from Amazon
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
New Cy Young ballots
Instead of listing 3, the writers have to list 5. Very sensible. When they put it to a vote however, one-third of the writers rejected that proposal. Why? Who knows with these pontiffs. Would it have made a difference? I was going to work it out, but a Primate beat me to it:
Under the system that was in place, the voting breakdown was:
Player.....1st...2nd...3rd...Points
Lincecum....11....12.....9......100
Carpenter....9....14.....7.......94
Wainwright..12.....5....15.......90with 5 points for a first, 3 for a second, 1 for a third.
Let’s assume these two new places result in Carpenter getting two additional fourth-place votes. We’ll ignore all other players. The results would be:
PLayer.....1st...2nd...3rd...4th...5th...Points
Lincecum....11....12.....9.....0.....0......???
Carpenter....9....14.....7.....2.....0......???
Wainwright..12.....5....15.....0.....0......???I can’t find how many points each place is worth (the article doesn’t say), so I’ll try a few ways:
5-4-3-2-1:
Lincecum.....130
Carpenter....126
Wainwright...125OK, that doesn’t change anything.
How about 10-5-3-2-1?
Lincecum.....197
Carpenter....185
Wainwright...190Hmm, that hurts Carpenter. Let’s try 10-7-5-3-1:
Lincecum.....239
Carpenter....229
Wainwright...230So, while I think the change is good (no sense limiting ballots so much), the proposer clearly didn’t check to see if his intended outcome (Carpenter winning, I assume) would have been achieved by his proposal. Unless his intended outcome is just “Carpenter to be named on every ballot”, which just seems odd.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date