Master Index of Archived Threads


New Rankings Lists

Kid Carsey Mar 23 2007 04:03 PM

Frayed Knot compiled the new rankings through 2006! These will of course go in the other forum but I figure we can draw attention to them better here for a week or so. Here is a link to a printable .pdf file for the numeric ranks, I'll try and do the alpha one later tonight ... http://www.kcmets.com/CPFRankingProj/RankNum06.pdf

Kid Carsey Mar 23 2007 06:47 PM

http://www.kcmets.com/CPFRankingProj/RankAlph06.pdf

Frayed Knot Mar 24 2007 07:49 AM

Looks good mon, thanks. You probably want to kill the thread that has the links to those out of date lists that's currently in the Rankings forum.

TheOldMole Mar 24 2007 10:49 AM

The ones that surprise me for being in the bottom group. Milledge, obviously. Amos Otis Mike Cubbage, for all his Met organization history, coaching and managing -- you'd think someone would be interested. And most of all, Gil Hodges. I'd like to start a movement to ask everyone to check out the Hodges page several times a day. But that would be cheating, and I won't.

SteveJRogers Mar 24 2007 11:06 AM

TheOldMole wrote: The ones that surprise me for being in the bottom group. Milledge, obviously. Amos Otis Mike Cubbage, for all his Met organization history, coaching and managing -- you'd think someone would be interested. And most of all, Gil Hodges. I'd like to start a movement to ask everyone to check out the Hodges page several times a day. But that would be cheating, and I won't. This isn't the UMDB Popularity rankings, check the Rankings Forum, its ranking the top 500 Mets of all time based on votings per seasons.

TheOldMole Mar 24 2007 02:28 PM

My error. I thought it was most hits.

slugger1138 Mar 24 2007 04:59 PM

Seeing Trachsel ranked 47th and D. Wright 50th gives me pause. Before I write something entirely idiotic, let me ask a question. The rankings list is primarily based on win shares, right?

SteveJRogers Mar 24 2007 05:07 PM

Read through the rankings folder. FK, YSG and company started with the rankings sometime on the old EZE Board version of this forum where the members had to rank the top 20 Mets of that particular season in order of performance. After all season totals were tabulated, the player totals were combined and VOILA! The Top 500 Mets!

cooby classic Mar 24 2007 07:16 PM

Amos Otis, Somasito Nice job, FK.

metsmarathon Mar 24 2007 07:43 PM

top 30 players in a given season, ranked linearly from 30 (best/most productive/most valuable/etc... ) down to 1 (worst, etc..), with no ties, and agreed to, mostly, via consensus of the participants. points were multiplied by wins, so the best and worst '62 mets would have 1200 and 40 points, respectively, and the best and worst '86 mets would have 3000 and 100 points, respectively. (i forget if we accounted for playoff wins) then add up the points that players got throughout their metly careers, and put em in order. i think that's the way it goes. i'm pretty sure gil hodges has used up all of his opportunities to garner additional ranking points. for milledge, its all up to him, mostly, and us, partly. in six years, trachsel has middlingly stayed just ahead of wright and reyes, who have half his service time, but surely have much higher rankings in the past two years. it isn't exatly the same as win shares, but kinda sorts has the same effect of giving credit for both longevity and quality. nobody's in the top ten with fewer than 8 years as a met, but the guy with 16 just misses.

Edgy MD Mar 24 2007 08:05 PM

Marathon, our in-house mathematical idiot savant, forgets that we square the ranking --- his own innovation.

Kid Carsey Mar 25 2007 06:40 AM

I wonder aloud why SteveJRogers feels the need to be forum spokesperson all the time. Sometimes I'd like to throw my shoe at him and tell him to shush. Is how that list is generated a secret? Who does it? I thought Frayed did. SteveJRogers, please don't opine.

vtmet Mar 25 2007 06:52 AM

First off, great job compiling the list...alot of good, hard work done there... However, I have a hard time comprehending how John Franco could possibly be #6 and Ed Kranepool could possibly be #11 on the list...apparently, longevity is more of a factor than talent/performance...

Frayed Knot Mar 25 2007 08:09 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 25 2007 08:18 AM

Longevity is an asset in addition to performance. We're measuring (or attempting to) each player's total contribution while a Met, meaning that a guy here for as many as 17 seasons will generally leave a bigger mark than one here for just a few seasons, even if those were real good seasons. P.S. The only manner in which I'm affecting this list is as the project's self-appointed statistician - in much the same way Yancy is with our PotG. My opinions don't carry any more weight about where each player lands than anyone else who decides to participate in each year's discussion. In a way, this thing is a lot like political elections; you may not like the results, but you're largely responsible for them. I just compile the numbers [insert Katherine Harris joke here]

metsmarathon Mar 25 2007 08:09 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Marathon, our in-house mathematical idiot savant, forgets that we square the ranking --- his own innovation. now, see, i thought those numbers were too high...

iramets Mar 25 2007 09:24 AM

TheOldMole wrote: My error. I thought it was most hits. No, that would be Ed Kranepool. From UMDB: 1. Ed Kranepool 1418 2. Cleon Jones 1188 3. Edgardo Alfonzo 1136 4. Mookie Wilson 1112 5. Bud Harrelson 1029 6. Mike Piazza 1028 7. Darryl Strawberry 1025 8. Howard Johnson 997 9. Jerry Grote 994 10. Keith Hernandez 939 11. Lee Mazzilli 796 12. Kevin McReynolds 791 13. Felix Millan 743 14. Rey Ordóñez 720 15. Rusty Staub 709

OlerudOwned Mar 25 2007 09:28 AM

Wrong hits.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 25 2007 09:32 AM

Holy crap, Rey Ordonez is in 14th place??? Ahead of Rusty Staub??? If I had to guess, I would have picked Rey's lifetime hit total to be closer to about 40.

iramets Mar 25 2007 09:37 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Holy crap, Rey Ordonez is in 14th place??? Ahead of Rusty Staub??? If I had to guess, I would have picked Rey's lifetime hit total to be closer to about 40. Shocked me, too. That was why I ended the list at 15. Unless the UMDB's smoking weed, of course.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 25 2007 10:17 AM

Could be. Although knowing that crowd, it's more likely a Pop-Tart overdose.

iramets Mar 25 2007 10:31 AM

Highest active Mets, as you'd expect, are 29. José Reyes 524 41. David Wright 434 Give them each, say, 162 hits this year and they'll be at 17 and 24 by October. The leader standard is so low in these parts, Jose's less than six seasons (of 162 hits) from overtaking Ed K.

slugger1138 Mar 26 2007 05:11 PM

I remember the discussions on the old board (and steering well clear of them for the most part), I'm just kind of bothered by the boost for longevity given to players based on the methodology used for compiling the list. In 5+ years Trachsel was a fairly average pitcher. He won 7 more games than he lost (largely due to tremendous run support last year) and had a Mets-career ERA of 4.09. Based on the impact he had on the team I would never think of him as a top 50 met of all time. But because he was with the team for so long he keeps accumulating points in the rankings just by virtue of the fact of being ranked. What I mean to say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that a player once ranked can never lose pints in the rankings. He can move down in the rankings only if surpassed by other players due to longevity or performance. Let me see if I have this right: the guy ranked first for a season gets 30 points and the guy who is ranked 30th gets 1 point. And no matter what happens or how he is ranked in later years that guy ranked 30th will always hold on to that 1 point. What if he flat out sucked that year but was better than the other 10 or 15 players who got left off the rankings. Why should he get any points? Why not lose points if a player is ranked in the bottom 5 or 10? Or if he's left off the rankings entirely? Otherwise don't they just accumulate points for being a warm body? Get into enough games and you'll get some points towards your rankings. Why not penalize players for poor performance and injury instead of rewarding them for just showing up and getting into a bunch of games. Having written this and looking at Trachsel's stats I doubt there'd be much movement in his case... maybe he'd lose a few points for 2005. As for the rankings of Wright and Reyes they just put into perspective how many bad and middling players have been Mets over the years and reinforce just how special these guys have been to the franchise over the past few years.

Edgy MD Mar 26 2007 06:13 PM

In the great scheme of things, Trachs was certainly above average.

Frayed Knot Mar 26 2007 09:26 PM

Keep in mind Slugs that a player's ranking depends on several factors, not just longevity. - the rank (if any) in each year he plays - the success of the team(s) that he's on - the number of years he plays So who you're beating matters to a degree in addition to just where you place. IOW, a lousy player in a lousy year won't score as high as his counterpart bottom feeder in a good year. Same with a middle of the pack guy from 1962 compared to a middle guy from 1986, and top guys vs a different top guy, etc. Trax had 6 years here and had decent to good scores in 4 of them -- and those years were responsible for the bulk of his eventual standing. His last two seasons (not coincidently the freshest in our minds) produced low scores and boosted him only an additional 8 or 9 spots over where he would have been had he not played at all in those seasons. The other thing you have to remember is that MOST of the players in NYM history played just one season (or part of one). Less than 50 players (out of almost 800) lasted as long as 6 seasons as Trax did. So yeah, that alone gives him a leg up on most of the pack.

slugger1138 Mar 29 2007 12:55 PM

Frayed Knot, How does the success of the team bear on the player's ranking? Do players on the 69, 86, 88, 99, 00, and 06 squads (the 73 squad didn't win all that many games, but the 84, 85, 87 and 90 teams did win a lot of games) get bonus points for playing on those teams? My understanding is that if you're ranked #1 in any season you get 30 points. Does it work more like win shares? Are the points derived from a ranking in any given year affected by the number of games the team won that year or by how far it advanced into the postseason? If so, how? I looked at the FAQ and it doesn't really provide an explanation. This doesn't necessarily address my main complaint, however, which is that, even under an adjustment based on the performance of a team, a player can only accumulate points and cannot lose points. Once points are earned, they're there for good.

Edgy MD Mar 29 2007 12:59 PM

Yes, players on better teams received bonus points in the forumula for playing on those teams, with additional points for post-season wins. Why should a player lose points?

Frayed Knot Mar 29 2007 01:19 PM

Are the points derived from a ranking in any given year affected by the number of games the team won that year or by how far it advanced into the postseason? Both. The points accumulated by rank (30 down to 1) are multiplied by the wins for the team that season plus a sliding scale for "bonus" points for post-season success. For example, the 10th best player on a 90-win team would receive 50% more points than his equivelant from a 60-win team. So the system does (to a certain extent) take into consideration not only where a player finished in a season but also to whom they're being compared. This doesn't necessarily address my main complaint, however, which is that, even under an adjustment based on the performance of a team, a player can only accumulate points and cannot lose points. Once points are earned, they're there for good. The points earned by a player are essentially meaningless except how they relate to others. If we were to change it to say a scale from +15 points down to -15 (to satisfy your desire to see lower ranked players punished) it wouldn't really change anything, it would merely lower the scores for everyone while keeping the order of them more or less the same.