THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I haven’t put an ounce of thought into this, but it would be interesting to experiment with a system that gives voters a number of points to allocate over however many players they want.  You could give them 15 points with a maximum of 5 to any given player.  So if somebody thinks there is no discernible difference between Lincecum, Carpenter, and Wainwright, they could put 5 on each.  Or if Will Carroll likes Lincecum Haren Wainwright Vazquez Carpenter in that order he can allocate something like 5, 3, 3, 3, 1.  A writer can opt to allocate less than 15 points too if they so choose.

Like I said, I’m kind of free thinking here.  Anyone seeing advantages/drawbacks to this kind of system?

I like it.

I’d let it total 10 points, with a max of 5 for any pitcher.  Row with * is the default.

If he lists 5 pitchers, his choices are:
5-2-1-1-1
4-3-1-1-1 *
4-2-2-1-1
3-3-2-1-1

If he lists 4:
5-3-1-1
5-2-2-1
4-4-1-1
4-3-2-1 *
3-3-3-1
3-3-2-2

If he lists 3:
5-4-1
5-3-2 *
4-4-2
4-3-3

If he lists 2:
5-5 *

Since we know the writers may make a counting mistake, you list those options on the ballot, and then check off one of those 15.

10 does make a lot more sense…

Disclaimer:  My math may be off but you will all get the idea.

Technically the MVP is open to any player in the league and there are 10 voting positions.

Each team carries at least 10 pitchers on their roster, some carry more.  10/25 = .4

.4*10 = 4.  There should be at least 4 voting positions on the ballot for it to have the same level of representation as the MVP ballot. 

Some teams carry 12-13 pitchers so an argument could be made for 5.  Either way you get the idea, 3 is not enough.

These days, I don’t think anyone carried less than 11, and most carry 12 (at least in the AL).

BUT

You could make the argument that it should be limited to starters, closers, and MAYBE a dominant 8th inning guy (Mike Marshall for example). So that’s closer to 7/25 (using Steve’s method), which is .28, which is close enough to 3. And 10*.3 = 3, so maybe it SHOULD be only 3 names on the ballot. My point is...you can make it go both ways.

Regardless of what the above says, I definitely think the ballot should be expanded to more than 3. I like the general idea put forth in comment #1. It would make voters think twice before putting a shlub on their ballots (like Jeremy Affeldt in the MVP voting) because then they have to take points away from the guys they know deserve it more.

If you guys are going to be sticklers, the only ones who can be an MVP are the 8.5 regulars (including DH(, 5 starters, and 2 relievers per team.

Thanks for linking to my post, Tango, but I will say that other primates did point out that my snark was incorrectly leveled at the man who proposed the change; he didn’t make the proposal with the intention of helping carpenter.  Rather, the article just had a typo that led be to believe that’s the case.

And count me among those who like the “set amount of points, allocated any way you want” method.  I’d say 10 points is probably the best, though it really doesn’t matter.  (I actually ran an Oscars pool using this method last year, with mixed reception.)

However, in reality, that system is just too “complicated” for the BBWAA to adopt it.

Yea, the 15 options to allocate points amongst 2-5 players is unnecessarily complicated…

...

Anyway, I’m reminded of behavioral economics studies that show that when people have greater freedom of choice, they end up less happy.  Thought the BBWAA writers were upset about this ballot? Wait until they have to play with a points system...maybe the answer is to allow voters to select 1 candidate (and Carpenter WINS!)