Player Rankings...

Cseitl · Post by **Cseitl** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:03 pm

I don't get how players are ranked in our FA pool, but it must certainly be close to random assignment. There are countless instances - for example Willie Bloomquist who is 0/3 during period 6, is ranked higher than Jeff Larish who is 3/6 3R, 2HR, 2RBI during this same period. Can someone tell me how these rankings are calculated?

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:12 pm

Chris, it looks like a STATS flaw. Even though period 6 stats appear, the rankings are for the year.

swampass · Post by **swampass** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:19 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Chris, it looks like a STATS flaw. Even though period 6 stats appear, the rankings are for the year. yeah the FA stats are really lacking. id like a last month and last week option. something that crosses over weeks, so that we arent just stuck with specific weeks or months. its lame that there arent those options. who cares about '04, '05, '06, their 3 avg and what they are on pace for this year. those are bs stat lines.. and will rarely be used for statistical sorting.

but hey congrats on finally hooking us up with the ability to sort by ownership.. thats nice.

Cseitl · Post by **Cseitl** » Thu May 14, 2009 3:20 pm

While it's nice that we can sort by ownership, player performance over certain timeframes and periods is much more relevant. If the option to sort by period doesn't work, as far as I'm concerned that's incredibly misleading and the option should be removed. This is my first year here, and while the witty banter over rule interpretation is funny at times, there should be more serious discussion about the resources that are available to the users. While rule interpretation will be voted on after the season and is not as time sensitive, there are many guys who rely on data from the FA pool and have diminishing FA budgets. To me, if something as simple as this can't be rectified, there is no hope for rule changes and common ground.