Abomination

I've loosely preranked a bunch of the guys I want, but more to remind me of them or as an emergency in case the power goes out or computer crashes, or something.

Go under the "Draft Central" menu, and then "Pre-draft Rankings". You can then edit yours (make sure you save them after too).

That's what I ended up doing. Browser had a fit when I tried to submit the list though after that

Good God the ump has a one-sided strike zone tonight.

Yeah, that's very annoying.

lmao!

Nothing like lining a ball of the pitcher, directly into a double play. Our luck has been so horrible lately (not that it really matters at this point).

That's actually an important one. You can't reliably compare things if they aren't adjusted to be on the same basis. For example, it's uninformative to compare ERA of (say) the A's and the Rangers, since one plays in a massive park, and ERA doesn't adjust for the park (among other things). Interestingly though, the Jays starters are also 23/30 in xFIP. However, the starters are 9th in WAR.

A large part of minimum qualification is because of things like the batting title, but batting average itself has no bearing on the number of games you play. It's a simple average. WAR behaves (more) like a counting stat in that regard, so it does. That's also why (to my knowledge) the 3.1 PA / team game does NOT apply to things like home runs, RBI, or stolen bases. They are counting stats, not rate stats. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you can't make an encompassing statement that compares players with a stat who's value is somewhat directly affected by the number of games played, then arbitrarily cut off the number of games - at least not at levels that eliminate players of interest in the study. Obviously no one is going to care about a bench player that gets 300 at-bats for example (unless they were expected to be a regular), but people are going to care about guys who are fairly regular players who simply missed time due to injury (which is largely not a reliably predictable occurrence, at least not major injuries). Jeter, Tulo, Hanley, Drew, Everth, etc would all be players that could be expected to be included. I suppose in the end, this is more picky than a critical issue anyhow, at least in this case. It is important however when making an observation backed by stats, to do so in a manner that gives an objective (and complete) picture. Subjective opinions can filter it after that, and if all of the data is presented, those opinions can then be properly debated. BTW, your list seems to be missing Hech as well God, I suddenly feel like Moogy. I had better have a shower and go to bed lol.

Canucks are going to win it all **shakes fist at the non-believers**

That's exactly why you have to either include basically all SS (or at least all that played most of their games at SS), or scale the results. You are presenting data that in effect has arbitrary inclusion AND that doesn't put all players on an even playing field. You can't really do both and still get meaningful results. Jeter is the most obvious example of why this is, but let's take a fictional example. You need roughly 1000 PA to qualify for a full 2 year period. If you have ten people with 975 and another with 1025, you don't want to exclude the ten that just barely miss the cutoff, and only present the results of the one that just barely makes it. It doesn't tell the story of what the data is saying, and those extra 50 PA aren't going to significantly change the results. As another example, Reyes just barely makes the cutoff himself. If he had missed about 10 more games this year, he probably wouldn't qualify right now. That doesn't mean that his $/WAR among shortstops isn't a valid exploration.

You should have specified $/WAR of just shortstops in your original post if that's what you were looking at (you didn't). Also, you are only considering guys who met the minimum number of games. For a list like that to have any basis, you either have to consider all shortstops regardless of games played, or you'd have to do something like scale all shortstops to the same number of at-bats.

Blocked shots are definitely projectable. +/- on good teams is fairly easy, but beyond that it can be rough. All it takes is a coach on a below average team juggling a line and you can go from great to average. In a dynasty setting, it's hard to predict especially beyond the one year. I kind of like that extra dimension though, at least in a limited amount.

Not even close. In fact, on average he's probably pretty close to break even for free agent aged players over the last 2 years.

Posters emerging from under rocks is part of the problem...

+/- is difficult to predict year to year. I can say though that I certainly didn't ignore it last year.

Goals (G), Assists (A), Plus/Minus (+/-), Powerplay Points (PPP), Shots on Goal (SOG), Shooting Percentage (SH%), Hits (HIT), Blocks (BLK)

It seems fairly predictable. I personally like it. It adds more depth to the strategy, and tends to add a little more value in general to defensemen.

I would be so happy if we get Martin this off-season, and move Navarro to backup catcher / DH vs lefties. Kill two birds with one stone.

We need to start fining our players when they run to first in fair territory on tappers to the right side.

Man, Bautista is still scowling. I wonder what got him ticked off today?

The last two years, Jeter has put up NEGATIVE 1.2 WAR. For the privilege of seeing him do that, they paid him 29 million.

It would probably make more sense to move Reyes to third and Lawrie to second. Lawrie has better range, and Reyes has tons of arm. Hell, we could probably even swap Lawrie and Reyes. He seems to have the range to handle short no problem (at least for the next few years).

I have to get my ass in gear and get a list going. I'm not even sure yet whether to go for it this year, or go for youth.

My sniffer detects a slight bias! It WOULD be interesting to see where they'd go if this wasn't a keeper league though.