|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 23, 2007 21:08:36 GMT -5
Oh give me a fucking break! This has just become funny. First you complain about your opponent's goalies being "super human" and then when your opponent has weak or mediocre goaltending for the week, you claim short on offence. By the way, the skater starts were 38 to 31 for me, with goalie starts going to you by a fair margin. Even if I sat my four guys on Sunday I still would have beaten you, those are the breaks. The bottom line is this, you haven't won a week, and yet you're still on top. I don't care how good your team looks on paper, if you lose three weeks in a row you shouldn't be #1. Your team is the biggest disappointment thus far and you have a lot of ground to make up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Oct 24, 2007 2:04:26 GMT -5
Oh give me a fucking break! This has just become funny. First you complain about your opponent's goalies being "super human" and then when your opponent has weak or mediocre goaltending for the week, you claim short on offence. By the way, the skater starts were 38 to 31 for me, with goalie starts going to you by a fair margin. Even if I sat my four guys on Sunday I still would have beaten you, those are the breaks. The bottom line is this, you haven't won a week, and yet you're still on top. I don't care how good your team looks on paper, if you lose three weeks in a row you shouldn't be #1. Your team is the biggest disappointment thus far and you have a lot of ground to make up. I hate to agree with nose. With fear of nausea, however, I must do so. I have hesitated to comment concerning the power rankings feature on the new NAFHL website for two main reasons: They are highly subjective and therfore largely meaningless if not entertaining and those who post in threads like this inevitably fall back to narcissistic rhetoric about how THEY have been unfairly "judged." This form of ego stroking makes me ill and homocidal, because it masquerades as objective and constructive criticism when in reality the authors don't care about anything but metaphorically wacking off onto their keyboards. With that said, there are a couple obvious reasons why the Senators should not be #1 in the power rankings. First, as nose mentioned, the Senators have lost the first three weeks of the NAFHL season. These losses are attributed to awesome opponents stats, team injuries, slow starts and the like. I submit this as bullshit reasoning. Now granted these things can be used, along with previously perceived value, to indicate a team's likelyhood of bouncing back....but come on. The bottom line is those weeks were lost and the particular stats used to explain these losses away (goalie stats) are nearly irrelevant. Yes, Ottawa's opponents' goalies have played well, but Derrick's own goalies have been terrible. Better play would more than likely yeilded the same results. Second, the power rankings are not chiseled in stone. As everyone can see, teams are moved nearly every week. Willingness to move teams should not be limited to the middle-lower sections of the graph. I don't think anyone's suggesting Ottawa be moved to 6th or 7th place. I would argue against moving the team below 2nd. And that's the thing. Is one spot really a difference? Can one honestly say that Buffalo's team is that much better than mine? I would hope not, but that's what too shutout weeks buys a manager. His team moves up and gains some prestige. That's what these power rankings are all about aren't they? Every manger wants to see their team move up and rule over the teams below for one week. Derrick, evaluate your teams performance objectively and ask yourself, if this were somebody else's team would I feel the same way? I think these rankings are a great idea and are pretty spot on. Entertainment-wise, they're my favorite feature in this league (besides reading nose's insipid and stupid posts in previous threads). That's all I have to say now and forever about the objectivity of these power rankings. Any further discussion will be in the context of light-hearted discourse and trash talk. You have been listening to Bruno Juwanomaki radio WOBGYN Columbus. |
|
|
|
Post by patriot0103 on Oct 24, 2007 12:52:09 GMT -5
Can one honestly say that Buffalo's team is that much better than mine? Yes. Yes, I can.  |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 24, 2007 14:36:40 GMT -5
OK. Since you asked...
Here is what i see when I look at your team initially (pertaining to
this season):
Yet to score 10 goals in a week.
Yet to score more than 7 PPP in a week.
8 of your 15 wins have come via shp. gwg, or goalie forfeits due to not making starts.
Without goalie forfeits you would be winless. (0-3) (11-20-5)
Now, when you say "because a few of my big name guys havent been producing" you mean who exactly?
Brad Richards?
6 pts in 6 games so far which would put him on pace for 82 pts this season, well above last years total of 70.
Ilya Kovalchuk?
9 pts in 9 games this season, which also has him on pace for 82 pts, besting last years totals of 76 as well.
Michael Nylander?
5 pts in 7 games. On pace for 60 pts. Only topped 80 pts once, and 70 points twice in his career, both on a stacked NYR team. His previous career best was 64 points in 2000.
Jason Blake?
11 pts in 10 games. On pace for 90 pts, WELL above any total blake has in his career. In fact he has never topped 70, and only reached 60 once.
Mats Sundin?
17 pts in 10 games. On pace for a 138 pt year. Someone who has only topped 100 pts once, back in 1992 and has been a consistent 75-80 point player since.
Your Defense?
15 points in 27 games combined. Right on par with years past (0.7 pts/game) and definition of a "solid D."
If anything, your team is overachieving offensively on paper. There is nowhere to go but down; excluding Havlat who is just a distraction. Never topped 60 pts in his career because he cant seem to manage to play more than 50 games a season. Like always, no timetable for return.
Vesa Toskala is not a "big name guy." He is/was an overachieving goalie in a platoon situation who is unproven at handling a full time starters position. Think Manny Fernandez, Marc Denis.
Much of your teams success was/is riding on the backs of Toskala and Havlat, both who have seemingly crashed and burned. Guys like Penner, Kozlov, and Clark all sounded appealing but just havent worked out as planned.
Between Toskala and Roloson's problems, Nabokov isn't enough to win you a championship, or even get you into the playoffs. You need a miracle.
As of right now you are:
4th to last in Goals
2nd to last in Assists
4th to last in +/-
Last in Penalty Minutes
Last in Power play Points
4th to Last in Goals Against Average
4th to last in Save Percentage
...so it's not like the "problem" is neutralized to one major area of concern. These numbers have been consistent for the first few weeks with limited means of getting better. As exhibited, your team is playing almost as well as it possibly can and will. Sundin and Blake wont keep this pace up all year, and where they falter, guys like Afinogenov or Hemsky will pick up, but it all evens out in the end.
I just don't see any past, present of future indicator that says Toskala is going to have a miraculous turn around, or that Havlat is going to play more than 50 games. Do these sound like championship team credentials?
Thus, why you are ranked where you are ranked.
Anybody else?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 24, 2007 14:39:58 GMT -5
It's the 3rd week of the season, with 20 more left to go. TWENTY. To make a comparison to "real life," Ottawa is much like Kiprusoff, Luongo, and Brodeur, who all have GAA's over 3.00 and pretty bad save % as well as win-loss records. I don't see any one of them on the waiver wire. I don't hear any talk of how much better Tim Thomas or Martin Gerber is compared to them, or even Henrik Lundqvist; or how they are no longer "all-stars" because of a slow start, no matter what the circumstances. You know why? Because they are great players, and at the end of the year, one of the three will more than likely be the best goalie in the league statistically.
The fact of the matter is, if a draft occurred today, I guarantee one of the three aforementioned goalies would go first in their class despite whatever they have done so far this season.
It is a lot harder for the top of the rankings to change based on prestige and expectations alone. The same goes for the bottom of the rankings as well. It is the middle of the pack (4-9) that is cut throat and subject to the most change because the teams are so close in talent.
Calgary was in a very similar situation not being able to make goalie starts for the first 2 weeks (which is worse than any stats at all) and it went up both times due to the strength of its performance and future expectations. I judge every team with the exact same set of standards and guidelines.
Goaltending is unpredictable, but the most confident one can be is when you have two "studs" in net who have yet to perform. This is the case for Calgary and Ottawa. No team will judged SOLELY on goaltending, and no merit whatsoever will be awarded to SHP or GWG whereas they too are unpredictable and unreliable in judging "talent."
...and as a side note
2nd in Goals
1st in Assists
1st in +/-
3rd in Power Play Points
1st in Shots on Goal
Somebody please help me....
...
It's obviously a goal tending issue, one way or the other. It's not like im pinning my hopes on Vesa Toskala and Chris Mason claiming "oh you just wait, they'll turn it around." Let's get real here.
In the end, If so many of you are quick to jump ship on your "studs" I expect to see a healthy waiver wire come Monday morning. Some people are slow starters, others come firing out the gate only to dissipate and fall flat in the end. The point is, its only week 3, and we shouldn't get caught up in streaks, good or bad. What are you, a bunch of rookies?
P.S - Note that Buffalo was listed so low on the pre-season ranks with the uncertainty of gaborik's health and biron's performance. If i recall, "Sleeper pick...Buffalo goes up if gaborik stays healthy..." so that situation is a bit unique. Don't expect too many sudden jumps or falls.
P.S.S - I didn't lose Week 1. I don't care what the yahoo stat tracker says. These are the same clowns who for the fourth week have yet to give heatley LW status, list a short-handed goal in every other game played only to take it away (except pitkanens), and take 3 and 1/2 months to put a guy on the IR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Oct 24, 2007 14:48:00 GMT -5
I understand your breakdown above Derrick if you say that its based on week to week output but your basing it on a total season if thats the case then your players arent looking to great and San Jose and possibly even Pitts should be over you and Buffalo should be higher. But thats just my opinion. To me the confusion comes from your stating that its and overall ability to get to a championship. But then the reasons for teams dropping are because of there week to week status. I think it should be done on a week to week basis where teams move up and down based soely on the weeks theyve had. Not on how good the players they have are projected to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 24, 2007 15:36:15 GMT -5
I understand your breakdown above Derrick if you say that its based on week to week output but your basing it on a total season if thats the case then your players arent looking to great and San Jose and possibly even Pitts should be over you and Buffalo should be higher. But thats just my opinion. To me the confusion comes from your stating that its and overall ability to get to a championship. But then the reasons for teams dropping are because of there week to week status. I think it should be done on a week to week basis where teams move up and down based soely on the weeks theyve had. Not on how good the players they have are projected to do. I have to use weekly stats on the weekly rankings because those are footnotes to what a team has been doing based on predictions. The weekly stats i provide are more for your benefit, as a little update, not so much indicative of how i rank the teams. Take Calgary and Columbus last week. Both had awesome weeks, awesome stats, yet both went down. The rankings are a snow ball effect, and I couldnt possibly write everything i wanted to say in such a limited amount of space. However, if asked, i am willing to provide a detailed breakdown of why a team is ranked where they are ranked. If you want a week to week ranking of how teams in the league are doing just go to the yahoo league page, thats already provided for you. Who wins and week, and the total win-loss record doesnt mean everything to me, take pittsburgh last year, for example. what i hope the weekly rankings will do is eliminate the element of surprise and provide an accurate view of who REALLY has the best chance of making the playoffs, and winning the championship. Not just what some silly win-loss record says. Too many factors can skew the yahoo rankings. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 24, 2007 23:32:58 GMT -5
2nd in Goals 1st in Assists 1st in +/- 3rd in Power Play Points 1st in Shots on Goal Somebody please help me.... Yeah, so? You've still lost those weeks and thus lost out on possible points, leaving you low in the standings and out of the playoff picture. You have a lot of ground to make up within the standings. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 25, 2007 14:16:29 GMT -5
2nd in Goals 1st in Assists 1st in +/- 3rd in Power Play Points 1st in Shots on Goal Somebody please help me.... Yeah, so? You've still lost those weeks and thus lost out on possible points, leaving you low in the standings and out of the playoff picture. You have a lot of ground to make up within the standings. I see it as overachievers having a lot of ground to lose. |
|
Ryan
First Liner
100%
104-139-33
Posts: 726
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 5, 2007 13:25:38 GMT -5
just a suggestion on the main page is there anyway the player of the week can be a little smaller in size and maybe include the players name for example have a smaller picture of the player and below it have the team name he is on in NAFHL and have the players name under that and then the stats could be to the right.....just a suggestion
|
|
Ryan
First Liner
100%
104-139-33
Posts: 726
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 12, 2007 18:35:07 GMT -5
sorry to bug but what are the plans for the league page? something that could be put on the page would be the player of the week archives and Power Rankings archives not sure what else
|
|
|
|
Post by patriot0103 on Nov 12, 2007 19:12:07 GMT -5
"almost swept in Week 6 (2 PIMS, 2 W, .08 GAA, .23%)."
Please, give me a break. A 5-4 week and I was almost swept. Our matchup was close in every category except +/-, GWG (which are luck anyways), and Wins. I mean, you were just SOOO close to taking ALL 4 of those other categories. ....and the categories you won were just so decisive (3 goals, 3 assists).
You should have crushed me! Week in and week out I'm catching breaks, and you're getting screwed.
Your bias is becoming more and more evident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Nov 12, 2007 20:23:03 GMT -5
Your bias is becoming more and more evident. Indeed, let's take a look at my comments... "Leads the league in goals (81) and SOG (681) complimenting its 6 week winning streak. About to hit rough patch in schedule. 19-13 combined in past 3, while posting 2nd worst GAA in the league, and 4th worst SV% on the year. Subtle streaming casting cloud over otherwise great start."Rough patch in schedule? So most of the teams I'm about to face are better than the teams I've already beaten? (Penguins, Senators, Bruins, Blue Jackets) Subtle streaming? So because I'm using two roster spots to occupy goalies that don't always play, then sending one down to try and keep on the farm, it's a form of "subtle streaming". Give me a break. If this were your team you'd be saying "goaltending returning to form with Luongo posting impressive 1.48 GAA and .952 SV% for the week against teams like Colorado and Calgary." If you actually want to be taken seriously this crap has to stop, if not, you're par for the course. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Nov 12, 2007 21:19:21 GMT -5
You can't possibly be arguing that 2 PIM, .08 gaa and .23% is in any way comparable to 3 goals and 3 assists.
First off, you had 9 goals all week. NINE. I had 12. Those 3 goals that you seem to think are so minute are 33% of your total goals scored all week...and a 25% increase between you and I.
3 assists, once again, 20% of your weekly total of 16. You are averaging 2.2 assists a day. By that math you would have at least needed another day and a half to even tie, and thats with my team doing absolutley nothing.
Now compare 2 pim, (3% of my weekly total) and .08 gaa, .23% that can be erased in as little as 5 shots against, give or take, or .4 of a goal scored on your goalie or not scored on mine or a combination of both. The comparison you are trying to make is ridiculous. One situation can be reasonably swayed in a matter of seconds, whereas one would take a much longer period of time.
You said it best, when you said the above. The categories i did walk away with i did so handedly, whereas you barely squeaked by. Even if you were to have a player on sunday that got you 3 goals and 3 assists in one game (however improbable), he could not have gotten you 3 gwgs and +18.
Im glad you feel this way because these two categories make up for 14 of your total points (15% of your total). Good for 2nd among these two categories in the league, trailing only Montreal (16).
P.S. Its not luck when youre consistently plus, and lead the league in the category. However, i will agree that GWG and SHP are nonsense, pure luck as to when they are distributed, and skew the overall scoring.
And as far as bias goes...if the league were to be decided right NOW, Pittsburgh would be the champion. All future circumstances and considerations aside.
Every time my team does something positive and i point it out, im being bias? I guess im biased toward pittsburgh now because i give them praise...oh and montreal for their recent success....or calgary and toronto...or how about when i make almost the exact same comment in regards to the Boston-Montreal match up on the Week 5 Power Rankings...
I call it like i see it. Thats it.
|
|
|
|
Post by patriot0103 on Nov 12, 2007 23:29:47 GMT -5
First of all, I don't have time to write an essay arguing about a fantasy matchup like you do...nor do I care to spend much time on it. You can't possibly be arguing that 2 PIM, .08 gaa and .23% is in any way comparable to 3 goals and 3 assists. First off, you had 9 goals all week. NINE. I had 12. Those 3 goals that you seem to think are so minute are 33% of your total goals scored all week...and a 25% increase between you and I. 3 assists, once again, 20% of your weekly total of 16. You are averaging 2.2 assists a day. By that math you would have at least needed another day and a half to even tie, and thats with my team doing absolutley nothing. Now compare 2 pim, (3% of my weekly total) and .08 gaa, .23% that can be erased in as little as 5 shots against, give or take, or .4 of a goal scored on your goalie or not scored on mine or a combination of both. The comparison you are trying to make is ridiculous. One situation can be reasonably swayed in a matter of seconds, whereas one would take a much longer period of time. It is quite clear that statistics is not your strong point. Arguing percentages of a weekly total to determine how big of a difference there is between the teams is an absolutely retarded way to analyze it. (Particularly when every single category is scaled differently, and you cross-reference them when comparing, but that's another debate) Ok, so even though it's a stupid way to analyze it, let's take a look at the "weekly percentages" anyways. Interesting that it only applies when it's convenient for you. Let's take a page from your own book..... Since it would have taken me "another day and a half" to match your assists with your team doing nothing, how long would it have taken for you to match my wins? Based on the way you analyze things, 7 days ("with my team doing nothing"), because I had twice as many (or as you would put it, 200% of your total wins).....BUT YOU ALMOST SWEPT ME!!! Go ahead, tell me why percentages don't work here, but they do for goals, assists, and whatever other fucking categories you won. Im glad you feel this way because these two categories make up for 14 of your total points (15% of your total). Good for 2nd among these two categories in the league, trailing only Montreal (16). P.S. Its not luck when youre consistently plus, and lead the league in the category. However, i will agree that GWG and SHP are nonsense, pure luck as to when they are distributed, and skew the overall scoring. P.S. Find where I said +/- is luck. Last I checked there is a comma between +/- and GWG. As far as I'm aware, in the English language, a comma denotes a division in a phrase or sentence. Next time, I'll work on a better system of notation. I call it like i see it. Thats it. That's fine, and I've defended the fact that it's your opinion in the past, and you can say whatever you want. Bottom line is that it's a little ridiculous when there's an OBVIOUS bias, and yet you argue that it's objective. Every week I look at it, it's how will Derrick justify his team as being #1 this week. |
|
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.