Week Seven was Media Week at Prospectus Idol, and our remaining contestants were asked to set aside their word processors and pick up their telephones to give recorded interviews to Sirius/XM interviewer Mike Ferrin. The results, presented entirely unedited on the site, had some rough moments but most contestants were able to find a rhythm with the new format.
“He knew his stuff - no surprise there - and got it out cleanly and relatively concisely. Very solid work here.” — Will Carroll on Brian Cartwright
“I just think Tim is a little coaching short of being quite good with this medium.” — Kevin Goldstein on Tim Kniker
“You may have spent a little too much time though breaking down the Tigers defense. When doing an interview like this use bullet points to keep things concise.” — Mike Ferrin on Ken Funck
This, alas, brings us to the point in the program where we have to give some bad news. The contestant who received the fewest votes this week was Matt Swartz. Thanks for your participation Matt, and good luck!
Finally, we have some special announcements going into next week. First, Week Eight of Prospectus Idol will be Finals Week, a Battle Royale between the remaining three contestants after which the ultimate Prospectus Idol will be crowned! We are not disclosing any information about the theme at this time, but it’s probably fair to mention that we haven’t forgotten about the topics that our readers suggested in last week’s results post. Second, the schedule next week will be somewhat different to better accommodate the All-Star Game. The entries will be published and voting will open on Monday, July 13th and voting will close on Wednesday, July 15th at 11:00 PM ET.
We’re letting you know all this in advance in case you have any other engagements during that time that you need to go ahead and cancel. Let’s face it — next week at Prospectus Idol will not be one to miss…
Matt seemed like a frontrunner to me from the beginning. It's really been tough to see such talented people get booted the last couple of weeks. Best of luck and I hope you (and everyone still standing) somehow gets hired anyway. :)
Thanks to BP for the opportunity to do this-- it was a thrilling ride! It's been such a great chance to get tons of feedback on research that I put so much time and effort into, and I really appreciate all the support I have received over the past several weeks. Thank you as well to the guys at thegoodphight.com for encouraging me to do this in the first place, and for all the help along the way.
I just wanted to say great job, Matt. I think, overall, you wrote one of my favorite articles with your PECOTA critique and I definitely hope you're still hired on.
So, BP, how do you guys feel about possibly the best candidate to add consistently top-notch written work to your website getting kicked off because of a non-core radio interview assignment?
I feel like we have three great finalists. I'm sorry to see Matt go (and let me congratulate him on making it this far. He's done some amazing work) as he's been one of my favorites since the original submissions. That said, diminishing the other's work isn't going to put Matt back in the contest. I think the significant thing is that the vote totals (number of votes and views) was not out of the normal range. Voters took this theme as seriously as they did any other.
Fact is, we would have lost a good talent no matter who it was this week. I'm also convinced we're going to have a great winner, no matter who it is.
How about releasing the vote counts so we can see that for ourselves. You don't have to realise the names of the people the vote counts go with, if you don't want to.
I don't believe I diminished anyone else's work by saying that Matt was possibly the best candidate to add consistently top-notch written work to your website. It was meant as a compliment to Matt.
My frustration is that I don't listen to podcasts, radio interviews, or anything like that. I can't have volume playing at work, and when I get away from famil commitments outside of work my biggest baseball priority is actually watching games, not listening to people talk about them.
In my mind the core product on your site, the one that got me here many years ago, is the written product. I thought Matt was your freshest written voice in ages, since bringing on Jay Jaffe. With Nate Silver's departure, I find the noise/content ratio of the written work at BP to be about 50/50, and I'm very excited at the prospect of this competition producing another quality writer.
I'm not saying it still won't. But I am saying that the reason Matt was kicked off (poor radio/verbal skills) has nothing to do with the reason I visit BP (great written articles), and that's a real frustration.
It's like trying to pick the best pianist at a music competition, but then after each competitor plays 8 sonatas, they're all required to compose one. Tangentially related, but ultimately irrelevant.
This particular round changed the rules in a way that hurts the credibility of the eventual outcome. And I don't mean that to "diminish the others' work".
All four deserved to get this far, and nothing that happened this week changed that. They might as well have said, "ok, we are down to 4" so now we'll flip a coin twice to see which three move on.
I can agree with your sentiment... everyone has strengths and the winner next week will come down to how well the topic choice (the coin flip) meshes with their strengths.
I don't know if BP's choice of a radio interview was "fair" or not. I see their rationale on why it is important, and I can agree with it. Some people think writing style is more important than substance. Others think hardcore analysis is more important than story telling For all I know, others were voting (or not voting) for people in previous rounds based on a finalist's picture. Each person has their own tastes and for whatever reason, the interview did end up mattering to enough voters.
But I don't know if any other written topic choice would've also been fair since each contestant has those different strengths and that coin flip could've given one person or another an advantage. If each person had to, for example, write an article about their favorite team... would I not vote for someone who wrote a White Sox article when I'm a Cubs fan? Would people be bored about hearing about a team like the Royals? Who knows.
I agree with the premise here, but I don't necessarily agree that Matt's work was the best of the last four contestants. Personally, I've thought all along that these four were head and shoulders above the rest, and hope they all get another shot either here or somewhere else where I can read their work.
So many writers are canned and cliché these days. Fresh perspectives are nice. Thumbs up to BP for giving new voices this opportunity, and I hope Matt uses this experience to pad his résumé.
Mithrophon -- I totally get your point, and for my part I don't feel slighted. All you're saying, I think, is that it's a shame anyone (and especially, in this case, Matt) would be voted off at this point based on one radio interview as opposed to six weeks of very good writing. And that's certainly a fair point.
I couldn't agree more...well said. There is more to baseball than transactions/injuries/prospects. All three are important, but remain peripheral topics. Somehow -- I think mostly unintentionally -- these topics have moved from the periphery to become the core of BP. As a result, original analysis has become the exception, rather than the rule on this site.
Could not agree with this more. Pretty disappointed in Will's response to it, to be honest. I think the point he makes here is VERY fair, and if you're going to respond, make it legit. Don't hit it back with a weak straw man argument.
Actually, I didn't see a straw man, per se, more of a red herring. You accuse him of "diminishing the others' work", when, after reading his post three times, I cannot find him doing anything of the kind. He merely said that Matt might have been the best remaining contributor and lost for failing at a (to him) dumb challenge. The attack wasn't toward the other contestants, it was toward BP. I don't think your redirection of that criticism was cynically conscious, but it was inappropriate.
That said, I disagree with the criticism. As was explained up front, BP writers are, at times, asked to do radio interviews. That one person (or any number of people) have no use for the radio is not relevant. The reality is, sports-talk radio is extraordinarily relevant (no matter how much I wish it were not), and having BP personnel on prominent sports-talk shows is critical for exposure and marketing of the product. This challenge wasn't a novelty, it was a legitimate measuring of a relevant skill.
I am disappointed that Matt was eliminated from the competition, because I think he is more than fourth-best among the remaining. And, I believe, with more exposure and "reps", Matt would be better at the radio medium. He's knowledgable, bright, and articulate. Chances are, he would get there. If it had been up to me to eliminate one candidate this week, it would not have been him. But that does not suggest that the process was flawed. And the results, as they say, are what they are.
I made this point when the topic was announced. I salute Matt for his graceful exit, and Ken Funck for noting that it's a fair point - even though he got to the finals with it.
Me, I'd rather have the next Joe Posnanski than the next Jay Mariotti. The defensiveness by Mr. Carroll on this issue is striking.
I wonder: How many people play the podcasts vs. read the articles? Maybe it's some larger percentage, but I'd be surprised. I think the audience is smarter and better than that.
And I guess I go back to the formation of BP: Gary Huckabay - who is incredibly personable - got Keith Woolner and Clay Davenport based entirely on their written work. Maybe things have changed. Maybe I'm unaware of the media issues today. Maybe I'm an outlier.
But I'm unhappy about this predictable result, and I don't think I'm alone. The remaining contestants are very good, but I was looking forward to a Funck-Swartz finale.
A couple of nitpicks: Keith wasn't there at BP's formation, and Clay's pretty darn good at media (as is Posnanski), although I don't know if that's a skill he had when BP first started or one he developed along the way.
That last bit cuts to the crux of the issue: doing media is a skill that you develop, and not really one that you can develop easily as an outsider. Blogging's made it fairly cheap and easy to develop a writing style by simple hard work: if you write every day, even if you don't have a ton of talent for it, it's likely you'll get better. It's much harder as an outsider to get that same sort of practice at being interviewed by professionals for broadcast. So in that sense, it's a bit unfair that Matt got eliminated based on a skill that's hard to hone outside of belonging to an organization like BP, where you'll get those media opportunities.
On the other hand, this is a little like Top Chef: you will be required to make dessert, even though most people don't consider a separate specialty rather that a general "chef" skill. So if BP does Idol again, contestants should be forewarned to get all experience they can at doing media--bug podcasters and local radio guys to have you on, record yourself talking, whatever it takes to get those skills.
Final note: Funck-Swartz Finale is a great band name.
Along a similar vein, Will noted how few initial submissions for the contest contacted someone in the industry. Just like doing media is a skill, locating and contacting sources inside the industry is also a skill that takes some time to develop, especially for those who don't already have connections.
Another thing I've come to appreciate is just doing research in the field of sabermetrics is difficult, even if one was experienced writing about baseball. There are so many sample size/adjust for this/correlate that items to consider that someone could have a great idea a topic, write about it very well, yet still get nitpicked apart for missing some aspect of the topic.
I have a Master's in Education and I'm pursuing my Ph.D. I've had exposure to ideas like examining the validity and reliability of tests and the results generated by those tests. I've also followed baseball for twenty-five years. Yet I've never tried sabermetrics research and there's no way, without a ton of practice and discussion, I could produce something from scratch that accounts for "most everything" like Cartwright or others can. If it was something more "layman", like fantasy baseball, it's easier. But sabermetrics is investigated from such a rigorous, almost academic (and definitely peer-reviewed) bent that it'd take awhile to get into.
That's why I liked Dan Fox and I like Eric Seidlman. I can send them ideas off the cuff and know they can research it thoroughly. :)
And interesting but tangential point. A few years ago I bought my father-in-law a copy of Moneyball, because he's a big baseball fan, too. He's also been educating children for many years. Upon finishing the book, he told me that it makes him wonder if they're using the right metrics in evaluating student performance. Are there better metrics that just aren't being used and/or uncovered yet for evaluating students and helping them to learn material? An interesting thought... there are inefficiencies everywhere.
On that note, some colleges are using alternative evaluation methods instead of SATs and GPAs to evaluate candidates. My favorite is an activity on Open House days involving LEGOs. The test is structured to assess creativity, problem solving skills and attention to detail. I remember a job interview for a dental lab where I had to carve a piece of chalk with an Exactl knife to design specifications.
I'm also a big fan of problem-based learning methodolgy as an instructional format where students are presented with real life scenarios with mock clients and must investigate applicable laws, assess social norms and identify technological solutions to provide the mock clients with a recommends course of action.
BP is trying to get the most well-rounded person, so it makes sense to test the contestants in radio work b/c it IS content they provide, even if many of us don't use it much. The problem may be here that they used it so late in the process, thereby making this cut too high in importance. There is a need for enough content to be interviewed on, so it would have to be at week 4 or later, and I suppose it might be a hassle to arrange interviews with many more candidates...
In the 1st year of American Idol, the singer who had appeared to be front-runner throughout the contest was eliminated from the final four. Tamyra Gray went on to a TV and song-writing career, and I'm sure now that we are familiar with Matt Schwartz we will read his stuff again, if not here than elsewhere. The final cuts in any of these contests are tough because the cream is thick at the top. Thanks for the hard work, Matt- I think there is another site you write on, (they've been taking applications for your replacement) so I will find it.
I have a feeling that at this point many voters are including past work in their decisions. Putting radio week earlier makes it much tougher to do that. At this point we had 4 talented writers left, and the voters had a feel for each of them that colored their votes. I'm personally pulling for Ken Funck, but I think any of the Top 4 would be valuable additions to BP.
Thanks for this and to all the people who posted wishing me the best. I haven't had a chance to read these all until now, as I'm currently commuting three hours each way between Philly and DC on weekdays (sadly on one of which the interview fell last week). To answer your question, the sites I write for as of right now are statspeak.net and thegoodphight.com, but it's probably best to start using that twitter account I set up to keep track of where I post next, since I currently don't know what's in store. My twitter name is Matt_Swa. Thanks.
I only do the three hour commute once a week, from western Pa to the DC suburbs, but at least Matt is on a train and doesn't have to drive. I assume that gives him some laptop time.
On the one hand, I could not agree more with the above comment. I will not be renewing my subscription when it expires -- and I've been around since very close to the beginning -- because this year has been the tipping point where I fail to click on a significant majority of articles as I don't expect to enjoy what I read, from a prose style perspective. Every year I complain about it in the subscriber surveys, and every year a Zumsteg/Law/Silver/Jazayerli vanishes and a couple of -- well, no need to name names -- take their place with reams of "information" with virtually no "writing".
On the other hand, I suppose you tipped your hand when you called it "Prospectus Idol". Singing ability, or in this case writing ability, was obviously not going to be the sole -- or even a primary -- criterion.
Well, this is probably the last straw for my subscription to BP. I can get most of the interesting articles by subscribing to ESPN Insider, and Matt was the best writer in this group, but lost because BP took a contest that was supposed to be about readers interest and made it about making sure the person could promote BP and make them money.
This. The comment made by Kevin Goldstein regarding one of the other competitors that "coaching" was all that stood between him and excellence in this medium is a point I can vouch for, and something that's true of almost everybody. As someone who has made a number of radio and TV appearances in the course of my work, I know it's a task that you get better at it as you do it more.
Add in that this round of the competition itself struck me from the jump as unusually susceptible to distorting elements--everything from whether the host was equally on his game in all four interviews to the quality of the transcription and the unknowable factor of whether people cast votes on the audio or the transcript--and it stings to see an exceptional talent like Matt go out this way.
Here's hoping that BP, or (less ideally) one of its competitors, finds a platform for his voice.
I agree. I didn't have anything against Matt, but I've much more frequently voted for Funck and Kniker over the past seven weeks. I'm glad they're both finalists.
Good work Matt. Keep us in the loop on what you're doing next (or currently...) so that we can keep reading your stuff.
Since I listen to the BP Radio Podcast, this week was great. As BP gains ground and the folks will be on radio, TV and video, evaluations of their talent in this type of medium is essential.
Selecting any of the final four would work for me -- they pretty much were four of the five best writers in the original.
I didn't like some of Matt's pieces as much as many other people did, but I voted for him at least twice and am sorry to see him eliminated for lacking such a peripheral skill. His writing was consistently solid and at his best he was the cream of this crop.
I have to agree with those who say they come to BP for original writing content with a focus on sabermetrics. Radio seems geared more towards the mainstream baseball audience, which is fine, but I can't remember the last time I learned anything new/significant from a radio interview.
I don't think the integrity of the contest has been compromised by any means, I just think the radio interview shouldn't have been included in the first place. For Top Chef fans I think if it was included it could've been more like a quickfire than an elimination challenge.
Hopefully next year the readers comments will be taken into consideration so we don't lose the best writer due to a medium that BP subscribers get little value from.
Like someone else said, Matt could still be hired even if he doesn't win BPI. I don't follow the real Idol closely but didn't Clay Aiken lose to Ruben Stoddard yet go on to have a much more successful career so far?
Why? So BP can be even more like ESPN? Baseball Prospectus is following the "Hockey News" path of drifting from serious sports analysis to media driven drivel.
I would much rather they get rid of "Baseball Prospectus Radio" and "Unfiltered" and "Prospectus Idol" and go back to what drew many of us here in the first place, solid baseball analysis backed up by statistics or insider knowledge.
Even "Prospectus Today", which used to be a great feature article on the site, is now more often filled with rants or opinion than any sort of fact based analysis.
Perfectly agree with this.
I am getting less and less for my BP money. I pay to read quality ideas, not to stream some low-rate audio material; it seems I keep paying for articles about the Yankees, or their stadium, or howcoolmynewphoneis.
The most interesting thing about Prospect Idol was that there were many more interesting articles than usual, polished or not.
Looking forward to next week article about how stupid the 'this time counts' ASG is, and how World Series home field should always go to the league with the team with more rings in history. And the hallowed park, I used to go as a kid, you know.
I can't see myself renewing again (it expires on my birthday: I nice gift I've been making to myself for years).
As BP is choosing to make its HR decisions in public, I'd like to again ask why you let Geoff Young post on your site while putting all these great candidates through repeated wringers.
I would appreciate it if you would take this question seriously and respond in the BP manner -- with proof of Geoff's worth. I'm still waiting to see a single piece of his writing that's more interesting than what a mainstream, non-baseball specialist sports columnist might write. Instead of blocking this non-profane comment, please post a link to such a piece of writing.
I have great sympathy for these unpaid aspirants who do so much while Geoff Young does so little.
Although I'm uninterested in Geoff Young's qualifications and have enjoyed his unfiltered posts, I believe it was poor form to block what was admittedly a nonprofane question when oira61 asked it previously in (I presume) all sincerity.
I'll admit, besides some exclamation point jokes, I haven't seen much interesting so farfrom the stable of writers that PEV bought.
I'll also say that it seems the regular BP authors have upped the quality of their own articles since the Idol competition began. And, BP were the ones who found us ten finalists that ultimately were worth rooting for, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt about Geoff Young et all.
I guess I don't get the uproar on this one. If BP has decided that one of the responsibilities of the winner will be to at least occasionally be available for podcasts, radio spots or whatever, how is it even remotely unfair to test them on that? I enjoyed Matt's writing throughout the contest, but his radio work was decided to be the lowest quality of the 4 contestants. For all the fun we've had with Idol, lets not forget it's essentially an extended job interview with BP's subscribers and we collectively decided that Matt didn't perform as well as the other three in this particular aspect of that interview. It stinks to lose him, but I see nothing unfair, unwise or otherwise not right about it.
It is pretty unfair, as many comments here and on the main topic page explain, but even if we assume that it's not unfair, it's at least a misguided overvaluation. As with all over- or undervaluations,however, such an error of judgment only disadvantages those who make them. So I guess in this case, seeing as Matt has already shown himself to be an original and gifted researcher and writer, others who don't overvalue one radio interview will snatch him away, to the detriment of BP. But hey, I guess BP have some great podcasts that no one will listen to, so good for them.
I'm not quite sure what you're implying. I never claimed to have no opinion. Does anyone make comments that don't express their opinion? I expressed praise for Matt, as many others have, but my comment is more based on the fact that anyone was eliminated for BP radio which was not what the contest was for, which is a weekly column. Quite a few voters have said that they do not listen to BP radio, and have spent this contest voting for who they want to see in a weekly column not who they want to hear on the radio.
I thought the contest was not necessarily for the best writer for a weekly column, but to work for BP itself. To get your foot in the door, so to speak, in an industry where people like Rob Neyer say is difficult to be in and be heard. Now, I didn't think of podcasts at the time the interview was published, but I figured the weekly column was the minimum participation required/requested of the winner. I would've imagined that the winner would've had the opportunity to participate in some chats, do an extra article or two on a topic that interests them beyond the "one article per week" thing, and perhaps even contributed to the BP Annual. I never thought the winner would _only_ write one article a week and do nothing else.
The initial contest description said it was a contest where the winner would 'write a weekly column from the end of the contest until the end of the World Series.'
This wasn't intended to be a permanent job, though maybe the quality of writing has changed that.
Without unmasking you, I'll say that you're clearly biased. You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone, but sock-puppeting isn't going to fly. I think Matt *is* an excellent writer and researcher and from Day 1, I thought he was the favorite to win this. I think he has a bright future.
I think the uproar with regard to this week's competition really shows the inherent weakness of the whole "Idol" style voting structure, a major reason I avoid virtually every one of these kinds of contest-related TV shows. In the end, it's not about whose overall body of work was best, it's about who can avoid the one major screw-up. Personally, if it were my contest (and lord knows it ain't!), I'd make it a requirement either that voters account for the writers' overall body of work, or that some sort of cumulative vote tally is made, so that if someone has a bad week, but was near the top of the vote totals in all previous weeks, that writer is not bumped. Otherwise, what is really being rewarded is consistency rather than quality.
Of course, this is not meant to detract from any of the three remaining finalists, all of whom have produced quality work.
I think you make a good point here. It struck me when Will said "voters treated this week the same" ... does that seem like a GOOD thing? Seriously? Would anyone in their right mind put radio appearances on par with innovative analysis and in-depth research? Anybody??? When I saw the "suggest-a-topic" I figured this wasn't going to go well, and it hasn't.
I second this. All four of these guys have written some excellent analytical pieces. But I thought none of the 4 radio interviews were particularly good.
Perhaps this is BP's wave of the present, but I doubt that previous BP writers ever got hired or not based on live on-air performances.
A voting system like that would also have another benefit where people wonder if they should vote for "everyone or no one" because those "everyone votes" would count as a buffer for future, potentially weaker weeks.
I've wanted a Cartwright/Funck finale sice about week 2, and the only guy to repeatedly work his way to the top during the competition is Tim Kniker, so I'm very happy with the results so far.
Matt was a bit of a conundrum for me. I really liked some of his work, but some of it was riddled with errors and oversights. Had Matt won, I think we would have routinely seen excellent work from him, but I do wonder if he might have made a lot of extra work for Christina.
Speaking as someone who liked the work of the final five competitors so much that I envisioned scenarios where any one of them could win, I know that I would be happy to work with Matt. There was a lot of talent in play here, which has made the last couple of weeks so difficult.
Is it too late to have each of the finalists hold a chat session? Seems like another chance to show the secondary skills you value at BP, and of course readers love chats.
I'll stick my head back out of my cave, look around, and comment on this week's controversy. To me, if you liked Matt enough to not want him to get voted off because of his interview, then you probably voted for him regardless of how well you felt he did. If you felt that based on this week in combination with the others, you'd rather see the other three writers' progress you probably did not vote for him.
One person suggested that the comments should be taken into account. They are! Those people get a vote just like everyone else. Readers vote for who they want to see win the contest based on their own criteria and based on their own weighting of one week's article against the articles that have come before. The readers as a whole decide what is most fair. I'm not sure what could be more equitable and democratic than that.
I too expressed dissatisfaction with the media topic, but I appreciate the comment by Dave Pease that we will be seeing more not just from the Idol winner but also from "selected others" after the contest is over. I hope Matt will be given serious consideration.
As noted by quite a few people, you could make a pretty good website with all the finalists. Personally, I feel the worst about Byron. He seemed to have a lot of potential but because he was voted off week one, he wasn't given the chance to develop (nor the exposure) that some of the other finalists did.
There seems to be a lot of bitching going on here in these comment sections about what BP is and where they are going. Not that there's anything really wrong with that, that's part of the reason websites have comment sections. Some of you seem to want a site based solely on statistical study. That stuff's great. It's interesting, innovative, and we all can learn from it. I enjoy it because it gives me a different perspective on the game as a somewhat hardcore fan. I say 'somewhat' because the best thing sometimes after a hard day of work where I've sweated off a few pounds is to kick back in the recliner with a few cold ones and enjoy the games as they happen. Some people want their analysis simply for their fantasy league management. They seem to live for that as much as anything else. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that and to each their own. Hell, I wish I had time for some of that stuff. I'm sure I'd enjoy it too. When I take the time to read everything on the site or post a comment such as this, it could be enough to blow off an errand I should do 'til tomorrow.
I love this damn game though, and to not have writers such as Perotto and Sheehan on this site to help make it more of a 'complete' baseball site for the fan that literally enjoys to just B.S. about baseball wouldn't be right at all. I think BP's on the right track. They want the hardcore baseball fans. Period.
Did I like the radio/interview format for this week's idol contest? Not at all. Sorry, I didn't have time over the weekend to download the radio segment and simply read the transcripts as quickly as I could. But that's just my personal problem, no big deal. But instead of voting for all but one or two of the contestants, like I had done in the past, I decided not to vote for anyone this time. I could have picked my favorites from the past trials, but I had voted for all of them anyway.
Keep Cartwright, Kniker, and let Swartz have a little time too for your statistical analysis, and please, I mean please, keep Funck in there for the thoroughly enjoyable stuff. Everyone at BP has their special talents. So do these guys, no question.
My point is that many of the good statistical articles now end with 'A version of this article was previously published on ESPN Insider.' Why should I continue to give BP $35/year when I can pay ESPN $60 for 2 years and get 75% of the BP articles I'm interested in (a day earlier too from what I understand), plus a ton of other things?
I hate the idea of giving ESPN money, because they are the antithesis of what sports journalism should be, but if BP is going to become more and more like ESPN, I might as well get the better deal.
I'm not surprised that some readers are upset by the turn of events this week. Somebody's going to get booted off each week, and I forsee that many somebodies will be disappointed by the results. Especially now that we've gotten to 'know' each of the contestants over the past few weeks.
The final 4 contestants have been my top 4 since the beginning. Though Brian O. was not in my top 5 to begin, he improved every week and I was very happy to see him get as far as he did. I strongly believe that all 5 would be valuable contributors to BP and help grow the franchise (if not necessarily on the radio). I sincerely hope that Kevin can find a way to keep all of them in the family, as it were.
And if BP does not find a place for Matt, I'm sure that he's going to make some valuable contributions elsewhere. Congratulations, Matt on getting this far, and good luck! I hope to read more from you here very soon.
Where else are you going to have so much impact on a site's hiring decision? This contest wasn't designed to find THE ABSOLUTE BEST writer out there, but good well rounded writers. Maybe you think podcasts are a bad way to judge someone, but how is that any different than "history week" or "player profile" week. Every author has their particular interests and strengths, forcing them to go outside their area is going to cause some problems. I love Future Shock, but I don't know if Kevin would have survived the "uber-quantitative-genius round". My point is that this was the nature of the contest. It is what it is and it is what it was supposed to be.
A point all of you seem to be missing is that BP introduced you to a LOT of great writers. You can complain that they will not be writing for BP, but who cares, they will still be writing. One impression that I always got from BP was that it tries to promote quality non-BP websites. If BP is not worth your money, don't pay for it. But to stop because you are mad great authors like Matt get voted off (by the readers themselves) seems a little ridiculous when it was BP Idol that introduced you to them.
what a fantastic point, and one i'm amazed no one has noted before now - much like BP Idol's televised namesake, it is to the benefit of every finalist simply to be chosen. the exposure gained by producing even one piece and have it read by an infinitely larger audience than they could've drawn on their own...that's priceless, and it's to the benefit of ALL participants, whether they make it through for another week or not. Matt's work was largely outstanding, and i feel confident saying that this won't be the last we'll read (or hear) from him, whether on BP or elsewhere.
Matt, you'll be missed in the contest, best of luck to you. To the remaining competitors, congratulations - really looking forward to reading your next entries.
so far as whether the interview piece was any good as a weekly challenge, the controversy is completely bewildering. personally, i wasn't so into the interivews, so i voted for EVERYONE. y'all could've done the same - or voted using any other criteria you wished, as everyone who logged a thumbs up surely did. your whining won't change the outcome, and mostly makes you sound like 13 year-olds, bitching about the fact that life is unfair, while indirectly slighting the other contestents with such a statement (intentionally or not).
My only issue is that I think the guy with the highest overall average got the boot. Other guys may have high averages too, but the contest isn't looking for the best, it is looking for the not worst.
I find it ironic that a website whose mantra is "don't draw irresponsible conclusions about players on the basis of a small sample size!" holds a contest whose rules are conducive to drawing conclusions about candidates on the basis of small, unrepresentative sample size.
Matt's performance was *consistently* good (or the best) and he deserves to be writing this week.
As a reader, I only ask that in future BP Idol contests the metrics for measuring success be more advanced (it is, after all, BP's job to create innovative analysis...). Then, I think, the probability of losing "a Matt" will be far less likely.
At this point, we've had 7 weeks of competition... that is at least 50 pages of writing and a pretty decent sample size. It appears to be enough of a sample size for you (and others, including me) to decide that Matt has been "consistently good". But each of the other three finalists have also been "consistently good" enough to garner their own fans as well. Again, it came down to taste.. and for some, taste appeared to include the radio interview.
Each finalist had to be consistently good to get this far. You switch Swartz/Kniker/Cartwright/Funck with, in no particular order, Bill James/Nate Silver/Clay Davenport/Dan Fox for this contest, someone good is going to get voted off. And people will get upset. Let's say a Voros McCracken got voted off instead of a Rob Neyer... does that mean BP readers are less interested in research than mass appeal? Or a Dan Fox gets voted off when a Nate Silver is kept mean that Pitch F/x analysis is bad and PECOTA is good? We should be glad that, for a first attempt at this kind of contest, that BP picked finalists worth the time to debate... or happy we had some input at all.
Also, at this point, we're only talking in terms of who wins the overall BP Idol competition. There appears to be a very good chance that more than just the winner gets hired. So, if Matt and other finalists gets hired (and I hope he/they do), no one got lost.
Hey, I've had my own quibbles about the competition, but overall, it's been a positive experience. Hopefully, BP gets enough positive feedback so they do this kind of thing again. No it's not perfect, but it was pretty darn good for a first run and I wouldn't mind the chance to help pick writers in future contests.
Totally agree with your assessment, wasn't intending to disparage any candidate's writing, analysis, etc. It's been absolutely great so far...
I'm only pointing out that BP Idol's voting rules work such that memory of past performance is - effectively - erased, right? There's no 'batting average' that shows overall performance week-to-week, so when when one candidate who has consistently provided great stuff falters, his past week's work - which could be far better than other remaining candidate's past work - doesn't act as a buffer and he gets the boot.
It would actually be nice to see the contest's rules reflect baseball's rules - some type of win-loss assignment based on votes and Champion is the one who sits atop the standings at the end. My point is: Been great so far, BP, but can certainly be better, more accurate, fairer.
Well, each person votes based on their own criteria... it's not like BP set criteria Hall of Fame style on what to evaluate besides "Do you think this person should continue?" Some people voted for all. Some vote for none. Some vote for just one. Some vote for everyone but one.
So, some vote based on past performance. Keep in mind each finalist has built up a bit of a fan base, and to be a fan, you generally like someone because of what they did in the past and look forward to seeing what they can do in the future.
I do think it would be nice if votes carried over in some form or fashion from one week or another, though I am not sure if I am in favor of a #1/#2/#3 ranking system where voters can choose their first choice, second choice, etc. Then you get into MVP voting problems where one writer could be #2 on a lot of people's ballots, but the winner ends up being a person with a few #1 votes but less of a broad appeal. What I'd also do is keep the weekly submissions but conduct voting every two weeks so that one bad week is less likely to get a contestant voted off and a person could redeem a bad effort with a great followup article.
I think the engine they coded up to handle this process and the support given by various BP commentators has been quite good. Perhaps some other topic choices might be a good idea to consider for next time. Yet, since each person has different strengths in style, knowledge or analysis and some people get voted off before they get the chance to show their strengths, I don't think it is possible to make a completely "fair" contest. Even in baseball, it is not guaranteed for the team with the best win-loss record to win the World Series because the best team can always go on a cold streak during the playoffs. Same thing with Idol contestants (and human beings in general).
I am all up for creative ideas. I think at this point (past week 5 or so), the way this contest is run is fine. The biggest concern for me is that a bad topic in week 1 or 2 can knock out otherwise talented writers. How would you fix this? Not vote anybody off for the first 5 weeks, then remove 5 people with one vote?
At this point, past performance does influence the current vote. People find the writers they like and vote for them, even if the writers current article is bad.
Since a lot of us have an analytical bent... One thing to keep in mind with a voting like this is Arrow's Impossibility Theorem which basically states that there is no way to devise a fair election between more than 2 candidates. However Idol is done, it is likely that something will happen to people feel cheated.
I think you bring up a good idea here. For next year's idol I think we should wait at least 2 weeks before an elimination vote to start off so we have a bit more material prior to making a decision. After that chop someone every week.
We have never published voting rules per se, and wouldn't bother--if for no other reason than that there's no way to police the process that isn't ridiculous.
If you want to vote on best performance this week, that's fine. If you want to vote based on your favourite candidate overall regardless of this week's performance, that's also fine. If you want to vote for the most dashing headshot, or whoever randomly first appears on the voting list... well, I'd personally prefer you didn't, but can't and won't try to stop you.
Well articulated, Richard. Much (not all) of the criticism I read above is merely whining: "my favorite contestant was ____ and he (she) was voted off! Waaah!" Sheesh.
The small sample size argument is past silly. Do you really think they would design a contest that makes each elimination subject to a confidence of under 5%, or an R-squared in the high 90s? There is a time for purity and a time for practicality.
If one wanted to raise an argument against BP Idol based on underlying BP principles, it would have nothing to do with sample size. It would acknowledge that the evaluation is completely subjective! Yes, the subjective decisions of a significant number of people are, combined, objective in a sense (that's called a market). Yet, the same methodology suggests that Madonna is more talented than Beethoven.
Does this mean that the BP Idol selection methodology is flawed? Well, yeah. Now, get over it. And acknowledge that your love for "my favorite contestant" is completely subjective and no more valid than the completely subjective opinion of voter number two. There is a wonderful concept in life. It is called "joy". I encourage all to seek it.
104 comments have been left for this post.
Matt seemed like a frontrunner to me from the beginning. It's really been tough to see such talented people get booted the last couple of weeks. Best of luck and I hope you (and everyone still standing) somehow gets hired anyway. :)