Rankings are a tricky business. They are well-viewed when posted and can promote plenty of discussion regarding player placement. The more iterations of rankings I produce, the more questions I have about them, whether another person's rankings or my own.
Rankings: What is the Purpose?
Some say they are for drafting. Others for trading. Others for team management. Another group says they have no tangible purpose. My answer is all of the above. For those that do not know, I am an analytical person. Excel is my friend and, when in doubt, I prefer a formula over the human element of 'how do I feel' about said decision. That approach has its positives and negatives, of course, but consistency, regardless of one's approach, is as important as the method.
In the offseason, a majority of the questions I receive regarding my rankings relate to 'would you really draft Player X over Player Y?' and the like. That is a longer answer than yes or no. Rankings are essentially an ordering of players, but many details are left out of the presentation. Drafting a player or another brings opportunity cost, the oscillations of the rest of the league, in addition to face-value preferring one player to another. It is a basic decision for some, to others it is a complex equation. In short, one set of rankings cannot incapsulate startup draft (or rookie draft) preparation on a singular sheet of paper (or web page).
In terms of team management and trades, rankings work in a general sense. However, the variable of the difference between one player and another is still a challenge. Want to move up from WR10 to WR5 on your rankings, what makes up the difference? Is that a second round rookie pick, a first rounder? Knowing the market and the other owner is as vital, or more, than moving within the construct of your own rankings.
The challenge of rankings is player valuation. One can sit down with a list of 80-100 wide receivers and proceed with a 'this player or that player' questionaire until the list is ordered by preference. My trouble with that method is the gaps between the players is not known. If I list Julio Jones at WR1 and Calvin Johnson at WR6, a reaction may be 'whoa, how can you have Jones THAT FAR above Johnson?!?' Drawing that reaction 10-15 times throughout the viewing of a set of rankings creates more questions than answers about player valuation. The most important aspect about rankings is the comparative value between players or groups of players.
Creating Tiers
If you listen to one of the Footballguys podcasts in the summer months getting ready for drafts with Jene Bramel, playing the 'tiers' drinking game will get a listener completely hammered. The good doctor discusses tiers quite a bit. My dynasty rankings can spit out a value for each player based on neutral settings (startup draft environment), a contending 'throw age into the wind' mindset, or even a 'my team will not think about competing until 2016' approach. Yes, all the math is built upon some semblance of projections, but using a range of outcomes and probabilities creates a more accurate picture than a singular number in my book.
Once arriving at that dynasty value for a player, the positions naturally form tiers of value. Tiers are far more informative than raw rankings. Back to the Julio Jones and Calvin Johnson example. Most have a top tier of wide receivers. How many players does that contain? Raw rankings cannot relay that data. Listing Calvin Johnson as the WR6 has far less shock value if WR1-6 are all in 'Tier 1' in the rankings. There are preferences within a tier, but listing them in the same tier signifies they are all similar in value and any tier between the players containing a second worthwhile piece is unneccesary.
For an example, I have started breaking down my rankings into contending and rebuilding sections, which manipulate the weighting of age into the dynasty value formula.
Another hidden benefit from creating tiers within rankings as the analyst is it saves time. Instead of soul-searching about each and every running back outside the top-50, a few strategic tier breaks can outline the value within that range. As Adam Harstad has stated a few times, the decision-making by dynasty owners at the top of the rankings are far more impactful to their success and failure than deciding between RB60 and RB80. I am paraphrasing there as the message is that the consensus low-ranked players are minimally-valued by 99% of the community as part of bigger trades or to be cut for rookie picks the following offseason. Having the right flyer on the back-end of a dynasty roster at the right time for a splash in value is a difficult task. Ranking them against each other months or year before that is far more daunting.
Final Thoughts
The next four-to-six weeks will be centered around redraft-type strategy. Rankings will be back front-and-center in the minds of the dynasty populous in January with the concept of projecting ahead through the offseason to Week 1 of the 2015 season. My rankings are pushing forward now to 2015. Trades for the rest of the regular season for contending teams are straight-forward: Boost the starting lineup (if needed) without selling off quality long-term assets. For teams falling out of the playoff race (or are already done), looking at the dynasty landscape as if it is the 2015 season is a must. The remaining games are meaningless. Holding a player like Ahmad Bradshaw or Reggie Wayne or Frank Gore has almost zero value to a non-playoff team. Plus they will be beyond difficult to move in the offseason. Looking through a 2015 lens puts players like them into the proper context for teams out of the title race.
