Misses

Justin Faulk vs. Justin Schultz (May 8, 2014) and Jiri Hudler vs. Frans Nielsen (May 28, 2014)

It figures – ironically – that two of my biggest misses had to be among the first handful of columns I did after talking about my biggest misses of 2013 (note the Turris vs. Duchene match now – just sayin'…..).

In my defense, Faulk topped his career best by more than 50% and Hudler posted 76 points at age 31 after having never previously bested 57 in a season. But what makes these sting even more is the guys I matched each of them against did especially poorly in 2014-15, which only served to emphasize just how much of a miss these columns were for me.

Key Lesson Learned – While you can't (and shouldn't try to) expect the unexpected in fantasy hockey, favorable outcomes can occur despite what look like unfavorable situations. And in particular, when a team is predicted to do poorly going into the season, one or both of two things can happen – the team can end up doing well (like Calgary) and boost its players (like Hudler) because of it, or despite doing poorly (like Carolina) someone (like Faulk) can step up to carry the offensive load.

Patrick Kane vs. Phil Kessel (June 4, 2014)

This was another marquee match-up, with Kessel coming off his third straight season of roughly point per game scoring while averaging a 35+ goals per 82 games pace, and Kane having parlayed a red hot 2012-13 into a great start for 2013-14 before getting hurt and tailing off considerably to finish at only 69 points in 69 games. I went with Kessel, since I was concerned that Kane might've benefitted from luck and had been unable – thus far – to sustain a sustained elite pace.

Key Lesson Learned – Even if a player hasn't managed to put together a full season of true excellence, the fact that he's demonstrated the ability to do so for large chunks of time and on multiple occasions means he's apt to do it again and probably worth more than a "steady eddie" type of player, who, like Kessel, showed this season, might be more vulnerable to seeing his stats fall, rather than rise, in an atypical year.

Rick Nash vs. Marian Gaborik (September 3, 2014)

This was a battle between two players who looked to be in danger of entering the downside of their careers, what with Nash having posted fewer points in 65 games in his first full campaign as a Ranger than he did in just 44 contests with the team in 2012-13, and Gaborik having spent his second straight campaign playing for more than one team and in his case managing only to play 41 games and post a middling 30 points in them, albeit finishing strong with 16 in 19 contests for the Kings. I gave the edge to Gaborik, focusing on two intangible negatives in Nash, namely him apparently being in Coach Alain Vigneault's doghouse and the Rangers getting all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals without Nash being an integral part of the team.

Key Lesson Learned – Never rule out someone who's scored 40+ goals more than once and is still in the prime of his career, especially when the past 40+ goal seasons had a gap between then, as opposed to only coming in successive years (ala a Jonathan Cheechoo). What's interesting is this statement not only shows why Nash shouldn't have been as devalued by me, but also suggests that we might not have heard the last of Gaborik, who has three 40+ goal seasons to his credit, although the first and last were only separated by only three intervening seasons.

Beyond that, we learned to be wary of dismissing a player like Nash for mainly intangible reasons, as although the numbers for Nash didn't exactly forecast his strong 2014-15 rebound, things weren't nearly as bad as the intangible picture painted them to be. And lastly, when in doubt, it's generally best not to figure on players who are making lots of money (Nash's $7.8M cap hit was within the top ten for NHL forwards in 2014-15) actually taking a backseat role.

Overall Conclusions

While of course I'd love to have a perfect record in deciding Cage Matches, we all know that could never happen no matter how well I analyzed the numbers and drew my conclusions. That's why the goal of this column has been as much about explaining the bases for comparison as picking a winner, since it's usually the analysis that is more valuable than the specific conclusions – kind of like the old adage that if you give a man a fish he eats for one day, but if you teach him to fish he can eat forever. Hopefully this column helps us eat not only for a day, but also for years to come.