World Rankings- Updated Topic

Personally I feel like LOCO is as bad or worse, but I decided against tweaking my formula for the worst case.

4/12/2012 9:04 AM
There are worlds that have 12 teams with 100+ wins or losses. On average, worlds have 6 teams with 100+wins/losses.
4/12/2012 9:14 AM
I know it is alot of work to do something like this, but if you are only looking at a single season, doesn't the small sample size negate the relevance of this list?
4/12/2012 12:22 PM
On one hand, this ranking is a current ranking of a world. The most important inputs are the most recent data. If a world was a great world but went to hell in one season, it would take awhile for the ranking system to react. Generally, this isnt the case. A world isnt going to all of the sudden become top-heavy, or have a huge shift in the average fielding stats or era. Im sure there are exceptions, though.

If I do include prior season's data--it will be weighted much less. I already have identified one impovement I could make with my input for parity that should take care of the few cases where I think a world was penalized too harshly or not harshly enough based on my initial criteria. I think this improvement will reduce the benefit of looking at multiple years (meaning I may not go back to previous seasons--but implement previous seasons as I move forward).
4/12/2012 12:36 PM
Not really.   Historically speaking, every list has the same top and bottom worlds.  That's using different formulas at different times.    Using 3 seasons of data may move a few of the worlds a few spots but I doubt there would be any significant changes.
4/12/2012 12:37 PM
I looked at Kenny Powers. last season's era was about .2 higher than the past couple of seasons.

if I took an average of the last 3 seasons it would have moved them up about 15 spots (assuming everyone else's stats stayed the same). Taking a weighted average would have moved them less than 10 spots.

(full disclosure--I initially inputted my team era as the league average--so i underrated KP initially--I adjusted the rankings)
4/12/2012 1:01 PM
I believe Cooperstown was the only world without a 100 game loser or 100 game winner in their last season. It also was the world with the best era and tied for the 5th best fielding world.
4/12/2012 1:06 PM
I don't quite understand the ERA rationalization.  While it will penalize worlds with owners who use Ps that have no business being in the ML, it also would slant results toward worlds which are more pitching-heavy than hitting-heavy in talent, which is really irrelevant to how "good" the world is.

In other words I think it works well at the bottom but is useless near the top of the rankings.
4/12/2012 5:49 PM
Thanks for doing this. Why was Hardball Central so low? I ask because I thought it was one of the better worlds when I joined.
4/12/2012 6:07 PM
The ERA component will rank the worlds without the Santa Fes and Colorados higher. To some extent, it also double-counts the fielding (plus/minus) component.
4/12/2012 6:28 PM
I think I would consider also looking at avg (Coaching + Training + Medical) budgets and incorporating PB and/or CS Pct. into the fielding component.
4/12/2012 6:46 PM
Posted by caesari on 4/12/2012 6:07:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for doing this. Why was Hardball Central so low? I ask because I thought it was one of the better worlds when I joined.
5 teams over 100 wins. 2 of which are over 110 wins. 4 teams with over 100 losses inclusing 118 and 121 losses. And one of the worst pitching leagues.
4/12/2012 9:10 PM
cbriese, Im not sure ecactly how many runs are accounted for by the hitters' parks, but I doubt it has more than a negligible effect on overall league era. That said, era is the least important component in my formula.

Im not sure what CS pct would show. I'd think if a league is set to steal more conservatively that would lower the cs percentage as well as having poor catchers. PB would be a worthwhile stat--Im not sure if league averages are clustered together, or how much I would want to weigh for a fielding stat that only accounts for 1 position.

Looking at training and medical budgets may have value - may need to account for new owners not able to max those--although that could have the added benefit of reflecting negatively on turnover. I dont think Id look at coaching budget.-I've lowered my budgets..alot of coaches are very similar and you dont have to pay a ton for decent coaches especially in older worlds.
4/12/2012 9:17 PM
I was an owner in Hamilton (30) and The Sandlot (138), and it's hard to imagine such a vast gap between the two. In fact, the Sandlot out performed Hamilton in terms of 100w/100l teams 7 to 9. Hamilton also featured a team with 112 wins. The Sandlot had 0 teams with 110 wins or losses. Why such a gap?
4/13/2012 12:39 PM
Well since the worlds I play in are 13th, 14th and 31st it is obvious you did a great job :)
4/13/2012 12:48 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...14 Next ▸
World Rankings- Updated Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, 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.