What Were They Thinking?

[MGrage]

Good afternoon y'all,

I had a great time at the Banquet. The pizza was delicious, the debates stirring and the baseball cards old. In fact, I just finished off the last of the leftover pizza. There was just one thing that marred an otherwise great evening. The results of the Farm System of the Year vote. I was stunned when Dave awarded the Ruffins the award. I didn't say anything at the time mainly because I was very pleasantly surprised and pleased with Hanley Ramirez's Rookie of the Year but it was disconcerting to say the least. Now that I've had time to crunch the numbers, I'm pissed.

There is no way I should have lost. I have a few questions.

1) Why didn't you vote me #1?
2) Why was I left off of 3, possibly 4 ballots altogether?
3) Did my post where I gave my honest opinion piss people off?

I really want some sort of reasonable explanation why at least three owners who voted left me off the ballot altogether. I can't think of any. I have 5 players listed so I had quantity. Of the players listed, I had a top 3 rookie in Conor Jackson so I had quality. What am I missing? This is total BS. If I hadn't voted the Ruffins 2nd, I would have had at least a tie. If I left him off the ballot altogether, I would have won outright. But I foolishly thought that I was a shoo-in. Did some of you guys just reflexively vote Dave for best Farm System? Please I need a reasonable explanation here. Here are the stats.

Graging Bulls
Name AB R H TB RBI BB SO SB OBA SLG OPS
Conor Jackson 485 75 141 214 79 54 73 1 .368 .441 .809
Steven Drew 209 27 66 108 23 14 50 2 .357 .517 .874
Lastings Milledge 166 14 40 63 22 12 39 1 .310 .380 .689

Name IP H ER BB SO QS Hd+Sv WHIP ERA BB:SO
Anibal Sanchez 114.1 90 36 46 72 13 0 1.19 2.83
Chad Billingsley 90 92 38 58 59 6 0 1.67 3.80 1.02

Ruffins
Carlos Quentin 166 23 24 88 32 15 34 1 .342 .530 .872
Jeremy Hermida 307 37 77 113 28 33 70 4 .332 .368 .700

Angel Guzman 56 68 46 67 60 1 0 1.88 7.39 1.62
Cole Hamels 132.1 117 60 48 145 11 0 1.25 4.08 3.02

TOTAL
Graging Bulls
AB R H TB RBI BB SO SB OBA SLG OPS
860 116 247 385 124 80 162 4 .353 .448 .801

IP H ER BB SO QS Hd+Sv WHIP ERA BB:SO
204.1 182 74 104 131 19 0 1.400 3.26 1.26

Ruffins
473 60 119 201 60 48 104 5 .340 .425 .765

188.1 185 106 85 205 12 1.437 5.06 2.41

AB Bulls better (+383)
OBA Bulls better (+.014)
Runs Bulls better (+56)
Hits Bulls better (+128)
TB Bulls better (+184)
RBI Bulls better (+64)
BB Bulls better (+32)
SO Ruffins better (-58)
K/BB Bulls better (2.03 vs 2.17) hitters
SB Ruffins better (-1)
SLG Bulls better (+.023)
OPS Bulls better (+.036)

So of the 5 hitting categories, I beat Dave in 4 of them.

IP Bulls better (+16)
H Bulls better (-3)
ER Bulls better (-32)
BB Ruffins better (-19)
SO Ruffins better (-74)
QS Bulls better (+7)
Sv even
WHIP Bulls better (+.037)
ERA Bulls better (+1.80)
SO:BB Ruffins better (-1.15)

Of the 5 pitching categories, I win 3, tie 1 and lose 1.

He had *1* more SB and a sizable lead in SO:BB. That's it. I beat him in *8* categories. So in what world was his farm system better? Maybe the Bizarro world.

Since somebody gave Kenndoza a 1st place vote, here's his totals.

569 95 156 250 88 54 110 16 .338 .439 .777

80.2 81 34 12 56 0 13 1.15 3.79 4.67

Would you look at that? I was better in 6 categories (OBA, TB, R, RBI, QS, WHIP). Kenn was better in just 4 (SB, Hld, ERA, SO:BB). How is that a better than me?

These are all overall numbers, not the stats they put up for each team. If your argument is that only the stats that counted should matter, then Kenny's vote is completely wrong. Capps was never on Kenny's active roster so I'd win all 5 pitching categories by default. Conor Jackson's numbers were all better than Martin's except for SB so I'd win 9 of 10 categories here. Cole Hamels had only 11.1 IP for the Ruffins which takes away his best player by far. He also loses 100 of Hermida's AB and the related stats. Meanwhile I still have over 600 ABs, 250 TB, 86 R, 88 RBI, 100 IP, and 9 QS. All more than either farm system. There goes that argument.

The only reasonable explanation I can think of that I upset some people with my award posts. If that's the case, then this will be my last one. It's not worth it anymore. Mahalo

Matt

[Demreb]

Matt . . . Matt . .. . Matt? Get in the lotus position, index fingers and thumbs forming perfect circles, close your eyes, inhale deeply . . . . . .















. . . . .exhale. On one hand I have to applaud your passion. And the numbers don't lie, you got screwed. On the other hand, it's an award. And (IMHO) if you're not walking away with the award that has a baseball and two cards in it, it's all so much window dressing - although David has done a great job making the certificates look real cool (a lot better than what we handed out in the CFCL's infancy).

I may be one of the offending owners. Honestly I don't recall what my ballot was (David - if you still have my vote for this category, feel free to post it), but I do seem to be sucked in with the Hermida & Coles name cache.

Someone at the banquet mentioned the voting on this category and I pointed out that sometimes it's hard (not hard, but more involved) to figure out the statistical winner in this category. On the ballot the names of the players are listed, but no statistics. David does A TON in preparation for the draft, it would be unfair to expect him to put everything on a silver platter for us.

I will relate what happens in the Rebels office when the ballot comes out. I look over the ballot and then realize there is a bunch of things to consider, so I save the ballot on my computer - but I'm mindful that David needs the vote back ASAP so he can put all this stuff together for us - and vow to get back to it later that evening or the next after the house has settled in and fallen asleep.

So that night (or the next) I open up the ballot and open the link to the CFCL website that has the links for the category qualifications. I make my votes and come to the Minor League System of the Year. In all honesty I don't look up each players statistics (although if I did I wouldn't care one hoot whether the CFCL owner activated the player or not - I would vote on what the player did in the majors, not on an active CFCL roster, simply because sometimes it's in the CFCL team's best interest NOT to activate the player). By the time I get this part of the ballot I'm whipped. Long day, children's schedules/homework/attention, work, etc makes it tough to put as much focus on it as it deserves.

So in this case (assuming I voted for the Ruffins, which is possible) I look and see Hermida staring at me. I was in NUMEROUS trade talks with The Professor this year and Hermida was one guy of interest, so I figure if I wanted him he must be valuable - my baseball acumen is that sharp, you know. So Ruffins rank high. I also seem to remember that Cole Hamels had a good outing earlier this year. HEY! He's a Ruffin as well. My, my.

Honestly when I looked at your team, I may have seen Conor Jackson and thought "Hmm, he's probably decent" but due to my East Coast bias, I didn't see a lot of Jackson (or worse, you and I didn't talk trade involving him).

And finally, I'm also probably thinking "It's only one vote. What impact could that have? I mean it's not like Gore is going to lose by one vote, right?"

Sorry Matt - Of those of us that did vote, I think I cost you this award. As a token of atonement, I will let you take an extra piece of green and black olive (branch) pizza next year.

[Copperfields]

I agree Matt. As I said at the banquet, you were screwed. I voted Bulls, Ruffins, Rebels (in that order) for this award.

I can explain at least part of the concerns -- whether the Bulls were left off of some ballots completely in the Most Productive Farm System voting. They indeed were, though not through any intentional snub. Two different owners submitted ballots where they voted for only one candidate in each category (as opposed to ranking the top 3). I gave both owners a chance to fill out the rest of their ballot, but both replied they were too busy to vote for 2nd and 3rd place finishers in each category. So as not to skew the results, I gave only 1 point to each candidate they voted for rather than the usual 3 for a first place vote. Coincidentally, however, both owners voted for a team other than the Bulls for the Farm System Award, which accounts for it appearing the Bulls were left off ballots.

So, while it may appear that some owners voted for three other teams ahead of the Bulls for the award, that's not the case -- they simply voted for one team, period, and it didn't happen to be the Bulls.

I guess to some degree ambivalence is to blame, as some owners didn't bother to submit a ballot at all (only 9 out of a possible 13 voted), others submitted only partial ballots (voting for just one candidate per category), while others may have gone with the gut feeling approach rather than looking up the numbers.

This is probably at least partially my fault, since I didn't print the stats for each farm system player. Unfortunately, pulling together the ballot each fall is a major pain (which I why I plead for suggestions each year - a plea only two owners responded to). It's tough enough coming up with all the nominees, and then I've got to pull in all the stats. When it comes time for the Farm System award, the thought of looking up and transcribing stats for yet another 25-some players is often too much to bear. So I apologize for that.

In the end, though, there's a reason we vote on these things rather than just running the numbers. It'd be a lot easier, for example, for me to simply generate a list of values earned at the end of the year and subtract the amount paid in order to calculate the winners of the Steal of the Year and Nick Esasky awards. But putting it to a vote leaves things up to interpretation, and with that you're going to get some inconsistent, and at times, bizarre results. Some people think you should take positional scarcity into account in the SOY award, while others think it should be based strictly on profit gained.

Some owners may have docked the Bulls because a goodly portion of their farm system players' major league stats were accrued while sitting on the Bulls' reserve roster in the hopes they wouldn't lose M-contract status, while the Ruffins and Kenndoza both activated their farm system players right away so they could contribute to their pennant drives. From this subjective, non-numbers perspective, one could might consider the Ruffins and Kenndoza farm systems to be more "productive" as their players were treated as contributors while the Bulls only activated their farm guys after they'd lost M status - and even then publicly regretted having to activate them.

Actually, I just looked through some old posts to see if that last statement was correct, and I came across the following remark in Matt's award thread:

I certainly don't consider it "productive" to have a guy sit on your reserve roster all year. On the other hand, if you trade one of those minor leaguers for some major league quality, perhaps you should get a little credit there.

If other owners felt the same way, it might explain the nods given to the Ruffins and Kenndoza.

One last thing, Matt -- I'd be willing to bet a large amount that your award post had nothing to do with the results of the voting on this award.

David

[Copperfields]

One other quick thought ... a more general one.

I've always assigned points on a 3-2-1 basis (3 points for a first place vote...). Does it make more sense to go to something like 5-3-1? That might de-emphasize the impact of one or tow bizzaro-land ballots.

I wouldn't want to change just on the basis of a funky result in one category, but this is something I've kicked around the past couple years but never done it.

I don't have all of this year's ballots with me right now, so I can't say how this point scheme would change things, but I'd imagine it would sway things the Bulls' way since they had the most first place votes.

David

[redhots]

Matt,

My post is along the same lines as Rich's. I cannot remember who I voted for on the ballots and I definitely didn't have time to crunch numbers. While that may not be fair, it is what it is and the only award I am personally interested in is the first place award. Now I tried to take a little time and look at the nominations and give my best votes for each but real life doesn't let me take the time I'd like in preparing for my own team on a weekly basis much less after the season is over to vote for these awards.

I apologize if my votes didn't support the numbers. I can't remember. Sometimes it's not ALL about the numbers.

As Rich said....by the time I get home from my day job, play with my kids (did I mention I have 3 kids 5 and under with #4 due Dec. 31st), and be sure the contractors have done what they were supposed to do on the new addition (You'd be getting an addition too if you had all these little kids running around!!!).

I honestly tried to vote the best I could but I didn't spend a ton of time on it. My apologies if this pissed you off Matt. I really didn't think anyone would get upset if they didn't win an award they thought they deserved.

Are the awards posted on the website? I can't access from work and would like to see the results.

As for David's question....On initial thought a 5-3-1 point system seems to make sense.

Bob

[Copperfields]

redhots said:

Are the awards posted on the website? I can't access from work and would like to see the results.

Thanks for mentioning this Bob. The results of the awards voting will be posted on the website. Unfortunately, things have been quite busy here as well and I haven't gotten to it. As some of you have heard, I'll be starting at a new job on Monday and between getting ready for that and finishing things up at my old one I haven't had the time to update the website (obviously).

This is the first I've heard of a new Red Hot joining the team -- congrats Bob!

David

[Demreb]

Bob!!! Well done on the soon to be new Red Hot! (Actually more kudos due your wife).

Ironically you mention this piece of news in this thread. Those of us that know the blessings and challenges that young children bring could easily be saying of you and your wife - Soon to be four children under the age of 5? What were they thinking?

My best to all the Red Hots, current and future.

[davidsruffins (archived)]

Wow. I've never felt bad about winning an award before. Remember when Shakespeare in Love beat out Saving Private Ryan for the Best Picture Oscar? Remember how, when the Shakespeare in Love people went up to accept the award, you were screaming epithets (with no worries from some fascist profanity blocker) along the lines of how can you a$$holes accept this award for your two-bit, dime-a-dozen love story when the alternative was the Greatest Generation clawing its way up Omaha Beach? Then remember how that little voice in your head said, "Hey, it's really not their fault"?

But then remember when you thought, "Wait a second. Maybe it is their fault! Maybe those pregnant dogs voted for themselves!" Furthermore, maybe all those thingysuckers who were involved with Shakespeare in Love voted for themselves and provided the margin of victory for their penny-ante, piece-of-fluff, crappy movie! In the meantime, Tom Hanks is stuck in a foot-deep trench he’s dug with a toothpick, pi$$ing himself because the Nazis have him pinned down with enfilading fire.

I sense this is how Matt is feeling. He’s Spielberg -- or Tom Hanks, if he’s really, really pi$$ed –- and I’m the guy who woke up one morning thinking it would be a good idea to make a movie about Gwyneth Paltrow as a cure for writer’s block. (I guess I could be the Nazis, but I’m fairly confident I’m not human history’s greatest evil no matter how much I don't deserve this award.) One long award’s ceremony later, I’m walking home with the hardware (or Poland), and he’s thinking that maybe he should have taken on a weightier subject than, you know, D-Day.

While the above kinda got away from me, I’d just like to say that I am not the Shakespeare in Love people (or the Nazis) because 1) I think Matt should have won the award, and 2) I voted for Matt! (I’m not the Nazis for other reasons too numerous to mention.) Now, in my defense, while I view Matt as the clear winner, I don’t think it was quite the Lions-vs.-Christians blowout that he suggests. Yes, Conor Jackson, et al. produced far more than Carlos Quentin & Co. However, two Ruffin minor leaguers were flipped for half seasons or more of Juan Pierre, Omar Vizquel, and Billy Wagner, crucial cogs all in the Ruffin pennant drive. That should count for something. Enough for first place? Well, no, but I’d like to thank the Academy, Mom and Dad, my agent, all the little people, etc., etc.

[Copperfields]

I kinda liked Shakespeare in Love. Sorry. I guess the witty banter and elegant wordplay appealed to the English major in me.

[davidsruffins (archived)]

Shakespeare in Love sucked.

(Gratuitous post to get my total up to seven.)

[redhots]

demreb said:

Bob!!! Well done on the soon to be new Red Hot! (Actually more kudos due your wife).

Ironically you mention this piece of news in this thread. Those of us that know the blessings and challenges that young children bring could easily be saying of you and your wife - Soon to be four children under the age of 5? What were they thinking?

My best to all the Red Hots, current and future.

Thanks Rich and David. And Rich...we get A LOT of that lately....."What were they thinking?" You know what.....we wouldn't have it any other way. I keep trying to get my wife to have 9 but she won't do it.....in her words, "we're done." Four is a great number......just pray for another boy for me guys. I have one girl and she's more work than my two boys combined....already!!!!

Bob

[kenndoza (archived)]

1) I loved SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. I also loved SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. I also thought, as far as 1998 movies goes, RUSHMORE beats them both. All three are in my personal collection.

2) Matt, calm down. No one has a vendetta against you. Anyone who doesn't like your posts (long or otherwise) would just ignore them. I for one, always enjoy them and appreciate the amount of work that goes into them.

3) I voted for myself #1. I didn't run the numbers, but I considered Jose Bautista and Scott Olsen as major contributors to my team this year as part of my farm roster (and I traded Bautista), as well as Kemp and Martin. I think that's pretty good, and maybe if I had the time to run the numbers they wouldn't be as valuable as your guys, but I thought they were good enough. I don't think either Olsen or Bautista was listed as official rookies off my roster (I think that may have been a technicality with which I didn't agree). I think once you include them I'm in the same ballpark as the contenders.

4) I did not factor in Capps into the voting. As far as I'm concerned, he's just a zero for me, as he was the first guy I dropped (I think). I wish I'd kept him longer, as I really liked him all last winter and made sure to remember him on draft day.

5) I did not rank anyone behind me. David gave me a chance to, but the fact of the matter is, I just had no time. I'm also expecting a new edition to the family (Bob - mine's due two days after yours - are you sick of the "tax break" comments yet?). During the week the awards were due, my wife was having some complications and we were at the hospital (don't worry, she and baby are fine now), as well as trying to move to our first house. Honestly the amount of time I put into this vote was almost nil. It was basically reading David's ballot/reminder Monday morning and making some snap decisions for the winners (with no second or third place votes). I'm sorry if I did not take the awards as seriously as other people would like. I assure you there was nothing darker at work than just my own lack of detail, time, and care.

Anyway, congrats to all the winners, particularly Gwyneth himself, David Ruffin. I hope that next year I will see you all on draft day. If Bob can have four kids under five and still show up, I don't really have an excuse with my piddily one.

Kenn

[stones]

I got nothing here.

I can't remember how I voted, and even if I did, I wouldn't feel the need to apologize or explain it to anyone. I can assure everyone that I would not use my vote to spite someone.

I find this issue kinda silly. Sort of the opposite of Sally Fields saying "you like me, you really like me". And I DO like you Matt. I have major issues with both the Davids though!!! OK just one of them ;-)

By the way, I think Uggla got screwed in the rookie of the year voting. How many people even thought about bidding on Uggla at the auction and did anyone ever expect him to hit HRs? He'll be a Stone for awhile, that is all I know for sure.

In the end I really only care about winning one award! And I wasn't even close this year.

[Demreb]

Steve -

I agree with you the Uggla didn't get the love he deserved. If the vote were purely on "who did better than anyone thought he would do" I think Uggy would finish pretty high.

As luck would have it, going into the draft I had my eye on Uggs and Hanley Ramirez. Not based on their talent, as you might suspect, but because it looked like they would get a lot of playing time. But then Tony Womack and Jerry Hairston just fell into my lap and what's an owner to do? When you can nail down your roster with a T. 'Mac and Junior, you have to jump on it. The rest is history.

[redhots]

Kenn,

Congrats on the upcoming child! (Yes...I am sick of the "tax break" comments as well) It's good to hear that Mom and baby are doing well....take care of them. Enjoy the new house and upcoming birth.....there's nothing like it.

The difference is with one child you want to be around as much as possible so you don't miss any of the "firsts". With four kids five and under you want to get out of dodge as much as possible!!! (I jest....I jest). You're dang right if I can make it you can make it. It's one day out of the year!!!! (my wife always seems to bring up the hours spent prepping but I try not to count those as I am "home")

Enjoy!

Bob