It may be impressive, but it also bears no resemblance to how we actually calculate rankings heh
This has been discussed in many threads over the years I've been on the Cafe, and you're welcome to dig up those discussions if you like. The short answer is that we use fundamentally the same formula as baseballmonster and I gather most of our competitors. There are minor facets of that approach that have an air of subjectivity to them, which is why we don't match up with them 100%. It is also the case that our rankings are based on standard league settings, so that should be kept in mind if your league does NOT use standard settings. If people want to continue to insist we're horrible because our rankings were bad in 2003, that is certainly their right to do so. I'll just note that was 8 years ago, I'm not sure Bryce Harper was even born yet
, and the ranking code has been essentially rewritten since then.
Oh. Actually, this discussion is a bit off the rails already. If you're looking at O-Rank, those are *not* statistically calculated. There is a statistical basis underneath it, but then purely subjective rankings are applied. If you value the opinions of our experts, feel free to use them. If you do not value our experts, then don't. That's all that is. The Rank column, on the other hand, is what I was referring to above, and is purely statistical in nature. But there is a bug at the moment where the Players page isn't giving you the option to use 2010 stats. Which are really the only statistical rankings I imagine anyone would want to see. I expect that gets fixed shortly.