dannahann wrote:I hope the big 3 website ranks aren't actually counted? I asked Salty about them and his answer led me to believe they were just illustrative for his spreadsheet and that rjforlife didn't use them in the actual top 50.
Again, it's not a big deal, but what confused me is that there is an average ranking in the spreadsheet which includes the sites. This is not the number that's used for the article, but it might be worth noting in the next article how the spreadsheet differs.
When I read it the other day after it was first posted, only one person had voted and he/she gave it 2 stars. I and four others have since voted, and base on my math 3 of us gave it 5 stars and 1 gave it 4 stars. I can't imagine why someone would only give it 2 stars. It kind of annoyed me and I'm not even involved. The amount of work you guys have put into this alone makes it 5 star worthy, no matter how far off base one might consider the rankings. I for one think the rankings are pretty solid, but of course I do have several qualms, which is why I think I'll throw my hat in the mix next time around and submit my own rankings.
thatguy27 wrote:I bet the 2 star vote came from Funston.
And just to confirm for everyone, the Big 3 site rankings are not included at all in the overall top 50 Countdown, Salty just added them to show how perceived value differs drastically from current true value.
And I hope you guys all have qualms, that's really part of the fun of this, to look at the rankings very critically and see where your opinions differ from the group, and then potentially use that to make trades in your league that perhaps you didn't realize were possible. Or just start a solid debate on the Cafe about where you think we(I) goofed
-I was the one who gave it 2 out of 5. I was randomly clicking through the article and accidentally clicked on it giving the initial rating of 2.
-You can not discount what has already occurred. That is why I have included the big site rankings in the spreadsheet. The faith or lack of faith in the cafe rankers will certainly show the "projections" for the rest of the season.
-I am a big believer that you can't hit a HR, steal a base, or strike anyone out while on the DL. Lack of production will result in a lack of appearances in my ranking.
Saltydog wrote: -I am a big believer that you can't hit a HR, steal a base, or strike anyone out while on the DL. Lack of production will result in a lack of appearances in my ranking.
Yeah, but these rankings are meant for cafe members to use to evaluate their teams and trades. It's not crazy to project a top 10 player on the DL for a month next to a borderline top 50 guy playing right now. It's very likely that I'd still want the top 10 player for the rest of the season depending on the injury.
I'm with most everyone else, I think players on the DL should be included in the rankings. As many have said, these rankings are a good way to evaluate potential trades by gauging the perceived values of the players involved. Injured players, while not producing at the time, still hold value going forward, and after all isn't that what the goal is here--to rank the players with regard to how much value they will provide going forward?
If hypothetically, I were considering a deal along the lines of, say, Tulo for Bruce, it would be nice to know how much value informed minds place on each of the two going forward. It's not like injured players are never traded, In fact, it seems that injured studs are quite often key pieces in trades (at least in my leagues). As such, I see no reason they shouldn't be ranked (even if it is much more difficult to rank them given the uncertainties that generally surround their situations).