|
ALFbrot posted:So pretty much any list ever does ties this way: They're good dogs brent
|
# ? Sep 13, 2018 20:09 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 19:19 |
|
YeahTubaMike posted:I totally agree. Next time it'll be a top 10. I figured it'd stay a top 25 because that's what it's always been, but if fewer people are going to vote, then it's going to make less sense to include more players. I don't think 25 is absurd, just that you're counting the top 25 point totals instead of the top 25 players. If there's a ten-person race, and 9 of the runners cross the line at the exact same time, you don't give the last guy a silver medal, you know?
|
# ? Sep 13, 2018 20:18 |
|
ALFbrot posted:I don't think 25 is absurd, just that you're counting the top 25 point totals instead of the top 25 players. If there's a ten-person race, and 9 of the runners cross the line at the exact same time, you don't give the last guy a silver medal, you know? Yeah, it's not the number of places, it's that you didn't understand finishing hierarchy. Ties for the same place push the next spot lower so you still have 25 winners total regardless of rank. Even if 5 end up in second place, the next available place is 7th; not 3rd. Following that rule, your lists are: Most Loved posted:1. Javier Báez Most Hated posted:1. Aroldis Chapman Doing it this way cuts down like a solid third of the candidates you have to go through and you don't have to reward people for coming in tied for 25th place when there's 48 players ahead of them, like ALFbrot said. Not gonna lie though, I don't know how you treat ties for last if you only want 25 participants recognized. 3DHouseofBeef fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Sep 13, 2018 |
# ? Sep 13, 2018 21:54 |
|
Yeah, I'm not sure why it only occurred to me to go by point values, probably because that was the way Xenophon did it. I think reducing the amount of places (maybe top 20?) and having ties push the next spot down would make a lot more sense.
|
# ? Sep 13, 2018 22:19 |
|
3DHouseofBeef posted:Yeah, it's not the number of places, it's that you didn't understand finishing hierarchy. Ties for the same place push the next spot lower so you still have 25 winners total regardless of rank. Even if 5 end up in second place, the next available place is 7th; not 3rd. Following that rule, your lists are: On the one hand, this makes perfect sense and is absolutely the way it should be done. On the other hand that means Pillar misses out and that is bad.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2018 00:06 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 19:19 |
|
Even keeping it at 25 but making it 25 actual players, not 25 top spots like recommended would have 57 people combined from the two lists this year (fifty seven!!!). That's less then half the work and would cut out some of the fringe "one person put a player as their number 5 so they get in" and make it so players need multiple votes to get in or at least be someone's actual favorite or near so. With already cutting more then half out, I worry some well loved players might miss out if it turns into a top 10, I'd keep it at 25 but definitely not less then 20.3DHouseofBeef posted:Not gonna lie though, I don't know how you treat ties for last if you only want 25 participants recognized. I thought about this too, and I don't know. Doing a quick search just comes back with a bunch of programming stuff. My heart tells me "err on the side of generosity and throw the extras in".
|
# ? Sep 14, 2018 00:51 |