clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

PSA: We're Revamping Our Weekly Player Ratings

New, 36 comments

The weekly player ratings have become tired, useless and completely subjective... so we're changing them!

USA TODAY Sports

Greetings Stumptown Footy community! As I'm sure most of you are aware, each week we editors put together a player ratings article and publish it here on the site a couple days after the game. It's been sort of a mainstay here with regards to our post game coverage going almost as far back as the site itself. That said, we don't really like it.

Over the months (and years) we've attempted tweaking it, changing bits here and there, but the end result was always the same: subjective ratings which are based on little substance. As such, we're in the process of revamping them completely. Gone will be the tired "editor gives Ricketts a 7" type ratings. Instead we're looking to make it more community driven.

So what does that mean exactly? Well we're still figuring that part out. We have some ideas that we're playing with. We'll probably give one of them a shot for this Sunday's Colorado Rapids game. However, we also want to know what you want. These things are for your enjoyment and entertainment and we want you to feel as involved as possible going forward.

So take the next day or so and think about what you want out of player ratings. Keep in mind we very much want to get you guys involved. No longer do we want to dictate player ratings (we have our Man of the Match article for that) to you, but rather want to include you in the ratings. How we do that, to what level, even what kind of rating we use (1-10? 1-5? A-F?) can be determined here.

As for the Portland Timbers vs. LA Galaxy player ratings, well, they're unfortunately going to be stuck in limbo. Feel free to discuss them here and even use your "ratings" for the game with any potential ideas you have for a new system.

Note: We would also like to incorporate this new idea with the Portland Thorns FC so keep that in mind where applicable.