Ever since we've posted an article with a letter grade, nothing but chaos and arguments break out for whatever reason. We are writing these articles for you guys, and we would like to hear what you'd like to see in the grading.
Click past the jump for some options, discussion, and a poll.
My thought on grading is that we stack them up against their positional contemporaries (how does Seth Smith grade out against other RF?) in that All Stars and better are "A's", solid starters are "B's", average but not indispensable players are "C's", guys who were generally unimpressive but did like 1 thing well get "D's", and players who actively hurt the team are "F's". The upside is that it's more of an "absolute" grading system, and makes it easier for people (read: RIRF) to tabulate them all at the end. Downside, it kind of just ends up being a WAR chart or something of that nature.
Greg and Bryan wants us to adopt a more subjective grading system - pretty much meaning the grade is up to the author and the author alone. Upside is that we get the most flavorful 6 weeks of player reviews. Downside is that at the end, some players got an A while better players got a B, so it's hard to try and tabulate/compare one player's grades against another's.
Andrew Fisher wants to go back to the idea of grading against preseason expectations. For example, Jose Morales wasn't very good this season, but we weren't EXPECTING him to be very good. Upside is that it's more fair to the individual player, downside is how do you grade someone like Tulo? "We expected him to go .300/30/100, and he did. Is that a B?"; "We expected Morales to not be very good, and he wasn't. Is that a C?"
Furthermore, for guys who have spent part of their seasons in the minors (Rosario, Nicasio, etc), do we grade based on their ENTIRE season, including their AA/AAA numbers, or do we grade just on their MLB time?