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.
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
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.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1288
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.
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.
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.
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....
I just try to bring the same critical thinking to baseball because it is what I absolutely love. Again, sure you understand that.
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.
and am wondering why my question at the very top hasn't been answered. Was it incomprehensible or just not desireable to answer?
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.
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.
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.
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.
With that being said, I know there are issues with the technology. I really think a forum would be great for the site.
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.
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.
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.
Who did you have #1 and #2 if I may ask?
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.
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?