The Method to My Rankings Madness, Part 3

Our new staff dynasty rankings released over the weekend, and if you’ve seen them, then you probably noticed that my contributions are, in places, radically different from those of Bryan and Chad. The root of many of those differences is my personal leaning toward perceived safety over potential longevity, and that is not idle philosophy. I based my rankings heavily on a framework that values players with a statistical model, and so much of the leg work is done before I’ve even considered my opinions. Here is how I got there.

Continued from Part 2.

Here are the results for wide receivers:

Here are the results for tight ends:

I used those generated rankings as a framework for the ones I turned into Bryan.

On the whole, I believe my valuation methodology is very good at weighing short-term expected production versus long-term potential of at-least somewhat-established players. For example, if I asked you to, in a vacuum, select either Drew Brees or Matthew Stafford at quarterback in a dynasty league with no other knowledge of your team composition, how would you answer? I think most people would expect Brees to outscore Stafford for the next few years, but Stafford should have many years left in him after Brees retires. My methodology balances the two based on historical risk patterns.

However, any dynasty valuation tool is only as good as its projections, and mine are woefully ill-equipped to handle potential stars with little-to-no experience. Case in point: David Wilson and Lamar Miller, both of whom I ranked in the top-20 in the rankings I turned into Bryan, were outside the top-100 of the generated running back rankings.

To fix that, I would need to put a lot more effort into my projections, using comparable players to forecast potential career arcs. Again, that is a long-term goal. For now, it is easier to manually adjust those players based on my own opinions on their skills, situations, and time tables. And since I have confidence in the prices of more experienced players, slotting those potential stars provides tight ranges for pricing them. I’ll do the same for the 2013 rookie class when the time comes.

Apart from that, the only other systematic limitation I noticed is for players with expanded roles. One example is Colin Kaepernick, who did not start until halfway through the season but then started every game from then on. My projections are not smart enough to differentiate that pattern from a player that missed eight games due to injury, for instance, and so Kaepernick’s projections are weighted down by a half-season of replacement-level quarterback production. Similarly, players like C.J. Spiller and Stevan Ridley that show year-to-year role expansion are underrated.

In the end, the generated rankings described most of the rankings I eventually turned into Bryan, which I think is a solid start. And my valuation methodology should provide a consistency to my rankings going forward.

—

Scott Spratt also works for Baseball Info Solutions and writes for The Hardball Times.  Feel free to ask him questions on Twitter – @PFF_ScottSpratt

Find more of our Dynasty Content here.