Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Friday, August 30, 2002

Let’s pick a voting system

These were the systems presented. I think we’ve agreed to go with 15 players on the ballot (to increase the penalty for not being named, as well as increase the depth of our research).

1) 70-62-57-53-49-46-43-40-38-36-34-32-30-28-26

This closes the gap between 1 and 15 on the list, and gives a more substantial penalty for not being named on any ballots.

2) 15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

This system has larger gaps between the positions (on a percentage basis) and doesn’t penalize a player that is left off that ballot too much (it’s like a 16th place vote really).

3) 20-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

Similar to the previous system, but gives a significant bonus for being dubbed the best player on the ballot.

4) 20-19-18-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 (assuming 3 players get in that year)

This system changes based on the number of players to be elected in a particular season. Basically the same as above, except all players voted into an “election” spot get the six-point bonus.

5) 20-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6

A combination of the first and last systems. This one increases the penalty for not being on the ballot (larger penalty than the first actually), but still has a very large gap between each spot on the ballot.

Those are the significant contenders as I see them. If I missed one, let me know.

I lean towards system 1. If anyone would like to make any final pitches to sway a “vote” please do. I could see a split vote among the last 4 systems, because they are similar, so maybe we should have some kind of run off to get it down to two, and then a final vote if no system is over 50%? I’m new to this election thing, so if I’m missing something, please let me know so we can choose the system fairly, as it is the backbone of our entire project.

Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 30, 2002 at 09:49 PM | 15 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Marc Posted: September 01, 2002 at 05:05 AM (#510701)
I like the new and improved #5. Per Andrew's msg, it too correlates the bonus points with what we are doing (electing 3). I also think the penalty for missing a ballot is appropriate and, finally, that the ratio of 4 to 1 between first and 15th (or even the 3.33 to 1 in the original #1) is about right. 15 or 20 to 1 is too much and 70 to 26 (2.7 to 1) is not quite enough, though I admit that the difference especially between 2.7 and 3.33 is splitting hairs. 4 vs. 2.7 is a significant difference, however, with 4 the more appropriate number. Thanks to everyone who got us to this point. I can't wait for that first ballot, the suspense is killing me.

The voting system might consist of some other decisions, however. I recall two concepts in particular. One, that each voter provide some kind of justification for their ballot, and two, that someone will be kicking out our ballots if they are deemed too eccentric. Where are we on those ideas? Thanks.
   2. MattB Posted: September 02, 2002 at 03:14 PM (#510705)
I'll vote #2, #5, #4, modified #5, #3, #1. In that order.

Whichever vote wins should help determine how to weigh those six choices.
   3. Philip Posted: September 02, 2002 at 03:27 PM (#510706)
I vote for modified #5 too.
   4. dan b Posted: September 03, 2002 at 02:01 AM (#510708)
Put me down for the modified #5
   5. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: September 03, 2002 at 02:53 AM (#510709)
My 2 cents : #1, #2, old #5, #3, modified #5, #4. In order, best to worst.

I agree with ed... we should not be "kicking out" ballots. However, I will point out that I think it's expected that those submitting ballots will discuss their ballot on the blog pertaining to the vote. Have I read this wrong?

I would decline to participate in a vote where ballots that are not obviously spoiled, or the result of ballot-stuffing, are summarily thrown out because they don't correspond to the prejudices of what someone thinks a proper vote should look like. (I am perfectly comfortable with Joe, or whoever else is running the vote, determining which ballots are spoiled or what constitutes stuffing the ballot box).

Could there really be anyone who would care enough to try to rig this ballot? This is, to put it bluntly, a very recherche' project. I doubt anyone's going to be bothered to try to ruin it... no one could care outside our small community of baseball obsessives.
   6. Carl Goetz Posted: September 04, 2002 at 02:11 AM (#510710)
I like the original #5. Although I don't care that much 1 way or the other. My picks will be the same in any case.
   7. scruff Posted: September 04, 2002 at 03:45 PM (#510711)
I'm sensing a solid consensus for "modified number 5", which is:

24-23-22-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6

comparing it to #1 with a 'common denominator' so to speak, the two are:

old #1: 70-62-57-53-49-46-43-40-38-36-34-32-30-28-26
   8. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: September 04, 2002 at 07:08 PM (#510712)
It should be remembered that the modified #5 is intended to give bonuses to everyone in an "election slot". The system will be different for each election.
   9. scruff Posted: September 04, 2002 at 08:04 PM (#510713)
Correct Craig. We'll have anywhere from 1-5 people being elected, so just to show it on 'paper':

5 electees: 24-23-22-21-20-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6
   10. Rob Wood Posted: September 04, 2002 at 09:44 PM (#510714)
Chiming in late as usual, I too heartily support the modified #5 voting scheme.
   11. Rob Wood Posted: September 04, 2002 at 10:26 PM (#510715)
Chiming in late as usual, I too heartily support the modified #5 voting scheme.
   12. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: September 05, 2002 at 05:23 PM (#510717)
I think we have a clear choice...
   13. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 05, 2002 at 05:26 PM (#510718)
#5 is a keeper.
   14. Rob Wood Posted: September 05, 2002 at 10:54 PM (#510720)
I apologize for my recent double-posting. After I posted the original message, I didn't do anything for awhile, and my browser "timed out". So when I later tried to go to another page, the browser resent the message for a second time. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
   15. Rob Wood Posted: September 16, 2002 at 11:43 PM (#510727)
That last post was by me. I don't know why it says "Tom". Sorry if it was my goof.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2600 seconds
49 querie(s) executed