[DoubleF]

Let me try something silly. I want to focus on input that everyone discusses but never try to quantify.

Something like (For draft + minor)...

Spoiler!

(0-5)
Player base skill
x
(1 OR 2)
Professional maturity (NHL vs Minor grade; always lean 1 if uncertain)
+
(0-6)
fit of all (x teams/30 teams*30/5)
-
(0-5)
Spotlight profile (Balance out desirability and pressure)
+
(0-5)
team/positional need (0-1 /desired position(s )to fill * 5; No way you need to fill all positions... but if only need to fill 1 role and meets that role, then +5 bumps ranking)
-
(0-5)
handicaps (Size, attitude, play style, RH/LH etc. Max 2 per factor)


Max = 11, only because if the next guy really thinks he's that good, we'll borrow his vote in determining whether we're interested.

The reason for this calculation would be more like "sorting" of available draft candidates or UFA or something (But probably more on drafting). Multipliers are obviously something deemed perhaps more polarizing of the type of player will be churned out.

Player skill - No brainer
Professional maturity - NHL ready vs farm team training (Quickly polarizes players/splits the list in half for useful now vs prospects)
Fit of all - Useful as trade bait off ice/appreciating value player (Nod to BPA)
Spotlight - Should further lower individuals with low professional maturity down the list. Should be negated by the professional maturity above.
Positional need - Should remove players from list if we have no need for that role (Rank BPA by team needs)
Handicap - if players left over, what factors change the ranking of similar players


I feel like something like this is already done. Advanced sorting doesn't do much in terms of finding a good fit player. The inputs are also all subjective which means you could use this wrong or and get stupid outputs. (ie: Teams that think all players are skill 1000 and x2 for professional maturity) I wanted a number that was smaller purely on the idea that you should be able to count the reasons on both hands. If you have more than that by a significant amount, you're probably over analyzing the player.

Another could potentially be for established players:

Spoiler!

(0-5)
Player skill (on other team)
x
(0-2)
Effective use by team
+
(0-2.5)+(0-2.5)
Our ability to effective use + Our ability to fix
+
(0-6)
fit of all (x teams/30 teams*30/5)
-
(0-5)
Spotlight profile (Balance out desirability and pressure)
+
(0-5)
team/positional need (0-1 /desired position(s )to fill * 5; No way you need to fill all positions... but if only need to fill 1 role and meets that role, then +5 bumps ranking)
-
(0-5)
handicaps (Size, attitude, play style, RH/LH, injury prone etc. Max 1 per factor)

MAX = 6

Should be able to count on one hand a reason to chase someone more established. +1 to see if you hunt them down to keep them from other teams.

Many of these "values" we already talk about them. I tried to design the analysis to have polarizing values that somewhat eliminate hype or can really flush the player down the list if the player is not a necessary piece.

Maybe someone can also figure out a way to do a (balanced ranking + teams desired + residual value if walk) of a player for salary? Might be helpful for deals or figuring out how to negotiate a decent salary +/- figuring out extras and limits for "overpay" to know when to add or when to release. I mean, many posters already argue if players are worth between 3-6 mil. Someone is sure to figure out that calculation with inputs that are tweakable. Might want an actuary rather than stats person though.

Originally Posted by calumniate

Think you have to include analysis of your own coaching and development group as well. A rookie can head off to Detroit and the Wings will typically get the max potential out of a player. Head to Edmonton and it's a different story.

This seems pointless tbh. A team shouldn't be trading to keep good assets out of other teams hands. They should focus on having good assets they can use. I would assume this is over analyzing because it's a given. If a GM is traded though, the recalculation on players from the new team side should show this. The issue likely would be teams not inputting the players in the first place, or bogging down the players rankings with crap input values.