Paths to Success or Failure in 2010-2011

Post date: Aug 09, 2011 6:53:31 PM

Paths to Success or Failure in 2010-2011

By: Andrew Schuts

August 9^th 2011

As the 2010-2011 Novarks season fades into the rear-view, our thoughts turn to the optimism of a fresh draft, fresh set of keepers, and a new Novarks season. However, one last look behind reveals some interesting observations, and perhaps a few cautionary tales for Novarks GM’s to be aware of going forward.

Keepers:

It should be no surprise to anybody just how important keepers are. We are talking about the top roughly 60 assets being protected by their appropriate owners. That’s a significant chunk of point production, and bang for buck assets. However, what was that about best laid plans? Injuries and poor performance can conspire against us, adding another layer of unpredictability.

So how did the Novarks keeper rosters stack up?

Figure 1

A pretty interesting theme becomes apparent here. You will notice the four green shades correspond quite nicely to the top 4 teams at year’s end. While one season does not define a trend, this is clearly a phenomenon worth keeping an eye on going forward. The performance and health of your keepers defines the moves a team will make come November and February waiver time.

You will notice one significant outlier in Team Bob. Key injuries to Evgeni Malkin and Zach Parise along with the unexpected demotion of Tukka Rask to backup status added up to the worst performing keeper group. Surely this would have doomed GM Linka’s team to a bottom of the table finish right?

Actually Team Bob steered this ship into 5^th place, buffering the poor keeper performance with a strong draft performance.

Draft:

Filled with variables, the draft can make or break a season much like keeper performance and health. However the general consensus is that one can do more with high picks to ensure a more productive draft.

A small exercise performed, shown in Figure 2, adds all pick positions and assigns a total number to each team’s draft. The lower the number, the higher picks a team possessed. While not exactly scientifically intense, it does paint a picture of who had the greatest “opportunity” to build via the draft.

Figure 2

Once again we see the same familiar faces in green, though the top 4 finishes in a slightly different order, and once again we see one significant outlier. This time the outlier was Team Daly who went into the draft with, roughly, the best portfolio. So what happened? How did Daly finish in 11^th? Poor draft pick performances along with a below standard keeper roster performance led to an initial burst of buying in November to try and correct. The damage was already done however, the buys did not pan out and, and a massive sell occurred in February.

No surprise here, a better draft portfolio positions a team for a chance at success, but certainly does not guarantee it.

The important question is how did these pick positions stack up in relation to performance? Figure 3 shows that there is a relationship in most cases between a team’s draft portfolio and the performance of the players picked. This is certainly no surprise. However, there are certainly examples of how injuries, unexpected performance increases and decreases amongst players, as well as good and poor drafting decisions can take a good portfolio situation and come up empty. This is evidenced by looking at, without judgment on what the causes were; Team Daly, Team Nate, Team Will, Team Dave and Team Bob most notably.

In Team Dave and Team Bob’s case, it appears that while one can overcome a weak portfolio to stay out of the basement, it is very difficult to win it all with one.

Figure 3

So how does this all compare to the actual final pool point totals? After all, bench moves, waiver moves, and trades all contribute to the overall Team/GM performance. Figure 4 paints this picture.

Figure 4

Remember Pat had, on average, the best keeper performance along with Josh. Couple this with the 2^nd best portfolio which he used shrewdly to amass the runaway best draft, and you essentially had a team that others were bound to be playing catch up with all season. While Josh it appears outperformed Pat on the waiver wire – think Clarke MacArthur, and in the trade market, Pat made enough moves to hang on. Josh was forced to climb up hill the whole way.

Team Schuts had to climb slightly uphill due to a decent, but not on par with Josh or Pat, keeper roster due to the fragile Marian Gaborik. He produced a strong draft day performance, but was unable to make enough positive additions to the team to put it over the top come waiver and trade time. The Alfredsson trade and decision not to improve in net likely sank him. As well the February sell-off likely widened the gap in final points more than it actually would have been.

Team Will had a decent keeper roster, but did not manage to capitalize in the draft, with below average performance. Team Will made some strong trades and waiver moves to maintain his top 4 position, but for both Will and Schuts, 2010-11 likely will go down as a missed opportunity, with Keeler regretting his draft, and Schuts regretting his trades. Both could have potentially overcome the 40-50 point total keeper roster deficit and won it all.

Team Bob appears to be the GM of the year, despite finishing out of the money. He overcame a poor keeper roster with the 2^nd best draft, despite having a middle of the road portfolio, and made some of the best trades of the 2010-2011 season – think Bryzgalov, Lundqvist, Sharp and Iginla here.

Assumptions

There have been a series of assumptions mentioned over the course of the year to try and rationalize the how and why teams finish where they do, and what if any magic formula exists. One season does not make a trend, but I think we have at the very least challenged the credibility of a few assumptions here:

1) Josh took the best player available approach, and that works best. Maybe…but his draft performance lined up pretty consistently with his portfolio. Nothing here suggests Josh’s strategy in the draft was any more productive than others.

2) Having the most high end picks sets you up to win. Maybe…but Team Daly went from best portfolio to 2^nd last place, and put in the 2^nd worst draft performance. There are certainly enough commonalities between draft portfolio and point totals to suggest it is better to have higher picks. But not necessarily an obvious cause and effect relationship. There are still very significant variables of health, player performance, and GM performance that are far more significant factors. In other words, you can screw it up.

3) Keeper health and performance is crucial. Maybe…and probably the most likely, but not necessarily. If a GM hits early trouble with his keepers, this will likely define their November waiver strategy. GM’s can hedge their bets by keeping safe productive keepers…then cross their fingers. Team Dave is an example of a strong keeper roster that hit some bad luck.

The Magic Formula?

No such thing. Too many variables and not enough controls mean that, more than anything, luck plays a very significant factor in who wins. However, it is clear: Strong Keeper Performance + Strong Draft Performance = Best Chance to win. Trying to overcome deficits on the waiver and trade wires is a more difficult path to success. But that is the tale of 2010-2011. Different strategies will continue to emerge and GM’s will watch with curiosity as the latest strategy of the most top heavy draft portfolio witnessed yet attempts to bring home the prize.

However, heed the warning of the Keeper data; it might be the most defining aspect of your next season.

Lastly, again, this was not in any way a judgment on GM performance. Don’t get all pissy if you don’t like the way your GM performance was represented.