Updating Staff Dynasty Rankings on FBG (1 Viewer)

First, kudos to the FBG staff for updating their dynasty rankings more regularly the last month.

Second, I gotta ask if all of you are actually updating your lists or just cutting and pasting without making more than one or two spot changes? 

The genesis of this question is that I have been trying to track how the release of Maclin affects the dynasty market value of Tyreek Hill.  I was very surprised when Jeff updated his rankings on Wednesday (first update after the Maclin release) , but left Tyreek Hill as the 69th rated dynasty WR with the prerelease ( dated May 23rd) rationale that he might not get many targets.

If this was a full update... Jeff, can you please explain your rationale that the declared #1 WR in an NFL offense heading into his sophomore year merits a #69 wr ranking?  Unless you feel he is about to be benched, I think I would rank a warm body like Markus Wheaton higher than 69th if he was the WR#1 for an NFL team.

So you triple posted just to bust one staff member's balls publicly about one player's ranking?

Why not just PM him?

.

Fair critique... but the triple post was entirely accidental... as I mentioned in one of the deleted posts, my computer kept saying the posting failed and then all of a sudden they all showed up.

As far as calling out Jeff... I confess I was using him as a target of opportunity... this offseason the dynasty crowd has been complaining about a lack of dynasty support and I wanted to give credit for the appearance of effort in the updated rankings, but also comment on the need for the updates to be real updates.

Player values are fluid and are at least subject to possible change with each new piece of news.  For the new ranking updates to be useful to the community, the staff should contemplate at least the major news stories and how they affect player value.  Jeff is not the only one to post a new update without seeming to consider the latest news, his example was just the most egregious and served as the best exemplar of the problem (Sorry Jeff).

The purpose of the post was to alert FBG that when we requested more active dynasty rankings by the staff, we were looking for the same complete analysis for each update and not just a token change attached to a new date.

Maybe I am remembering things wrong, but I could have sworn we used to get a regular article that identified the specific changes (movement)  in the dynasty rankings.  Why did that stop? 

Its been pretty obvious that many simply change the date on their rankings. Been this way forever

Why even care that much? If you feel a guy should be ranked higher then go ahead and rank him higher. If anything it should help you since others will look at the rankings and undervalue him. 

Hawkeye21 said:

Why even care that much? If you feel a guy should be ranked higher then go ahead and rank him higher. If anything it should help you since others will look at the rankings and undervalue him. 

Click to expand...

Maybe because if you are paying for a service that includes dynasty rankings, you expect to have ones worth paying for?

If I go to a restaurant and get great food but terrible service, I may well go back again, but it wouldn't stop me from complaining about the service.  Every aspect of the product should meet advertised expectations.

Arodin said:

Maybe because if you are paying for a service that includes dynasty rankings, you expect to have ones worth paying for?

If I go to a restaurant and get great food but terrible service, I may well go back again, but it wouldn't stop me from complaining about the service.  Every aspect of the product should meet advertised expectations.

Click to expand...

I suppose you may be right but rankings are all subjective and if you don't agree with them then that's just how it goes. If you're claiming they are just not putting in the effort to change their rankings then that's a pretty serious accusation. 

Hawkeye21 said:

I suppose you may be right but rankings are all subjective and if you don't agree with them then that's just how it goes. If you're claiming they are just not putting in the effort to change their rankings then that's a pretty serious accusation. 

Click to expand...

I agree.  He may very well be spot on, I don't know.  But if this is going to rate a thread I'd sure like to see a bit more evidence cited than one player ranking by one staff member.

Brisco54 said:

Fair critique... but the triple post was entirely accidental... as I mentioned in one of the deleted posts, my computer kept saying the posting failed and then all of a sudden they all showed up.

As far as calling out Jeff... I confess I was using him as a target of opportunity... this offseason the dynasty crowd has been complaining about a lack of dynasty support and I wanted to give credit for the appearance of effort in the updated rankings, but also comment on the need for the updates to be real updates.

Player values are fluid and are at least subject to possible change with each new piece of news.  For the new ranking updates to be useful to the community, the staff should contemplate at least the major news stories and how they affect player value.  Jeff is not the only one to post a new update without seeming to consider the latest news, his example was just the most egregious and served as the best exemplar of the problem (Sorry Jeff).

The purpose of the post was to alert FBG that when we requested more active dynasty rankings by the staff, we were looking for the same complete analysis for each update and not just a token change attached to a new date.

Maybe I am remembering things wrong, but I could have sworn we used to get a regular article that identified the specific changes (movement)  in the dynasty rankings.  Why did that stop? 

Click to expand...

I don't remember an article, but I thought there were up and down arrows at one point in time to denote recent movement, but I could be confusing this with another site (or perhaps that was in the article you are referring to).

Jeff is usually pretty good and I do respect his work, but the Hill ranking, given the date seems a bit off. Could have just been an oversight.

It is true, as another poster mentioned, that it has been suspected by some readers that not all dynasty rankings are always completely updated (Andrew Garda, who used to do dynasty rankings, was accused of that, but denied it after being called out in a thread). 

I get the feeling that some of the staff find ranking WRs after 50 unnecessary and a bit of a nuisance - Adam Harstad even remarked (and I am paraphrasing) that there wasn't much difference in value of the players after the 50 spot and the only reason he did them was because the system required they list 90 players at that position. Interestingly, it is the rankings after 50 that most interest me, as I am in deep dynasty leagues and am always looking for under-the-radar players.

squistion said:

Brisco54 said:

Fair critique... but the triple post was entirely accidental... as I mentioned in one of the deleted posts, my computer kept saying the posting failed and then all of a sudden they all showed up.

As far as calling out Jeff... I confess I was using him as a target of opportunity... this offseason the dynasty crowd has been complaining about a lack of dynasty support and I wanted to give credit for the appearance of effort in the updated rankings, but also comment on the need for the updates to be real updates.

Player values are fluid and are at least subject to possible change with each new piece of news.  For the new ranking updates to be useful to the community, the staff should contemplate at least the major news stories and how they affect player value.  Jeff is not the only one to post a new update without seeming to consider the latest news, his example was just the most egregious and served as the best exemplar of the problem (Sorry Jeff).

The purpose of the post was to alert FBG that when we requested more active dynasty rankings by the staff, we were looking for the same complete analysis for each update and not just a token change attached to a new date.

Maybe I am remembering things wrong, but I could have sworn we used to get a regular article that identified the specific changes (movement)  in the dynasty rankings.  Why did that stop? 

Click to expand...

I don't remember an article, but I thought there were up and down arrows at one point in time to denote recent movement, but I could be confusing this with another site (or perhaps that was in the article you are referring to).

Jeff is usually pretty good and I do respect his work, but the Hill ranking, given the date seems a bit off. Could have just been an oversight.

It is true, as another poster mentioned, it has been suspected by some readers that not all dynasty rankings are always completely updated (Andrew Garda, who used to do dynasty rankings, was accused of that, but denied it after being called out in a thread). 

I get the feeling that some of the staff find ranking WRs after 50 unnecessary and a bit of a nuisance - Adam Harstad even remarked (and I am paraphrasing) that there wasn't much difference in value of the players after the 50 spot and the only reason he did them was because the system required they list 90 players at that position. Interestingly, it is the rankings after 50 that most interest me, as I am in deep dynasty leagues and am always looking for under-the-radar players.

Click to expand...

There is a separate page which shows player movement - it looks like it's set up to compare rankings submitted within the past week to rankings submitted 1-2 weeks ago. Among the WRs (which I linked) the biggest risers are Tyreek Hill (up 6.1 spots) and Quincy Enunwa (up 5.3 spots) and the biggest fallers are Jeremy Maclin (down 7.7 spots) and Eric Decker (down 4.7 spots). Unsurprising names, although it might be a mistake to drop Maclin & Decker since their landing spots could be upgrades.

One of the things I do is check their redraft ppr rankings (for those that do both) when I see a dynasty rank that seems extreme (Hill 69th).  Jeff now has him ranked in the 30s in redraft ppr.  Seems that a young player ranked in the 30s today but 69th over time (dynasty) is just a mistake/oversight.

My guess is the Staff simply focusses much more of their time on redraft.  I wish it was different as I would like to feel I could trust their dynasty rankings, but I dont think they are willing to truely put in the time.

same as day 1