Immaculate Grid strategy: Is there a right way to play the popular sports guessing game?
It’s the highlight of the morning, and sometimes the highlight of the day. It can be worth a few seconds of minor euphoria, a source of simple satisfaction or a reason to kick yourself. It’s a game, it’s a quiz, it’s a challenge of self. It’s the glorious Immaculate Grid.
The popular sports guessing game is all those things I just mentioned, but it’s also something else: It’s whatever you want it to be. If you want to just complete the grid for fun with the first names that come to mind, just to kill a few minutes, it’s that. If you want it to be a true test of knowledge about the most random players you can recall, it’s that too. If a low score is your glory, it’s there for you. If a high score is what thrills you, it’s your huckleberry.
Basically, it’s an open-ended source of fun because there is no “right” way to play.
“People are playing this game in so many ways and, quite frankly, I think that’s one of the reasons it’s been so successful,” said Adam Darowski, director of product for Sports Reference, which recently acquired the grid and publishes one daily for baseball, men’s basketball, football and hockey.
Darowski has seen and heard a lot during his time overseeing the grid(s). Some people play with a timer. Others get quirky by picking only mustachioed players. Or only Hall of Famers. Or maybe they try to guess the most popular picks for each square, like a game of “Family Feud.”
“One of my favorite things about the game is that it is not a competition. Every person has their own set of rules,” Darowski told me. “You’re filling out a grid the way you want to, which makes it a much more personal experience.”
No matter how you play, it’s still ultimately a guessing game. And though there are no strict rules, there are the basic rules:
You have nine guesses to fill out the grid.
Each guess, whether correct or incorrect, counts as a guess.
Within those seemingly straight-forward instructions is lots of room for interpretation. It comes down to how you define “guess.”
So, on that premise, here are five ways to play the game, each with its own level of associated pride and rarity score possibilities. But remember, even “rarity score” doesn’t have a fixed definition.
“We intentionally did not say, ‘A lower rarity score is better,’ ” Darowski said. “It can be (if you choose to play that way), but it doesn’t have to be.”
Method 1: Stating the Obvious
This is likely the way most people approach the game because it’s the most straight-forward interpretation of the challenge: Just complete the grid based on your existing knowledge.
This method will often take only a few minutes, with players simply choosing the most obvious names that come to mind to fill each square:
Five hundred-plus homers and an MVP? Easy: Albert Pujols. … 3,000 hits for the Yankees? Derek Jeter. Simple. … An All-Star for the Angels? Shohei Ohtani. Boom.
This method is great for people who don’t care about rarity score and are just looking for the quick satisfaction of completing the grid. The finished job is glorious enough.
Method 2: The Open-Book Test
This is where the definition of “guess” can be stretched. The obvious meaning associated with trivia games — choosing an answer based on the knowledge already in your brain, or maybe based on a hunch, but without certainty or assistance — doesn’t apply here.
Instead, it’s a more liberal interpretation of the word. Specifically: Looking at a list of qualifying players and choosing the one you think will earn the lowest or highest rarity score. It’s still a guess, it’s just a different kind of guess.
Guys who played for the Mariners and White Sox?
*looks at list*
Hmmm. Will Joe Borchard or Rod Craig give me a lower score? Or maybe Goose Gossage is actually the way to go. Decisions, decisions.
It’s kind of like an open-book test in school. While it’s a guaranteed way to fill out the grid successfully, there are no promises that you’ll get the rarity score you want. But there’s still guesswork and an element of mystery to it, so you can take this approach with a clean conscience if a low or high score is your goal.
An optional element: Make your own lists. Think of it as a study guide. When you find yourself in one of those Sports Reference rabbit holes and notice, for example, that a random guy on the 1978 Red Sox played for six teams, make a note of the player and the teams for future grid use.
Method 3: Confirmation Elation
This is related to Method 2 in that it provides a safeguard against wrong guesses, but it’s still mostly about your own knowledge.
It’s just as simple as it sounds: You pick a player you think matches the criteria, then check the relevant Sports Reference site to make sure your hunch is correct.
I seem to remember Joe Orsulak playing for the Mets after the Orioles.
*checks Baseball Reference*
Yep, I was right.
As with Method 2, the goal here is usually about a low rarity score. But there’s still a chance a lot of other people will have picked the same guy, so it may not lead to a low score. It’s also a fine way to just fill a final square or two, regardless of your score goals.
Method 4: Picking and Choosing
This is the most complicated method, but it can also lead to satisfying conclusions. It’s complicated because it requires more than one browser, or perhaps more than one device — one as your “official” entry and another (or even two or three) as your digital “scratch paper.”
The premise: If you have multiple players in mind for certain squares, try each of them and see which one a) is correct; or b) generates the best score for you. It’s still a guessing game, but think of it as practice for the real game — like BP or warm-up pitches.
I know Biff Pocoroba and Omar Infante were both somewhat obscure All-Stars for the Braves, but which would get me a lower score?
*checks on multiple warm-up grids*
Pocoroba it is.
Though it takes a little longer, this method can help assure your preferred rarity score on your “official” grid (the one you post on social media).
Method 5: Free Solo
This is the thrill-seeker’s way to play, and it’s very popular among sports sickos. High risk, high reward. Like scaling a mountain without ropes.
Basically, it’s this: Try to think of the most random, forgotten player who matches the criteria, gamble that your brain remembers correctly, lock in the pick and, hopefully, bask in that sweet 0.002 percentage ranking.
I’m pretty sure Brad Komminsk played briefly for the Giants after he left Cleveland. I’m going for it.
It helps a lot if you’ve watched an unhealthy amount of sports for a few decades and/or have collected trading cards for most of your life. It’s just you and your flawed human brain, remembering some guys together, and hoping you both still have your fastball.
Like climbing a real mountain, it can take hours. And like going free solo, there is no safety net. This is an adrenaline rush when you succeed, but it’s a crushing ego blow when you end up with a blank square, mocking you.
I’ve played the grid using each method. My preference is Free Solo, as it’s the one that brings the greatest satisfaction when complete. But I’d estimate that at least 50 percent of my grids are a combination of the Free Solo and Confirmation Elation methods.
Granted, one could argue that any assistance takes away the seat-of-your-pants nature and thrill of a trivia-based game. Some might even call it cheating. But such labels don’t really apply to The Grid.
“What really is cheating anyway?” Darowski said. “… One person’s method might mean another person’s method is ‘cheating,’ but in reality they’re just not playing the game the same way.”
The takeaway: Go ahead and have your Grid-y fun, however you define it.
