FantasyNoob wrote:Geez, thanks for posting this topic. It's nice to know that those rankings are based on 5x5. I assumed the rankings (especially just current season ranks) were calculated based on our league custom point scoring (which wouldn't be all that hard for Yahoo to do). I love having Guardado, but I couldn't figure out the other day how guardado was ranked just higher than Rivera the other day, when rivera had so many more saves. Rivera is now ranked higher, but a few days ago Guardado had the edge. Must've been slightly better in other categories to compensate for trailing in saves.
Correct analysis on the rateing and why Guardado had been rated higher . You will do well in this game and like it even more years from now when you shed your yellow L , lol or tomorrow....when ever you drop the yellow L.........
Just remember though, (I dont play yahoo leagues so I might be slightly off)........, the rateings arent projections. Those rateings are just compilations of what the players have done so far and dont reflect your team's needs. If you have a commanding lead in saves but are behind in ERA/WHIP/INN, then you would probably do better off from here out with O. Dotel over D.Graves. I'm guessing Graves is rated higher on those rateings on account of his save total being great so far. A player high on their rateings could fall drastically within a few weeks time. Rateings just account for a players production so far, not always entirely accurate as to who will do what. I think you get it..................................
"Son we would like to keep you around here but were trying to win a pennant this year."
Madison wrote:Ok, I've had time to mull this over a bit. Josebach, surely you have come across an owner who highly overvalues Yahoo's rankings, right? That's the owners I was targeting when I made the comment. Anyone who takes the time to frequent a message board to improve their team, and learn to be a better fantasy player certainly does not qualify in the statement I made. The only real use I see for Yahoo's attempt at a ranking system is to use the rankings against those "uninformed" (sorry to use that word again, but it's nicer than saying "stupid") owners who overvalue the *cough* rankings *cough*.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I took your comments as an insult to me and anybody else that looks at Yahoo stats and I shouldn't have. I look at Yahoo's Stats (as well as ESPN, MLB.com, this cafe etc) and consider myself a very good player. (I could list my past success stories, but I could be lying so why bother. ) I guess my point is, past statistics and gut instinct are always important in deciding where to rate someone... but so are current stats. (I think we can all agree Shawn Green isn't a better OF option than Miguel Cabrerra even though Green was ranked higher pre-season). Where I agree with you that Yahoo's rankings were very poor pre-season, I've found nowhere better (using a traditional 5x5 scoring system) in determining a player's value thus far. Not only that, but every site shows players statistics as being the same (Blalock has 20 homeruns everywhere, not just Yahoo). It's just a matter of convenience having a private Yahoo league with the stats being just a click away.
The main reason I responded was because I just didn't want anybody that chooses Yahoo stats as one source of information to feel stupid or inferior, because they aren't.................... necessarily . Normally, I let posts that bother me slide right off my back, but I had a really bad day yesterday. Sorry for being so uppity.
monybaggs wrote:my league has CG and Shutouts as a roto cat.... yahoo doesnt take them into account for their rating system
yes they do... under "rank" it takes it into account... under "o-rank" they dont...
so believe it or not the rankings are accurate to ur league settings...
That's not true, and I can say this with certainty because I playin in a wacky stats league (offense is triples, sac hits, fielding %, obp, and slg) and Vlad with his 0 3b, 0 sac hits, and .975 fld % is still number one while Figgins' league leading 11 3b and 7 sac hits (7th overall) is ranked 172.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
CubsFan7724 wrote:Off topic, but those sound like the stupidest random categories ever. OBP and Slugging sort of make sense, but Fielding %? or triples and sac hits? This must be some sort of joke league.
Just tried to do something very different, yet pick catagories that weren't fluky. I'm happy with the results.
Pitching catagories are wins, complete games, k/bb, holds, and gidp
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Yahoo is , I use the espn.com player rater. I find that much more accurate.
Man, I wish I was an ESPNinsider so I could look at those. (Toss me your ID and password perhaps, lol) I don't do any ESPN leagues, but I'd love to look at their rankings.
In any case, just to clear something up... Yahoo RANKS are not a matter of anyone's opinion, they are derived from a mathematical formula. The intention of this formula is to determine PRECISELY how valuable one player's stats are relative to the rest of the league, whether in a given time frame (last week, last month) or overall (season). No opinions, no projections, just what the player has done so far.
As a corollary, I will concede that the formula used to derive these rankings is undoubtedly flawed, as a. it only accounts for 5x5 roto, and b. it fails to account for several factors that can severely impact the relative value of certain categories.
Most notably I believe that it weighs certain categories too heavily, and, almost paradoxically, FAILS to weigh the numbers in ratio categories over the duration of accrued statistics in that category. For example, Gagne was ranked in the top 4 at the end of last season. Now, unless you drafted a pitching staff last year which had an ERA UNDER 3, and WHIP UNDER 1.10, I tend to strongly disagree with this ranking. A player like Jason Schmidt and his tremendous contribution to your ERA and WHIP, as well as win and K totals, should definitely be more valuable to your team than Gagne was last year, but because Gagne had such amazing ratios, he had the higher rank. Like I said, unless your pitching staff was so magnificent as to barely be helped by Schmidt, then his impact on your ERA and WHIP would have been MUCH greater, thanks to sheer volume of innings pitched.
Another reason why Gagne was ranked so highly is because he got a LOT of saves. In a league where there are 20+ teams, this rank may have been justified, simply because saves are SO hard to come by in such leagues, but in a 12 team 5x5 league (the standard Yahoo public league) they aren't NEARLy as rare.
Yahoo's O-RANK seems to be an opinion based derivative of a player's performance over the course of his career, although there may be a concrete mathematical formula which applies here as well.
In any case, an O-Rank is an attempt by yahoo to come to some kind of figure which determines a player's absolute value. In many many cases, they fall well short of grace with this system.
Two notable players who's O-Ranks were far too low preseason were Hank Blalock and Marcus Giles. Consequently I got them in most of my leagues. ESPN had them both ranked top 50 or so, but yahoo had them O-Ranked not even within a sniff of top 100, as I recall.
A knowledgeable player will draft these kinds of players in rounds 4-7, but according to yahoo default rankings, they wouldn't have been taken (preseason) until round 10 or later.