Fantasy Mock Draft Voting (STL Champion)

[m0pe]

I like my team more, but don't like it's odds against Joey next round.

Listen to the Panda Charts guys. Tampa all the way.

 

[Panda Bear]

Team	Weighted PandaScore	Rank	EV Scoring Impact	Rank3	PP Scoring Impact	Rank4	Elite TOI %	Rank5	Dangerous Scoring Chances	Rank6	Shooting Talent-Adjusted xGoals	Rank7	Created xGoals	Rank8	xGoals +/-	Rank9	Point Shares	Rank10	Goaltending	Rank 11	Passing	Rank2	Entry Denials/60	Rank11	Exits	Rank12	Entries
Carolina	162	17	300	6	245	10	31	20	14	12	169	4	178	3	14	20	93	1	48	19	50.16579	21	0.028557	13	52.46355	17	55.0782
Tampa Bay	168	3	318	1	254	6	32	14	25	6	156	18	168	12	45	5	86	6	51	11	54.25391	15	0.035412	11	50.48224	25	55.9516

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Panda Bear]

tampa bay is a better team

 

[Horse McHindu]

tampa bay is a better team

Tampa is a MUCH better team than Carolina.

 

[ConnorMcMullet]

St. Louis is a better team than both.

 

[Exquisite]

shix

 

[Horse McHindu]

St. Louis is a better team than both.

You built a good team but Tampa’s team is the best team in my opinion.

 

[Nucker101]

had to be made

pretty much lol. I almost want to post two fake forward groups and just see how far you'd have to eventually get HF'ers to vote for the winger-heavy team over the center-heavy one.

Keyword being almost

 

[Exquisite]

pretty much lol. I almost want to post two fake forward groups and just see how far you'd have to eventually get HF'ers to vote for the winger-heavy team over the center-heavy one.

Keyword being almost

wrong thread, y'all need different titles for these things

 

[Joey Moss]

Tampa is a MUCH better team than Carolina.

Disagree.

 

[Joey Moss]

Team	Weighted PandaScore	Rank	EV Scoring Impact	Rank3	PP Scoring Impact	Rank4	Elite TOI %	Rank5	Dangerous Scoring Chances	Rank6	Shooting Talent-Adjusted xGoals	Rank7	Created xGoals	Rank8	xGoals +/-	Rank9	Point Shares	Rank10	Goaltending	Rank 11	Passing	Rank2	Entry Denials/60	Rank11	Exits	Rank12	Entries
Carolina	162	17	300	6	245	10	31	20	14	12	169	4	178	3	14	20	93	1	48	19	50.16579	21	0.028557	13	52.46355	17	55.0782
Tampa Bay	168	3	318	1	254	6	32	14	25	6	156	18	168	12	45	5	86	6	51	11	54.25391	15	0.035412	11	50.48224	25	55.9516

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

If people believed in your charts you would've won the 1st round.

It's not much different than using +/- to determine who's better.

 

[Paralyzer008]

I finished 2nd in Panda's charts and I finished lower than a team with Devan Dubnyk and another team with Korpisalo in net and Parayko as the top D-man.

I voted Carolina lower in my division and still ended up voting them over Toronto in the playoffs and thought the NJ series was close. I'll evaluate the TBL vs CAR matchup when it arrives.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I finished 2nd in Panda's charts and I finished lower than a team with Devan Dubnyk and another team with Korpisalo in net and Parayko as the top D-man.

I voted Carolina lower in my division and still ended up voting them over Toronto in the playoffs and thought the NJ series was close. I'll evaluate the TBL vs CAR matchup when it arrives.

I finished 4th on Panda’s charts and jobbed out to a team that had a 43 year old Zdeno Chara on his FIRST pairing on RIGHT defense.

It’s not a perfect system, but I personally believe that Panda’s weighted rankings were far more accurate than anything else. Panda’s weighted ranking also had Tampa as one or two (Tampa was the best team in my opinion).

 

[Panda Bear]

It's not my fault that a) people don't (or aren't willing to) understand statistics, b) people are affected by conformity bias, and c) people don't adequately investigate/research players before voting. I eye test and stat test.

I'm pretty confident in the latest iteration of PandaScores, which uses zone exit/zone entry/entry denial rates, different statistically-valid forms of xGoals, prorated even strength output that factors in time on ice, level of competition, Dangerous Fenwick and a couple of other things that are better predictors for future performance than simple Goals For/Goals Against and #NAME #VALUE.

By this point, the voting problem with PandaScores is ignorance and denial.

 

[Panda Bear]

I finished 2nd in Panda's charts and I finished lower than a team with Devan Dubnyk and another team with Korpisalo in net and Parayko as the top D-man.

I voted Carolina lower in my division and still ended up voting them over Toronto in the playoffs and thought the NJ series was close. I'll evaluate the TBL vs CAR matchup when it arrives.

It's pretty lol you weren't in the playoffs.

 

[Canucks LB]

It's not my fault that a) people don't (or aren't willing to) understand statistics, b) people are affected by conformity bias, and c) people don't adequately investigate/research players before voting. I eye test and stat test.

I'm pretty confident in the latest iteration of PandaScores, which uses zone exit/zone entry/entry denial rates, different statistically-valid forms of xGoals, prorated even strength output that factors in time on ice, level of competition, Dangerous Fenwick and a couple of other things that are better predictors for future performance than simple Goals For/Goals Against and #NAME #VALUE.

By this point, the voting problem with PandaScores is ignorance and denial.

I like the panda scores, thanks for doing them man.

 

[Joey Moss]

It's not my fault that a) people don't (or aren't willing to) understand statistics, b) people are affected by conformity bias, and c) people don't adequately investigate/research players before voting. I eye test and stat test.

I'm pretty confident in the latest iteration of PandaScores, which uses zone exit/zone entry/entry denial rates, different statistically-valid forms of xGoals, prorated even strength output that factors in time on ice, level of competition, Dangerous Fenwick and a couple of other things that are better predictors for future performance than simple Goals For/Goals Against and #NAME #VALUE.

By this point, the voting problem with PandaScores is ignorance and denial.

I don't think anyone has denied that they are a factor. For picks that I think are a tossup I may actually look toward your charts. But you clearly don't eye test and stat test because you continue to be adamant that your opinion is the only one that is right when it comes to players and teams based on the numbers. You should know (and I think you probably do, but enjoy trolling a bit) that numbers don't paint the full picture. All of those stats like entries/exits/denials are impacted by more than one player on the ice. That's my only gripe with it.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

It's not my fault that a) people don't (or aren't willing to) understand statistics, b) people are affected by conformity bias, and c) people don't adequately investigate/research players before voting. I eye test and stat test.

I'm pretty confident in the latest iteration of PandaScores, which uses zone exit/zone entry/entry denial rates, different statistically-valid forms of xGoals, prorated even strength output that factors in time on ice, level of competition, Dangerous Fenwick and a couple of other things that are better predictors for future performance than simple Goals For/Goals Against and #NAME #VALUE.

By this point, the voting problem with PandaScores is ignorance and denial.

Ive never used your stats.

In my opinion those all come from shot counts from teams that no longer exist in this fantasy game.

 

[Nucker101]

What I like about Panda is that he takes the lessons learned from each draft and uses that to apply changes to his formula. I bet his teams in the new draft will be more eye-test/name value friendly than this one, just like how this draft was an improvement over draft 1.

 

[Panda Bear]

I don't think anyone has denied that they are a factor. For picks that I think are a tossup I may actually look toward your charts. But you clearly don't eye test and stat test because you continue to be adamant that your opinion is the only one that is right when it comes to players and teams based on the numbers. You should know (and I think you probably do, but enjoy trolling a bit) that numbers don't paint the full picture. All of those stats like entries/exits/denials are impacted by more than one player on the ice. That's my only gripe with it.

I'm pretty lazy about qualifying team match ups when I've already spent so much time quantifying them, but I do pick teams with a combination of the two and I've proven to be happy to help people correct lineup errors when it comes to poorly constructed lines or players in the wrong position. But due to a combination of confirmation bias and being a certified card-carrying genius, my rankings are a pretty good reflection of which team I think is better both on paper and on ice.

Even your eye test of a single player is impacted because there's more than one player on the ice.

 

[Panda Bear]

Team	Rank Sum (Lower is better)	Weighted PandaScore	Rank	EV Scoring Impact	Rank3	PP Scoring Impact	Rank4	Elite TOI %	Rank5	Dangerous Scoring Chances	Rank6	Shooting Talent-Adjusted xGoals	Rank7	Created xGoals	Rank8	xGoals +/-	Rank9	Point Shares	Rank10	Goaltending	Rank 11	Passing	Rank2	Entry Denials/60	Rank11	Exits	Rank12	Entries	Rank13
1A	73	159	5	282	7	254	3	31	6	-17	8	172	1	172	4	10	7	78	7	52	3	57.57355	1	-0.054502384	6	54.08643	3	57.70329	3
1B	61	156	7	304	2	214	7	29	8	10	6	162	5	180	1	36	5	86	4	60	1	52.26611	5	0.145303239	2	55.78594	1	56.81444	4
2A	83	157	6	280	8	243	5	31	4	21	3	145	8	159	8	39	3	81	5	47	6	56.83021	2	0.189136998	1	53.05178	4	59.53105	2
2B	89	175	1	300	4	285	1	34	1	11	5	172	2	173	3	-9	8	91	2	42	8	43.6368	8	-0.129811777	7	50.54587	7	51.74876	8
3A	74	162	4	300	3	245	4	31	5	14	4	169	3	178	2	14	6	93	1	48	5	50.16579	6	0.028556705	5	52.46355	5	55.0782	6
3B	92	164	3	296	5	213	8	33	2	35	1	156	6	162	7	81	1	74	8	47	7	45.80569	7	0.069151277	3	51.17535	6	52.50759	7
4A	64	168	2	318	1	254	2	32	3	25	2	156	7	168	6	45	2	86	3	51	4	54.25391	3	0.035412108	4	50.48224	8	55.9516	5
4B	76	153	8	290	6	227	6	29	7	-8	7	163	4	169	5	38	4	80	6	55	2	53.75145	4	-0.226300639	8	54.83956	2	61.08931	1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Paralyzer008]

vs

CENTERS: I'd much rather have Crosby than Karlsson, and I'd much rather have Dubois over Duchene, so ST. LOUIS
LEFT WINGS: I think DeBrincat is the best of them but JVR is close. It's pretty close to me here through the rest of the lineup but the DeBrincat slight advantage means I'm taking ST. LOUIS
RIGHT WINGS: Kucherov and Meier are definitely ahead of Rakell and Zuccarello, give me CALGARY
DEFENSE: I prefer Orlov-McAvoy to Fowler-Doughty, but I prefer Dunn-Mayfield to Gardiner-Myers. The presence of Montour gives the Blues a bit of a boost, but I guess I'd take Calgary because I think the gap between top pairs isn't as much as the gap between 2nd pairs - CALGARY
GOALIE: I like both goalies a lot, but put a gun to my head and I'd take Gibson over Kuemper, Gibson has more raw talent. ST. LOUIS

VERDICT: I'm taking Blues in 6, their C depth is what really gives them the edge for me.

vs

CENTRES: I'd take Pettersson over Zibanejad slightly but I'd take Krejci over Hischier today. It's quite close. Cody Glass isn't quite ready for primetime yet over Faksa, so I'll take CAROLINA
LEFT WINGS: Lee and Kreider are comparable for me. I'd rather have Garland than Foligno. I'd rather have Foegele than Ennis/Blais. It's really close, but I'll take CAROLINA for having a bit more goal scoring upside.
RIGHT WINGS: Stone > Wheeler based on two-way play. Bjorkstrand is a bit better than Toffoli but it's not a far gap. I'd rather have Kahun/Okposo by a smidge on upside over Nieto/Gaudette. I'll take TAMPA BAY by a smidge.
DEFENSE: Klefbom-Weber and Trouba-Werenski are comparable, I'd probably take Tampa's top pair by a hair. I really like Dillon-Hronek for physicality and upside over Scandella-Vatanen. Djoos and Holden are comparable, Holl is better than Zaitsev to my eye. I'll take TAMPA BAY
GOALIE: Two unproven guys, yay! Raanta is slightly more proven than Jarry though, so for me it's TAMPA BAY.

VERDICT: Flip a coin, and in a coin flip I tend to go with who I think has the best player - but in this case, Pettersson and Stone are really, really close in my eyes. So after that I go to goaltending...and I trust Raanta a bit more than Jarry, so TAMPA BAY IN 7

 

[Joey Moss]

Montour and "boost" do not go well together. Unless you're talking about giving the other team a boost when he's on the ice.

 

[Paralyzer008]

Montour and "boost" do not go well together. Unless you're talking about giving the other team a boost when he's on the ice.

39 GF, 30GA at 5v5 this year...on tire fire Buffalo...

He's not a perfect player defensively by any stretch but he can move the puck really well, if he's on the bottom pair then that's a good boost to me.

 

[Joey Moss]

39 GF, 30GA at 5v5 this year...on tire fire Buffalo...

He's not a perfect player defensively by any stretch but he can move the puck really well, if he's on the bottom pair then that's a good boost to me.

Matt Benning GF% = 59%.

This is where eye test comes into play for me. Benning is out there a lot with the McDavid line and if you watch him play there are 3-4 bone headed plays a game.