CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
Premium Article On the Beat: Weekend R... (05/31)
<< Previous Column
Prospectus Idol: Round... (05/25)
Next Column >>
Prospectus Idol: Round... (06/07)
Next Article >>
The Week in Quotes: Ma... (06/01)

May 31, 2009

Prospectus Idol

Round Two - Fantasy

by Dave Pease

Welcome to another week of the internet's most popular ripoff of the 800-pound gorilla of live-action talent contests-Prospectus Idol. Tortured metaphors aside, it's been seven days since we saw the last of our dashing pool of contestants' content, so let's dive right in.

I'm Dave Pease, and as always, we're glad to have you here. We've also been reading the many great questions and interesting threads in the comments sections of each page. I'm especially gratified to see the practical suggestions and commentary for each of our contestants. We're frequently pleased by the things we read in the comments here at Baseball Prospectus, but we really like this. The questions, on the other hand-I really think if you'd just read everything we've written about this contest, you'd have most of them answered.

Actually, joking aside, that might be true-but we've written thousands of words about this contest, and nobody's actually going to take that for an answer. Nor should they. Sorry for not being clearer about some of the aspects of this contest, folks! We're going to take some of those questions and answer them right here, right now, with the help of our hardworking backup band. Hit it!

Band plays: Sonny and Cher, "I Got You Babe"

I've written lots of this in the comments, so if you've read it before, I hope it's a little more complete here, and lots of people don't read the comments, so here goes for the wider audience:

AC/DC, "Highway to Hell"

Elimination: We count yes votes only, and whoever has the least of them does not advance to the next round. As I awkwardly wrote last week, we know how many non-votes an article has too, but we don't take the ratio of those two figures for anything except our native interest. If you have a Baseball Prospectus Premium or Fantasy subscription, you can vote. We are not accepting Basic-level voters for this competition for several reasons. One of these is that we're especially interested in what our paying subscribers think of these writers. One of these is that if people could freely vote in this contest, the contestant with the internet persona of most wide-spread reader interest would have a large advantage of their relative ability to publicize their work and attract biased voters.

Ron Clark Academy Players, "You Can Vote However You Like"

Voting: When you visit the BP Idol homepage while voting period is open, you'll see the contestant entries in a random order. This order is different for each logged-in user and will change over time for that user. Since we don't have to publish them in any set order, we're not giving unfair advantage to whoever would appear at the top of the list most often. You are, of course, free to visit the articles each week in any order you choose.

Clicking on and off the thumb doesn't cast numerous yes votes. All we count is each account's vote status on each article when voting ends. Feel free to change your vote before then.

When voting, ask yourself, "Do I like this article and/or contestant and want them to continue in this contest?" If yes, make sure the thumbs-up is clicked. It's that simple.



YES
I want this person to be writing next week

NO
I do not think this person should quit their day job

John Williams, "Star Wars Imperial March"

Timeline: we will publish the week's articles on Sunday-no guaranteed time-and voting begins then. Your votes are always due by the following Tuesday, 8 p.m. Pacific. For example, this article was posted on Sunday, May 31, and voting is now open. You'll need to have your thumbs clicked by Tuesday, Jun 2, by 8 p.m. Pacific. You'll see the black Prospectus Idol bar across the page frame counting down to the end of voting while voting is open. This gives you about two days and a few hours to vote.

We know that's not a lot of time, and that especially in the beginning that's a lot to go through. Please don't feel obligated to vote, first of all, and take your time making it through the articles if that means you'll enjoy them more-there's going to be a lot in there to digest on any given week. We've got plenty of voters. We'd love to hear what you think on the articles, but don't drive yourself to frustration getting there.

More generally, we need that hard deadline to see who's going to meet it regular as clockwork and who has less success with their entries week-to-week. Both BP and our partners are looking for the contestants to produce content on topics that might not be of their choosing on a regular basis by the playoffs this year. There's a huge difference between someone who can produce a few excellent articles on topics of their choosing in a year, and someone who can do it on weekly assignment. We love to work with both types, but we're looking for the latter in this contest.

Finally, we thought of this too late to allow for much more voting or writing time this year even if we wanted to. Next year we'll have more time to get everything set up, and perhaps we'll take a more leisurely pace.

This week, we asked our contestants to get fantastic.

Coolio, "Fantastic Voyage"

This week's theme is "Fantasy!" Yeah, it's broad, but we want you to really make this your own, taking it in whatever direction you feel is best suited to your talents and that will win over thousands of voters. The only thing we definitely have to see is a "takeaway"-some kind of tip or action that a fantasy owner can use for their team. This could be a sleeper you've identified or a technique for finding an undervalued player, or ... well anything.

To read the articles and vote, click here to visit the Prospectus Idol page.

Dave Pease is an author of Baseball Prospectus. 
Click here to see Dave's other articles. You can contact Dave by clicking here

64 comments have been left for this article. (Click to hide comments)

BP Comment Quick Links

John Carter

I'm curious about the "read" stats you look at. Does going back to an article to place a vote or read the fresh comments count as having been read multiple times?

May 31, 2009 11:48 AM
rating: 0
 
BurrRutledge

I should hope the 'read' count is how many of their fantasy and premium subscribers clicked through to the article, not merely 'hits.'

May 31, 2009 22:43 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

I think "reads" means the first time an article is clicked on, generating that icon. While they probably track multiple hits, I would think they would just call it "hits" and not "reads".

I don't know if they have an engine to track how long someone spends on a page though. That's hard to do since you can't tell if someone's at their desk actively reading it, or multitasking to read through later.

May 31, 2009 22:47 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Jeff Pease
BP staff
(1)

No--when you open it once it's read for you.

May 31, 2009 23:32 PM
 
JohnnyB

Are the Week 1 results posted somewhere or do we just have to infer from who's not back?

May 31, 2009 14:03 PM
rating: 2
 
BP staff member Christina Kahrl
BP staff
(11)

This was published in Unfiltered last week. To recap the first week's results, surf to:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1288

May 31, 2009 14:05 PM
 
JohnnyB

Found it. You should publicize results day/night better. Also, is there a way to track if we are voting for the same people each week. I know I will lose track -- would be interested to see if I keep voting for same people over time.

May 31, 2009 15:36 PM
rating: -2
 
Evan
(47)

I'm doing that myself - I made up an Excel spreadsheet to track which articles and authors I like, and which I don't, and for whom I vote.

Jun 01, 2009 09:22 AM
rating: 0
 
evo34

I agree. It kind of defeats the purpose of the contest structure to hide the weekly results in some sidebar article...

May 31, 2009 15:02 PM
rating: 1
 
Richard Bergstrom

Also, if you click on some author's names, it pulls up their previous articles, but for others like Ken Funck, it just goes to the archive section without pulling up articles.

May 31, 2009 16:33 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

Four thumbs up for articles this week... not as strong as last week's batch, IMHO... then again, I'm a bit of a fantasy stickler.

May 31, 2009 15:30 PM
rating: -1
 
Matt Hunter

I agree somewhat. I went from 4 thumbs up to 3, and only 2 of the same.

The strong were very strong this week though. I had a clearly defined top 2, with a third that I was iffy on but finally decided to vote for.

May 31, 2009 16:41 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

I added in two more thumbs up for people who I'd liked in previous weeks, bringing my total votes this week to 6. I'll admit I was a bit shocked Byron got bounced and I'm not in the mood to risk people who're batting .666 in articles I enjoyed.

May 31, 2009 16:47 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

Er... who're batting .666 in articles I enjoyed or have a lot of potential. I know I'll get more finicky as the competition progresses though.

May 31, 2009 16:54 PM
rating: 0
 
Matt Hunter

I understand that line of thinking, however I couldn't vote for more than three this week.

However I will say, I don't care ANYTHING about fantasy writing, so I looked at process and writing style more than if I thought it would help my fantasy team.

May 31, 2009 17:29 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

I had Byron in my top three for week 1. Meanwhile, people who weren't in my top three but who I've grown to like have since earned their way into my top three... and then there are others who I am not really enjoying at all. I'd rather give people who I think are interesting a few extra rounds to improve. If not, I risk lumping the "iffies" with the "no's" and accidentally losing one of the "iffies" along the way.

Also, as you said, you don't care about fantasy writing, so it's possible that one topic on the basics and another on fantasy is not bringing out some writer's potential. That's another reason I'll give a vote.

Of course, all that is fine and dandy in the short-term. In the long term, it'd be hard for someone who is consistently questionable to win the whole competition. From what the BP people said, right now there's a definite top three, a middle three and a bottom three. In the meantime, I'll vote to make sure someone I find interesting or has potential doesn't get accidentally pruned.

May 31, 2009 17:39 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

During the initial entries, I mean, I had Byron in my top three.

May 31, 2009 20:23 PM
rating: 0
 
Matt Hunter

Absolutely, but like I said, there were only 3 articles this week I could justify voting for, even if I had voted for their past articles and I believed they had the potential.

If I had only read 3 articles by Joe Sheehan and one of them I thought was comepletely not up to standards at all, I probably would not come back for the next one, and if I didn't have a connection to the writers and how they have hooked me in, I wouldn't pay for BP. There is a lot of great analysis out there, however there isn't as much great writing.

Again, I think it is a medium vs. medium rare question. One of taste, not of right and wrong. Now if you went all Well done on me....

May 31, 2009 20:57 PM
rating: -1
 
Richard Bergstrom

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to imply I thought you were "wrong". As you said, we have different tastes and different ways we are evaluating this competition and whether we give out a vote or not. I just elaborated on my thinking a bit to show where I was coming from, not to criticize you. If that was the impression I gave, I do apologize.

May 31, 2009 21:02 PM
rating: 0
 
Matt Hunter

No worries, just expressing opinions, no hard feelings at all. I'd rather be challenged or questioned. It is what I am used to in post-graduate classes anyway. Sure many of you understand that.

I just try to bring the same critical thinking to baseball because it is what I absolutely love. Again, sure you understand that.

May 31, 2009 22:07 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

Yep I do understand that :)

May 31, 2009 22:45 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member MattBishoff
BP staff

now everyone's friends again

Jun 01, 2009 06:37 AM
 
Richard Bergstrom

We weren't bein' enemies, pardner. Just havin' a bit of an agreedement to dis'gree.

Jun 01, 2009 06:49 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

General suggestion.. I think next week's topic should get rid of the word count maximum, at least for one week. It seems there are quite a few ideas over the last few weeks that aren't fully developed and it would be nice to take the reins off just for one week to see what people can do, given ample space.

May 31, 2009 16:01 PM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member MattBishoff
BP staff

if that is done, I don't think it should be done until later in the competition with less contestants. There has already been a lot of complaints about people not having enough time to read all of the articles and that wouldn't help matters.

May 31, 2009 16:34 PM
 
Richard Bergstrom

Oh and can we get that timestamp of when the last time comments were made on a finalist's article, or at least, an indication if new comments have been posted since we last viewed the article?

May 31, 2009 16:35 PM
rating: 0
 
Greg S. (UOP)

It's much easier to write a long article. It takes considerable skill to say a lot with little space.

May 31, 2009 21:00 PM
rating: 1
 
Richard Bergstrom

I do agree with you. As they said in my creative writing classes, short stories are harder and sometimes take longer to write and rewrite than novels. I just thought that the weekly turnaround for submissions might not allow time for all that revision and I'd prefer to see the ideas more fully developed.

May 31, 2009 21:04 PM
rating: 0
 
tphoskin

The vote however you like clip was sick, it might have had bird flu. I spit the beer out of my mouth from laughing so hard.

May 31, 2009 19:07 PM
rating: 1
 
greensox

Is the round 1 page with articles still up? If so, can someone direct me? Thanks.

May 31, 2009 21:49 PM
rating: 1
 
Richard Bergstrom

They're still up, but you have to click the search button on the top right and search by author name or "idol" to find them. Using the publication date "5/17/09" for their initial entries and "5/23/09" for week 1 can narrow it down further.

May 31, 2009 21:57 PM
rating: 0
 
Michael Bodell
(89)

Feature request: Voting allowed on the main ballot.

I open all the articles, read each article, enter the score in my excel tracking sheet (complete with VLOOKUP and pivot tables), read the comments, move on to the next article. At the end of reading all the articles I pick the top X contestants (around half, but looking for gaps and partitions more than an exact number). But then when I go to vote for the ones I like, I can't from the main ballot page. I have to re-open the articles to vote for them each individually.

May 31, 2009 21:51 PM
rating: -1
 
John Carter

I second this suggestion . . .

and am wondering why my question at the very top hasn't been answered. Was it incomprehensible or just not desireable to answer?

May 31, 2009 22:09 PM
rating: -2
 
BurrRutledge

I voted for just 3 in round 1. This week, 7 submissions get the thumbs up. Wish it was possible (easier?) for me to go back and see which ones I'd voted for in round 1...

May 31, 2009 22:41 PM
rating: 0
 
Evan
(47)

Hey, Dave. Who's thumb is that?

Jun 01, 2009 09:23 AM
rating: 0
 
Evan
(47)

Well, that was unexpected.

I came into this week expecting two things. First, since I expect all BP readers to care about the baseball played in big league parks, but only a subset of BP readers to care about fantasy baseball, I suspected that fewer votes overall would be cast this week. If the readers, as a group, are less likely to care about the subject matter, they're probably less likely to find the articles really interesting and worth a vote.

I also expected that this would be true for me, as I'm one of those readers who doesn't really care much about fantasy baseball. I saw myself as representative of that disinterest.

And yet, I voted for more articles this week (5 of 9, follwing 4 of 10). I think the overall quality this week was considerably higher than last, and there was really only one article this week I saw as especially weak.

Competition seems to be bringing out the best in these writers.

I'm also noticing some consistency. Of the 3 no-doubt votes I cast in week 1, 2 of those got strong votes from me again (and the third was Byron). Of the 5 writers for whom I did not consider voting in week 1, I did not consider voting for 3 of them. One of them made significant improvement (but not quite enough to get a vote), and one of them wrote what I think was the best article of the week.

Jun 01, 2009 10:32 AM
rating: 0
 
Michael Bodell
(89)

I disagree with the week to week quality assessment. I thought the best articles last week were significantly better than the best articles this week. I think the worst articles this week were better than the worst of last week, but the overall quality wasn't as impressive. I had 5 of 10 last week and 4 of 9 this week.

I agree there is some consistency. It will be interesting to see if the top 3-4 can distinguish themselves better while we chop the bottom half out of the field.

Jun 01, 2009 16:38 PM
rating: 1
 
G. Guest

As an avid fantasy player, I could only muster two votes this week.

Jun 01, 2009 11:37 AM
rating: 0
 
John Carter

Naming Names – Hot List Preamble

From the comments, I gather Matt is a serious contender for the top spot on Richard’s Hot List. While I concede his entry may have been the best this week, I strongly felt Tim’s was best last week as I did regarding his original entry. This week Tim's was, at least, the 2nd best entry, whereas I didn’t go for Matt’s game theory pieces nearly as much. Hence, Tim would still be in my top spot. Matt may have moved into the 2nd spot with this, though I think Brian C. did find something significant in his messy article. Ken's was well written as usual, but it is time for him to step up in substance. Strat-O-Matic was too irrelevant for me. Brian O. is doing just well enough to hang in there in my personal 5 spot with Jeff a strong 6th.

From the bottom three, Matthew showed the most improvement this week, while Brittany’s was the most disappointing.

Jun 01, 2009 11:44 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

It's going to be an interesting Idol Hit List. I already have it mapped out for the most part. Stay tuned until Tuesday and I'll post it an hour before voting closes.

Jun 01, 2009 15:53 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

To respond more directly, Matt's initial game theory article was interesting in an abstract kind of way but I didn't think he pulled it off. His Week 1 article was much stronger. His Week 2 didn't have any game theory and the body of it had some insights which, while interesting, could've also been taken as unsubstantiated or insufficiently supported assumptions about PECOTA (since no one seems to know how it works exactly, it's hard to tell what factors it does/doesn't consider).. but then those example tie-ins and those Takeaways brought everything together and allowed me to do my own research. It had everything in an article I wanted... some original insight, examples of that insight being applied, and a way to use that insight to evaluate my understanding not just of fantasy baseball, but baseball in general.

Without that Takeaway section in Matt's article, Tim would still be #1 in my book. I thoroughly loved Tim's article which had some interesting ideas, a great writing tone that conveyed excitement and an eagerness to help new people, and examples of application... but Matt just had that extra edge of presenting an idea applicable to both fantasy baseball and real baseball with easy-to-follow guidelines where I can work on applying those concepts. I mean, obviously I don't understand BABIP as well as Matt and others do, much less LD-BABIP and all those other alphabets, but he sure provided a good primer on what to look for and how to interpret it.

Jun 02, 2009 20:38 PM
rating: 0
 
John Carter

errgh! I keep forgetting to re-enter all the apostrophes and quotes after I paste in my comment. Please, is there some way we can use Word without having to remember to do this? Would it help to use Ariel or Courier New or some other font?

Jun 01, 2009 11:48 AM
rating: 1
 
BurrRutledge

I think Word calls them "hot quotes" or something like that, and you can turn them off in your Word document...

Jun 02, 2009 20:04 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

Write it in Word, copy and paste into Notepad (which will get rid of those hidden special characters causing the issues) then copy and paste from Notepad to the comment box.

Jun 02, 2009 20:06 PM
rating: 0
 
John Carter

I’m testing this using three fonts: “one, two, three”, “one, two, three”, “one, two, three”.

Jun 03, 2009 07:04 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

It's not a matter of fonts... Word has a way of throwing in "invisible" special characters which get misinterpreted by other programs. That's why you paste it into Notepad first since Notepad will only keep the text in there without the special characters.

Jun 03, 2009 07:11 AM
rating: 0
 
John Carter

I did that. I was also just testing to see if using different fonts made a difference, because when I pasted the New Times Roman I was using into the Notepad it changed the quotes to little black rectangles.

Jun 03, 2009 07:16 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

If your program is doing that, then you can drag-click copy over the black rectangles then do a find/replace and change them into quotes.

Jun 03, 2009 07:24 AM
rating: 0
 
John Carter

Now let's try removing the Auto correction of straight quotes into "curly" quotes ("hot" quotes not found).

Jun 03, 2009 07:10 AM
rating: 0
 
John Carter

Hooray! Thanks, Burr. Thank you, Richard, too, for the suggestion even though it didn't work.

Jun 03, 2009 07:14 AM
rating: 0
 
deep64blue

Don't use Word to write text for the Web, even Notepad would be better!

Jun 03, 2009 10:59 AM
rating: 0
 
John Carter

I've seen some perfectly inoffensive comments closed up apparently because some opinion expressed in them was too extreme one way or the other for some people's sensibilities. I don't want to read something innacurate or bigoted, and it is not fair to get personal in this forum, but a strongly written heartfelt conviction is a good thing. There should be some way people can express their disagreement without causing a comment to be closed up.

Jun 01, 2009 17:44 PM
rating: 0
 
hessshaun

No and I agree with you. If baseball dictated what we were allowed to talk about, this site would not exist. IMO, it's a slap in the face. If someone is continually offensive or malicious, they should relinquish their ability to post.

With that being said, I know there are issues with the technology. I really think a forum would be great for the site.

Jun 02, 2009 07:43 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

The thing I don't like about it actually is if a comment gets negative feedback, it seems all replies to that comment also become minimized/hidden unless the person clicks on it.

Jun 02, 2009 09:05 AM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

Since I might not get time to post this later...

The Week 2 Idol Hit List!

Keeping with the fantasy theme, I drew a bit on fantasy/sci-fi/schitzo elements which tied into the writer and what I've thought of them so far. Let the fantasy flaming begin!

In parenthesis is:
whether their ranking went up(+), down(-) or stayed relatively the same(=), their week 1 ranking <- then their initial ranking.

Without further ado...


#1 Matt Swartz (+ #2<-#4) - "Please, please, don't make a fuss. I'm just plain yogurt." - Yogurt, "Spaceballs"

He's had great ideas since day one and his writing style has become more and more appealing to me (and others, it seems). It's a close race so he's only a Prince for now, but did a great job commenting back to the masses.


#2 Tim Kniker (- #1<-#3) - "It is the rabbit." - Tim, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

More of a reflection of how great Matt's article was. Tim might need to push the envelope a bit to become an enchanter and retake #1, but has been the most consistent overall. Gotta love the eager, helpful tone in his subsequent commentary.


#3 Ken Funck (= #3<-#1) - "Shoryuken!" - Ken, "Street Fighter II/IIC/Turbo/etc."

I've definitely found each of Ken's articles unique but I've had to do a few double-takes. Maybe a touch of discipline will give readers less room to nitpick?


#4 Brian Oakchunas (+ #5<-#10) - "I am not the Messiah!" - Brian, "Life of Brian"

Took a decent risk this week and it paid off, even if his article wasn't a message meant for everybody. He's not anywhere near the Holy Trinity (top three in this ranking) yet though.


#5 Matthew Knight (+ #8<-#6) - "Keep your scanners peeled." - Michael Knight, "Knight Rider"

That potential shined through more this week but he either tries to do too much or misses some key details.


#6 Brian Cartwright (- #4<-#5) - "I don't know whether to congratulate you or not, Jim." - Admiral Cartwright, "Star Trek VI"

Brian wants to teach. I want to learn. So why am I having a problem paying attention in class?


#7 Tyler Hissey (+ #10<-#8) - "I am Jack's complete lack of surprise." - Tyler Durden, "Fight Club"

Tyler's on the cusp of the "solid, not spectacular" category. He could be a sleeper for week three if he minds his p's and q's and adds in some originality. His improvement has brought him to the "middle of the pack".


#8 Brittany Ghiroldi (= #9<-#9) - "I had to give her a horn they could see!" - Mommy Fortuna, "The Last Unicorn"

Brittany's received a lot of criticism, but I do see effort that she's trying to adapt. Ironically for one with a journalism background, she needs to do a better job establishing an authoritative voice, constructing her arguments and engaging her audience.


#9 Jeff Euston (- #6<-#7) - "Eastman comes out of the east to do battle with the amazing Rando!" - MST3K The Movie

For three weeks, Jeff has not responded to any feedback, his articles tend to have the fewest comments, and they've had organizational issues. One could say his writing would work better in a short blogs than a full-fledged article. Repeatedly ending articles in long lists without analysis despite the feedback he's received suggests he might not be listening (might not care?) which is a shame since each of the other contestants have at least tried to adapt... Eastman might survive another round, but Euston needs to start showing up to the fight.

Jun 02, 2009 10:40 AM
rating: 1
 
BurrRutledge

Voting is now closed, and I think this analysis is right on. Might nitpick with some of the middle rankings, but the top and bottom is, like PECOTA, deadly accurate. Sorry, Jeff.

Jun 02, 2009 20:10 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

The middle, #4-7, was hardest for me too and I wouldn't quibble with any rearrangement of that. They're very close to each other... some have more potential than others, yet others have been more enjoyable for me to read, and others have just been solid.

I think my top three, though, do a better job of appealing to me in all three categories... I like what they have done, I like reading what they are doing and I look forward to what they'll do in the future.

Jun 02, 2009 20:21 PM
rating: 0
 
R.A.Wagman

I approach voting for BP Idol as an exercise in voting the weakest off the island. I am a professional writer, and good writing ability, such as the ability to communicate cogent analysis, is critical. The more insightful and unique the analysis, the better. Stats can be used to support an argument, but when they are used in place of an argument, I am turned off. In other words, baseball analysis is much more compelling than statistical analysis.
Last week, I combined scores from the winning submission and the first article - I reasoned that this gave me a greater insight into what the writer could offer BP and I. Some writers truly impressed me and others less so. This time around, I have taken a third of my first score and half of my second score and added a full measure for this week's articles.
In general, there are significant trends in terms of what I note about each writes' style and ability. But some changes took place this week. Notably, Jeff Euston, who had one of my top scores last week, almost was voted off. His article this week was almost entirely lacking in fantasy relevance and had little practical analysis or writing. A few paragraphs and a list will simply not cut it here. Brian Cartwright, who got my "no-vote" last week rebounded with improved readability, but I want to see more that shows me that he watches the games sometimes and not just the box scores and spreadsheets. Tyler Hissey is in a dangerous area as well, for although he is readable, his analysis is fairly generic. With one exception, the others are consistently readable, informative and insightful. Not to mention enjoyable. The exception is Brittany Ghiroli. Her work thus far has been quite inconsistent and even sloppy, surprising for someone advertised as a professional writer. I don't look for amazing feats of statistical gymnastics, but when stats are used they should be used correctly. Her work has shown more journalism than writing, and has not shown itself in a good light in this contest. This week, I have voted against Brittany.

Jun 02, 2009 18:38 PM
rating: 1
 
Richard Bergstrom

I can see your rationale and wouldn't quibble with it too much since I had Brittany 9th and Jeff 10th. Neither got a vote from me.

Who did you have #1 and #2 if I may ask?

Jun 02, 2009 20:05 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

Er, I had Brittany 8th and Jeff 9th I mean.. not 9th and 10th.

Jun 02, 2009 20:22 PM
rating: 0
 
R.A.Wagman

Overall Swartz and Funck. Based on this week's submissions alone, Swartz and Knicker - but a few others were very close to Knicker's in my opinion

Jun 03, 2009 04:12 AM
rating: 0
 
BurrRutledge

Last week I voted for my top 3, and I based my vote strictly on that week's submissions. My logic was that I wanted to make sure that my top picks made it through to the next round.

However, after seeing Byron voted off, I've changed my voting strategery for week 2. I voted for everyone I thought deserved a C+ or better, which was 7 total. After those 7, I thought the next 2 were really inadequate for a BP audience, and so that's where my voting stopped.

I agree with Richard, and I think Jeff's list-tastic submission gets him voted out.

Jun 02, 2009 20:17 PM
rating: 1
 
Richard Bergstrom

I was shocked with Byron too because I did love his Initial Entry, but the readability appeared to hurt him highly, moreso than some others. That being said, I don't know if Byron would've ended up #1 but I think he could've been a contender.

Then again, there's a chance some people are just more well-known and had an established base at BP to support them, but Byron didn't have that base?

Jun 02, 2009 20:24 PM
rating: 0
 
Richard Bergstrom

So where are the results? Or are they waiting for the person who wasn't voted to come back to reply with a farewell message?

Jun 03, 2009 06:03 AM
rating: 0
 
You must be a Premium subscriber to post a comment.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
<< Previous Article
Premium Article On the Beat: Weekend R... (05/31)
<< Previous Column
Prospectus Idol: Round... (05/25)
Next Column >>
Prospectus Idol: Round... (06/07)
Next Article >>
The Week in Quotes: Ma... (06/01)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Premium Article Daisy Cutter: How the Kipnis Got His TAv
Premium Article What You Need to Know: Another Day, Another ...
Premium Article Release Points: Where Have You Gone, Stephen...
BP Wrigleyville
West Coast By Us: Hats, Man
Premium Article The Call-Up: Michael Feliz
Premium Article The Call-Up: Chi Chi Gonzalez

MORE FROM MAY 31, 2009
Premium Article On the Beat: Weekend Roundup

MORE BY DAVE PEASE
2009-06-21 - Prospectus Idol: Round Five - History Week
2009-06-14 - Prospectus Idol: Round Four - Player Profile
2009-06-07 - Prospectus Idol: Round Three - Below the Big...
2009-05-31 - Prospectus Idol: Round Two - Fantasy
2009-05-25 - Prospectus Idol: Round One - The Basics
2004-10-26 - 2004 HACKING MASS Results
2003-11-24 - 2003 HACKING MASS Results
More...

MORE PROSPECTUS IDOL
2009-06-21 - Prospectus Idol: Round Five - History Week
2009-06-14 - Prospectus Idol: Round Four - Player Profile
2009-06-07 - Prospectus Idol: Round Three - Below the Big...
2009-05-31 - Prospectus Idol: Round Two - Fantasy
2009-05-25 - Prospectus Idol: Round One - The Basics
2009-05-17 - Prospectus Idol: Meet the Finalists
More...

INCOMING ARTICLE LINKS
2009-06-07 - Prospectus Idol: Round Three - Below the Big...
2009-06-03 - Unfiltered: BP Idol Week Two Results