Armchair GM Draft, 2019 (Discussion Only)

[BMC]

I just did my 2 selections.

Next!

 

[Winger for Hire]

Shady, you turd...

Now I need to go back to the drawing board

 

[Shady Machine]

My picks are in. @TropicalFruitGirl2 you're up

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Shady, you turd...

Now I need to go back to the drawing board

Which pick screwed you up?

 

[Winger for Hire]

Theo.

Theo-Foppa would have been a force to be reckoned with as a 3rd line

 

[td_ice]

I just did my 2 selections.

Next!

Ok, actually you had only 1 pick to make if picking BEFORE Shady.

Two picks if you were skipped and Shady had made his selection.

Since Shady waited, and you made it back before the 9am deadline we set it was supposed to be HH, Shady two picks, HH.

But I have feeling that Shady is cool with who he got, but @BMC just be aware of that going forward.

 

[td_ice]

I think Shady has sniped me in every round. I had TF pegged as well, but I'm guessing several others did as well.

And probably the nature of having two picks at a time.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Theo.

Theo-Foppa would have been a force to be reckoned with as a 3rd line

I had him as a fun pick for my taxi squad. Just not sure how he’s perceived by the masses due to all his issues.

After reading his book I fully understand why he was so messed up, but not everyone has read his story so hard to really gauge you know?

 

[sarge88]

I had him as a fun pick for my taxi squad. Just not sure how he’s perceived by the masses due to all his issues.

After reading his book I fully understand why he was so messed up, but not everyone has read his story so hard to really gauge you know?

Although certainly not a scientific way to look at teams, but in the past when I've done this, I've looked a players based on their best 5 year stretch of play.

Obviously the Gretzky's, Lemieux', Crosby's of the world are in a different class, but when comparing a guy like say Neely to an Andreychuk -- sure Andreychuk had better stats because of his longevity, but Neely's 5 years from 87 - 91 or so, were better than Andreychuk's best 5 year stretch. So I'd give him the edge.

 

[Shady Machine]

Ok, actually you had only 1 pick to make if picking BEFORE Shady.

Two picks if you were skipped and Shady had made his selection.

Since Shady waited, and you made it back before the 9am deadline we set it was supposed to be HH, Shady two picks, HH.

But I have feeling that Shady is cool with who he got, but @BMC just be aware of that going forward.

Yup totally cool with it.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Although certainly not a scientific way to look at teams, but in the past when I've done this, I've looked a players based on their best 5 year stretch of play.

Obviously the Gretzky's, Lemieux', Crosby's of the world are in a different class, but when comparing a guy like say Neely to an Andreychuk -- sure Andreychuk had better stats because of his longevity, but Neely's 5 years from 87 - 91 or so, were better than Andreychuk's best 5 year stretch. So I'd give him the edge.

Ya, I’m looking at these guys like Bill and Ted went back in time and threw them in their phone booth for us smack in the middle of their most productive, prime years.

 

[Shady Machine]

Although certainly not a scientific way to look at teams, but in the past when I've done this, I've looked a players based on their best 5 year stretch of play.

Obviously the Gretzky's, Lemieux', Crosby's of the world are in a different class, but when comparing a guy like say Neely to an Andreychuk -- sure Andreychuk had better stats because of his longevity, but Neely's 5 years from 87 - 91 or so, were better than Andreychuk's best 5 year stretch. So I'd give him the edge.

I've tried to look at peak and longevity. If a dude only played a few hundred games, unless he totally dominated, I give the edge to the really good player that played 800+. But totally agree about the Neely vs Andreychuk. That's why I ranked Stevens fairly high. In his peak he was really good but then struggled after injuries hit. Obviously he was a benefactor of Lemieux, but talented enough that he could succeed with another elite center. Plus I needed a power forward after some other guys were snatched up.

 

[td_ice]

Although certainly not a scientific way to look at teams, but in the past when I've done this, I've looked a players based on their best 5 year stretch of play.

Obviously the Gretzky's, Lemieux', Crosby's of the world are in a different class, but when comparing a guy like say Neely to an Andreychuk -- sure Andreychuk had better stats because of his longevity, but Neely's 5 years from 87 - 91 or so, were better than Andreychuk's best 5 year stretch. So I'd give him the edge.

Yeah, I always like the JAWS metric in baseball while doing the baseball ATD. (Looks at 7 year peak)

Wish there was a hockey equivalent.

There is always gonna be that peak vs. "compilers" factor. But there,is also something to be said for consistency and longevity.

 

[Winger for Hire]

Best I've found to replicated WAR from baseball is Hockey Reference's Point Shares. They also break it down by Offense and Defense and Goalies.

Calculating Point Shares | Hockey-Reference.com

Bill James developed his system such that one win is equivalent to three Win Shares. My system deviates from James' in three key ways:

1. In James' system, one win is equivalent to three Win Shares. In my system for hockey, one point is equivalent to one Point Share.
2. James made team Win Shares directly proportional to team wins. In his system, a baseball team that wins 80 games will have exactly 240 Win Shares, a baseball team that wins 90 games will have exactly 270 Win Shares, etc. In my system for hockey, a team with 100 points will have about 100 Point Shares, give or take.
3. James did not allow for the possibility of negative Win Shares. In his system, the fewest number of Win Shares a player can have is zero. In my system, a player can have negative Point Shares. I justify this by thinking about it in the following way: a player with negative Point Shares was so poor that he essentially took away points that his teammates had generated.

I'm using this to help sort players, then using my team needs and player's style of play to refine.

It seems to work fairly well to balance peak performance and longevity, on fairly level grounds; although you can still be a "compiler" if you play long enough at an average level (example from baseball- Harold Baines and Pete Rose). Of course building a team solely by taking the best Point Share guys is going to lead to a team that probably doesn't mesh well in terms of style, chemistry, and such.

 

[sarge88]

Best I've found to replicated WAR from baseball is Hockey Reference's Point Shares. They also break it down by Offense and Defense and Goalies.

Calculating Point Shares | Hockey-Reference.com

[Quote\]
Bill James developed his system such that one win is equivalent to three Win Shares. My system deviates from James' in three key ways:

1. In James' system, one win is equivalent to three Win Shares. In my system for hockey, one point is equivalent to one Point Share.
2. James made team Win Shares directly proportional to team wins. In his system, a baseball team that wins 80 games will have exactly 240 Win Shares, a baseball team that wins 90 games will have exactly 270 Win Shares, etc. In my system for hockey, a team with 100 points will have about 100 Point Shares, give or take.
3. James did not allow for the possibility of negative Win Shares. In his system, the fewest number of Win Shares a player can have is zero. In my system, a player can have negative Point Shares. I justify this by thinking about it in the following way: a player with negative Point Shares was so poor that he essentially took away points that his teammates had generated.

I'm using this to help sort players, then using my team needs and player's style of play to refine.

It seems to work fairly well to balance peak performance and longevity, on fairly level grounds; although you can still be a "compiler" if you play long enough at an average level (example from baseball- Harold Baines). Of course building a team solely by taking the best Point Share guys is going to lead to a team that probably doesn't mesh well in terms of style, chemistry, and such.[/QUOTE]

If I were smarter I'd probably use it. Lol.

In my 20's I developed a system for picking NCAA tourney games that actually worked very well -- it was pretty involved, but back then I had the time for such things.

 

[TropicalFruitGirl2]

My pick was just put in....hope insurance is paid for everyone else (my liability insurance is up to date...hehe). Marty McSorley is on watch!
@td_ice , you are OTC!

 

[KIRK]

@Honour Over Glory, stop playing with your cute pugs already and make your pick.

 

[td_ice]

@KIRK will be OTC at 7;45 EST tonight.

 

[KIRK]

@KIRK will be OTC at 7;45 EST tonight.

 

[sarge88]

@KIRK will be OTC at 7;45 EST tonight.

I'll be around to make my pick shortly after, unless my wife or kids tell me that I won't.

If so, I'll leave a list with someone.

Hopefully we can have a good run again tonight.

 

[Shady Machine]

Slooww day

 

[td_ice]

I'll be around to make my pick shortly after, unless my wife or kids tell me that I won't.

If so, I'll leave a list with someone.

Hopefully we can have a good run again tonight.

I am 16 picks away, and you pick twice before I do, so if you want to send a list my way, I can take it.

 

[KIRK]

@sarge88, you are up.

cc: @td_ice in case you're sitting on the picks.

 

[KIRK]

Slooww day

@Honour Over Glory came out of hibernation and picked, now I picked, so it just picked up.

 

[Winger for Hire]

Business is boomin!