they had a larger TOT than any remaining players. Conversely, choosing a less valuable player contributes negative OC. I know, I know, opportunity cost is inherently negative, but I started this analysis halfway through a bottle of wine and couldn't be arsed to backtrack.

My first slice through the data treated managers' individual choices as picking the best player available, no matter the position. I haven't discussed drafting strategy with many, but this approach seemed reasonable to me. Skilled drafters would maximize OC by always choosing the best available player, right? The cumulative sum of the OC for all picks will therefore be highest for the best managers.

Well, we all suck, but with varying degrees of suck. Note the scale is in TOT, and remember the final PF for the last season ranged 1050 to 1350. Sullivan & Kev drafted well, according to this analysis, because of their relatively positive OC and the relative flatness of their drafting trend.

The general trend of the cumulative OC showed a general flattening as the rounds progress – in other words the high performers were being removed from the pool reducing the overall OC of missing good picks.

Another draft strategy is to pick by position, so I constructed a second analysis wherein OC would be calculated for each pick from the pool of available players at that position.

Forgive the busy graph, but I think there is some good stuff here. Each bar represents the average of a manager's picks for that position throughout the draft. The best picks would have positive (or less negative) bars. The lines show the range of OC values for each manager's picks at that position, so good managers should have both positive bars and small lines.

Again, we see Sullivan and Kev come out as relatively skilled drafters, with their nearly positive bars and particularly J's small lines.* And we can see who struggled drafting by position, like the Bealls at RW and Dale's woes at D.

Furthermore, the positional analysis shows the rewards of drafting at G. Many of the goalies drafted last year had very large TOT, and disproportionately contributed to the overall draft performance in this OC analysis. Leighton notwithstanding, 10 of out 15 G had TOT >100 and managers seemed to be better able to accurately estimate their value.

Finally, some thoughts on the value of drafting well. This OC analysis did not produce any good evidence for a link between draft performance and team performance. ESR & ESCH ended up at opposite ends of the standing yet performed relative well in the draft. And obviously, this analysis neglects lots and lots of details, like trades and injuries, so stay tuned for more refinements.

B

* I never thought I would be praising J's small lines. 

Test from France

Hold my dick: David Jones

In this series, I'm going to look at players you think are good but aren't.  For those who don't know where the title comes from, watch this crazy guy do NFL highlights (NSFW).


David Jones scored 27 goals this year, his first full year in the NHL.  He's big, he's from North Vancouver, and plays on a hapless underdog in Colorado.  What's not to like?

Let me tell you why that guy can hold my dick.


David Jones scored 27 goals!
Well, yes he did.  He also had a less flattering 18 assists.  More importantly for us, he had a miserable 67.3 fantasy points on the year.  And his monthly splits suggest a very streaky player.

Streaky? All players have streaks - why is Jones being singled out? 
If you had David Jones in November or February, you must have thought you were a genius.  He had 29 fantasy points between those two months - a 'whopping' (read: just above waiver fodder) 1.2 points per game in those heady days.  If you had him in the other 4-1/2 months of the year, his 0.7 points per game average must have been demoralizing, as well as damaging to your 'win' column.

Wait, how does a guy who gets 27 goals get 67 fantasy points?
I already mentioned that he only had 18 assists.  In addition, he was a slight minus on the year and only had 153 shots.  Plus, he wasn't a PP demon although he did get time there (20% of his points game from the PP).

Then we value shots too much!  He scored 27 goals!!
Yeah, which means he shot at a 17% clip, or 3 points higher than Kovalchuk's career percentage (the highest career shooting % in the modern era).  If he had shot at league average (~8%), he would have scored 13 goals.  Even if we split the difference and call it a 20 goal season, the guy wouldn't have even made it into the top 25 free agents, never mind being a roster player.  His 27 goals are not repeatable unless he gets a lot more ice time and a lot more shots.  Counting his shots allows year-to-year stability in league scoring and maintains a divide between players who score 27 goals at a reasonable and repeatable 10% shooting, and those that have lucky seasons like David Jones.

Ha!  This was his first full year in the NHL, so he probably will get more ice time next year!
It was his first full year, but he was 26 when it started and it was his 4th year playing more than 20 games in the show.  In the three years previous he's had a torn ACL and two shoulder surgeries (same shoulder).  So he hasn't even been developing somewhere.  He's just been rehabbing for three years.

He played for the Coquitlam Express in the early 2000's, so it's hard not to like the guy.  But any player who scores considerably more goals than assists (and does it with an elevated shooting percentage) is unlikely to repeat his success year to year.  And honestly, his success was very modest.  Still, Jones was held by at least 3 teams during the year, and was coveted by many more.  I wouldn't be surprised to hear if some managers considered him a potential keeper.

That's why David Jones can hold my dick.

2010/11 Draft Review Part 2: Proportional Inter-round variance

In this series, we'll look at how valuable draft picks are by round and to each manager. Who does the best job of drafting, and how likely is any given manager to find a starter in each round?

PART TWO

In part one of this series, we looked at averages by round.  We saw that there was a general decline in the average points scored by players selected in each successive round and concluded that we did well in predicting the average fantasy points of skaters.

In this post, we'll look at the rate of selecting high level players in each round.  For this analysis, players who scored more than 80 fantasy points on the year are considered 'high level' or 'high impact.'  This is a nice round number that represents roughly 1 fantasy point per game over the season.  Exactly 1/3 of the skaters selected fall into this category (51 of 153 skaters taken), or an average of just over 4 players of this calibre per team.  For comparison, 10 players taken in the whole draft scored 100 fantasy points or more.

As we continue to delve into different ways of determining the value of draft picks and the value of a given draft pick relative to another, it's important to remember that with each pick choice become more constrained.  Often we imagine that process being one of the best players going first and the worst players going last.  Statistically, we expect to see a decline in the quality of players selected round to round, as well as to see the best players chosen earliest.

In reality, choice is made on a number of different variables (age, position, personal taste etc.) and is not always rational.  We see in the chart below that the number of players with >80 points selected in each round is a not a very clear downward trend.  This can be left as somewhat of a mystery for now, but keep in mind that some of these picks (eg. 3 of the first 4 picks overall) were chosen for their potential to be high level players in the long-term future, rather than for their likelihood of making an immediate fantasy impact.  

We see in the chart above that Round 10 was the most successful by this metric, followed by Rounds 2 through 5.  By a slightly adjusted metric, Round 1 is the clear winner, followed by Round 6 (shown below).

We see here the rate* of skaters taken in each round who scored 100 fantasy points or more.  Round 1 had three players taken of this caliber, while Round 6 had 2.  Only 5 other rounds contained players with 100 or more fantasy points, including the notorious Round 5.

You might remember from Part 1 that the average points of players selected in round 5 was under 57, or roughly 15 fewer than either round 4 or 6.  These charts reveal the highly sensitive nature of averages, as 5 of the 12 players selected in that round went on to be 'high level' skaters, versus only three of those from Round 6 scoring more than 80 points (though 2 of those scored more than 100).

The conflict in those two descriptions of Round 5 (average vs. # of high level players) can be explained through injuries. Four players selected in Round 5 had serious injuries that limited them to 30 or fewer fantasy points.  As always, injury is a major and mostly unpredictable factor in the success of a player.  With that in mind, there is a fair argument for using point-per-game averages to determine successful draft picks.  This, of course, suffers from the opposite sensitivity - is David Perron (13.9 points; 1.4 per game) as valuable as Shane Doan (101 pts; 1.4 per game)?

With these limitations (drafting for many reasons and injuries), this data cannot be understood as the likelihood of selecting a high impact player.  Instead, we can only understand it as description for now (at least until we look at some of the trends within rounds).

A predictive model can be applied, however, and we see below the rate of selecting high impact skaters as well as a prediction of that rate if we ignore alternative motivations for drafting.

The orange line is the average rate of selecting a high impact player over all 14 rounds (1/3).  The blue line is the actual rate of selecting those players.* Remember that some rounds had goalies selected as well, changing this graph slightly from the one above which simply counts the number of high impact players taken.  Finally, the black line is what we might expect to see if we were reasonably successful at predicting the incidence of high-impact players and selected them accordingly.

Interestingly, somewhere in round 4 this predictive model suggests we should start selecting high impact players at a lower than average rate.  More simply, the likelihood of selecting a high-level player after round 4 is below average.  To re-phrase again, picks in the top four rounds can be seen as categorically (read: in a different category) better than those that come in the rounds to follow.

Taken as a whole, however, these graphs do not suggest a lot of hope for winning using the draft.  On an average draft, a manager should expect to get between 4 and 5 players who score more than 1.0 fantasy points per game over a season, including between 0 and 1 player who reaches 100 fantasy points.  Assuming 8 high impact keepers, that's between 12 and 13 skaters of high impact on your roster.

Still, with the unexpected variability in how many high impact players are taken in each round, we haven't yet resolved how valuable having high round picks can be in achieving an above average draft.  Going by this data alone, we might conclude that Round 10 is the most valuable round, though our predictive model and Part One show a more logical connection between round of selection and performance.  Next we'll look at the heart of each round (ignoring the first and last few picks) to see if there is an appreciable difference over the course of the draft.


*Rate (in this case) is the number of high impact players taken divided by the total number of players taken.

Upcoming in this series:

- Part 3: Inter-Round Variance Using Thirdiles and Interquartiles

- Part 4: Drafted versus Undrafted Skaters and Goalies

- Part 5: Inner-Round Variance by Round

- Part 6: Inner-Round Variance by Manager

2010/11 Draft Review Part 1: Absolute Inter-round variance

In this series, we'll look at how valuable draft picks are by round and to each manager. Who does the best job of drafting, and how likely is any given manager to find a starter in each round?

PART ONE

No draft pick comes with the guarantee of success. Injury and shifting roles can derail the fantasy production of even the best in the game. For us, that manifests in hits and misses, successes and failures in our drafts - a binary designation we sometimes have to wait a full 25 weeks to assign.

Well, it's been almost 48 weeks since we drafted our squads for the 2010/11 Definitely Offside season. It's about time we start finding the winners and losers.

Our draft comes with the wrinkle of having 96 players kept from season to season, effectively condensing the variance from the top of the draft board to the bottom. That said, the first overall pick was Taylor Hall, and the last pick was Igor Makarov. You know, the 24 year old with a point in the AHL for every year of his life.

We begin our analysis with that question of condensed variance. What is the difference in value in draft picks of different rounds? Is there an appreciable advantage to having a 1st round pick over a 2nd, or a 12th rounder over a 13th?

Now to tickle my favorite g-spot - GRAPHS!

Above: The average fantasy points scored by the skaters selected in each round

In general we see a downward trend in average points per round, suggesting we selected the best players early and the worse players later.  Duh, right?  Well, it means we did a solid job of predicting fantasy point production as a group.  Imagine comparing it to a draft in which players are randomly assigned to rounds.  If that meant anything to you, you know we did a pretty good job.

The consequence of our collective success is that each successive round appears to hold a lower likelihood of selecting a high impact player than the round previous.  In the graph above, the relation is not linear (Round 5 holds a disproportionate number of injuries, for example), reflecting the reality that the actual difference between the last pick of one round and the first pick of the next is just one player.  Segregation by round is thus artificial.  Moreover, round by round averages hide the success of each manager within the round.  These are limitations I will return to in future posts on our draft.  For now, lets stay at a macro-level and maintain our imposed round-by-round analysis for the sake of clarity.

Goalies score more points than player, so including goalies in any average would considerably skew the graph.  I've separated them out below.

Above: The average fantasy points scored by skaters in each round again (blue) next to the
average fantasy points scored by goalies selected in each round (red)

Only 15 total goalies were selected, and as you can see, no goalies were selected in rounds 1, 4, 5, and 13.  Thus, their averages aren't that meaningful.  Still, we see that the round you select a goalie is not a clear indicator of the quality of goalie you get. In fact, the best goalie drafted (Carey Price) was selected in round 11, along with Dan Ellis and Antti Niemi. The best four goalies selected were taken in rounds 3, 6, 9 and 11.

In other words, in a very small sample size (15), we did a poor job of predicting the fantasy outcomes of goalies.  For Shame!

Upcoming in this series:
- Part 2: Proportional Inter-Round Variance
- Part 3: Inter-Round Variance Using Thirdiles and Interquartiles
- Part 4: Drafted versus Undrafted Skaters and Goalies
- Part 5: Inner-Round Variance by Round
- Part 6: Inner-Round Variance by Manager

Definitely Offside Goes High Tech

Hot Diggity! Welcome to the new home of the Whistle, along with news and analysis by Definitely Offside leaguers.

Try out the comments. Make a post. Tell the Commish what you think. Work this blog like a John with a Web 2.0 fetish.