Community Prospect List Discussion
by BigG'S on Oct 13, 2011 2:25 PM EDT
Email
Print
With quarter end reporting coming to a close in the next week or 2, my schedule opens up nicely so that I can start up the community overall / hitting / pitching lists by latest end of the month.
With the major publications coming out with their lists anywhere from late Jan thru Februray, my goal is to have our top 50's & overall top 100 done by the time pitchers & catchers report.
Given the 4 months or 120 days in that time, the top 50's will need to turned over on average every 2-3 days (with runoffs given 1-2 days).
What I'm looking for is what things you would like to see changed / improved / removed from the previous year's format.
Any and all suggestions are welcome.
Thanks for your time.
26 comments
|
13 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm not so sure I liked splitting the lists apart.
It was a bit too hectic if you ask me.
by mr. maniac on Oct 13, 2011 2:45 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
I agree, I think
I think we could just put an even amount of pitchers and hitters on a list of players to vote for and it would serve the same purpose without having 3 polls running at a time right?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Doesn't really serve the same purpose at all
The purpose of splitting the lists is so that the entire community as a whole decides where they rank the hitters with respect to hitters and pitchers with respect to pitchers. To show the problem with the combined list, lets look at a case of hitters A and B and pitcher C. Now, lets say 60% of the community likes hitter A more than hitter B, with half of those liking pitcher C more than both hitters (30% rank them C, A, B) and half ranking the pitcher after A, but before B (30% rank them A, C, B). Now the other 40% rank B ahead of A, and both A and B ahead of C (40% rank them B, A, C). So in this case, B goes on the list before A and C, even though the majority of the community (60%) thinks both A and C are better than B. So the player that the majority agrees is the worst selection can actually end up going on first. That just doesn’t seem like a good system to me.
Just me maybe
. . . but I’m in favor of either developing a system in which we cannot bitch about ballot stuffing or . . . quit talking about it. One or the other :)
The manual voting, and counting, worked pretty well last year, if I remembeer but, weren’t there still some complaints? Is it just unnavoidable to an extent?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
IIRC
everyone agreed the manual “+1” voting was the way to go.
the complaints generally centered on the lists continuing into March & April, well after it was relevant to do so.
Cool
Well, If we are starting earlier, we are good. If not, we could do less run-offs and not split the lists up and, I’d be good with it. I’m cool either way though. I enjoy the discussion.
Nice job on the CB’s, by the way. Keep ‘em comin’. You do good work M’Man.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
We went over this many times last year
Splitting the lists up in no way slows things down. Even the run-offs really only slow things down early, because we eventually end up with quite a few hitters and pitchers waiting for there turn to be their groups representative on the overall list voting.
perhaps you are right
. . . I did, however, feel like there were a few too many polls – and too often – which made it a tad hard to think carefully when I voted on each and keep up with them. I don’t have any real problem with the run-offs I guess. Even If I either choice isn’t my favorite.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Here's an idea that a lot of people will probably hate...
Keep the split hitter/pitcher list like last season, but tweak it so that it speeds up the overall list AND stops the situation where people don’t like either of the two candidates on the overall poll they can vote for. Here’s how we can do it: If the hitter or pitcher poll goes to a tie-breaker, and that tie-breaker ends up very close (55-45 or closer? something like that), then we list BOTH hitters/pitchers from the tie breaker together as a group to be voted on in the overall poll.
So if Tim Wheeler and Christian Yelich lets say end up in a close tie-breaker, where as it usually is, 40% really like Wheeler and Yelich not-so-much, 40% really like Yelich and Wheeler not-so-much, and 20% don’t like either, we don’t send just the winner to the overall poll, we send them both as a group to be voted on together. This way we don’t have the Yelich or Wheeler haters slowing things down, since neither really have majority support to go against a pitcher. Likely people will vote in Wheeler even if it means putting Yelich a little higher on the list than they’d prefer and vice versa.
If there is no tie-breaker, then obviously only one player will be sent to the overall poll waiting list. And if there is a clear winner of a tie-breaker, then that player will go to the overall poll waiting list as an individual.
I honestly think this will stop the situation where half the people don’t like either choice in a heads up overall poll, and end up picking the least cruddy player or end up making some type of strategic choice.
by auclairkeithbc on Oct 13, 2011 3:40 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I don't hate it
Sounds like a good idea.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Well...i don't think it complicates things
Just list hitter #35 as Wheeler/Yelich. I guess whichever one wins the tiebreaker would be listed first in the overall poll. So if the 28th pitcher is up against the 35th hitter, it would be Pitcher X vs. Wheeler/Yelich.
by auclairkeithbc on Oct 13, 2011 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
hmmm
I guess you’d have to list them as #35 Wheeler/#36 Yelich on the same line instead of both as #35. Whatever. The details can be worked out if people like the idea.
by auclairkeithbc on Oct 13, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Further comment...
I think maybe we should do the top 10 the same way we did it last season, with 1 hitter vs. 1 pitcher. And after that, adopt my method. Because if Trout and Harper have a really close run-off, and are grouped together, the winner might be able to beat Matt Moore, while maybe the loser wouldn’t. Our options for the very top of our list shouldn’t be either Trout/Harper/Moore or Moore/Trout/Harper (assuming Trout beats Harper for simplicity sake). We should be able to have it end up Trout/Moore/Harper if that is what people really think. After the top 10, it becomes pretty inconsequential, as the worst that can possibly happen is a player slides from like 15th to 16th, which has no real affect on the list.
by auclairkeithbc on Oct 14, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
FORGOT TO MENTION PLEASE REC THIS SO IT STAYS UP TOP FOR A WEEK OR SO
will edit the post later on if it doesn’t make its way up
Keep the +1
And keep the list split – separate the hitters and pitchers.
And to expand on auclairkeithbc’s idea, perhaps, we could put 2-3 pitcher and 2-3 hitter candidates on each overall list poll. This would give people a few more options, and would have less streaks of pitcher or hitters due to voting against a particular player. Also, if you did this, once the hitter and pitcher lists are done you could actually put the top two vote getters on the overall list at a time, and this list would get done much more quickly.
But then you could have a guy behind someone on the hitter or pitcher list
Ahead of him on the overall list. I don’t really see the problem with a fairly long run of one or the other. Its pretty much bound to happen on any list.
I don't really have a problem with that
But if others do, the idea can be ignored.
by cookiedabookie on Oct 14, 2011 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Quoting
from nixa37 above…
The purpose of splitting the lists is so that the entire community as a whole decides where they rank the hitters with respect to hitters and pitchers with respect to pitchers.
If that’s truly the goal, then why combine the lists at all? There are a few arguments against combining the lists into a top 100 list.
(a.) People are going to complain about the long strings of hitters and pitchers, and while there seem to be other solutions, this one would seem to be the simplest, assuming this is an issue that people really want to “fix”. Acumen’s razor.
(b.) John doesn’t combine the lists, and his reasoning is sound to me, so it’s not like it’s necessary or that “everyone” is doing it.
(c.) I’m sure this has been brought up before, but it’s almost a given that a true top 100 prospect list as voted by the community isn’t going to feature exactly 50 hitters and 50 pitchers. In any given year, undeserving pitchers are going to be added on the backend of the list that don’t deserve to be there, and deserving hitters are going to miss out, or vice versa, depending on whether hitting or pitching depth is stronger in said year.
Point C would be my main argument against combining the lists, and I think that needs to be fixed either way. The other option would be to simply to ignore what nixa claimed (no offense) and have an overall top 100 list in which each round of voting would have hitters and pitchers, based upon their merits and not an arbitrary number requirement.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 17, 2011 5:18 PM EDT reply actions
On point c
I agree we should not only have the top fifty pitcher and hitters in the top 100. I believe last year, we agreed to go to 75 for hitters and pitcher – although we didn’t make it that far – to ensure that we had a more realistic top 100.
by cookiedabookie on Oct 17, 2011 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
That's
a good idea. I actually knew that but it had somehow slipped my mind.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 17, 2011 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
To point A
I think the biggest reason for long stretches of hitters or pitchers is that people were making to many negative votes, meaning they hated the next pitcher so kept voting in hitters until they found a hitter they really hated too (and vice versa). If we go with my idea, where the only time we’d put an individual hitter/pitcher on the overall poll by himself if that hitter/pitcher was a clear winner in the hitter/pitcher poll, it is less likely that we’ll have this problem. When we have a clear cut winner, it is pretty unlikely we’ll get too many negative votes against that hitter/pitcher. And when we have a split opinion in the hitter/pitcher poll (where one player beat another in a run-off by a relatively small margin), we send both players together to be voted on in the overall poll as a group against either an individual or duo of players from the other poll. This way, even if someone basically hates one hitter (let’s say), when he is paired with a hitter that is really liked, it is less likely that the voter will keep voting against the duo out of hatred for one of the hitters in the group.
by auclairkeithbc on Oct 17, 2011 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
One comment
I got a late start to evaluations last year, so only monitored the lists sporadically and didn’t feel informed enough to vote on many pairings. One thing I’m pretty sure I noticed, however, was that there was substantially less discussion than in most of t he past years. Whether this was due to the format or to the composition of the particular community last year, I don’t know.
Regardless of what decisions get made for this year, I hope that the need to stimulate discussion remains an articulated goal of the process. Its definitely been praised as a strength (perhaps the strongest part) in past years, and would be a little worrisome if left out of the conversation here.
Eagerly waiting to hear the Cox to Wong to Pujols double play call.
whatever method we use...
are we going to start this soon?
by auclairkeithbc on Oct 31, 2011 11:52 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
