A Request to Standardize the Rankings Criteria Staff Use (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I don't use the future rankings much, but it's obvious from comments in the forums that the staff members use different criteria when developing their rankings lists. Which really takes away from their potential usefulness.

Would it be possible to develop standard criteria for developing the dynasty rankings - so each staff is operating on the same basis? Or, at the very least, tell us what your criteria are?

 

[FUBAR]

tell us what your criteria are?

I'd prefer this. Every owner has their own tastes, if I can tell what the staffer is thinking and usually I can without it being explicit, that helps more so than staffers using criteria they wouldn't otherwise use.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

What kinds of things do you want standardized? Dynasty rankings are much more art than science, and standardizing everything about what goes into a ranking will cause a lot of variety and nuance in philosophy and methodology to go out the window. I agree with FUBAR that we just need to be explicit - so which parts would you want explicitly spelled out?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What kinds of things do you want standardized? Dynasty rankings are much more art than science, and standardizing everything about what goes into a ranking will cause a lot of variety and nuance in philosophy and methodology to go out the window. I agree with FUBAR that we just need to be explicit - so which parts would you want explicitly spelled out?

For starters, what time frame are you using? That could be standardized at "x" years, yes? I see that as similar to picking a scoring system and having everyone use that system for their rankings. FBG has chosen not to rank for PPR, for example.Or if you really wanted to get crazy with the cheese whiz you could break the ranking into components - talent and situation - and let us figure out how to incorporate the time frame for ourselves. Or give a 2-year and 4-year ranking. Or whatever.

Don't get hung up on my specific ideas. Rather than tell you all how to do it I'll just leave it with the idea that I'd like to see the parts of the rankings not related to the player or his situation be more consistent. Right now it's hard to see where there's a difference of opinion on the player vs differing base assumptions about dynasty leagues.

 

[Sanboy]

this is a good idea .. or atleast to have some guidelines

i was looking at the rankings . and usually a player is between + 4 or + 5 of each persons rankings .. this is a good sign . but when you have certain guys ranking a guy + 12 or + 15 different than everyone else . there is a problem

example . out of 5 rankers

4 of them have D.Garrard between 12 - 15

one guy has Garrard 27 .. !! in a dynasty league ... ?

WHAT .. you have Garrard below the likes of K.Warner who has already been told he is a # 2 heading in to the year

yea that makes sense

 

[PranksterJD]

What kinds of things do you want standardized? Dynasty rankings are much more art than science, and standardizing everything about what goes into a ranking will cause a lot of variety and nuance in philosophy and methodology to go out the window. I agree with FUBAR that we just need to be explicit - so which parts would you want explicitly spelled out?

For starters, what time frame are you using? That could be standardized at "x" years, yes? I see that as similar to picking a scoring system and having everyone use that system for their rankings. FBG has chosen not to rank for PPR, for example.

I don't **want** this standardized. Like Bloom and FUBAR said, I just want to know that Bloom's looking 4 years out while Pasquino's looking closer to 2. This information makes the various rankings useful in different scenarios and leagues.Getting the criteria published would be a huge benefit. The rankings are already set to allow you to ignore certain members, so then you could pick the criteria that applied and have a decent set of rankings.

 

[IndyHavoc]

What kinds of things do you want standardized? Dynasty rankings are much more art than science, and standardizing everything about what goes into a ranking will cause a lot of variety and nuance in philosophy and methodology to go out the window. I agree with FUBAR that we just need to be explicit - so which parts would you want explicitly spelled out?

For starters, what time frame are you using? That could be standardized at "x" years, yes? I see that as similar to picking a scoring system and having everyone use that system for their rankings. FBG has chosen not to rank for PPR, for example.

I don't **want** this standardized. Like Bloom and FUBAR said, I just want to know that Bloom's looking 4 years out while Pasquino's looking closer to 2. This information makes the various rankings useful in different scenarios and leagues.Getting the criteria published would be a huge benefit. The rankings are already set to allow you to ignore certain members, so then you could pick the criteria that applied and have a decent set of rankings.

Good point, but it would be even more helpful to have 2 data points there, right? So getting JP's rankings for a 2 year window AND a 4 year window. Getting Bloom's 2 and 4 year window rankings. Now, I hate this simply because it's a helluva lot of work and thought put into it and becomes even more cumbersome to update/track/proof and we'll start seeing even more mistakes like JP's Garrard ranking.Not sure what the solution is. I'd absolutely LOVE to see just a quick synopsis from each guy stating what they're particular nuance is; 2 year window on RB, 4 year window on WR, pref toward proven commodities, etc. etc. I'm just thinking all the things that go into my own rankings; 2-5 year window based on position, talent vs. situation, play style (scoring adaptation), injury/risk, team situation (now! vs. rebuild), ....

 

[Ice Cream Man]

Good point, but it would be even more helpful to have 2 data points there, right? So getting JP's rankings for a 2 year window AND a 4 year window. Getting Bloom's 2 and 4 year window rankings. Now, I hate this simply because it's a helluva lot of work and thought put into it and becomes even more cumbersome to update/track/proof and we'll start seeing even more mistakes like JP's Garrard ranking.

Different people have different rates of time preference. I don't know how accurate one would be in their analysis if they artificially changed their perspective. It's like asking a risk-taker to give useful advice to a bunch of people with a high degree of risk-aversion.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's like asking a risk-taker to give useful advice to a bunch of people with a high degree of risk-aversion.

Well, the important thing would be to know that the guy giving you advice went once went over Niagara Falls in a barrel. That way you can adjust your perception of his advice based on your own risk tolerance.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Give them an inch....

It's great to see you all wanting more and more content - really. But not everyone views the same player the same way.

Documenting how rankers see the world is an interesting concept, and I've talked with a few people about having a column for subscribers to more implicitly describing when and - more importantly - why we make ranking changes.

For example, I usually don't change my Dynasty rankings more than once a month. That may seem strange, but I don't want weekly news or performances to swing the rankings wildly. Some info is of course pertinent (like injuries) but if someone plays great against a bad team (or the opposite) for one game, I don't want that to greatly influence me.

Frankly adding more commentaries on the actual rankings would become cumbersome, especially if we start to get more rankings available as some have also requested.

Maybe staff bio pages could be linked to rankings to give a "20,000 foot view" of how we rank players - but I can tell you that while some things do hold true for me overall, there are certain players where I deviate from those guidelines. Knowing our trends may be useful I agree but putting in sweeping generalities may be confusing and impractical - or even worse, misleading.

Feel free to contribute your thoughts and ideas for improvements, but that's my first thought.

 

[IndyHavoc]

That's kinda what I was hinting at also. It just seems like it'd be much too labor intensive to take several lists, maintain them, comment on them; it would eventually crumble into a mistake-laden boat anchor ;-) No offense meant there, just saying that you guys have a LOT on your plates...and most is more valuable than doing this.

I really do like the idea of a Staffer Bio that might have a blurb about their Dynasty mantra/perspective. Might offer at least a little gleam of insight for those of us that just shake our heads at some staffers' rankings (in relation to our own).

Thanks again, JP.