Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
Here are the MBBA Power Rankings up to Sim #7
Name - Points Accumulation - (Position in last Power Ranking)
1) Buffalo Bison - 539 - (2)
2) California Crusaders - 535 - (1)
3) Calgary Marauders - 521 - (3)
4) Vancouver Mounties - 462 - (7)
5) Marquette Suns - 429 - (10)
6) Baltimore Monarchs - 428 - (4)
6) Valencia Stars - 428 - (16)
8) Madison Wolves - 412 - (5)
9) Birmingham Bandits - 390 - (6)
10) Greenville Moonshiners - 384 - (9)
11) Las Vegas Hustlers - 380 - (8)
12) Chicago Blacksox - 376 - (11)
13) New Orleans Crawdads - 370 - (17)
14) Des Moines Kernels - 368 - (12)
15) Hackensack Bulls - 332 - (21)
16) Phoenix Talons - 296 - (13)
17) Seattle Storm - 289 - (15)
18) Washington Bobwhites - 284 - (14)
19) Louisville Sluggers - 284 - (22)
20) Hawaii Tropics - 274 - (19)
21) Montreal Blazers - 271 - (20)
22) Omaha Barnstormers - 265 - (24)
23) Atlantic City Gamblers - 215 - (18)
24) Long Beach Surfers - 186 - (23)
---
The Formula for the 1999 Season is this:
1 Win = 10 Points
1 Run For = .5 Points
1 Run Against = -.5 Points
Starter ERA
-- 50 points for an ERA of <2.00.
-- 40 Points for an ERA of <3.00
-- 30 Points for an ERA of <4.00
-- 20 Points for an ERA of <5.00
-- 10 Points for an ERA of <6.00
Bullpen ERA
-- 50 points for an ERA of <2.00.
-- 40 Points for an ERA of <3.00
-- 30 Points for an ERA of <4.00
-- 20 Points for an ERA of <5.00
-- 10 Points for an ERA of <6.00
---
Points will not accumulate, but will be retallied each week. So, if you have a come from behind year, you will visibly see your Power Rankings rise, instead of a team that starts off hot staying at the top all year long.
Any suggestions and/or modifications are always welcome.
Name - Points Accumulation - (Position in last Power Ranking)
1) Buffalo Bison - 539 - (2)
2) California Crusaders - 535 - (1)
3) Calgary Marauders - 521 - (3)
4) Vancouver Mounties - 462 - (7)
5) Marquette Suns - 429 - (10)
6) Baltimore Monarchs - 428 - (4)
6) Valencia Stars - 428 - (16)
8) Madison Wolves - 412 - (5)
9) Birmingham Bandits - 390 - (6)
10) Greenville Moonshiners - 384 - (9)
11) Las Vegas Hustlers - 380 - (8)
12) Chicago Blacksox - 376 - (11)
13) New Orleans Crawdads - 370 - (17)
14) Des Moines Kernels - 368 - (12)
15) Hackensack Bulls - 332 - (21)
16) Phoenix Talons - 296 - (13)
17) Seattle Storm - 289 - (15)
18) Washington Bobwhites - 284 - (14)
19) Louisville Sluggers - 284 - (22)
20) Hawaii Tropics - 274 - (19)
21) Montreal Blazers - 271 - (20)
22) Omaha Barnstormers - 265 - (24)
23) Atlantic City Gamblers - 215 - (18)
24) Long Beach Surfers - 186 - (23)
---
The Formula for the 1999 Season is this:
1 Win = 10 Points
1 Run For = .5 Points
1 Run Against = -.5 Points
Starter ERA
-- 50 points for an ERA of <2.00.
-- 40 Points for an ERA of <3.00
-- 30 Points for an ERA of <4.00
-- 20 Points for an ERA of <5.00
-- 10 Points for an ERA of <6.00
Bullpen ERA
-- 50 points for an ERA of <2.00.
-- 40 Points for an ERA of <3.00
-- 30 Points for an ERA of <4.00
-- 20 Points for an ERA of <5.00
-- 10 Points for an ERA of <6.00
---
Points will not accumulate, but will be retallied each week. So, if you have a come from behind year, you will visibly see your Power Rankings rise, instead of a team that starts off hot staying at the top all year long.
Any suggestions and/or modifications are always welcome.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:35 pm
Re: Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
I absolutely love this feature. Thank you for doing it!
General Manager of the Calgary Marauders, 1998-2002; Chicago Black Sox, 2017 - Present
Frick League Wildcard Winner: 1998, 1999, 2001
Frick League Pacific Division Winner: 2000
MBBA General Manager of the Year: 2000
Frick League Wildcard Winner: 1998, 1999, 2001
Frick League Pacific Division Winner: 2000
MBBA General Manager of the Year: 2000
- JimBob2232
- BBA GM
- Posts: 3807
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:54 pm
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 282 times
Re: Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
Me too. Especially climbing up to #13 after years with top 5 draft picks.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:55 pm
- Location: scottsdale, az
- Has thanked: 68 times
- Been thanked: 121 times
Re: Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
Vancouver fourth is nice.
California second 73 points ahead of me, not so nice (for me).
Good job on the ranking though.
California second 73 points ahead of me, not so nice (for me).
Good job on the ranking though.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:55 pm
- Location: scottsdale, az
- Has thanked: 68 times
- Been thanked: 121 times
Re: Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
Thought it would be interesting to compare the EchoesIE power ranking with the OOTP power ranking.
So I did.
Voila:

So I did.
Voila:

- aaronweiner
- BBA GM
- Posts: 12413
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
- Has thanked: 89 times
- Been thanked: 944 times
Re: Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
This would be more interesting if it weren't absolutely identical...
and I'm happy to still be in the top half.

and I'm happy to still be in the top half.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:55 pm
- Location: scottsdale, az
- Has thanked: 68 times
- Been thanked: 121 times
Re: Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
Huh? It isn't absolutely identical.aaronweiner wrote:This would be more interesting if it weren't absolutely identical...
and I'm happy to still be in the top half.
E.g., LV is 11th in one, 7th in the other.
Birmingham is 12th and 9th
- aaronweiner
- BBA GM
- Posts: 12413
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:56 pm
- Has thanked: 89 times
- Been thanked: 944 times
Re: Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
Um, apparently I should have read the chart more closely. I wonder what the "tendency" category is.
-
- Ex-GM
- Posts: 3407
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:55 pm
- Location: scottsdale, az
- Has thanked: 68 times
- Been thanked: 121 times
Re: Power Rankings #3, 1999 (Up to Sim #7)
I believe it indicates whether your ootp power ranking is trending up, down, or staying about equal.aaronweiner wrote:Um, apparently I should have read the chart more closely. I wonder what the "tendency" category is.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest