2022 Drop 100: Introduction

The original idea that spurred on The Drop 100 – an annual ranking and chronicle of the top performers in fast pitch competitive Wiffle®Ball over the prior calendar year – was a power ranking of teams, only done one time a year. That was impossible in 2018 – it is only slightly more plausible now – because teams almost exclusively existed within one league or tournament, rather than a standalone entity that existed within multiple settings at the same time. Rather than try to fit a square peg into a round hole, the rankings were shifted away from teams and to individual players.

Even so, there have still been some external factors that have made the ranking portion of the project difficult. There was not much crossover between players when the list started – as the most obvious example, there were largely players that played in the NWLA Tournament or the NCT, but very few that played in both – which meant comparisons between players were difficult because of lack of comparable benchmarks. Further complicating issues is the rather large discrepancy in playing time between players.

The first of those issues has – for the moment – taken care of itself to a large degree. In retrospect, the 2019 NWLA Tournament was the start of this with a first-time MAW team, a Ridley Park team that had proven themselves proficient in both the NWLA and NCT styles of play, and the championship AWAA team that had a mix of players from all sorts of stylistic backgrounds, helped to bridge that gap and chip away at the preconceived notions that had formed. That divide dissolved in earnest during the 2020 and 2021 seasons thanks in no small part to the arrival of United Wiffle®Ball. The impact on the The Drop 100 was immediate and significant. It eliminated the need to “guess” whether Caleb Jonkman or Cam Smith could succeed in this style – the answer was obviously “yes”. It also eliminated to the need to guess whether anyone sufficient in the “NCT style” could run roughshod over the NWLAT – the answer has clearly been “no”.

The second issue – large discrepancies in playing time among players – still exists. However, in part because of the additional crossover and partially for other reasons, there are more than enough players competing in either a full league, multiple tournaments a year, or both. The increased cross-over among players from different preferred styles of play also proved beyond a shadow of doubt that one style of play or sect of players does not sit above any others.

That leads into the major criteria shift for this year. To be included on the list, a player must have competed in (a) one multi-week fast pitch league, (b) two or more fast pitch tournaments or (c) a combination of both during the calendar year. This criterion eliminates the issue of placing a player somewhere in the rankings who only has one day or weekend sample to be evaluated on. The idea behind The Drop 100 has always been to recognize players who have been the most valuable performers during the period. Value includes contributing to your team(s)’ success regularly, which is similar to how player value is measured in all team sports. In 2022, there were more than enough players who meet this eligibility and have a case to be on the list.

The criteria used to compile the rankings – with the two-tournament/league criteria being the only addition to the prior criteria – is as follows:

• Performance is based on the prior calendar year of play. The first tournament considered for 2022 was the MLW Arizona tournament from this past January. The last was the MLW Texas Tournament from mid-December.

• Leagues and tournaments must be “unrestricted pitch speed” for their results to be taken into consideration. For these purposes, any speed limit that is imposed on every pitch (whether it results in a warning or other penalty) makes those games ineligible. However, leagues or tournaments that impose a slow pitch rule after a certain number of balls or are a mixed medium pitch/fast pitch league (i.e. Fanway Park) are eligible (for the latter, only fast pitch games would be taken into consideration).

  • The following leagues/tournaments are not considered as a result: MLW league play, HRL, Golden Stick Wiffle® League Yard, etc.

• Leagues and tournaments must use the official Wiffle®Ball for performance in these games to be considered.

  • The following leagues/tournaments are not considered as a result: Griffleball, Baldwin Wiffle®Ball, etc.

• Players are grouped/rank based on this general framework. A player that receives high marks in all four would be closer to the top of the list. Ultimately, the actual results drive the ranking with the other three points being used to differentiate among otherwise similar performers. These are listed in order if importance.

  • (1) How well did the player perform?

  • (2) What was the level of fast pitch competition the player competed against during the year?

  • (3) How often and in how many different fast pitch environments did the player compete in during the year?

  • (4) How well did the player perform in different styles (i.e. running vs. non-running, clean vs. non-clean, league vs. tournament, varying pitch counts, etc.)?

Interestingly, the minimum playing time criteria slides into place in a year where many regular NWLAT teams & players sat out the 2022 iteration. AWAA, WSEM, HRL, and WILL – among others – were absent from this year’s event. This did have an impact on the list, although not as big of one as it might seem at first. The player most impacted is likely Tyler Flakne, who had another fantastic UWIFF tournament (3-0 pitching record) and almost certainly would have been high up the list with his usual NWLAT performance to supplement it. Instead he is left off as he lacks a second fast pitch tournament or league on his 2022 resume. While players like Evan Sibbett, Jake Davey, and Jimmy Cole (among others) would have likely had their ranking boosted by playing in the NWLAT this year, they still made the list. Others like Caden Irwin and Kyle VonSchleusigen – as two examples – finished just off the list and likely would have been helped by playing at the NWLAT.

As has been the case for the last few years, there are well more than 100 players worthy of inclusion in the top 100. When populating the end of the list, deference is given to players who might be off-the-radar, an up-and-comer, or someone with an interesting story over a similarly performing player who doesn’t possess any of those other attributes. In terms of rankings, it is probably best to view the backend of the list in groups of five or even ten. In other words, an argument that player 83 should be ahead of player 75 is likely reasonable and wouldn’t draw much of a counterargument. Even in the middle to upper ranges of the list, you won’t find much argument if you believe a player should be two or three spots higher than he is. The closer to #1 the list gets, the tighter the rankings become.

The competitive Wiffle®Ball landscape constantly changes from season to season – even half-season to half-season in some years! – which necessitates constant re-evaluation of how structures, rules, and practically every other significant aspect of the sport. Likewise, while the minimum participation limit makes sense for the 2022 Drop list, it didn’t make sense a few years ago and might not in the future. Or it might make sense to up the minimum even more if more players are playing more fast pitch Wiffle®Ball during the year. The criteria as always is reviewed annually to make sure it makes sense in the current environment and will continue to be re-evaluated annually.

********

The Top 100 of 2022 will be unveiled starting the week of December 25th and continue into January. New this year, the list will be released exclusively on Twitter (@wiffsdrop) and Instagram (@wiffsdrop). Players will initially be revealed 5 at a time, with the player reveals becoming more detailed as the list approaches the top spot.

In addition to revealing the top 100 fast pitch players of the 2022 calendar year via those social media channels, supplementary content will be available on Instagram, Twitter, and The National Wiffle Podcast Network, and The Drop website. This will include a hypothetical look at what the top 20 might have looked like twenty years ago on the 2002 Drop 100 list, analysis on this year’s list, and more!