In celebration of two years of doing Cage Match, Roos answers the 10 most frequent questions about the column………

As it turns out, I took over Cage Match from the venerable Steve Laidlaw two years ago this week, so I thought I’d mark the occasion by answering the ten most frequently asked questions (FAQs) posed to me during my time at the Cage Match helm, and also give my thoughts on what I’m trying to accomplish with the column, which is actually where I’ll start.

The Goals of Cage Match

I strive to provide the “story behind the story” when it comes to two specific players – that is, a level of statistical detail about them well beyond what’s normally at your fingertips. By the time you’ve finished the column, I want you to feel like you’ve been presented with a thorough and unbiased fantasy analysis of two players.

But as much as it’s about the two players battling in that particular week’s match-up, I’m also hoping each column will give general insight and “food for thought” knowledge that can be applied to other players already on your team or that you might be interested in owning. In short, I want this to be a column poolies can truly benefit from reading each week.

Your Ten Most FAQs about Cage Match

1) How do I choose match-ups?

The first thing I look for is guys I haven’t previously featured. The couple of times I’ve covered a player more than once, it was because I felt his situation had changed significantly. With forwards, I also aim for positional similarity, since that makes the match most relevant.

Next, I focus on scoring, going by points per game average to help me locate more hidden possibilities than if I went by straight points. Only then do I look at age; and I try not to select two players with a gap of more than five years between them, since that wouldn’t be ideal for poolies in keeper leagues. And in a perfect world, I’d also try to select two players who have similar contracts, due to the growing interest in cap leagues.

2) How long does it take me to prepare each column?

In all, probably about four (or more) hours per week between researching, writing, rewriting, and proofreading. I’ve never written an entire column in one sitting, for a couple of reasons. First is I have a day job (attorney), so I write mostly at night and on weekend in bursts of 30-60 minutes. Second is writing only small chunks at a time gives me a chance to let things sink in, and that’s often when I get a “eureka!” moment.

3) Why do I include four years of stats in the tables?

I settled on that number to obtain enough data to show trends and patterns, yet also not to go so far back into the past to the point where the data is – for lack of a better term – ancient history. Of course for younger players, there often isn’t four years of data, in which case I make do with whatever there is for each.

4) What’s the meaning of the abbreviations that regularly appear in the column?

PDO (or SPSV% as it’s referred to in one of the nhl.com enhanced stats areas) is a coined term that, as far as I’m aware, isn’t actually an acronym for anything. Rather, it’s just a shorthand way of referring to the sum of on ice shooting percentage and save percentage. Although there is such a thing as team PDO, when I cite to PDO in the column I’m referring to an individual player’s PDO at 5×5, which is the shooting percentage of that player’s team when he’s on the ice at 5×5 plus his team’s save percentage while he’s on the ice at 5×5. If you see a player’s PDO listed as 1016, that’s actually shorthand for 101.6%, just as 992 would represent 99.2%. The league-wide PDO average must be 1000, which means those with a PDO above 1025 or so might have been unsustainably lucky or played for an exceptionally good team, while the opposite would be true for those with a PDO under 975. But some players tend to run high or low, so what I look for in my column is abnormally high PDO combined with better than expected production (suggesting unsustainable luckiness) or an abnormally low PDO combined with worse than expected production (suggesting unsustainable unluckiness).

IPP stands for Individual Points Percentage (or In-Percentage Points) and denotes how often a player received a point when a goal was scored while he was on the ice at 5×5 or 5×4. So let’s say there were 100 goals scored at 5×5 when a player was on the ice and he had 21 goals and 39 assists at 5×5; that means his IPP at 5×5 would be 60/100, or 60%, and if there were 25 goals scored while he was on the ice at 5×4 and he had ten goals and ten assists at 5×4, then his 5×4 IPP would be 20/25, or 80.0%. As with PDO, the key with IPP is sustainability (or lack thereof); if someone’s IPP at 5×5 or 5×4 was quite high or low for a season, it could suggest his stats are at risk of dropping (due to an atypically/unsustainably high IPP) or have the potential to increase (due to an atypically/unsustainably low IPP). In general, a scoring forward usually should have a 5×5 IPP and a 5×4 IPP that add up to around 125-130%, while the combination for a decently productive defenseman might be closer to 90-100%.

OZ% refers to offensive zone starting percentage and represents the percentage of shifts that a player commenced in the opposing team’s zone. Those with an OZ% below 50% tend not to be high scorers, while forwards with one that’s below 45% generally don’t post even 50 points. On the other hand, many high scoring skaters have an OZ% above 55% or even 60%. But one key is if a player struggles to score despite a high OZ%, it doesn’t bode well for him to do better in the future, as things likely can’t improve much beyond how they are already. And players who produce well despite an OZ% below 50% could be able to do even better if (often a big if) they receive a higher OZ.

5) Why do I emphasize cost vs. value so much?

In fantasy hockey, every player on a roster – except those from the waiver wire – has been drafted or traded for; and in both cases, there’s an associated cost. For drafting, the cost is the draft pick (or auction funds) you use, which of course is a finite resource. In trading, your cost is what you give to the other team in return as part of a deal. In both cases, a GM should strive to get the most actual value for the least possible cost. That doesn’t mean looking for bargain basement value only, as cost vs. value is relevant even in connection with drafting or trading for the top players in the NHL.

When drafting, what it boils down to is, you don’t want to select a player too early (or bid too much on him) even if you think that player has an off chance to explode well past expectations. That’s because there’s a small chance you hit a home run, a decent chance you get the value you paid for, and a very real chance he falls below the value you paid. So basically – unless he defies the odds and exceeds expectations, you’ll sometimes have paid more in cost than the value he’ll provide; and in today’s ultra-competitive fantasy hockey universe, that puts your team in an undesirable hole.

It’s a similar situation for trading, where you want to strive to buy low and sell high and/or trade from strength to fill weakness. Whenever possible, you want to emerge with the best possible value at the lowest cost.

While everyone always remembers home runs they hit by reaching for a player in the draft or as part of a trade, they often conveniently forget the many more examples of when their reaching fell short. But that’s not to say you shouldn’t ever reach in drafts or trades. The key is waiting to do so until you get near the end of a draft, or to go that route via trade throw ins. Once you’re drafting or trading for guys who – on paper – aren’t much better than players who’ll be on the waiver wire in your league, you should go ahead and try to reach for a home run, since if you swing and miss you can grab a waiver wire guy to replace him.

Cost vs. value also explains why sometimes the winner of a cage match might not be someone you’d be willing to trade straight up for the loser of the match. After all, it’s entirely possible for the winner to represent a better cost vs. value bargain than the loser even if the loser might be projected to outscore the winner in 2015-16 or beyond.

6) Why don’t I give more weight to a player’s talent?

As typified by last week’s match between Evgeni Kuznetsov and Filip Forsberg and in a controversial past match featuring Oliver Ekman-Larsson against Jake Muzzin (the link says Ryan Suter, but it’s Muzzin), talent and raw skill can only get a player so far if he’s not put into a position to be able to translate it into actual production. Plus, one need only dig up a list of biggest NHL busts to see that raw talent doesn’t always equate to on ice success.

Sure – I realize that players like Kuznetsov and OEL have already shown far more than any “bust”, but the key is reality trumps “if only…” or “just wait until…” By focusing on reality, you might hit fewer home runs, but you’ll also tend to get your fair share of doubles and triples, while if you’re too influenced by talent not reflected in reality, you’ll get a few home runs but also many strike outs.

7) How come I never cover goalies?

First and foremost, if you want information about goalies, the place to visit is Goalie Post. Beyond that, goalie value can change so quickly that a column I write one week could be outdated the next. Also, some leagues still don’t even include goalies. Although it might be small consolation to goalie fans, I’ll sometimes include netminders in cage match tournaments.

8) Why do I sometimes cover forwards who probably won’t hit 60 points next season (or defensemen who might not post 40+)?

The short answer is there are only so many players, and, as noted above, I want to try to avoid reusing the same ones if possible. The other factor is more and more leagues are featuring deep rosters where forwards who score as few as 40 points and defensemen who tally as few as 25 should be on the radar if they produce in other valuable categories.

9) How do I pick topics for Cage Match Tournaments?

I’ve settled into two tournaments per year – one right after free agency opens and another between US Thanksgiving and Christmas. What I’m looking for are topics that will generate interest, plus allow for 30-50 players to be viable voting options without the winner being preordained. It’s not as easy as you think, but I liked the one I just ran about fantasy draft position risers and fallers, and might make that an annual tournament in the summer, with the winter tournament being the one that has changing focus each year.

10) Which Cage Match column(s) am I most proud of?

In general, it’s when I’m genuinely surprised about the outcome, as that means I picked a good match that should be useful for readers. And I won’t lie – getting a lot of comments is always nice too.

One that checked both boxes big time was the OEL vs. Muzzin match I mentioned above. The result surprised me, and definitely readers as well, since it generated more than two dozen comments where everyone was voicing their opinions in a passionate yet respectful and well supported way.

And talking about the OEL vs. Muzzin match reminds me to make clear that in no way do I pick winners in order to generate click bait or to stir the pot. I call every match like I see it, with absolutely no rooting interest in the outcome. If the day comes where I feel like I’m doing this just to generate controversy, that’s when I’d tell Dobber I’m done.

If you’ve read this far, thanks and I hope this was an enjoyable read. Look for a return to Cage Match next week, as I start year three of this journey!