SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
All-Star Game Representation
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jul 7, 2015 10:41:33 GMT -5
glad that Eric has taken over the All-star analysis.
Next step is to list how many players each time has on Eric's team. There is a factor for where the team is in the standings. Last place teams: one or two players only. Also need reasonable representation from all 3 divisions.
I'm also inclined to look at performance over the past 12 months or 15 months to break ties between deserving players.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jul 7, 2015 11:00:38 GMT -5
It's the all-STAR, not the all-WAR ballot. And it happens once per calendar year, with voting starting in April, which could certainly be read as including last year's second half. I just don't think it's so cut and dried that a good player the last couple months should be an automatic selection. Kluber was a bigger snub than Mookie. WAR shows you who has played better so far this season, so it is the best way to choose players that should be there by what they have done on the playing field. I voted about 10 times in the last few weeks and voted using fWAR every time, to be sure not to take in consideration if certain player is more famous or more charismatic than one who has played better in the last few months.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 7, 2015 11:00:58 GMT -5
“@mcculloughstar: Ned Yost says Brock Holt has ”an aura about him.“ He really likes Brock Holt.”
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 7, 2015 11:13:41 GMT -5
The whole statistical argument thing assumes that the lone criteria for voting should be who has had the best performance over the first half of the season. But if you're bothering to let fans vote, aren't you acknowledging a subjective element to it? Maybe the idea isn't to get Royals in who shouldn't be - I was irked by that whole thing as much as anyone - but isn't the point to get in who the fans want to see?
Personally, I'm against the robotic, here's what the spreadsheet says style of saying who should be in the game. If the fans and/or players want to put Adam Jones in the ASG over Kevin Pillar, y'know what? I'm cool with that. I'm not going to lose sleep over Nick Ahmed being snubbed. I'll admit I've never even heard of him (although he apparently went to UConn, which rings a bell, and is from East Longmeadow).
If you've got to quantify it, call it 65% current season performance, 25% past performance, 10% star status or something like that. It's an All-STAR Game, not an All-First-Half-Performance Game.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jul 7, 2015 11:24:11 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 7, 2015 13:49:54 GMT -5
The whole statistical argument thing assumes that the lone criteria for voting should be who has had the best performance over the first half of the season. But if you're bothering to let fans vote, aren't you acknowledging a subjective element to it? Maybe the idea isn't to get Royals in who shouldn't be - I was irked by that whole thing as much as anyone - but isn't the point to get in who the fans want to see? Personally, I'm against the robotic, here's what the spreadsheet says style of saying who should be in the game. If the fans and/or players want to put Adam Jones in the ASG over Kevin Pillar, y'know what? I'm cool with that. I'm not going to lose sleep over Nick Ahmed being snubbed. I'll admit I've never even heard of him (although he apparently went to UConn, which rings a bell, and is from East Longmeadow). If you've got to quantify it, call it 65% current season performance, 25% past performance, 10% star status or something like that. It's an All-STAR Game, not an All-First-Half-Performance Game. I agree with this 100% and my analysis was just designed to nail down the 65%. I thought of trying to nail down the 25% past performance -- for about 10 seconds, because that's a much tougher project. The last 10% should be with hype removed. Salvador Perez's defense as a catcher, for instance, is half hype -- anyone with a trained eye can see instantly that he's not a good receiver / pitch framer. But Jose Altuve, for instance, gets all 10 of those points, which is why I have no problem with him being on the team ahead of Dozier. Re "who the fans want to see", you forgot the word "baseball." I suspect that many of the Royals fans who flooded the ballot follow the team the way I follow the Patriots -- I am not a football fan, I'm a Pats fan, and I couldn't name more than a dozen players on other NFL teams, maybe not even half that. They want to see Escobar in the ASG because all they like him and all they know about Bogaerts and Iglesias is that they've heard the names.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 7, 2015 14:26:18 GMT -5
The whole statistical argument thing assumes that the lone criteria for voting should be who has had the best performance over the first half of the season. But if you're bothering to let fans vote, aren't you acknowledging a subjective element to it? Maybe the idea isn't to get Royals in who shouldn't be - I was irked by that whole thing as much as anyone - but isn't the point to get in who the fans want to see? Personally, I'm against the robotic, here's what the spreadsheet says style of saying who should be in the game. If the fans and/or players want to put Adam Jones in the ASG over Kevin Pillar, y'know what? I'm cool with that. I'm not going to lose sleep over Nick Ahmed being snubbed. I'll admit I've never even heard of him (although he apparently went to UConn, which rings a bell, and is from East Longmeadow). If you've got to quantify it, call it 65% current season performance, 25% past performance, 10% star status or something like that. It's an All-STAR Game, not an All-First-Half-Performance Game. I agree with this 100% and my analysis was just designed to nail down the 65%. I thought of trying to nail down the 25% past performance -- for about 10 seconds, because that's a much tougher project. The last 10% should be with hype removed. Salvador Perez's defense as a catcher, for instance, is half hype -- anyone with a trained eye can see instantly that he's not a good receiver / pitch framer. But Jose Altuve, for instance, gets all 10 of those points, which is why I have no problem with him being on the team ahead of Dozier. Re "who the fans want to see", you forgot the word "baseball." I suspect that many of the Royals fans who flooded the ballot follow the team the way I follow the Patriots -- I am not a football fan, I'm a Pats fan, and I couldn't name more than a dozen players on other NFL teams, maybe not even half that. They want to see Escobar in the ASG because all they like him and all they know about Bogaerts and Iglesias is that they've heard the names. Hear hear. And FWIW, let me clarify that my post wasn't intended to be a shot at Eric or anyone else. I think it's something that could/should be different for every person voting. And I like reading that analysis a lot, personally. I just think that a lot of times in reading/doing that analysis, we forget what's actually the goal here. Let's face it - it's an exhibition. And as for the whole "BUT MLB SAYS IT COUNTS NOW" thing, I'd reply that if it counts, I want Adam Jones and not Kevin Pillar.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 7, 2015 17:09:25 GMT -5
There are no limits to the number of times you can vote for one of the fan finalists. Plus, during the last six hours of voting, tweets with #[PlayerName] will count as votes, as will Instagram selfies of you and a photo of the player, with shirtless photos counting double. (One of these things is not true.)
I would say that this is a hell of a way to run an election, except that it's essentially how we do them in the real world, with obsessive patience substituted for money.
This is a roundabout way of saying that I just voted a real, real lot for Xander and Kershaw. I kept on expecting them to tell me my allotted votes were exhausted, but they never did. This also means that my two housemates will not be curiously casting ballots precisely like mine.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,828
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 7, 2015 17:13:04 GMT -5
Bogaerts has the best shot at winning it. He was trending more than any other name last night until a Dozier spike because he hit a walk off. I just think the final votes heavily favor the biggest fan bases, which is how Okajima could win over more qualified players. Eric, you should get your wish, but I guess it's not over till its over.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jul 7, 2015 17:41:27 GMT -5
It's the all-STAR, not the all-WAR ballot. And it happens once per calendar year, with voting starting in April, which could certainly be read as including last year's second half. I just don't think it's so cut and dried that a good player the last couple months should be an automatic selection. Kluber was a bigger snub than Mookie. Except Escobar wasn't chosen because of his star power, he was chosen because he played for a team whose fans stuffed the ballot box. They weren't taking into account his merits. They voted strictly for their own players regardless of merit.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Jul 7, 2015 20:13:35 GMT -5
It's the all-STAR, not the all-WAR ballot. And it happens once per calendar year, with voting starting in April, which could certainly be read as including last year's second half. I just don't think it's so cut and dried that a good player the last couple months should be an automatic selection. Kluber was a bigger snub than Mookie. Except Escobar wasn't chosen because of his star power, he was chosen because he played for a team whose fans stuffed the ballot box. They weren't taking into account his merits. They voted strictly for their own players regardless of merit. This. I would be embarrassed if we voted in guys like Sandoval or Ramirez just by stuffing the ballot. Not because people wouldn't enjoy watching them in the All-Star game, but because there are many more deserving candidates.
|
|
|
Post by 07redsox on Jul 7, 2015 22:14:02 GMT -5
It's the all-STAR, not the all-WAR ballot. And it happens once per calendar year, with voting starting in April, which could certainly be read as including last year's second half. I just don't think it's so cut and dried that a good player the last couple months should be an automatic selection. Kluber was a bigger snub than Mookie. Except Escobar wasn't chosen because of his star power, he was chosen because he played for a team whose fans stuffed the ballot box. They weren't taking into account his merits. They voted strictly for their own players regardless of merit. Exactly. This is especially true when you realize that Omar Infante...Yes, Omar Infante....was the leading vote getter at 2B up until a few days before the official announcements. Part of me wanted him to win just to emphasize some of the things that are really wrong with the voting system, but in the end I'm glad it did fix itself.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 7, 2015 22:35:32 GMT -5
No matter how you slice or dice it, Chris, the KC vote had the look of something from turn-of-the-last-century Chicago. Vote early, vote often. We might make the argument that means the KC fans care more. All well and good. But stop calling it an All-Star game, because it isn't, unless the guy down at the 7-11 on Main St. pounding away on his data phone is that All-Star.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jul 7, 2015 22:45:05 GMT -5
I think the player voting is more comical.
15 players on the ballot the first place winner is already on the team often due to fan vote the rest of the vote is scattered among 14 other players the second place vote getter has often been as low as 5% much of the vote goes to players on their own team which tends to cancel each other out.
then if there is an injury, the 3rd place finisher is now often on the team!
Article Rhizomatic Thinking and Voting Equilibria in Large Multi-Candidate Elections under Plurality Rule
João Bravo-Furtado & Paulo P. Côrte-Real
ABSTRACT
We consider a model of strategic voting behavior in large multi-candidate elections under Plurality Rule where we allow for the possibility of rhi- zomatic thinking (Bravo-Furtado & Côrte-Real (4)). Our rhizomatic as- sumption states that each agent may, to various degrees, condition her optimal response on an exogenous belief she possesses over the proportion of like-minded others that will take the same action as she does. In our pivotal-agent game, we therefore relax self-goal choice - and rhizomatic beliefs will induce agents to perceive that they may be pivotal with a non-vanishing probability. We modify the trinomial pivotal-voter model of Palfrey (21) and solve for asymptotic equilibria using appropriate techniques provided by large deviations theory, given the distributions of preferences and beliefs. We show existence and possible uniqueness of equilibria in this setting. We then conclude that our model may help select equilibria, adding predictive power to standard game-theoretic settings. We also find that Duverger's Law may be violated in equilibrium and, as an application, we suggest rhizomatic thinking can help provide a compelling rationale for the non-Duvergerian outcome of 1992 US presidential election. Correlations between rhizomatic beliefs and preferences explain the different equilibrium outcomes and our model therefore calls attention to the role of partisanship and group identity in plurality election outcomes.
www.researchgate.net/publication/238745484_Rhizomatic_Thinking_and_Voting_Equilibria_in_Large_Multi-Candidate_Elections_under_Plurality_Rule
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,828
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 8, 2015 9:15:11 GMT -5
Bogaerts in last. Wow surprises me
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 8, 2015 9:25:04 GMT -5
Bogaerts in last. Wow surprises me And in shocking news. A royal is leading
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,828
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Jul 8, 2015 9:28:13 GMT -5
Bogaerts in last. Wow surprises me And in shocking news. A royal is leading Our fan base is so deenergized
|
|
|
Post by Legion of Bloom on Jul 8, 2015 9:58:09 GMT -5
When the Royals nearly had 5 starters, it was clear that beating out Moustakas for that final vote was going to be extremely difficult.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 8, 2015 10:51:12 GMT -5
I guess there isn't anything to do in Kansas City except to prove that you are not a computer.... Over and Over again.
They should create a fail safe for KC voters. If you voted for Infante and his .550 OPS, none of your millions of ballots you submitted counts.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 8, 2015 11:11:23 GMT -5
And in shocking news. A royal is leading Our fan base is so deenergized We aren't idiots who are obsessed with voting for All-Stars.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jul 8, 2015 11:36:26 GMT -5
Our fan base is so deenergized We aren't idiots who are obsessed with voting for All-Stars. We were like 5 years ago though....
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 8, 2015 11:51:29 GMT -5
We aren't idiots who are obsessed with voting for All-Stars. We were like 5 years ago though.... Glad we grew up. That was embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Jul 8, 2015 11:56:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Jul 8, 2015 12:21:26 GMT -5
Well, I've cast what I assumed was an obscene amount of votes for Xander (mainly by keeping the window open at work and voting a few times whenever I'm bored), but then, I'm not from Kansas City.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 8, 2015 19:44:04 GMT -5
I've never missed watching the All-Star game in my memory, but I think I've just decided to skip this one. You can only take so much idiotic fan boosterism.
What I'll do is just DVR it and just watch the plays that Holt is involved in. How ironic will that be?
Of course, in the 1 in 1 thousand chance that the announcers call a spade a spade, identify all the unworthy players, talk about the neglected players, and stress the need to fix the system, I'd watch that, too. But the thought of the announcers talking about guys like Moustakas and Escobar as if they were All-Stars -- that I could not bear at this point.
I'd love to see all the real baseball fans do the same. It's ceased to be the All-Star Gane, ceased to be even the Fan Favorite Game, and has become the Players on the City Whose Fans Show the Most Appreciation Game. (That was actually the rationale given by a disturbingly articulate Royals fan online ... that all the Royals deserved to receive the support of their fans in appreciation of their having brought baseball back to the city.)
If anyone is actually active on Twitter and wants to start a #BoycottTheAllStarGame campaign, that would be awesome.
|
|
|