As promised, I have revamped the way the fantasy rankings are organized, switching from a numbered setup to a five-tier system that shows players of similar value lumped together. Generally, the response has been positive, via comments, e-mails and the like. There have been some grumbles, as can be expected with an overhaul like that, but as I said there is a lot more in terms of positive feedback than the opposite.
That does not mean I want to call it a day and pump the rest of these rankings out, though. The first base rankings used no order whatsoever within the tiers, and the second base rankings utilized alphabetical order. Despite the fact that both of these methods were spelled out, plain as day, in the text of the article prior to the listings (he says with twitch in his eye) there has been some confusion. No, I don’t think Robinson Cano is the best second basemen among the four-star group–he just happened to have a last name that put him there. No, Luis Castillo is not the best of the more average three-star group, but his surname gives him ample face time atop that group.
Clearly, that’s not working, and for two days I have seen requests for, at most, a hard ranking within tiers and, on the more reasonable side, for me to at least type the names out in the order I prefer them in. I’ll tell you what–this whole process has been about me trying to shape the rankings into something you guys and gals want to use. It’s important to me that you are pleased with not just the advice I give you, but also the way it’s presented. I don’t just want you to feel like you’re part of the process, I want you to be part of the process.
With that in mind, there will be no fantasy rankings published today, February 24. I’m going to take today to mull over the feedback I’ve received, both positive, negative and constructive, and fit what works into the rankings before I go any further. You’ll have your third base rankings on Thursday, shortstop rankings on Friday, and so on every day as fast as I can write ‘em. In the meantime, use this thread to pepper me with suggestions, add to what you’ve already brought up, refine your requests, etc.
In addition, once we have settled on how we want these things to look, I’ll go back and reorder the first and second base rankings, sans commentary, and publish them on Unfiltered with links back to the original. That way you can learn about just how much I love Dustin Pedroia relative to the other four-star second basemen, and you won’t even need to be bothered with reading those pesky words that follow the lists (I kid because I care).
I’m very happy with the reception for these rankings thus far–last year’s went well I think, but I’m much happier (A) preparing these and (B) with the final results. If tweaking them further makes them that much better, then I’m for it. Let me also take this opportunity to tell you that I will have some pretty swell announcements to make regarding our fantasy coverage in the near future, but I’m not going to tell you anything else because I want to see you all squirm (also, I’m probably not allowed to share yet). Your rampant speculation in the comments will be appreciated, mostly so I can claim your ideas as my own and act like we’ve been working on it the whole time. Sounds like a win-win situation, no?
Increase the number of tiers if that can add information. Although this may be biased by the second base rankings, perhaps a rank fitting between what you have listed as three and four stars would be useful?
Maybe also order the players *within the tiers* by projected VORP, or by projected dollar value in a typical fantasy scoring system.
I don't mean to pick on you--you just unfortunately commented first, which makes this visible--but for those who want to use projected dollar value and the like, we have the Player Forecast Manager. I try to do what it does not, and it does things I do not--using both resources in conjunction is the way to do things if you feel either is lacking, because we pick up the pace for each other.
As for your first point, I'm not sure the split for talent is as odd at other positions as it is at second. Maybe at shortstop, because that's also bottom heavy, but otherwise I feel things are more even like first base was. I think that's one area where I may need to see how everything pans out before I can just overhaul it.
Though, in the defense of everyone who asks for this, I'm not sure that everyone is aware of the PFM and what it does. We're going to be working on changing that around here very soon.
Basically, if I add dollar values, they are going to be for one specific type of league, and not everyone here plays in that type of league. In fact, based on what I hear from everyone, there are as many non-standard players as standard, and my role as player analyst probably has more utility than as someone who attaches dollar values. The PFM, on the other hand, can adjust for whatever kind of league you're playing in, and can properly value players by dollars.
I think your method of tiers is just fine. People have to understand that no projection system or ranking system or tier system is 100% accurate. Even if they were ranked to the penny of value---it wouldn't mean too much since Actuals will vary from Expected Value. It is enough, on draft day, to know that if you need a 2B and it's getting late...grab one from tier 3 before you get stuck with one from tier 4, or 5.
I agree with the last commenter. Your new approach is quite good, and you can't please everyone. People need to read the narrative, which you write quite intentionally.
I agree: reading is the key. It's illogical for a reader to ask you to rank, say, Jose Lopez and Skip Schumaker. They're apples and oranges. If you want home runs, draft Lopez; if you're in a league with OBP, maybe Schumaker is your safer choice. That's the sort of decision that each fantasy manager needs to make for himself or herself -- and that's the beauty of the tiers, because these guys are comparable in their combination of moderate upside with significant downside, even though they're not "rankable." The tiers instruct managers to put them on the draft list in around the same place, and make a pick based on need.
I'd advise reading, too, because I think you're one of the best writers on the site. You're also one of the most attentive readers of, and responders to, subscribers' comments. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
First off, I enjoy the rankings and the information therein and eagerly anticipate each instalment.
I think the rankings should complement (not repeat) the PFM tool with your insight as to where the PECOTA projections may be generous/harsh. We get a lot of great information on at BP (projections, stat analysis, scouting reports, health reports etc.) and the rankings should and I believe do reflect a consolidation of this information.
The tiered structure is a better way to present your rankings than a list as we can see not only your opinions but strength of those opinions. To me, the comments are just as important because it is where you bring in the extra information. That said a simple ranking within the tiers would also be helpful.
In terms of players with multi-position eligibility, my preference would be just to see them at their weakest position. I do not see the value of ranking VMart at first even though he is eligible there but the second base rankings should include Polanco despite that he may never play a game there this year.
For myself, the second option makes Overbay appear closer in value to the rest than the first. Then again, the second layout is also hell if you want to show projections.
I like this suggestion best. We tend to read vertical lists as hierarchical. A horizontal list facilitates seeing the players as parts of the tiered group.
The advantage of the tier is that it's helpful to see players as part of a like set. If Aubrey Huff, Lyle Overbay and Casey Kotchman are available in a draft, I have my lists of stats from a variety of sites in hand. Those lists are ranked hierarchically. Now, I don't like any of these guys. Your tier keeps me from hemming, hawing and hand-wringing. Huff is in a different tier--I draft him.
A horizontal list would require reducing or eliminating projections from the list itself. Stats can easily be moved to the text accompanying the tiers, as is often done in other stories at BP.
In alphabetical order with reduced stats: Daric Barton (.263/.365/.423), Casey Kotchman (.276/.354/.424), Lyle Overbay (.257/.353/.425), Gaby Sanchez (.279/.355/.439).
In alphabetical order without stats:
Daric Barton, Casey Kotchman, Lyle Overbay, Gaby Sanchez
Listing the tier without the stats gives the tier a clean look. It also free's up space for more textual content, if needed or desired.
.. but then you use that space again when you give the stats. If that's the case, why not remove the lists together and just describe each player in their "tier" section?
Personally, I get the idea that people are making assumptions based on the vertical list, but I think it helps more than it hurts and allows for stat lines to be put in and compared to others in the tier.
i enjoy the tiers, but would like them even more if they were ordered by how much you like each guy in them, and i definitely appreciate all the calls for feedback.
Many people will choose a false sense of certainty rather than deal with a (more rational) degree of uncertainty in every facet of life. That is why some want you to tell them who is the eleventh best 2B in the AL next year. You can 1)give in to them, but keep the tiers or 2) leave them squirm.
I'd pick 2, but I'm not trying to please customers.
I think that you specific rankings within tiers is what most people would like. I know that I would prefer that.
Also, the thing that I really appreciate is that you have your rankings and you can't run. You stand behind them, conclude with your support, and then you are here for the season. Beyond that, you stand by your picks and painfully rehash your rankings after the season. That's not a bad thing, I personally love it.
A magazine is just a one night stand where as you are a full fledged marriage with associated divorce proceedings.
An order within tiers would be the only change I'd make to the rankings. I love the new tiered approach and the additional players you've included in the rankings.
The tiering system is good for a quick read or for those looking for basic rankings. As many fantasy sports players know, scoring rules differ from league to league. As such, it is impossible to place dollar values on players or rank them aside from basic tiers and have them be meaningful for all leagues. The Player Forecast Manager is a great tool for taking into account the rules of any individual league.
Maybe it really requires two things - a star rating and a tier ranking. The star rating can be an indicator of absolute team value, in other words, a championship caliber team of 20 starters needs to have, say, 2-3 5-star guys, 5-6 4-star guys and only 2-3 2-star or lower guys (I'm just throwing those numbers out there). Thus it helps you decide which of the "best available at position" players to grab when you have multiple positions to fill.
For the tiers, though, I would divorce them from the star rating, and set them up based on a much finer-grained equivalence between players. For every pair of players at the same position, there are three options - "I would always take A over B" "I would always take B over A" "Whether I took A or B would depend on other factors". You can display those options by sorting the players in to tiers where every pair within a tier falls into the third category, and everyone in a higher tier would always be selected before someone in a lower tier.
If you went this route, there's probably a point at which pairwise comparisons become tedious, so the bottom tier might just be a "here's the other options, with projections"
Obviously, your rankings reflect how you expect they'll perform in 2010. BP readers are not your average baseball fans though; my suggestion is about to make your job much harder.
I play in a 16 man, 55 year keep league where we can keep one player for 5 years (4 for 4 and then the rest of the contracts are for 3, 2 or 1). What about a ranking for the next 3 years (maybe put in in parenthesis, or just do a slapdash top 10 ranking for the next 3 years at the bottom of each positional page)? This would make Sizemore probably more valuable at 2b, Castillo much less so.
More important to me than tiers or rankings are your assessment of how realistic some of PECOTA's more surprising predictions are. For example, you mentioned in the 2B rankings that you don't believe Brian Roberts is going to steal 45 bases this year. That's helpful analysis that the PFM is not going to provide.
I would like to see this sort of analysis highlighted more than it is. Either (1) a special article devoted to people PECOTA loves and hates; or (2) some special syntax highlighting a paragraph in your positional ranking articles where you discuss a player that PECOTA loves/hates. Of these, I would prefer (2). I imagine (2) would also be less work for you.
With the fantasy blog coming soon, highlighting some of the projections I love and hate was something I planned on doing. Hopefully that's something I get to do sooner than later!
I play in a 25-team combination major-minors keeper league with 20 hitting and 20 pitching categories, and we are allowed 10 keepers in even numbered years, 11 in odd years, and 14 in leap years. In additon, we can draft high school players, so if you can please incorporate information into your tiers for a league like this, I'd appreciate it
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
A little bit.
IMHO, if you are playing in a deep league like that, you ought to be doing much more research than relying on one website to provide all of the information you want. When fantasy baseball started, it was about testing one's knowledge of the game against that of their friends. That knowledge is gained by following the sport through a variety of resources, especially in deep leagues. Expecting one website to provide you all of the knowledge you need to dominate a league takes the fun out of it. I remember a time where I would rank players on my own from stat projections in a magazine or three. If everyone in the league used the same magazine(s), it would be a boring draft. It takes a better understanding of the game and players to beat your competition. Today, if everyone used the same website(s), the same would be true. Fantasy sports should not be done by just getting a subscription to a magazine or website. While fantasy sports are certainly an income producer for many publications and websites, it takes more than just that knowledge to do well against good competition. Just like real GM's, you need to be on top of the game in order to dominate. Let's get the FAN back in fantasy sports.
Also, most fantasy leagues out there, and likely the target audience of this article, are single season leagues. Just like the scoring differences between leagues vary quite a bit, keeper rules vary quite a bit too. It is very difficult to write ONE article to rank or tier players for every possibility out there. If you are going to be in a league with a structure other than typical leagues, you should be on top of the game such that you don't need an article written specifically for your league scoring and keeper rules.
Are you serious?? You really think a league like that exists?? You don't think that maybe, just maybe, the post is a comment on ridiculous demands people make so the system accomodates them and they don't have to think for themselves??
Nuckles: Your point was nicely made. Too bad some people aren't capable of getting it.
Just put the players in the order of your preference within the tiers. While I know it seems like hand-holding to some, to me it's valuable to know What Marc Would Do if faced with a decision between two same-tier particular players at the same position.
Personally, I'd be happy with a tier system that also notes players projected to perform above the average for the position at the 5x5 categories.
You could even arrange your tier system that way.. a four star player is a player who is projected to be better than league average at four of five 5x5 categories or would dominate a single category.
Marc: You did a great job explaining what the tiers are, and what they are not. I don't see why you need to jump through hoops to accomodate a handful of morons with 3d grade reading comprehension skills.
I think it would be helpful to quickly list a +/- down sort of thing for each player in a tier. Maybe a player is a + at speed and average, but a - in power and RBI. that sort of thing. That way you have some direction in a draft within a tier.
Marc, I love the tiered system. Big improvement from the past. As far as listing players within tiers, it would be useful for you present them in the rough order you would rank them. You don't have to be too detailed - no need to split hairs between Luis Castillo and Orlando Hudson - but a basic preference order would be helpful.
That said, I think how players are listed within the tiers is a fairly minor cosmetic issue. Just having them in tiers is great. Thanks!
I agree completely. The tiers are an excellent system. If you just kept on going with no changes, I would still be happy. "Enhancing" the tiers with some additional information would really be appreciated. No need to elaborate on why one guy ranks ahead of another within a tier - their all tier-mates.
One suggestion is that you might list them in the order of your perceived 'upside' to exceed expectations of the tier.
I haven't read the comments, so I don't know if I am repeating hear.
How about applying a plus and/or minus after a player's name within the tiers, just to give everyone an idea who you favor in those tiers and who may have backed in. The fact that the pluses and/or minuses do not follow any order may help clue people in that the listed order is not meaningful.
I'm fine with the system used in the first two days (and who leaves comments to not complain), but you did seem to indicate in the text that some of the tier members were stronger than others, so that might as well be reflected in the listing.
Keep in mind that if 99% of the folks are happy, you'll still hear more from the unhappy 1%. Given that the broad range of outcomes for a given player means that there is not a realistic way to rank with any certainty two fairly similar players, I believe that you're doing EXACTLY the right thing by providing tiers only. However (and I don't know if you've heard this yet based on a comment skim), you keep mentioning "but this guy could jump up to the next tier". Perhaps you can offer some kind of upside within a tier. This could be based on 75% PECOTA or Breakout% or just gut feeling. Also, while we all know and love PECOTA, PECOTA doesn't make sense for everyone (hey there, Ichiro!), and your rankings feel too PECOTA-heavy. For example, PECOTA does not give Pujols nearly enough separation between him and the rest of the league. PFM for 5 x 5 has him at ~$4 more than Miguel Cabrera.
I try to mention those cases--for instance, I said if I could put Pujols into his own tier, I would. I feel the same about Hanley Ramirez, but I'm not there yet.
Tiers are great. It's a projection. If someone is so risk averse that they can't choose within a tier, they need another system for themselves. Like darts. It's a game and these are projections.
I think it's letting you off the hook a little if you don't do a ranking within the tiers. I mean, if you actually had to draft I assume you'd have some order of preference. Whatever criteria you use to choose who's in what tiers, use to determine who's where within the tiers. Plus, comments starting "You jerk, how can you rank x above y..." are half the fun of these.
Agreed that that these are fairly awesome overall and should complement, not replace the PFM.
I like the tiers and give them a thumbs up. While I don't need the intra-tier rankings, I do think it's a bit weird to have them jumbled up in no particular order.
this might get confusing, but often there are borderline players who could fit into two tiers only okay. could you possibly have two different symbols for guys who were borderline for one tier above where they are placed and for one tier below? that way, it also gets a bit more specific in rankings as well.
The tiers are great. I like it better this way than last year.
I think it would be worthwhile for you to do a final update and summary spreadsheet at the end after running through all of the positions. It will give you a chance to incorporate the feedback you get through the comments (such as you could add Pablo Sandoval to the 1B list since he is eligible there in most leagues). My league doesn't draft for at least 2 more weeks, and I would like to use the final summary spreadsheet that includes any corrections for drafting.
One other suggestion is to do a mid-year review and update around the all-star break instead of waiting for the end of the year. I think it would be interesting and could help you by shortening the feedback cycle to see how you did with your predictions.
I don't know if anyone out here plays fantasy football (assuming yes) and if so, don't know if you've used the Huddle, but they've used tiers for years. While I have no idea what goes into their rankings - they're nowhere near as transparent - they have a summary sheet that has every position with its associated tiers that's updated daily. I'd love to see you get to that point once all the rankings are published as it's a great grab-and-go cheat sheet for those of involved in multiple drafts, particularly when you know it's up-to-date as opposed to based off rankings from 2,3, or 4 weeks ago.
Not to pick on you, Marc, but the "Exciting things are coming but I can't tell you about them!" line is getting a little tired. Seems to be some kind of BP mantra for 2010. It's nearly March...when are the exciting things coming? People are making subscription decisions everyday. I just renewed this week. It might have been an easier decision if I knew what the exciting things were, or better yet, had the exciting things in my hands. So far in 2010 we have, what, SIERA? That's nice and all. Where are the blogs we've been promised?
Sorry for the rant. I guess I'm just from the school of "underpromise and overdeliver."
Please don't misunderstand. I love BP otherwise I wouldn't have just written another $40 check. Now I will go back to my corner and let everyone bury this post.
Sometimes you have to finish dotting the i's and crossing the t's before you can tell everyone what you're doing. I would have loved to spill the beans already, but...oh, wait. I will later today. :-)
It's simple. Combine what you've done this year with last year. Provide a numerical order from best to worse and group them into tiers. The tiers should be based on fantasy value alone and not some artificial formula that says "there must be 5 players in each tier."
I think its fine the way it is. If people want specific rankings of players within a tier, they can use PFM, and tailor it to their league's scoring system. Within a tier, Player A might be better for one system, but Player B would be better for another. K.I.S.S. Failing that, maybe you could just come to all of our houses and do our drafts for us.
Nice - my thoughts nearly exactly. I do suggest a more efficient and ecologically sensible alternative to sending Marc on a coast to coast hand-hold for draft days nationwide - video conferencing.
There are many leagues that are not 5x5. Could you give us an idea of how far above/below PECOTA you think a player is? I am not sure if you would use Dollars, VORP or some other measure. But it would be good to know the offset.
The tiered format, using BPV within tiers, sounds ideal, and equivalent to what I do on my own cheat sheets--though I use dollars, given that I can customize for the league I'm in. The other thing I do is add an abbreviation--SB or HR, etc.--next to any names where it's appropriate--for ease of identifying those categories in the heat of an auction or draft.
64 comments have been left for this post.
Increase the number of tiers if that can add information. Although this may be biased by the second base rankings, perhaps a rank fitting between what you have listed as three and four stars would be useful?
Maybe also order the players *within the tiers* by projected VORP, or by projected dollar value in a typical fantasy scoring system.
I don't mean to pick on you--you just unfortunately commented first, which makes this visible--but for those who want to use projected dollar value and the like, we have the Player Forecast Manager. I try to do what it does not, and it does things I do not--using both resources in conjunction is the way to do things if you feel either is lacking, because we pick up the pace for each other.
As for your first point, I'm not sure the split for talent is as odd at other positions as it is at second. Maybe at shortstop, because that's also bottom heavy, but otherwise I feel things are more even like first base was. I think that's one area where I may need to see how everything pans out before I can just overhaul it.
Though, in the defense of everyone who asks for this, I'm not sure that everyone is aware of the PFM and what it does. We're going to be working on changing that around here very soon.
Basically, if I add dollar values, they are going to be for one specific type of league, and not everyone here plays in that type of league. In fact, based on what I hear from everyone, there are as many non-standard players as standard, and my role as player analyst probably has more utility than as someone who attaches dollar values. The PFM, on the other hand, can adjust for whatever kind of league you're playing in, and can properly value players by dollars.
I think dollars make sense even though as you point out they are inexact for different league configurations.
But really the tiers are sort of dollar values.
5 star is 30+
4 star is 20-30
3 star is 10-20
2 star is 5-10
1 star is 1-5
or what ever
Then within your "3 star" tier you can have the high 3 be 17 or 18 or 19 or whatever compared to the 12 or 11 of the lowest 3 star.
The tier approach is frankly nearly useless without some ordering inside the tier. Is any 3 star really equally valuable. Really?