HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

What Makes Trade Value?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-19-2013, 01:26 PM
  #26
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,971
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakai17 View Post
I'm glad you asked.

Value in any trade = overall status + contract value + age + position depth to a team
I think you have this backwards. As already mentioned, Getzlaf's value to Pittsburgh is a LOT less than it is to a team like Toronto, Stl, Calgary and everyone else who doesn't have a #1 center. Just as teams like Pittsburgh or Columbus can afford to move a D more than teams like Minny, Nashville or Tampa. Or how Stl can still afford to move a winger more than Pittsburgh.

It's all about how much depth a team has at one position (this includes prospects and picks), and how they can leverage that to fill other positions.

__________________
I've been looking for trouble... but trouble hasn't been cooperating!
Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 06:01 PM
  #27
jhoops89
R.I.P. Thrashers
 
jhoops89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,442
vCash: 500
Not sure if this was already asked but is there a website that has player's trade values? I just thought it would be kind of cool to see

jhoops89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-19-2013, 06:10 PM
  #28
Jet Set
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 343
vCash: 500
WHERE ARE THE G-D INTANGIBLES?!


Jet Set is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2013, 07:56 AM
  #29
SPORTSGUY4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 15
vCash: 500
Sabremetrics anyone

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Perhaps it would be easiest to say that "trade value" is NOT in any way equivalent to the sum of any given hypothetical player values.

The big mistake I keep seeing from folks in this forum - and which appears to be present in the assumptions behind the OP's creation of this thread - is assuming that there's some sort of "conversion rate" for players such that you can assess their individual "value" in a trade - say, today Evgeni Malkin is worth 100 as a baseline, Rick Nash is worth 85 because he "loses points" for not being as good a scorer, Tyler Bozak is now worth 52 because he "lost points" because of his contract, and Colton Orr is worth 19 because he's a fourth-liner and "they're not worth as much". This is a fallacy, and it is the leading cause of Bad Trade Proposals. Player value is not and cannot be an assignable constant. If you operate on this premise, You Will Fail.

If you simply can't operate without some sort of Universal Scale, then you have no business making proposals here at least do yourself a favor and start tracking two such values - one to the rest of the NHL, and one to the team that currently has that player under contract. This isn't a perfect solution, but it will at least prevent some of the more embarrassing proposal mistakes. If you can pull that off, consider trying to track values like that for each and every team, rather than grouping 29 other teams into one category. That'll also help.

But the plain and simple truth is that there is no Universal Scale Of Player Trade Value. Roster makeup is so nuanced that there simply can't be, and any GM operating as though there was one is going to be a crappy GM. Good GMs don't look to just maximize some hypothetical "total player value" metric and call that Good Enough; they have to assemble a team, and that means balancing all sorts of factors that a single metric simply can't encompass. It just is what it is.
While I understand it can't be a single metric, I think there should be some rational set of metrics to apply to get a true value of a player. Now should it be the sole deciding factor? No, but its proven to be a great indicator in many other sports. If you look at future prospects on http://www.hockeysfuture.com/ you will note that all are assigned a Number indicating relative talent, but also a letter based on the likely hood of that player reaching their potential. It isn't perfect but gives a basis for standardizing value. Without this approach it's all emotions or gut, which is surely no more reliable.

SPORTSGUY4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-20-2013, 10:47 AM
  #30
Viqsi
"grumpy grandma"@30s
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: undisclosed
Country: United States
Posts: 29,822
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPORTSGUY4 View Post
While I understand it can't be a single metric, I think there should be some rational set of metrics to apply to get a true value of a player.
As in evaluating individual abilities in different categories? EA Sports tries something like this, and does a fair-to-middlin' job. Obviously it does not manage the job well from start to finish - we all know about the joke that hockey video game trades are. Personally, I suspect that's because it applies the same weighting factors to each such subcategory, which is broken because GMs build their teams differently, with different strategies for the game in mind, and therefore have different requirements for their players.

I maintain nonetheless that any attempt to "standardize" value to the degree of reducing it down to a few quickly readable numbers will fail. There's too much nuance that gets lost in that process.

Just Do The Research.

Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2013, 07:53 AM
  #31
SPORTSGUY4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 15
vCash: 500
Research

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
As in evaluating individual abilities in different categories? EA Sports tries something like this, and does a fair-to-middlin' job. Obviously it does not manage the job well from start to finish - we all know about the joke that hockey video game trades are. Personally, I suspect that's because it applies the same weighting factors to each such subcategory, which is broken because GMs build their teams differently, with different strategies for the game in mind, and therefore have different requirements for their players.

I maintain nonetheless that any attempt to "standardize" value to the degree of reducing it down to a few quickly readable numbers will fail. There's too much nuance that gets lost in that process.

Just Do The Research.
With all due respect dude, you use video games as your bench mark and tell me to do the research? OK then..... sarcasm:

SPORTSGUY4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2013, 12:48 PM
  #32
Viqsi
"grumpy grandma"@30s
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: undisclosed
Country: United States
Posts: 29,822
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPORTSGUY4 View Post
With all due respect dude, you use video games as your bench mark and tell me to do the research? OK then..... sarcasm:


I was pointing out such games as an example of an approach similar to what you're proposing. How in the world did you get from that to presuming that I use them for my own evaluations? I don't even own any of the consoles they're played on, let alone the games themselves.

Seriously, what the hell?

Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.