|
Post by PineRider (SJ) on Oct 8, 2013 23:48:05 GMT -5
There was already a lot of discussion about this issue as it relates to playoffs.
If it is possible to track the number of FO's won in Fantrax, can we now vote to have the category changed for next season?
We should use FO's won, not FO%...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 9:34:54 GMT -5
I greatly prefer FO% to FO won. Guys like Toews & Bergeron & Konopka who hover around 60% should have that added value, whereas guys who take a ton at 45% should have lower value.
This change would all of a sudden make centers way more valuable than wingers, which seems unnecessary. It doesn't add any skill to acquiring/drafting centers (picking guys who are good at faceoffs). You just have to get a lot of them and you win that category.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 9, 2013 9:52:36 GMT -5
it is a stat you can't just change. I understand the reasoning, during H2H weeks there are points where a winger takes 1 draw, wins it and that 100% skews the FO stats for the matchup making wingers potentially more valuable than Centers.
it works both ways, Chris. Especially in our H2H format versus a roto or pure stats league. Centers are already more valuable than wingers but this would make it much more so.
In the long run, FO% is going to be preferable to FO in the regular season. Play-offs are a different situation altogether.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 9:58:15 GMT -5
it is a stat you can't just change. I understand the reasoning, during H2H weeks there are points where a winger takes 1 draw, wins it and that 100% skews the FO stats for the matchup making wingers potentially more valuable than Centers. it works both ways, Chris. Especially in our H2H format versus a roto or pure stats league. Centers are already more valuable than wingers but this would make it much more so. In the long run, FO% is going to be preferable to FO in the regular season. Play-offs are a different situation altogether. Agreed. I think we already removed faceoffs from our playoffs, or made it faceoffs won, I forget. FO% is definitely not good for the playoffs. In the regular season, do we ever see a team ice 0 centers and have a winger potentially win that category on 1 or 2 draws? That seems like a very long longshot.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Oct 9, 2013 11:03:18 GMT -5
it is a stat you can't just change. I understand the reasoning, during H2H weeks there are points where a winger takes 1 draw, wins it and that 100% skews the FO stats for the matchup making wingers potentially more valuable than Centers. it works both ways, Chris. Especially in our H2H format versus a roto or pure stats league. Centers are already more valuable than wingers but this would make it much more so. In the long run, FO% is going to be preferable to FO in the regular season. Play-offs are a different situation altogether. Completely agree with Zaph. Not unreasonable arguments against it but we're already locked in with our categories. Would significantly change the value of certain players to make this switch now.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 9, 2013 11:34:38 GMT -5
it is a stat you can't just change. I understand the reasoning, during H2H weeks there are points where a winger takes 1 draw, wins it and that 100% skews the FO stats for the matchup making wingers potentially more valuable than Centers. it works both ways, Chris. Especially in our H2H format versus a roto or pure stats league. Centers are already more valuable than wingers but this would make it much more so. In the long run, FO% is going to be preferable to FO in the regular season. Play-offs are a different situation altogether. Agreed. I think we already removed faceoffs from our playoffs, or made it faceoffs won, I forget. FO% is definitely not good for the playoffs. In the regular season, do we ever see a team ice 0 centers and have a winger potentially win that category on 1 or 2 draws? That seems like a very long longshot. I can't say for certain it has happened but the NHL week can vary wildly. some weeks one of our teams might only get in 2, maybe 3 games in the entire week and that situation might happen. It is rare, it is something almost impossible for us to plan for or against and really, it just sort of has to be chalked up to the randomness of our league's format. I don't think we could switch from FO% to FO. We could consider adding FO as an additional stat but that would make C's even MORE valued than they are.
|
|
|
Post by PineRider (SJ) on Oct 9, 2013 11:51:19 GMT -5
Consider the following scenario: A good C takes 20 faceoffs and wins 60% = 12 An okay C takes 20 FO's and wins 40% = 8 A bad C takes 10 FO's (because he is used less) and wins 30% = 3 A RW/LW takes 4 FO's and wins 50% = 2
Guys like Toews, Bergeron, and Konopka should be valued higher.
I don't see why this isn't more representative...
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 9, 2013 13:07:28 GMT -5
Personally I'm not seeing a big difference one way or the other during the regular season as the guys who are really good at face offs are leaned heavily on a nightly basis simply because they are good at it and it gives their NHL team the best opportunity to win. The issue during the playoffs occurs simply because there are way less games during a week and there are less players involved. The same issue occurred with save percentage for netminders.
So seeing a limited amount of discrepancy during the regular season, I would tend to side toward keeping it the way it is mainly because GMs have already built their teams with the current scoring system in mind. I know I for one have. My team is very strong down the middle.
|
|
|
Post by PineRider (SJ) on Oct 9, 2013 14:51:57 GMT -5
Scrap that...
I just realized that Fantrax calculated FO% as total # faceoffs won / total # faceoffs taken... which is the right way to do it.
I mistakenly thought that when a winger takes one faceoff and wins it, that accounted for "100%" in the stats, which then gets averaged with the rest of the team. I thought that one faceoff was disproportionately weighted... but it doesn't work that way, so I'm good...
|
|