I think you’d need a more scientific test to test whether one of our rankings is slightly better.

Thanks for taking the time to redo the test. Any way you can edit the post to account for the revised results?

Regards,
Rudy

I did things again with the parameters that you suggest: Here are the standings that I get:

RB C 58.5
RB A 58.5
LPP B 58
LPP D 57
LPP A 56
RB E 55.5
LPP E 54
RB D 53.5
LPP C 50
RB B 49

So maybe a slight edge for Razzball and a lot closer overall. (I think adding CI/MI made a bigger difference than the extra parameters.) The points actually split right down the middle with 275 for each system.

But while things end up closer, the league still isn’t any more realistic than last time: The LPP teams finished 6-10 in almost every pitching category, and the Razzball teams finished last in nearly every hitting category.

I think they’re two different questions.

Mays -
Apologies for that mixup but I suppose it does satisfy any curiosity you may have for why my teams drafted MIs for 4 of 5 UTIL slots :)

I hate to criticize since you’ve done all this work and it could seem like sour grapes but…

1) My rankings are based on their most valuable position – which is listed in my player rater. The following players are ‘drafted’ in positions where they would be valued lower:
a) Jorge Cantu (valued at 3B, placed at 1B)
b) Miguel Cabrera (valued at 3B, placed at 1B)
c) Alexei Ramirez (valued at 2B, placed at OF)
d) Mark DeRosa (valued at 2B, placed at OF)
e) Garrett Atkins (valued at 3B, placed at 1B)

(The only LPP player out of most valuable position was Dunn at 1B vs. OF)

2) When you look at the draft results, they are so far from realistic that the test loses credibility. I value each player as if he’s being added to an average team (with the average player at each position). I’ve got a team that drafted Rivera, Papelbon, Soria, and Lidge in draft picks 2 through 5 (oddly enough, it finished last!). Rivera is legitimate value (though Santana at #1 reduced value of Rivera’s ERA/WHIP). Each reliever after that would have reduced value. I propose certain throttles are set to avoid extreem results:

- No more than 2 Pitchers in the first 3 rounds.

- No more than 3 Pitchers in the 1st 5 rounds (and it can’t be 3 of the same so 2 SP/1 RP or 1 SP/2 RP)

- UTIL can only be 1B/3B/OF/DH (ridiculous having a catcher or MI)

3) Given the 5.5 SP/3.5 RP split on the Razzball Point Shares, I suggest you value players at 5 SP, 3 RP, 1 P.

- No MI/CI/UTIL assignment except for DH until 4th round (avoids unrealistic double-ups like Pujols/Howard and Hanley/Reyes)

- Players only placed at most valuable position (at least for Razzball teams).

Regards,
Rudy

So that’s not exactly realistic, however, I think it should benefit all of the systems equally.

I agree that one team per system would be the best way to do things, but you would need to repeat the draft multiple times to prevent any fluke results. Even a good system can end up too heavy in a certain category on occasion, due to nothing more than poor timing.

@Mays: I’m wondering if including multiple teams that use the same rating system is having an impact on the results, possibly making each system less “unique” and masking various strengths and weaknesses. Maybe a league made up of only one each of the different raters, run several times and then presented with average order of finish, would better highlight the differences in methodology. Creating a 10 or 12 team league might be a challenge, but we could use final ranks from some other sites. I know Yahoo, for instance, doesn’t have a player rater, but does have a ranking system. I’d be happy to create a ranked list according to Yahoo to save you a bit of time. And if we need more teams, we could use some other list like preseason ADP or preseason rank by various sites. Obviously, the preseason lists don’t enjoy the hindsight that the other raters do, and would be expected to finish poorly, but if we’re just looking for other teams to fill out the league, I think it would be okay.