Posted by tomhighway on 4/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
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

I looked at the same criteria - except turnover. I agree turnover is a sign of a poor world--but generally the competitive balance aspect will capture the same thing turnover does.

Dont agree on high and low era +/-. If you ahve some super teams, you will have some great eras and +/- Taking the average somewhat cancels out the extremes and looks at the worlds as a whole.

My initial rankings looked at 100-109 w/l 110-119 w/l and 120+. The worlds got penalized more for each tier. Generally it did a good job capturing poor competitive balance. But a world that had a few teams right at 100 losses or wins gets dinged, whereas a team with 3 99 loss teams and 2 98-99 win teams gets a way better ranking on that criteria. My next version will likely sum up the top 4 teams' wins and assign a score, and add the bottom 4 teams' losses and assign a score. I think that will fix any unfair bias with worlds that had teams right on one side or another of the predetermined tiers.