How is your VHL team looking for the future?

[badcolethetitan 921]

How is your VHL team looking for the future?

 

 

Breaking down the graph

 

Before we get into it, I want to point out this is not taking into account players, a rosters age, etc. There are teams that have a young roster with little picks that could be on here, so just because your present team and/or future team could have less picks, it doesn't mean your team is screwed. Now that we got that out of the way, let me give you a quick rundown of what this graph is actually showing by explaining it if you don't understand. Point % is on the x-axis and how to calculate point % is take the amount of points your team earned (example: 65 for Chicago) and divide that by the maximum amount of points that can be earned (in this case, it would be 144 as there are 72 games played * 2 which is the maximum amount of points you can earn for a win). So, when people say you are a ".500" team, that means you have earned 50% of the possible points at that time. The "Draft Picks" is pretty self explanatory as it's just the amount of draft picks the team has in the next two drafts. Now that we understand the numbers and where they come from, we can finally get into the point of the article!

 

The "normal" teams

 

These are the teams that either had a good point % (good record) and not a lot of picks, or a bad point %, but a lot of picks. Also, keep in mind that the average number of draft picks is 8, so I would consider have "a lot of draft picks" at anything 10 or higher. Having little draft picks is technically 6 or lower. First, we'll look at the teams with good point %, but not a lot of picks. The teams that fall into this category would be: Malmo Nighthawks, Los Angeles Stars, D.C. Dragons, Toronto Legion, and London United. All these teams are fairly good (all were playoff teams), but they don't necessarily have draft capital for the future. This is OK, as it's completely normal, as to have a good team, you usually need to trade away futures to compete! I would also consider Chicago in this category, but they are kind of stuck in no mans land, where they were average and have slightly under average the amount of picks. They don't really fit in the "bad" team category, but don't really fit in the "normal" team category, but they're closer to "normal" than "bad", so it's a toss up where they should be. Next up, we have the teams with bad point %, but a good amount of picks. The teams that fall into this category would be: Vancouver Wolves, Riga Reign, Seattle Bears, and HC Davos Dynamo. These teams are all in the same in that most of them weren't that good this season (with the exception of Riga, they were average), but have lots of picks and a bright future ahead. They should be able to be towards the top of the standings in a couple of years with the amount of draft capital they have, they're having a good rebuild one could say.

 

The "good" teams

 

Moving on, these are the teams that had a good point % (good record) AND also have more than the average amount of picks (8) in the next two drafts. These GMs are able to find a way to be competitive, while at the same time still be able to have assets to make moves to become even stronger. These are contender teams, where in the near future, even next season, they could be winning a cup. These teams that fall into this category would be: Moscow Menace, Helsinki Titans, Prague Phantoms, and Calgary Wranglers. I want to give a quick reminder that this is NOT looking at players age, players, etc, this is just looking at point % and draft picks. Prague is losing multiple players to retirement and will basically be forced into a rebuild, despite fitting into this category. Regardless, these four teams are going to be contending for a championship very soon and their GMs should be considered some of the best GMs in the league. I just want to give a quick shoutout to @samx @Spartan  and @leandrofg, you guys are doing fantastic work and a trophy could be in the near future!

 

The "bad" teams

 

Last, these are the teams that had less or close to a 50% point % (average-bad record) AND also have less than the average amount of picks (8) in the next two drafts. These would include: New York Americans, Warsaw Predators, and Chicago Phoenix. Again, not always do the stats tell the tale, as New York had in the playoffs, and Chicago has a young team. Warsaw is really the only ones that "fit" into this category, however, these other two teams in NYA and CHI have to be included as well. These are the GMs that have found a way to have a less than optimal team, and also not have the draft capital to improve the team. If this team is not a young team, they could be in for a dark age, where the team unfortunately isn't able to compete and the assets to get them to compete aren't there.

 

Closing

 

I just want to say that this isn't trying to call out any GMs for how bad they are. I think every GM in the league knows what they need to do to win and is trying their best to get their franchise a W. I don't think in the long run anyone is trying to "lose", otherwise they wouldn't have a job. I made sure to include myself in the "bad" teams so that people wouldn't say I tried to keep myself out. Also, data doesn't always show where a team is heading! Prague although considered a "good" team needs to rebuild, but they've got a head start due to their old GM @Acydburn. It'll be interesting to see if any of Helsinki, Calgary, or Moscow end up winning next season, as they were considered the main three at the top! Thanks and I hope you enjoyed the read.

 

1000+ words

 

 

 

 

 

[AJW 2,156]

Calgary looks pretty good!

[Spartan 4,401]

Curious to see if you evaluate pick pools based on quality vs quantity. Did you weight picks at all based on the round? Or adjust pick value based on which draft class they're in?

[Alex 3,198]

7 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Curious to see if you evaluate pick pools based on quality vs quantity. Did you weight picks at all based on the round? Or adjust pick value based on which draft class they're in?

pretty sure it was just quantity, given that I just have an obscene amount of 4ths

 

[JCarson 723]

Article Review:  I liked this article as it tries to provide an analytical model on what can be expected from teams going forward.  I think the comments are valid as round of draft and quality of draft class can make a huge difference in how it can impact a team going forward.  We all know not each prospect is worth the same consideration based on their expected growth, build and position.  Yet sometime we need to start the conversation before it can be ended.  Is this the definitive model on a GM capability, definitely not.  Is this potentially step 1, do we start including metrics on trade quality, free agent acquisition, ability to motivate players to earn more TPE, manage depreciation.  Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  This is step 1, would love to see this model expanded to look at a larger timeframe and at more aspects of GM capability.

 

I give this article a 9/10.  Job well done.

[badcolethetitan 921]

2 hours ago, Spartan said:

Curious to see if you evaluate pick pools based on quality vs quantity. Did you weight picks at all based on the round? Or adjust pick value based on which draft class they're in?

 

Just quantity, didn’t go that deep into it. If I were to actually go very far deep into it with more analysis, teams would switch around 100%.

[badcolethetitan 921]

I will say though, maybe assigning a value for each pick could be something that could be explored in the future data wise:
 

Possibly taking the amount of players that make it to the VHL from each round and assigning the pick then based on a value of that. Don't really know though, as each draft will be different, so it would need to be an average off of X amount of drafts then.