kaveman wrote:The top 50 are eerily similar to Funston's Big Board last week.

It'll be harder for me to trade Crawford now that he moved from 10 into the 30's.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Funston actually has a lot to do with the O-ranks to the point that i think the O ranks actually ARE funston's. Sick, i know.

twistedude wrote:O-Ranks were adjusted again today. Is this done by yahoo on a monthy basis, or just at random?

I just noticed this. Is it just me or did I see richie sexson move from a top 50 to a nothing in these o-ranks?? Anyways they dont mean anything and the real ranks are better than the oranks anyways. Why does yahoo even have an orank when they can just use the regular ranking system they have?

twistedude wrote:O-Ranks were adjusted again today. Is this done by yahoo on a monthy basis, or just at random?

I just noticed this. Is it just me or did I see richie sexson move from a top 50 to a nothing in these o-ranks?? Anyways they dont mean anything and the real ranks are better than the oranks anyways. Why does yahoo even have an orank when they can just use the regular ranking system they have?

I think the O-Rank is adjusted according to their long term performance for the current season AND seasons past. The "rank" is adjusted purely according to their statistical output. I think having both is helpful actually, but one shouldn't rely on them strictly in determining player values.

I think that O-Rank is a composite of a player's stats for the past 3-4 years. It's probably weighted heavier for more recent performance, but there's definitely an algorithm there. I think at a certain point in the year, the stats for oldest year are dropped and they start adding this year into the equation. It makes sense for them to wait a couple of months to build up stats for this year because they probably count for so much. From here on, they'll probably be updated daily like the other ranks.

Up until this week, the O-rank was a total of 2005-2003. When they updated the O-Rank this week, they basically switched their calculations to use 2006-2004.

It looks like Teix should go up when you replace .811 with .827, but the weighting makes a big difference.Say for simplicity we weight current year as 1/2, last year as 1/3 and 2 years ago as 1/6 of the total.

Teix's high O-rank had leaned heavily on his past 2 years, but when you use this year's stats as half, he suddenly drops and Vern goes way up hitting .994 so far despite dropping a .909 year.

G.O.A.T. wrote:Can someone tell me how Jermaine Dye is ranked 221 behind such great hitters like Beltre, Luis Castillo, and Clinton Freaking Barmes among others?

ktown wrote:You can look at Vernon and Teix as case studies of their algorithm. Look at their OPS #s for the past 4 years (neither steals a lot, so it's fair).

Up until this week, the O-rank was a total of 2005-2003. When they updated the O-Rank this week, they basically switched their calculations to use 2006-2004.

It looks like Teix should go up when you replace .811 with .827, but the weighting makes a big difference.Say for simplicity we weight current year as 1/2, last year as 1/3 and 2 years ago as 1/6 of the total.

Teix's high O-rank had leaned heavily on his past 2 years, but when you use this year's stats as half, he suddenly drops and Vern goes way up hitting .994 so far despite dropping a .909 year.