Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **mbuser** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:34 am

i got no problem with it. to me fixing the pre-ranks only makes for more competitive public leagues -- translation more fun imo

by **Pedantic** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:44 am

For the draft, they should just list players alphabetically. }:-)

by **daweasle** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:16 am

how did sheffield not make the top 25?

by **tuff_gong** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:31 pm

aramis ramirez seems a bit too high at 17

by **thedude** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:58 pm

they even ranked the sleepers decent <img src=/forums/images/smiles/kiss.gif> you should fix the rankings but leave guys like wright, reeed, ect where they were. reward the people who some reasearch. :-C

by **nikku88** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:52 am

I can't believe they put Reyes at 53. I like him, but no where that early.

by **dnelms** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:31 am

how did sheffield not make the top 25?

We all know that each service or publication varies some, but this is not the only place to do this to Sheff (and others). I've got the Rotowire fantasy mag and Sheffield is #36, Soriano #19 as examples... IMO they ranked completely on stats/projections with no regard to position strength or weakness overall.

by **AcidRock23** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:40 am

I suspect that some of their rankings derived from draft orders in actual drafts? I kind of figured that would be the case as they do seem to be shifting pretty constantly, which would be the case if all of the picks contributed to the draft order. This could also account for variances in rankings between leagues using different categories as the yahoo rankings. The definition says 'a player's ranking based on current and past seasons' which COULD also be interpreted to incorporate where they are going in drafts, as that is the only data that is available for the 'current' season.

From the perspective of the business, it seems like it would be a lot simpler to do that than to pay a team of 'experts' for 'expert opinions' (which might be where the rankings were on day one, and why they've 'shifted' a bit closer to 'reality'.... It doesn't really explicitly say anywhere that that is done but it kind of makes sense for an IT operation of that nature.

by **nikku88** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:47 am

I don't think Yahoo has had any drafts yet. Although I could be wrong.

by **AcidRock23** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:04 am

d'oh...unless there were offline drafts input or something? I suppose that there might be some up but haven't figured out how to look for them or whatever. hmmmm...another theory shot to...oh well! :-D

Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

did yahoo change o-rankings? oh, man, this sucks ...

re: rankings

Who is online