Last Year's Rankings

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:58 pm

I did an excel sheet and did the calculations, and based on what I found, Sheffield was the number one player last year. I had the number one player in each category get 1 point, and the highest number going to the worst players. He came in first by a large margin with ARod and then Pujols. But on here it says that Pujols was first. How many points were given to players for a first place ranking?

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:13 pm

Not that I can speak on behalf of rotochamp.com but you couldn't accurately determine who was ranked highest overall by assigning points by place in the category and come up with a fair assessment of one's value.

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:29 pm

tylerthetiger wrote:

Not that I can speak on behalf of rotochamp.com but you couldn't accurately determine who was ranked highest overall by assigning points by place in the category and come up with a fair assessment of one's value.

Well, that is just how it is done in a league. For example, for runs, the first three were Pujols, Helton, and Furcal. So Pujols would be given one point, two to Helton, and three for Furcal. Do that for all the rankings, then average and see who has the lowest average. It came out with Sheffield about 8 points lower.

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:51 pm

alphahornedfrog wrote:

tylerthetiger wrote:

Not that I can speak on behalf of rotochamp.com but you couldn't accurately determine who was ranked highest overall by assigning points by place in the category and come up with a fair assessment of one's value.

Well, that is just how it is done in a league. For example, for runs, the first three were Pujols, Helton, and Furcal. So Pujols would be given one point, two to Helton, and three for Furcal. Do that for all the rankings, then average and see who has the lowest average. It came out with Sheffield about 8 points lower.

It really depends on how your league scores. There are many variations of points leagues, as well as roto leagues. Our point values for 2003 are calculated by a more complex process based on league averages as well as being weighted by IP and AB.

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:39 pm

rotochamp2 wrote:

alphahornedfrog wrote:

tylerthetiger wrote:

Not that I can speak on behalf of rotochamp.com but you couldn't accurately determine who was ranked highest overall by assigning points by place in the category and come up with a fair assessment of one's value.

Well, that is just how it is done in a league. For example, for runs, the first three were Pujols, Helton, and Furcal. So Pujols would be given one point, two to Helton, and three for Furcal. Do that for all the rankings, then average and see who has the lowest average. It came out with Sheffield about 8 points lower.

It really depends on how your league scores. There are many variations of points leagues, as well as roto leagues. Our point values for 2003 are calculated by a more complex process based on league averages as well as being weighted by IP and AB.

Yeah, I did these by raw stats, games played, AB's, and in all of them, Sheff came out first. I have done some further calculations and found that even v league averages, positional averages, and averages of typical fantasy starters. Oh well. So the roto points rankings are not just a straight number based on category rankings?

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:07 pm

That is correct, our Rotorankings are more of a value above replacement player. And then weighting is included to adjust each category based on variance. That is a very simple way of saying it, but not the whole picture.

Lets just say the math is much more complicated than just assigning ranking points.

For one thing, just taking ranking points tells you nothing about what it takes to move from one point to the next. You have no value given to the variance.

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:08 pm

btw Brad, nice work on doing the numbers, that is more than most people do, and it is not a terrible way to do it. That is what this site is all about. Talking about HOW to do analysis.

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:44 pm

rotochamp1 wrote:

btw Brad, nice work on doing the numbers, that is more than most people do, and it is not a terrible way to do it. That is what this site is all about. Talking about HOW to do analysis.

Yeah, I've always been a numbers guy. I'm always doing statistical analysis. If you play Long enough, they will almost always win out. Hunches are nice, but numbers are better.