In an article that was nominated for “Most Amount of Jibberish Put into a Blog” by the Fantasy Sports Writers Association, I made two points:
Rankings are — for the most part — meaningless.
The culture of ranking incentivizes safe ranking.
When I say that rankings are meaningless, this is because rankers have maybe a middling accuracy in predicting the median outcome of a player performance. You can see Rudy’s tracked success on the Razzball Ombotsman (and Rudy’s a really good ranker). The TL;DR of that portion of Razzball is that top players generally perform within their expected performance bracket about 50% of the time. Crappy players perform within their expected band of crappiness about 50% of the time as well. What do players do the other 50% of the time? Great players can be crappy, and crappy players can be great.
Please, blog, may I have some more?
