World Ranking System Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Turnover is a symptom of a bad league, but isn't that the one of the points of rankings . . . identifying the good versus the bad?
I disagree.  Losing an owner who isn't running his team well is a plus for a league.  

Identifying why there is turnover is damn near impossible.
4/11/2012 10:47 AM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/11/2012 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Turnover is a symptom of a bad league, but isn't that the one of the points of rankings . . . identifying the good versus the bad?
I disagree.  Losing an owner who isn't running his team well is a plus for a league.  

Identifying why there is turnover is damn near impossible.
I think we agree. I should have said High turnover is a symptom of  bad league. I know you agree that if you are looking for 8 new owners every year, there's a problem. If you replace them with good owners, then, yes, its a good thing.
4/11/2012 10:49 AM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 4/11/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Turnover is a symptom of a bad league, but isn't that the one of the points of rankings . . . identifying the good versus the bad?
No, the purpose is to **** those off in the low ranking worlds.

Really, if I'm using the correct metrics to identify a good/bad league--I would expect that in general, the lower ranked leagues will have high turnover. However there are worlds that most outsiders would identify as crappy worlds, where there isnt high turnover, that doesnt mean it should be highly ranked.

OK, Im re-visiting my rankings project. I should have rankings up in a couple days.
4/11/2012 10:53 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Right.  There are many factors that define good versus crappy worlds.  High vs. low turnover would be one (among a number of others) of them.
4/11/2012 10:56 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
******* people off is fun for the whole family.   Consistent high turnover(although I'm not sure how one would define "high" or "consistent" in this case) is a bad thing.   Losing 3 owners per season may or may not be a bad thing. 

When someone says "Real life has gotten busy for me.  I've got to scale back because I can't keep up" and they dump one of my worlds instead of another, I think of it as a compliment.    They'd rather stay in a less competitive world and win 90 than win 75 in mine.   When some 'tard world king(110 wins every season with a pile of WS titles) gives up after two 73 win seasons in my world, that's a compliment.   Too tough for him.   I don't necessarily mind turnover.
4/11/2012 11:00 AM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 57 144 14
Prospect
tomjames has graciously agreed to run his again as well. I asked him if I could use his formula or if he would run one again, and he said he'd run one in the coming weeks.
4/11/2012 5:53 PM
smoelheim
Posts: 406 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 1 38 79
Prospect
Posted by dmurphy104 on 4/11/2012 10:22:00 AM (view original):
i had started on a rankings project but it stalled.

I was looking at team fielding and pitching stats--and ranking leagues by the league averages. The thought is that the better fielding (measured by flielding pct and +/- ) and lower era, the more competant and attentive the owners are.

I also looked at parity and penalized a league for having a bunch of 100+ winning and losing teams.

The tricky part is how to weigh the variables fairly. You can change the weights and make the ratings say almost anything. I wasnt to that point yet, really--I was still filling in the data.

Some of the ranking systems looked at turnover. For simplicity I wasnt going to do that initially--it would be a bit easier to roll that variable in as worlds roll. But Im not sure Id include turnover. If the teams are well managed--does it really matter whose name is next to the team? Turnover is a symptom of a bad league, not the cause.
So if a world were to field all light-hitting, defensively-superior teams, it would be ranked as a top world?

This would be a fine way to rank the best DEFENSIVE worlds... but not necessarily how to rank them best overall.
4/12/2012 12:25 AM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
The top factor is a grade of how top heavy and bottom heavy the worlds are. The defensive aspect is to capture fundamentals. If multiple owners are playing guys out of position the league is penalized.

4/12/2012 5:34 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
The general consensus is that heavy-hitting worlds are 'tard worlds.    Think about the "Has anyone ever had a guy hit .400 with 75 homers and 211 RBI?" threads.   The first 10 responses will be "No, I don't play in 'tard worlds."
4/12/2012 8:05 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, FWIW, it's hard to find a team with more - than + in my worlds that are over .500.   Poor fielding is an indication of something.  
4/12/2012 8:27 AM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
And when there is a whole world that averages more than +/-, theres a real issue there. One thing I need to address, is the handful of worlds with a bunch of 100+ win teams ranked a bit higher than I really think they should because these teams put up dominant pitching and fielding #s skewing the league averages enough to affect the rankings. But generally I think my rankings are accurate at identifyiong the top worlds and the dogs.
4/12/2012 9:00 AM
mrauseo
Posts: 77 (0)
Hall of Famer
78
Prospect
Fundamentally, it can be positive expected value to play a guy out of position. You are thinking narrowly.
4/12/2012 9:00 AM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect

I am looking at league averages--if enough guys are being played out of position to significantly skew the league averages, its a sign of some bad owners.

4/12/2012 9:06 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Obviously the objective is to win games.  If you can win 100 while playing a C in LF and dealing with 16 errors/23 negative plays because he crushes the ball, good for you.   But, if 12 teams are doing something similar, somebody isn't winning 100.   Or, if they are, a lot of owners are losing 100.   Bad world.
4/12/2012 12:42 PM
tomhighway
Posts: 477 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 7 9 118 1
Prospect
I would evaluate a world by these criteria.

1. Turnover (Over last 5 seasons)
2. Competitive Balance (100 game winners/100 game losers)
3. High and Low ERA
4. High and Low +/- plays

4/12/2012 1:30 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
World Ranking System Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.