I took over as commish right before the 7, so I guess I can hold my world's head up on that.  Proud that the other world I commish made it to #10, though, that was a pleasant surprise.  

I find it funny that the world that DOESN'T have a MWR that I commish is top ten while the other isn't.  

When it comes time to recruit for caray, I will be all over promoting that we are a top ten world.  :)   I guess I also have that.

I appreciate all the work that went into this as as it had to have been a huge effort to collect and compile all of the data.  It can definitely help people avoid a world with significant problems. As for the actual significance of particular ratings that is a bit questionable.  I think it puts worlds into more of a tier like upper third, middle third, and bottom third rather than there being too much importance with the actual rank number.

As an example I looked at the world I commish, Kinsella, which is ranked #24. I was curious how much effect my particular team in the world had on the rankings.
 Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - New York Yankees Franchise Profile
We have won the division every season while there have been three different second place teams - 6 points
We have made two World Series (unfortunately losing both) - 2 points
We have three 100 win seasons - 3 points
We have three 110 win seasons - 3 points
We had the best record by 1 game - 0.2 points
So combined, my team personally impacted the league score by a whopping 14.2 pts.  Without those 14.2 pts our #24 ranking goes to #3.  Does the presence of my team really make my world that much worse?

After that exercise, I was also curious about the effect of my other team having a run of success in Satchel Paige, ranked #9. (That team has also won 4 divisions, been to 3 WS with 2 wins)
My net effect there is 12.4 pts or enough to make them drop to #1.

Once again, I applaud mchales-army and those that helped him for making this effort. I think these rankings are good at identifying the flawed worlds, but it is not necessarily a rock solid indicator of world rank.

I can't decide if that post is more (a) look at how awesome me and my teams are, or more (b) my worlds should be ranked higher.

Want me to post my crappy rebuilding team too?  ( didn't feel the need since they didn't impact anything in the rankings scoring) I just found it odd how 1 team can impact the numbers so much.

I would mostly agree with the assessment that it is better to look at tiers. Only 1 full point difference between 6th and 9th for example. 

#1 Cooperstown is 3.1 ahead of #2 Moonlight Graham, and MG is 4.6 ahead of #3 Pine Tar, Pine Tar is 1.4 ahead of #4 BBWAA, but after those top 3 there is only 6 instances of a world being a full point ahead of the next ranked world through the top 130.

Having said that, a team that is in the WS every season doesn't exactly scream parity, which is what score they affect. 
I don't see how anyone could find that they impact the parity score "odd"...

As for your team winning 110 3 out of 4 seasons, wow.

I mean do you realize there are 69 WORLDS (nearly half of all worlds) that didn't have three 110 win teams at all over 4 seasons?

That your single team won 110+ more times than the entirety of 69 worlds says a lot and absolutely accurately reflects what I was intending it to. 

I went ahead and added the real life numbers from the actual Major Leagues over the last 4 seasons to the "parity alone" ranking. Of course they were the best... 

Posted by mchales_army on 3/20/2015 6:48:00 PM (view original):
I went ahead and added the real life numbers from the actual Major Leagues over the last 4 seasons to the "parity alone" ranking. Of course they were the best... 

They're also the best at turnover. In the last four years, unless I'm mistaken, only the Padres and Dodgers have changed hands.

Of course, they're the absolute worst in wait time. I've been waiting almost 5 months for the regular season to start, and last year was just as bad!

You gonna change your ad mike? You always claim MG is the best world, which we now gave hardcore proof that it is only second best.

Nah.  I'm good either way.

Maybe I missed something. How did real life MLB get a -4 for over 100 wins?

Posted by hockey1984 on 3/21/2015 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I missed something. How did real life MLB get a -4 for over 100 wins?

Because the baseline was Mantle with 5, and Real life MLB only had 1, so they get a -4 for that category, rather than me going back and setting MLB as the baseline...