(08-30-2017, 08:47 PM)To12143 Wrote:I have a question about this, how does this affect a rookie's ranking? It just seems to add a layer of confusion to me not only for rookies but for everyone. I get what you're going for though, but if someone was good 1 year and horrible the next it would be hard to put them on this list, and this system might do that. Again I don't know how much it affects it, so I may just be worried about nothing
Okay so it worked on a system like this.
1. Players who failed to qualify for last season's list that WERE on an experts' ranking were still placed by average ranking. So the 25% change for these players' is still equivalent to their "final rankings"
2. Players who failed to qualify for last season's list that were NOT on an experts' ranking were given a final ranking of 77 because 76 players total DID receive votes meaning if a player did not they were just below those who did and all technically equal.
3. Players who were not eligible (aka S2 Draftees) were given an average ranking of 51, meaning they would have been technically just shy of qualifying and were considered the highest ranked players who did not.
When sorted by this year's ranking, the average margin of error was 11.4 picks between experts, or 22.8%. When sorted by the weighted rankings, the average margin of error drops too 9.4 picks, or 18.8 percent. This 4 percent difference isn't huge, but shows that the weighted rankings produce a slightly smaller range or error.
In terms of players who miss out, 7 players qualify for the list when sorted by weighted that do not qualify when sorted by actual ranking. The reverse of this, 10 players qualify for the list when sorted by actual that do not qualify for weighted. This again shows the weighted being slightly more accurate.
