CPHL Currency Analysis - Update - Dec 2015

[Knut]

I may or may not be joining back up with the league, but the discussion recently here made me curious if anything had changed.

Disclaimer:
1) This is subjective mostly
2) Do not worry if a random player is missed here and there

Rough Work for download : http://www.filedropper.com/cphlcurrency

Notes:

1) Currency increased by about 150 pts. First off, i as a little inconsistent last time i did it as it was over the course of a week. Secondly, I added points for draft picks that are likely lottery picks and gave out some extra points for prospects that fell off the top 75 list from last time. There was also more CPHL ELCers that are playing the NHL and they are worth more. Finally, I was a little more liberal with the fringe players with upside.

2) Minnesota is still the class of the league, but Calgary has really pulled out of the basement. Ottawa is the in basement now.

3) Overall the league Currency increased by 5.46 pts/team. Nashville increased the most (20), while Colorado decreased the most (-5).

4) The top 5 teams make up 29.1% of the currency (33.3% last time). The bottom half of the league makes up 36.8% of the currency (34.6% last time).


Updated Chart :



Difference from last time






Discussion :

1) Are the rules in place from last year having an effect ? I do know that Minny is going to run into a big crunch this offseason with all the ir young guys on ELCs that are in the NHL. Curious to see what the market value is there.

2) I am personally against a dispersal draft, but I do think that some assets flowing from the top to the bottom (especially to teams with new GMs) would be helpful. A solution may be for Teams near the top to buy pending UFAs (at a premium) from the teams at the bottom. It would allow for those teams to take a run at a championship and then lose the asset back into the pool in the offseason. It may be the most fair way. Either that or a maybe a first round pick dispersion to lower asset teams.

3) It is obvious that GMs can move up the chart if they really want to. It is going to be impossible for more than a few of those to do it at the same time however.

Thoughts ?



Old Thread for reference: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...=CPHL+currency

[JiriHrdina]

images broken?

[Knut]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

images broken?

Fixed... not enough .jpg

[simmer2]

Isles still in the basement.

I suspect trading away a lot of my futures to get Krejci and Johansen had a big impact on this.

[I wanna be like Miikka]

Give 3 1sts to Ottawa, then 2 each to Isles, Jets and Wings. Flyers are still gold.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Isles still in the basement.

I suspect trading away a lot of my futures to get Krejci and Johansen had a big impact on this.

Some of this is methodolgoy. Which isn't to criticize how Hesla has approaches this because you gotta pick a method.

But you are getting two points for Johansen and Daniel Sprong is worth 3.
Johansen is worth way more than Sprong.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Some of this is methodolgoy. Which isn't to criticize how Hesla has approaches this because you gotta pick a method.

But you are getting two points for Johansen and Daniel Sprong is worth 3.
Johansen is worth way more than Sprong.

yeah there are definitely some methodology issues. It is really hard to pin subjective values on guys while also having some objective measures. I factor in contracts a bit though. If sprong sticks he is on a cheap contract for 5 years. Johansen could very likely be a max grid soon.

Ideally i would create a 4 player or expand the number of guys in 3.

[Caged Great]

Just thought of a possible solution to the imbalance.

What about competitive balance picks.

After the first round in the draft, the 5 teams with the least internal value get picks 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35. You could also tack on 5 competitive balance picks to the end of the second round as well. The valuations could be made at an arbitrary date well before the trade deadline, say a month before. That way a team couldn't sell off a ton of assets to fall into the bottom 5.

That way there doesn't need to be a huge shake up of rosters etc, but it is something that could quite painlessly address the problem.

[Slava]

Pretty impressed that we have moved up so much! I think I am way behind the top tier though, and it's evident on the graphs. I know I disagreed with some of the methodology when you put this together last year, but like Jiri says, you have to pick a methodology.

Also hesla would be great as Flyer's GM because he trades all his picks anyway IIRC!

[JiriHrdina]

Well done Slava. Good work

[Swayze11]

Interesting.

Last year I went full rebuild. This season I brought in Stamkos, Letang, Kesler, Filppula, Niskanen, Hossa and Bishop. Yet I am the worst in currency difference.

My guess is all the blue chips I traded for the above were worth more in the formula then the above.

[TurdFerguson]

My guess is you're garbage, I'd have to check the formula as well though.

[Swayze11]

Also,

Thank you Hesla for confirming the issue we have in this league with real data. Hopefully the commish team takes a look at this deeper now.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Also,

Thank you Hesla for confirming the issue we have in this league with real data. Hopefully the commish team takes a look at this deeper now.

We already were. Maybe just not driving to the solutions you specifically want.

[Knut]

I am very curious with the big crunch Grant is going to feel this offseason. I think he has 8 Guys coming off of his ECHL needing AHL contracts. That means he has 8 guys that have to move out of the AHL/CPHL. Teams should start circling now.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Also,

Thank you Hesla for confirming the issue we have in this league with real data. Hopefully the commish team takes a look at this deeper now.

I don't think that this demonstrates what you think it does. To me it looks like through trading and diligence a team can make a lot of currency gains through trading. I look at Nashville separately and see that under this methodology I would be considered a "have" team, but I don't think that many other GMs would put me there if you looked at my franchise independently. So you have to take that kind of ranking with a grain of salt.

What you can definitely see though, is that teams can make monumental shifts by trading. Look no further than Calgary who after many players in and out in the past week has gone from roughly ten points to 28. That's an enormous increase. Even teams that are in the middle of the graph here have gained roughly 6-7 points, which is about a 25% increase for them.

Its also important to note that the teams like Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Anaheim who are probably the easiest examples of "have" teams in the league showed growth that was either negative or in the bottom third of the league. That suggests that the rich aren't in fact getting richer, but the big growth for teams like Calgary, Nashville and Buffalo type teams is mostly coming from other middling squads. The evidence here shows that there should be more parity going forward actually, and that things are tightening.

Lastly, and to me this is important, these assets and their correlation with the actual standings is just not there. The top ten in league standings are:

1. Boston
2. Anaheim
3. Montréal
4. Minnesota
5. Florida
6. New Jersey
7. Ottawa
8. Colorado
9. Calgary
10. Columbus

But under this methodology you have currency standings of:

1. Minnesota
2. Philadelphia
3. Pittsburgh
4. New Jersey
5. Anaheim
6. Nashville
7. Phoenix
8. Los Angeles
9. Vancouver
10. Colorado

So basically 6 of the current top ten teams aren't in the top ten in terms of currency, and notably the correlation overall with the currency/standings is not a good predictor at all. Teams like Boston, Montréal and Ottawa ought to be nowhere near the top of the league (no offence guys!), if we are looking at currency.

Overall, it makes me question whether there really is a problem with asset distribution. I think it could be better, but when you look at the actual evidence here, its questionable to some extent.

[Knut]

This is actually a big issue with the SIM right now. It is too random when it comes to the standings. A rebuilding team could offload everything, keep their pick, and end up in the playoff spot negating a bit benefit of offloading everything. Montreal could really use a top 5 pick from an asset standpoint.

Teams like Boston have it right..... Find Sim chemistry... end up top 10 and use those firsts to buy stuff for now.

[Swayze11]

Sim luck is obvious. Not arguing that since there is nothing we can do to impact that.

The top 5 teams have a score of 357. You would need 15 of the bottom teams together to reach that score. I am open to other things besides a dispersal draft or a reset and there have been some great points and ideas brought up which will help - looking forward to seeing what the commish team decides to do.

If 5 top teams equals 15 bottom teams - something needs to give.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Hesla

This is actually a big issue with the SIM right now. It is too random when it comes to the standings. A rebuilding team could offload everything, keep their pick, and end up in the playoff spot negating a bit benefit of offloading everything. Montreal could really use a top 5 pick from an asset standpoint.

Teams like Boston have it right..... Find Sim chemistry... end up top 10 and use those firsts to buy stuff for now.

Right, but that's why we play the game. How pointless would it be if you just looked at the currency and it played out that exact way? How many GMs would stick around for a game when the results were so predetermined that you could do a study like this and know exactly what the end of the season looked like?

The thing is that this currency study is pretty clearly not a good predictor of where teams will wind up in the standings.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

Sim luck is obvious. Not arguing that since there is nothing we can do to impact that.

The top 5 teams have a score of 357. You would need 15 of the bottom teams together to reach that score. I am open to other things besides a dispersal draft or a reset and there have been some great points and ideas brought up which will help - looking forward to seeing what the commish team decides to do.

If 5 top teams equals 15 bottom teams - something needs to give.

Sure, sim luck is one factor, but there is no correlation between winning sim games and having this "currency score". This is confirmation bias in action, where we all assume that having these pieces makes your team better, but the evidence is spotty at best.