It’s finally here. The process that started over a month ago is now ready for your input. Our hard-working judges turned their critical eyes on hundreds of entries to winnow the field to ten worthy finalists. The finalists’ play-in entries have been published, giving everyone a glimpse of what they can do. Now we’ve got the voting code, the front-page widget, and the display firmed up, and hopefully it doesn’t break.
At long last, this. Is. Prospectus Idol.
Good day to you, and welcome to the show. I’m Dave Pease, and it’s an honor to be here with you today. Before we get started, give yourselves a round of applause. That’s a good looking audience I’m seeing out there on the other side of those monitors and displays, which the sponsors always like, and an event like this simply wouldn’t be possible without you. We’re looking forward to working with you to determine the identity of this year’s Prospectus Idol.
Sure, we said “working with.” Assisting you in your task to choose the best of the best are our beautiful and talented judges, who you doubtlessly know from their roles here at Baseball Prospectus: injury majordomo Will Carroll, prospect guru Kevin Goldstein, and Christina Kahrl, managing editor of baseballprospectus.com (and mistress of transactions). You’ll find the judges’ comments directly beneath each of the entries each week, giving you their take on the strengths and weaknesses of the effort.
But in the end, it’s up to you, Baseball Prospectus subscribers. Each week, you’re be the voting body that decides who went big and who goes home. The process is simple. During the voting period, you’ll have the opportunity to vote for any entry you feel is worthy-just click the thumbs-up icon at the top right of each article display.
means you haven’t voted for the contestant to move on to the next round.
means you have. No phone numbers with mildly scammy toll charges. No texting from your mobile phone. It’s that simple.
Of course, you’re going to need to be logged in to vote. If you’re not a Baseball Prospectus subscriber, click here to see your options. If you’ve got skin in this game and you want your peeps to back you up, we hope you don’t drop a bunch of coin to get them all gift subscriptions. That wouldn’t be right.
As a voter, you’re going to need to decide how well each contestant fulfilled their weekly assignment. Opening week here at Prospectus Idol was inspired by our Baseball Prospectus Basics series, and is predictably being called “Basics Week”. Here are the contestant’s instructions, exactly as they received them:
This week’s theme is “The Basics.” A couple years ago, we ran a series of “BP Basics” that attempted to explain what we do at BP to some of our newer readers. You’ll be doing the same thing. Craft an article around one statistic or concept and explain it. Use examples. Don’t be condescending, but make it so that your average baseball fan isn’t going to lose it in the calculations. Please limit these to 1500 words, though this is a “soft” limit-you can go a bit over or use graphics without penalty. Use some sense; 1600 words is pushing it, 2000 is going to get sent back.
Without further ado, let’s get rolling! To read the articles and vote, click here to visit the Prospectus Idol page. You’ll see the articles presented in random order, with two buttons on the right side of the display for each article. The first is a checkbox that indicates if you’ve read the article or not, and the second is whether you’ve voted for the author to continue on (if you’re able to vote). Ask questions or make pointed suggestions in the comments section, and thanks again for participating!
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Ah well, there can be only one!
I voted for 4 articles. There are perhaps two others I think were good enough to warrant consideration.
That rant aside, this has been a valuable experience in finding fresh insight and perspective to the game. My voting (I will be voting for all but my low score each week) will be based on the contestant's success at analyzing and retaining the ability to communicate clearly that analysis. Good luck to everyone and thank you.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/bpidol/
In my opinion all the articles were on the long side.
Personally, I think the best writers are able to make a good point and back it up in not that many words. Some of Joe Sheehan's best articles take up barely one full screen for me. (I'm not sure how many words that is, but it's a lot less than 1500.)
Whoever writes an interesting and well-supported article in under 1000 words will have my vote!
Idol Hit List! (Pardon the pun)
These reflect my cumulative personal rankings/impressions so far. Numbers in parenthesis indicate what I thought of their initial entries. Feel free to flame away!
#1 Tim Kniker (#3) Good opening effort, but I think he nailed Run Expectancy in a way new people can grasp. Yummy!
#2 Matt Schwartz (#4) I thought this was a much better, more interesting piece about applying game theory which retained its focus on baseball itself.
#3 Ken Funck (#1) Loved the TGF article, a bit more meh on this one... I like what's possible.
#4 Brian Cartwright (#5) I'll admit that I get swamped with his statistics, but I found his Park Factors work more accessible.
#5 Brian Oakchunas (#10) Dull first article, immensely more impressed with his second entry.
#6 Jeff Euston (#7) Still trying to acquire his taste... a conclusion would make a good appetizer.
#7 Byron Lescroft (#2) Clunky writing turned the Hip FIP into a bad trip. Darn shame after the pitch F/x insight.
#8 Matthew Knight (#6) There is clearly some raw potential here, but it's not a sit-down meal yet.
#9 Brittany Ghiroli (#9) The statistics suggest she's not writing up to her potential yet.
#10 Tyler Hissey (#8) Initially, there were a lot of details. The Basics were too vague. Unfortunately, both topics were rehashed, though his comments are promising a better second course.
The bottom four are are pretty fungible at this point, the rest got a vote from me to continue. Although, I am glad Brittany made it through for now, because she does write well. She might come up with something unique and interesting.
I'm also glad Matthew Knight made it through even though both of his articles were overall the worse. He seems to be a very bright guy who has a cheerful attitude. I figure he has potential to come up with something quite worthwhile. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have any understanding of what most of us know already or how we think. Of course, it is very difficult to understand your mass audience, but, I'm trying to put my finger on it, compared to the others Matthew seems tone deaf.
One more thought - just to show how different we all are and how difficult this is - I had the total opposite feelings towards Brian Oakchunas' entries as Richard had. I thought Oakchunas' qualifying entry on DER was one of the more interesting ones, though lacking a little polish, while his first assignment on First Strike Pitches was much ado about very little.
A lot of my ranking was based on potential too, even if the execution was a bit flawed. Brittany and Tyler might be better writers technically than Matthew, but I liked what Matthew has tried to do. Funck had my favorite opening article... but was he a one-trick pony? Not at all, but I couldn't quite give him a #2 either. I really want to love Cartwright and I definitely liked him a lot more than his first posting. Something tells me his data-driven side will shine through in Fantasy week. And, truth be told, I am glad Brittany is still around because I want to see what she can do (though she's running out of time) and I liked how Tyler addressed comments to his article, so it seems he's learning and adapting.
Gotta love lists, a great way to encourage discussion and debate... and a way to poke a tongue-in-cheek fun at the BP Hit Lists.
I wish I had more time to evaluate some of the heavier mathematical comments. I thought I was a stat brain, but at this stage of my life, it is more intuitive. I think I have a good feel for what is significant and where there are blatant biases. However, when it comes to many of these precise higher math equations and concepts, I'm feeling a bit left out. I'll let that pass on the commentary, but I'm not willing to completely concede what I can't follow in the articles, because I know I have the facility to understand heavy mathematical concepts (or at least used to). If someone wants to go there and feels it is necessary, I'm OK with that as long as they don't try to bulldoze us over with their mathematical knowledge. Granted, it is not an easy task because if you hold our hands and walk us through it too slowly, we will be too bored and refuse to come along.
That brings us to a difference between text on paper and a website. BP should be encouraging links to details. If we need more hand holding to understand a concept, we should be able to link to that. I don't see how these writers will be able to do this under this context. Footnotes? If the contestents submit a hyperlink to another article will it work here?
As for myself, I probably fall into the same kind of bucket where my stat brain has given away to more of an intuitive feeling (or a lack of one). Also, since there are often arguments about sample size, noise, chance, luck etc, I'm more interested in if the broad mathematical/statistical theory is sound than if things are off by a few decimal points because the wind speed in Turkey off a butterfly's wings caused balls to fly faster out of Fenway park. I imagine my stance would be different if I had my own blog and was writing my own baseball-related articles, but I don't.