Back to Boards

Player Rankings

Player Rankings

Would you consider adjusting the batter rankings based on some blend of OPS and DWAR? I think those two stats are more representative of the true value of the player than the current ratings. For instance, I can think of 30+ outfielders with a higher ranking than Griffey Jr. Same goes for Frisch. Just a thought to make it even more balanced.

Re: Player Rankings

Yeah this is something for the wish list. I think two ratings would help, one focused on offense and one overall. The reason for rank was mostly to help people understand hitting and pitching value.

Re: Player Rankings

If there were changes, I wouldn’t want to see an overall rating, because figuring out how much you should value hitting vs defense is part of managing and the fun.

I would be in favor of a hitter rating (maybe that better takes slugging into account) and a defensive one that combines dwar, fpct, and arm.

But I don’t think we want a perfect rating because then it limits draft strategies for most to “pick the highest ranked guy”, which has 2 bad consequences: 1) leagues are cookie cutter and boring, 2) veterans who match team style to park instead of just rank will have an even larger advantage as more managers will rely on rank rather than being creative in strategy.

Re: Player Rankings

The strategy of who you pick and how you design your team would still exist - balancing offense versus defense, catering your stadium to your team, pinch hitting and defensive subs, etc. You may say “cookie cutter” however I would say “competitive balance”. If the rankings exist to help newer players to better understand the value for the draft, then I believe what I stated before would help optimize that. It also is important for trades and no drops. The rankings today are somewhat misleading to true value - for hitting. Pitching is fairly balanced. If the intent is not to best rate the players for drafting/trading/no drop purposed, then it might be best and delete the ranking entirely.

Re: Re: Player Rankings

Really, there are good arguments on both sides.

Re: Player Rankings

It's rare where I come into a discussion and can say everyone is right!

My only two cents on rank is this.

It's a good baseline for brand new players to use as they figure out the game.
When I first started playing if not for rank, I'd have been lost.
Obviously as I went along I learned to add other details into the player's ability, such as OPS and dWar. Now, Frankie Frische and Jackie Robinson are my two favorite 2nd base players, despite their batting averages usually being pretty low.

I enjoyed the learning curve, and I've enjoyed sharing what I learned from the game with new players.

One thing we don't want to do, is make the game too easy. There should always be some sort of learning curve, and while Rank is not perfect, it does lend itself to assisting new players while still leaving the learning curve and "game secrets" that those who enjoy the game will realize eventually.

When I discovered dWar, it was like a baseball Christmas present I'd just opened, and it changed the way I look at the game.

I'd hate to take away the joy of discovery by dumbing the game down too much.

Anyway, there's my lengthy two cents.. haha

Re: Player Rankings

I'm in full agreement with Zeedood. I'm glad the ranking is there because without it I would have been lost starting out. But I like how it's a tool you can use but not all inclusive. For me a big part of the fun of this game has been learning what to look at and what players can be more valuable to your team than the rank shows.

To be honest, if the ranking was all inclusive and you more or less just picked the highest ranked player at each position I'm not sure if I would have kept playing. I like the fact that it's not all that easy and you have to experiment and learn things to be competitive.