What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

FBG Rankings - Discussion (1 Viewer)

Warrior

Footballguy
Just going through some of the redraft rankings, I have to really question the legitimacy of a few staffers' rankings. For the record, overall I think they're great. And most of the FBGs obviously really know their stuff. But there are a couple that I just can't get over.

One in particular has James Jones ranked higher in PPR than Jordy Nelson and Montee Ball. In fact, both of those two aren't even in his overall top 60. The one that put me over the edge was the ranking of Logan Paulsen over Rob Gronkowski. Those are just a few examples.

My question is this...does anyone on the staff look at the results of these rankings year over year and judge performance, then decide whether or not certain staffers even deserve to be included? I know subscribers can filter them in whatever way we choose, but seriously? What value is added when equal default weighting is given to a staffer that really puts forth effort in their rankings and a guy who is advocating that you place a higher value on James Jones and Fred Jackson than Montee Ball and Jordy Nelson? To me, it really dilutes the value of the collective FBG "expert" rankings.

Seriously...Logan Paulsen over Gronk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Warrior, you must be new to the site...welcome! We tend to see this thread every year around this time. At the end of the day FBG's gives you the ability to exclude any rankings you don't agree with. Personally I appreciate people who think outside the box as it allows for me to question my own rankings. :hifive:

 
Aside from someone w the initials MW's TE rankings, nothing looks out-of sorts

But those TE rankings of his are... Oof. Seriously oof. There's outside of the box and then there's outside of the galaxy

 
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost"). Transparency is nice, because it allows everyone to decide for themselves if they agree or disagree with his reasoning. Personally, I happen to disagree. Time will tell which one of us wound up being right. :)

As an aside, I don't see much difference between ranking Gronk as, say, TE7 and taking Gronk off the board entirely. Either ranking essentially translates to "there is absolutely no way in hell this guy will ever wind up on any of my teams", although the first option allows for far more face-saving if you're wrong.

 
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost"). Transparency is nice, because it allows everyone to decide for themselves if they agree or disagree with his reasoning. Personally, I happen to disagree. Time will tell which one of us wound up being right. :)

As an aside, I don't see much difference between ranking Gronk as, say, TE7 and taking Gronk off the board entirely. Either ranking essentially translates to "there is absolutely no way in hell this guy will ever wind up on any of my teams", although the first option allows for far more face-saving if you're wrong.
I don't mind anyone's rankings but if you are going to rank a player way outside the consensus you should provide a comment. Like people have said, you can exclude anyone you don't agree with and personally I like to see different points of view even if I disagree with them.

 
Aside from someone w the initials MW's TE rankings, nothing looks out-of sorts

But those TE rankings of his are... Oof. Seriously oof. There's outside of the box and then there's outside of the galaxy
There's no need to beat around the bush. Assuming you are talking about Mark, he is a big boy and will give you a rational explanation for his rankings. He won't take offense if you disagree with his thought process.

 
Highest redraft-ppr TE ranking I see for Paulsen is 38 (going back 35 days- anything further back than that I don't bother with). Then again I only look at pretty much Parsons, Harstad and Bloom's rankings individually.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a difference between being bold and just trying to attract attention by being ridiculous. Just my opinion...but like others have said, you can exclude his rankings. If you go by his rankings in a standard league, you won't have a single RB on your team...unless you plan on getting Matt Forte in the mid 2nd round or Eddie Lacy in the 3rd.

It doesn't bother me that much, but I have to admit if I was on this site for my first time and trying to decide where to spend my money, seeing that would be a check on the negative side of my comparison sheet.

Who is honestly going to take Vincent Jackson over Lesean McCoy in a standard league?

Someone should do a draft using his rankings and see how the team turns out.

 
There's a difference between being bold and just trying to attract attention by being ridiculous. Just my opinion...but like others have said, you can exclude his rankings. If you go by his rankings in a standard league, you won't have a single RB on your team...unless you plan on getting Matt Forte in the mid 2nd round or Eddie Lacy in the 3rd.

It doesn't bother me that much, but I have to admit if I was on this site for my first time and trying to decide where to spend my money, seeing that would be a check on the negative side of my comparison sheet.

Who is honestly going to take Vincent Jackson over Lesean McCoy in a standard league?

Someone should do a draft using his rankings and see how the team turns out.
Normally, I agree with this comment, but in this particular case, I don't think that is the issue. Adam brings up a good point. How do you rank someone in this setting who you do not feel comfortable with due to a medical concern? Some sites have an emoticon of a red cross they use to show "this person is an injury risk or recovering from a major injury", but where do you put them when in your opinion, their status is in the air?

 
I am confused about what you are looking for.

You would prefer everyone to have the same rankings? And if they differ from the consensus too often, we should kick them out?

That guy who is ranking Logan Paulson ahead of Gronk might have had Josh Gordon ahead of Dez Bryant last year. You would have mocked him there too, I suppose.

How did that work out.

We all have different opinions. Information is never bad. The consensus is usually wrong. Read, understand and make up your own mind.

It will be more fun.

 
To the OP:

Please note that the PRACTICE Mock drafts at RTSports have different rankings than the live draft when you draft in an actual FBG Players Championship Draft. Not sure if you were overlapping the two. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

Best of luck

Destroyers

 
There's a difference between being bold and just trying to attract attention by being ridiculous. Just my opinion...but like others have said, you can exclude his rankings. If you go by his rankings in a standard league, you won't have a single RB on your team...unless you plan on getting Matt Forte in the mid 2nd round or Eddie Lacy in the 3rd.

It doesn't bother me that much, but I have to admit if I was on this site for my first time and trying to decide where to spend my money, seeing that would be a check on the negative side of my comparison sheet.

Who is honestly going to take Vincent Jackson over Lesean McCoy in a standard league?

Someone should do a draft using his rankings and see how the team turns out.
Normally, I agree with this comment, but in this particular case, I don't think that is the issue. Adam brings up a good point. How do you rank someone in this setting who you do not feel comfortable with due to a medical concern? Some sites have an emoticon of a red cross they use to show "this person is an injury risk or recovering from a major injury", but where do you put them when in your opinion, their status is in the air?
And I agree with the Gronk evaluation and can see the logic behind it. There should be a better way of indicating it, but that's not really what I was referring to. Look at his overall rankings. McCoy is #14 and Forte is #17. Is he trying to predict an injury here too? I just don't understand the logic behind doing something like that besides trying to attract attention.

Again, if it was just a few guys at outliers then I'm completely fine with it. The guy sees something or thinks he sees something and factors it into his rankings. I'm fine with it. The problem is when the entire rankings is outliers it makes it a little difficult to trust. Looks like he just threw darts at a board with players names on it.

Edit: And now he has a whole thread about him and his name will become more recognizable. My guess is that what his intention with his rankings and he has accomplished that.

If you think you should draft Vincent Jackson before Matt Forte or Levine Toiliolo before LeVeon Bell or Gio Bernard, then by all means follow his rankings

 
Last edited by a moderator:
***SIGH***

I really don't miss the grief that stemmed from ranking players. The hate mail I used to get (or David and Joe used to get and then forwarded to me) over my rankings was pretty intense. I remember being accused of reverse discrimination fro ranking black players over white ones (let's just say I cleaned that up quite a bot). Or being a homer for ranking Tom Brady over other inferior QBs. Or having subscribers threatening to pull their subscriptions unless I was fired. Do anything that doesn't confirm to the masses and you open yourself up to skepticism. I remember ranking Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson in the Top 15 RBs about 10 years ago and people thought I was crazy. I suggested that between them they could go for 3000 yfs scrimmage and 30 total TD. And if one of them got hurt, the other would be the #1 RB the rest of the way. Holmes got hurt and LJ was the #1 RB the rest of the way . . . and they "only" combined for 2741/28.

The point being, staffers WILL get called out for having outlier rankings that appear to make no sense. Then people will attack you either in PMs, emails, or message board threads and you have to defend yourself. As I always said, if you have a different opinion than me, fine, but don't assail me for having a different perspective or opinion.

 
With 15 rankers already up, each person has a minimal influence on the overall landing spot in the staff rankings. The ranking that everyone is complaining about (Gronk) dropped him a total of 2 spots.

Personally, I think staff in this situation should be aggressive and rank what they believe without worrying about consensus. Just by volume of rankers, the consensus will work itself out.

 
***SIGH***

I really don't miss the grief that stemmed from ranking players. The hate mail I used to get (or David and Joe used to get and then forwarded to me) over my rankings was pretty intense. I remember being accused of reverse discrimination fro ranking black players over white ones (let's just say I cleaned that up quite a bot). Or being a homer for ranking Tom Brady over other inferior QBs. Or having subscribers threatening to pull their subscriptions unless I was fired. Do anything that doesn't confirm to the masses and you open yourself up to skepticism. I remember ranking Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson in the Top 15 RBs about 10 years ago and people thought I was crazy. I suggested that between them they could go for 3000 yfs scrimmage and 30 total TD. And if one of them got hurt, the other would be the #1 RB the rest of the way. Holmes got hurt and LJ was the #1 RB the rest of the way . . . and they "only" combined for 2741/28.

The point being, staffers WILL get called out for having outlier rankings that appear to make no sense. Then people will attack you either in PMs, emails, or message board threads and you have to defend yourself. As I always said, if you have a different opinion than me, fine, but don't assail me for having a different perspective or opinion.
Isn't there a difference between seeing what looks to be somewhat normal rankings and having some guys higher and some guys lower than normal? I love to see what you're saying. I love when someone is unusually high or unusually low on a guy. It makes me look into that player and decide for myself what I think of him.

I feel like there's a difference between that and having rankings that looks like someone was drawing names out of a hat though.

And just to clarify, I just click exclude so it doesn't bother me. I already know and trust certain people on this site and will continue to be a subscriber. I think if I was a new person shopping around to find the site I want to pay for the first time, seeing something like that would turn me off quite a bit. I'm arguing for the sake of this sites credibility and not for my personal use.

ETA: What I'm saying is more from a business standpoint rather than having actual personal issues with this. If you're trying to get a point across, it's better to do it in a more subtle way. Like I said, making your rankings WAY different than the consensus in every way is probably not the best way to get your point across. If you want to make your point on certain players that you like and dislike then it's best to do it in a way that is easier to distinguish. It seems like he thinks almost every single 1st round RB this year isn't worthy of a 1st round pick. If it was 1 or 2 guys, sure I'm fine with that and actually really like that if he leaves a comment explaining why. The comments are like this "I don't think he can score double digit TD's and he's great, but not elite." That's a comment on a pretty consensus top 5 pick this year that he has ranked at 17. If you're going to rank a guy that is considered top 5 by most as the 17th overall, then you should have some real negative things to say here. Being a great RB even if he's not elite sounds like it warrants a top 5 pick to me. So why rank someone that far out in left field while giving him the same comments as someone who ranks him among the "consensus". Doing things like that causes me to automatically just click exclude on his rankings rather than sit there and think "Wow, I wonder why he is so low on this guy or so high on this guy". Unlike others, I'm fine with his ranking of Gronk and I'm fine that he has Toilolo ranked higher than guys like Olsen. I like that. What I'm not fine with is having guys like Toilolo ranked higher than guys like Gio and only slightly behind guys like Alshon Jeffery in the overall rankings and it's on a regular basis. Unless he's playing in leagues where RB's are worthless and if that's the case then he should be putting his rankings into a special section with crazy rules.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He can rank his players any way he likes.

But when I see things like Jordan Cameron as the 20TH ranked TE for the season... oof.

 
He can rank his players any way he likes.

But when I see things like Jordan Cameron as the 20TH ranked TE for the season... oof.
There's alot of stange ones with him. Cameron at 20, Pitta at 26, Garret Graham at 8, Toilolo at 6?! I like Toilolo and think he could have a decent season, but TE6? That just seems way too crazy.

 
I can understand having a different view as to where to rank players (and respect different views), but I think taking Gronk completely off misses the purpose of the rankings. The rankings should take ADP completely out of it, or at least that's how I've always interpreted the rankings throughout the years that I've subscribed to this site.

Wimer's comment suggests that he'd pass on Gronk based on his ADP, but I don't think that means that if Gronk fell to TE38, he'd take Paulsen instead. By contrast, Bloom frequently says, paraphrasing, "this ranking is essentially a pass based on his ADP" in making his Top 100 list, but he still ranks the player. I find that to be a lot more helpful.

ETA: I frequently use the rankings to identify players over/under-rated by ADP, but maybe I've been using them wrong over the years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wimer's draft rankings finished 130th out of the 132 submitted last year. You'd have done almost as well flipping a coin to make decisions as you would have using his rankings.
Thank you for finding that. This is exactly why his rankings should either be excluded by default or just not included on the page. He may be right about a few guys really outperforming the consensus or be right about a few guys underperforming the consensus, but if it's surrounded by a bunch of garbage then how is it useful to anybody?

I'd rather him not post any rankings at all and just post articles about guys he thinks are under/over rated. It would actually be useful then.

People finish in last place all the time. It happens to even the best. But if you're doing crazy off the wall rankings and finish in last place....well then you probably shouldn't have your rankings listed by default on a paid site.

Do you think it helps the site having the name "Football Guys" under a persons name that finishes at the bottom every single year?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why does anyone use someone elses ranking anyways? Template reasons or not, no ones opinion is just like yours and no one else is running your team. Do your own rankings and take everyone elses with a grain of salt.

 
Why does anyone use someone elses ranking anyways? Template reasons or not, no ones opinion is just like yours and no one else is running your team. Do your own rankings and take everyone elses with a grain of salt.
I would guess that most people that pay for the subscription to this site use the rankings that the site provides without adjusting or creating their own. Most people that play fantasy aren't as dedicated as the people that are here regularly. I think people that pay money are expecting (and deserve) some decent rankings. Continuing to factor in someones rankings that are clearly way out in left field and he consistently finishes at the bottom every year....well I just don't get that. If I were a casual fantasy footballer and wanted to pay for rankings on a site and not do any research or adjusting of rankings myself, I'd go elsewhere because of that.

Letting someone continuously provide their rankings and factoring them into the consensus when they are at the bottom year after year is probably not a good business decision.

 
Why does anyone use someone elses ranking anyways? Template reasons or not, no ones opinion is just like yours and no one else is running your team. Do your own rankings and take everyone elses with a grain of salt.
yes, you should.

but you should also pin your rankings up to folks who do this for a living. who are employed by what most believe is the best FF source on the internet.

when my rankings are completed and run them off someone like David, for example, who has a phenomenal trackrecord w accuracy... if we are somewhat on the same page, I feel more confident in my work. While I trust my eye and research, I also have a career and a life outside of FF... So someone whose career is FF, and is considered one of the best, is someone I want to compare work with.

If I put my work up against a guy who has Gronk in the 30s, Cameron at 20 etc etc, Id eb scrathcing my head as to what type of logic is being used or go back and see if Ive missed anything etc etc.

Again... Im all for someone making their own rankings, and doing so however they see fit. But there also a line between a logical ranking and flat out illogical nonsense.

If anyone can honestly name me 20+ TEs youd take over gronk and cameron, I need to give up the hobby.

 
Also realize that if you go the ranking site that had MW 130 out of 132 last year has him at #19 of 194 tracked "experts" for the last four years. MW had a terrible year last year and maybe has changed his approach slightly to make this year suspect as well. But obviously the previous 3 years he had to do pretty well. I may exclude him in my overall FBG rankings but I do want to review his discrepancies between my rankings and his. He has had some pretty good success in the past (and his rankings have always had more outliers than any other "expert" I would see).

 
Also realize that if you go the ranking site that had MW 130 out of 132 last year has him at #19 of 194 tracked "experts" for the last four years. MW had a terrible year last year and maybe has changed his approach slightly to make this year suspect as well. But obviously the previous 3 years he had to do pretty well. I may exclude him in my overall FBG rankings but I do want to review his discrepancies between my rankings and his. He has had some pretty good success in the past (and his rankings have always had more outliers than any other "expert" I would see).
Without digging into it too deeply, it's a mathematical impossibility for someone who finished 89/91 and 130/132 in the past two years to be in the top 10% over four years.

 
Also realize that if you go the ranking site that had MW 130 out of 132 last year has him at #19 of 194 tracked "experts" for the last four years. MW had a terrible year last year and maybe has changed his approach slightly to make this year suspect as well. But obviously the previous 3 years he had to do pretty well. I may exclude him in my overall FBG rankings but I do want to review his discrepancies between my rankings and his. He has had some pretty good success in the past (and his rankings have always had more outliers than any other "expert" I would see).
Without digging into it too deeply, it's a mathematical impossibility for someone who finished 89/91 and 130/132 in the past two years to be in the top 10% over four years.
The web site says that there only 19 tracked experts who scored for all four years. So, he is 19/19.

 
Read through this thread and realized the staffer in question is the same I've had filtered out. While I don't agree at all with his rankings, it's simple to filter and not necessary to publicly bash him. While his may be too much, you need variation in rankings to force yourself to possibly re-evaluate certain players as well as come to your own conclusion rather than just blindly follow a list.

 
Someone should do a draft using his rankings and see how the team turns out.
Someone does. Mark Wimer himself. He did a lot of mocks last year that were posted to the site, if you want to look back on them. This one was the first (and biggest) mock we put out last year, and Wimer actually did quite solidly, for whatever that is worth (and I recognize that, with a sample size of 1, it's not worth that much). His RB-phobic ways resulted in Demarco Murray and Eddie Lacy as his starters. Calvin and Welker anchored his WR corps, and the Roddy injury hurt him doubly (with so much draft capital invested in both White and Matt Ryan), and in his commentary he focused on wanting to corner the market on Green Bay RBs and Cincy WR2s, both of which proved to be very strong calls.

A brief look also turned up this mock and this mock. I'll leave the analysis up to the reader.

 
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost").
IMO those who post rankings should take the approach that their rankings reflect what they expect for the season. If a ranker truly expects Gronk to miss all or most of the season, IMO he should have him off his board. But I really dislike the approach of "temporary" rankings. This comment gives me the impression that Wimer actually expects to elevate Gronk in his rankings later. If so, then IMO his ranking should have Gronk where he expects to ultimately put him.

It reminds me of the Favre comeback a few years ago. I had a polite debate with a staffer at the time because I disagreed with ranking him at QB19 or QB20 or something like that. The response was that it was a hedge, since it wasn't known if he would be back. My issue with that approach was that either he wasn't going to play at all and should be off the board, or he was going to play and should have been higher in the rankings.

:2cents:

 
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost").
IMO those who post rankings should take the approach that their rankings reflect what they expect for the season. If a ranker truly expects Gronk to miss all or most of the season, IMO he should have him off his board. But I really dislike the approach of "temporary" rankings. This comment gives me the impression that Wimer actually expects to elevate Gronk in his rankings later. If so, then IMO his ranking should have Gronk where he expects to ultimately put him.

It reminds me of the Favre comeback a few years ago. I had a polite debate with a staffer at the time because I disagreed with ranking him at QB19 or QB20 or something like that. The response was that it was a hedge, since it wasn't known if he would be back. My issue with that approach was that either he wasn't going to play at all and should be off the board, or he was going to play and should have been higher in the rankings.

:2cents:
Rankings aren't the same as projections - they can account for risk and they can hedge.

I'm sure Josh Gordon will get drafted (or has) in some early re-drafts this year. He will likely go mid-rounds to hedge. If we knew he was playing a full 16 games he'd be a round 1 or round 2 pick. If we knew he wasn't playing at all, he'd go undrafted.

 
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost").
IMO those who post rankings should take the approach that their rankings reflect what they expect for the season. If a ranker truly expects Gronk to miss all or most of the season, IMO he should have him off his board. But I really dislike the approach of "temporary" rankings. This comment gives me the impression that Wimer actually expects to elevate Gronk in his rankings later. If so, then IMO his ranking should have Gronk where he expects to ultimately put him.

It reminds me of the Favre comeback a few years ago. I had a polite debate with a staffer at the time because I disagreed with ranking him at QB19 or QB20 or something like that. The response was that it was a hedge, since it wasn't known if he would be back. My issue with that approach was that either he wasn't going to play at all and should be off the board, or he was going to play and should have been higher in the rankings.

:2cents:
There have been times or situations over the years where I haven't loved the staff rankings. For example, let's say TEAM X had 3 WR whose roles were not well defined yet. And ultimately they were likely to have a Top 15 WR, a Top 30 WR, and one guy that would be lucky to end up in the Top 75 (based on how things had shaken out with that team/coach/system over the years). Many times, the staff would hedge and rank all three guys around WR40 rather than make their best guess as to how things would shake out. If I were a subscriber, that really would not help me much. I would not really know which guy was a front runner and why, which guy was most likely to be useless, etc. Personally, I would rather someone ranked the plays 15, 30, and 75 even if they that person ended up being wrong.

 
Wimer's draft rankings finished 130th out of the 132 submitted last year. You'd have done almost as well flipping a coin to make decisions as you would have using his rankings.
And 89 out of 91 in 2012.

Honestly, Is there any good reason why Wimer is still on staff? What does he contribute to this site?
This assumes that the whole point of having all those individual rankings is to maximize accuracy. I'm rather thankful that it's not, because if it was, Dodds would just fire us all and submit one set of rankings; his own. Seriously, Dodds has one of the best track records on rankings in the entire industry. I submit rankings based on what I believe will come true, but I still recognize that Dodds' rankings are in all likelihood a better representation of what will actually happen. If you really wanted to maximize your accuracy, you should probably exclude my own rankings, and everyone else's too, and just go with what Dodds says.

The purpose of having 20 different staff rankings is to increase the number of viewpoints that are represented. Dodds alone might be more accurate, but having everyone else in gives you a better idea of what other people are thinking and that information is actionable in its own right. There is value in a diversity of viewpoints. And Mark's viewpoint is quite extreme- I'm sure he'd be the first to own up to that- but extreme viewpoints exist, and by excluding them from the discussion, by refusing to give them a seat at the table, we're essentially denying their existence. We're marginalizing the very idea of heterogeneity and boiling the entire endeavor down to a series of "best practices" revolving around a narrowly-defined range of acceptable beliefs. We're setting ourselves up as the gatekeepers of orthodoxy and labeling the dissenters as heretics.

Are Mark Wimer's rankings accurate? Historically, no. Would I ever draft by them? No chance, although Wimer himself does with some degree of success. Does any of this mean that Wimer does not add any value to the fantasy discussion? I don't think it does. And yeah, this is the reason the "exclude" button exists. You don't have to like Wimer's rankings. You don't even have to use them. It probably doesn't hurt to at least see them and consider them, though.

 
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost").
IMO those who post rankings should take the approach that their rankings reflect what they expect for the season. If a ranker truly expects Gronk to miss all or most of the season, IMO he should have him off his board. But I really dislike the approach of "temporary" rankings. This comment gives me the impression that Wimer actually expects to elevate Gronk in his rankings later. If so, then IMO his ranking should have Gronk where he expects to ultimately put him.

It reminds me of the Favre comeback a few years ago. I had a polite debate with a staffer at the time because I disagreed with ranking him at QB19 or QB20 or something like that. The response was that it was a hedge, since it wasn't known if he would be back. My issue with that approach was that either he wasn't going to play at all and should be off the board, or he was going to play and should have been higher in the rankings.

:2cents:
That's a philosophical difference, though. I'm a big fan of allowing my rankings to reflect a weighted range of potential outcomes. I believe I currently have Josh Gordon ranked, even though I'm quite certain my ranking will either be far too high (because he gets suspended for the season) or far too low (because he doesn't). My ranking is a hedge, but one that I believe accurately prices in the risk and the reward inherent in drafting Josh Gordon. I believe his risk/reward profile is comparable to other players going in that same position, even if I believe he is exceedingly unlikely to actually score similarly to other players going in that same position.

Besides, if you like rankings that aren't a hedge, then you should like Wimer's ranking of Gronk a whole lot. He's not hedging at all against the possibility that Gronk comes back and plays at full health, he's 100% committed to the "I don't think Gronk can/will stay healthy" line of reasoning.

 
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost").
IMO those who post rankings should take the approach that their rankings reflect what they expect for the season. If a ranker truly expects Gronk to miss all or most of the season, IMO he should have him off his board. But I really dislike the approach of "temporary" rankings. This comment gives me the impression that Wimer actually expects to elevate Gronk in his rankings later. If so, then IMO his ranking should have Gronk where he expects to ultimately put him.

It reminds me of the Favre comeback a few years ago. I had a polite debate with a staffer at the time because I disagreed with ranking him at QB19 or QB20 or something like that. The response was that it was a hedge, since it wasn't known if he would be back. My issue with that approach was that either he wasn't going to play at all and should be off the board, or he was going to play and should have been higher in the rankings.

:2cents:
Rankings aren't the same as projections - they can account for risk and they can hedge.

I'm sure Josh Gordon will get drafted (or has) in some early re-drafts this year. He will likely go mid-rounds to hedge. If we knew he was playing a full 16 games he'd be a round 1 or round 2 pick. If we knew he wasn't playing at all, he'd go undrafted.
I disagree. It's the same disagreement I had back then. Perhaps everyone else thinks differently about it.

To me, rankings shouldn't be about what we *know*. They should be about what we expect at the time of the ranking. If you expect Gordon not to play, don't rank him. If you expect him to play, rank him based on how you value the production you expect from him.

 
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost").
IMO those who post rankings should take the approach that their rankings reflect what they expect for the season. If a ranker truly expects Gronk to miss all or most of the season, IMO he should have him off his board. But I really dislike the approach of "temporary" rankings. This comment gives me the impression that Wimer actually expects to elevate Gronk in his rankings later. If so, then IMO his ranking should have Gronk where he expects to ultimately put him.

It reminds me of the Favre comeback a few years ago. I had a polite debate with a staffer at the time because I disagreed with ranking him at QB19 or QB20 or something like that. The response was that it was a hedge, since it wasn't known if he would be back. My issue with that approach was that either he wasn't going to play at all and should be off the board, or he was going to play and should have been higher in the rankings.

:2cents:
There have been times or situations over the years where I haven't loved the staff rankings. For example, let's say TEAM X had 3 WR whose roles were not well defined yet. And ultimately they were likely to have a Top 15 WR, a Top 30 WR, and one guy that would be lucky to end up in the Top 75 (based on how things had shaken out with that team/coach/system over the years). Many times, the staff would hedge and rank all three guys around WR40 rather than make their best guess as to how things would shake out. If I were a subscriber, that really would not help me much. I would not really know which guy was a front runner and why, which guy was most likely to be useless, etc. Personally, I would rather someone ranked the plays 15, 30, and 75 even if they that person ended up being wrong.
:goodposting:

Exactly my point. Great example.

 
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost").
IMO those who post rankings should take the approach that their rankings reflect what they expect for the season. If a ranker truly expects Gronk to miss all or most of the season, IMO he should have him off his board. But I really dislike the approach of "temporary" rankings. This comment gives me the impression that Wimer actually expects to elevate Gronk in his rankings later. If so, then IMO his ranking should have Gronk where he expects to ultimately put him.

It reminds me of the Favre comeback a few years ago. I had a polite debate with a staffer at the time because I disagreed with ranking him at QB19 or QB20 or something like that. The response was that it was a hedge, since it wasn't known if he would be back. My issue with that approach was that either he wasn't going to play at all and should be off the board, or he was going to play and should have been higher in the rankings.

:2cents:
That's a philosophical difference, though. I'm a big fan of allowing my rankings to reflect a weighted range of potential outcomes. I believe I currently have Josh Gordon ranked, even though I'm quite certain my ranking will either be far too high (because he gets suspended for the season) or far too low (because he doesn't). My ranking is a hedge, but one that I believe accurately prices in the risk and the reward inherent in drafting Josh Gordon. I believe his risk/reward profile is comparable to other players going in that same position, even if I believe he is exceedingly unlikely to actually score similarly to other players going in that same position.

Besides, if you like rankings that aren't a hedge, then you should like Wimer's ranking of Gronk a whole lot. He's not hedging at all against the possibility that Gronk comes back and plays at full health, he's 100% committed to the "I don't think Gronk can/will stay healthy" line of reasoning.
I disagree about Wimer's Gronk ranking, as I said initially. His comment sounds like he is hedging until he sees "proof," not that he is saying he believes Gronk won't play this season. If he has him off his board because he doesn't expect him to play, then IMO that is appropriate. But that's not what his comment says.

 
I can see Gronk slipping far enough for me to take him. But he's not somebody I'm exactly targetting. I like Jordan Reed as a comparable risk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Luckily the ranker in question linked a comment to his Rob Gronkowski rating ("until Gronkowski makes an appearance in preseason... he is OFF my TE board... I cannot in good conscience suggest anybody roll the dice on Gronkowski playing enough games this year to warrant the obscenely high draft pick he'll cost").
IMO those who post rankings should take the approach that their rankings reflect what they expect for the season. If a ranker truly expects Gronk to miss all or most of the season, IMO he should have him off his board. But I really dislike the approach of "temporary" rankings. This comment gives me the impression that Wimer actually expects to elevate Gronk in his rankings later. If so, then IMO his ranking should have Gronk where he expects to ultimately put him.

It reminds me of the Favre comeback a few years ago. I had a polite debate with a staffer at the time because I disagreed with ranking him at QB19 or QB20 or something like that. The response was that it was a hedge, since it wasn't known if he would be back. My issue with that approach was that either he wasn't going to play at all and should be off the board, or he was going to play and should have been higher in the rankings.

:2cents:
That's a philosophical difference, though. I'm a big fan of allowing my rankings to reflect a weighted range of potential outcomes. I believe I currently have Josh Gordon ranked, even though I'm quite certain my ranking will either be far too high (because he gets suspended for the season) or far too low (because he doesn't). My ranking is a hedge, but one that I believe accurately prices in the risk and the reward inherent in drafting Josh Gordon. I believe his risk/reward profile is comparable to other players going in that same position, even if I believe he is exceedingly unlikely to actually score similarly to other players going in that same position.

Besides, if you like rankings that aren't a hedge, then you should like Wimer's ranking of Gronk a whole lot. He's not hedging at all against the possibility that Gronk comes back and plays at full health, he's 100% committed to the "I don't think Gronk can/will stay healthy" line of reasoning.
I disagree about Wimer's Gronk ranking, as I said initially. His comment sounds like he is hedging until he sees "proof," not that he is saying he believes Gronk won't play this season. If he has him off his board because he doesn't expect him to play, then IMO that is appropriate. But that's not what his comment says.
I would prefer to see a better explanation than seeing proof that he will play. By this point, things look a lot more likely that Gronk will be on the field for training camp, let alone Week 1 of the regular season. If he felt like he was going to have a set back, or injure something else, or be sluggish when he got back, etc. that might justify a low ranking. The I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it approach, by definition, means that the staffer has an alternate ranking in mind. Why not throw that in the comments, too? Something like: "Think he may miss the first few games of the season or will have trouble with injuries all season long, thus the low ranking. If healthy, I would rank him TE2."

 
Didn't Gronk recently say he's going to play all season?

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-07-19/rob-gronkowski-injury-update-fantasy-status-return-patriots-tight-end-injury-lis

Do you think guys are really being malicious to him because of how dominant he is? I suppose that is a potential risk factor. He's Brady's buddy though, so if he does see the field he will likely be producing. If Gronk can make it through this season it would be really good for him, otherwise he's going to have to retire. How many times can you come back?

I can see Gronk slipping far enough for me to take him. But he's not somebody I'm exactly targetting. I like Jordan Reed as a comparable risk.
From the drafts I have seen or observed, Gronk is really not going for much of a discount these days. He's either TE2 or TE3 off the board and has become interchangeable with Thomas.

As for his comments that he plans to play every game this season, what was his plan in prior years . . . to only play in 7? I would think 99.99% of the league's players plan to play every week. The team or his doctors may have a say (for past, current, or future injuries).

 
Someone should do a draft using his rankings and see how the team turns out.
Someone does. Mark Wimer himself. He did a lot of mocks last year that were posted to the site, if you want to look back on them. This one was the first (and biggest) mock we put out last year, and Wimer actually did quite solidly, for whatever that is worth (and I recognize that, with a sample size of 1, it's not worth that much). His RB-phobic ways resulted in Demarco Murray and Eddie Lacy as his starters. Calvin and Welker anchored his WR corps, and the Roddy injury hurt him doubly (with so much draft capital invested in both White and Matt Ryan), and in his commentary he focused on wanting to corner the market on Green Bay RBs and Cincy WR2s, both of which proved to be very strong calls.

A brief look also turned up this mock and this mock. I'll leave the analysis up to the reader.
Now I'm more confused than ever. He took Cameron as the 15th TE off the board last year, and now has him ranked 20th?

Is the takeaway from this actually supposed to be that he was more valuable as a potential breakout guy with an incredibly low floor higher than it is now as a guy who's actually broken out and has a pretty high floor? I don't get it.

 
Someone should do a draft using his rankings and see how the team turns out.
Someone does. Mark Wimer himself. He did a lot of mocks last year that were posted to the site, if you want to look back on them. This one was the first (and biggest) mock we put out last year, and Wimer actually did quite solidly, for whatever that is worth (and I recognize that, with a sample size of 1, it's not worth that much). His RB-phobic ways resulted in Demarco Murray and Eddie Lacy as his starters. Calvin and Welker anchored his WR corps, and the Roddy injury hurt him doubly (with so much draft capital invested in both White and Matt Ryan), and in his commentary he focused on wanting to corner the market on Green Bay RBs and Cincy WR2s, both of which proved to be very strong calls.

A brief look also turned up this mock and this mock. I'll leave the analysis up to the reader.
Now I'm more confused than ever. He took Cameron as the 15th TE off the board last year, and now has him ranked 20th?

Is the takeaway from this actually supposed to be that he was more valuable as a potential breakout guy with an incredibly low floor higher than it is now as a guy who's actually broken out and has a pretty high floor? I don't get it.
Ive used this example twice is this thread to no avail...

I just cant even grasp his thought process on things like this

 
I disagree. It's the same disagreement I had back then. Perhaps everyone else thinks differently about it.

To me, rankings shouldn't be about what we *know*. They should be about what we expect at the time of the ranking. If you expect Gordon not to play, don't rank him. If you expect him to play, rank him based on how you value the production you expect from him.
My expectation is that rankings based on Expected Value should handily outperform rankings based on Expectations based on EoY accuracy. So if I'm ranking based on my expectations, then isn't that paradoxically an argument that I shouldn't be ranking based on expectations, (assuming the point of my individual rankings is to provide actionable info and maximize accuracy)? ;)

Seriously, all of the heavy-hitters in the fantasy industry rank based on EV and not singular "most likely" expectations. It seems that battle has already been fought, and the hedgers have won rather decisively.

 
Didn't Gronk recently say he's going to play all season?

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-07-19/rob-gronkowski-injury-update-fantasy-status-return-patriots-tight-end-injury-lis

Do you think guys are really being malicious to him because of how dominant he is? I suppose that is a potential risk factor. He's Brady's buddy though, so if he does see the field he will likely be producing. If Gronk can make it through this season it would be really good for him, otherwise he's going to have to retire. How many times can you come back?

I can see Gronk slipping far enough for me to take him. But he's not somebody I'm exactly targetting. I like Jordan Reed as a comparable risk.
From the drafts I have seen or observed, Gronk is really not going for much of a discount these days. He's either TE2 or TE3 off the board and has become interchangeable with Thomas.

As for his comments that he plans to play every game this season, what was his plan in prior years . . . to only play in 7? I would think 99.99% of the league's players plan to play every week. The team or his doctors may have a say (for past, current, or future injuries).
He certainly wasn't declaring to the media that he planned to play every game at this point last year, was he?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top