Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

FFMD 13 (Part II): Ravens War Room - Draft Complete
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7223
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With the last two votes (Anubiz only had Klein on his board and alfalcone didn't have any of the guys we're voting on) that makes the standings look like this:

Buchanan - 15
Kruger - 13
Klein - 13

Still some time left so I'll wait to submit the official pick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anubiz


Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Posts: 108
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coordinator0 wrote:
With the last two votes (Anubiz only had Klein on his board and alfalcone didn't have any of the guys we're voting on) that makes the standings look like this:

Buchanan - 15
Kruger - 13
Klein - 13

Still some time left so I'll wait to submit the official pick.


Did you see me re-submit my vote? Smile
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7223
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, your last vote just added points for Buchanan and Kruger. I already had Klein down for 3 points from you since he was the only guy on your board.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anubiz


Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Posts: 108
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coordinator0 wrote:
Yeah, your last vote just added points for Buchanan and Kruger. I already had Klein down for 3 points from you since he was the only guy on your board.


True.

Now let me ask, doesn't the potential Buchanon pick kind of seem redundant with a project like Hunt in the mix?

I know we are going solely on the way the vote goes but I'm guessing those who are voting Buchanon view Hunt as a 34 DE?

I just would like to know the thinking behind Buchanon because I see Hunt's fit as a 34 DE as one that's terrible, while I think he can POTENTIALLY be groomed as a RUSH backer potentially (albeit I don't like his fit in a 34 defense at all).

I do like Buchanon though so I don't have a big problem with it, but it just seems like Klein would fit more of a need.

I know we technically don't have RolMac in this game, so with that said, doesn't Klein just make more sense.

Rolling with Klein at our WILB position and Minter as our MIKE would set us up for the future.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7223
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I view Hunt as an edge rusher at DE whether that's in a 3-4 or a 4-3. In a 3-4 he would be effective in the over/under alignment (where he would pretty much line up like a DE in a 4-3 set) but I don't see him as a traditional 5-technique at all. Buchanan is a guy that's a 3-4 OLB or a RDE in a 4-man front in passing situations. In my opinion me he's the developmental guy that we take to replace Suggs and/or Dumervil in a couple of seasons. I get your point though.

Just a few minutes left. If nothing else changes Buchanan will be the pick.


Last edited by coordinator0 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12973
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

c0 I'm not sure, but I think your numbers may be off by a point. I did the tally, because I was bored, and here's what I got. Obviously, the same vote leader with Buchanan at 15, but I've got Klein at 14 as opposed to 13:
Joe Kruger- 3, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1 = 13
Michael Buchanan- 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 3 = 15
AJ Klein- 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2 = 14

1. Joe Kruger
Michael Buchanan
AJ Klein

2. Buchanan
Kruger
Klein

3. Joe Kruger
AJ Klein
Michael Buchanan

4. Michael Buchanan
A.J. Klein
Joe Kruger

5. AJ Klein
Joe Kruger
Mike Buchanan

6. AJ Klein
Michael Buchanan
Joe Kruger

7. Buchanan
Klein
Kruger
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12973
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I agree with Anubiz that I think Buchanan and Hunt both play the same spots, as I see both as ETs... our time is almost up. Looks like Buchanan is the guy.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7223
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't add Klein as the third vote in the second board you listed. That would give him the extra point we have different. I haven't been adding doing that since like the first pick though. After boards were coming in with just one out of three/four of the guys we were voting on I didn't think it would be fair to add some votes to others when I had to leave the ones with more than one guy missing as they were.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7223
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buchanan it is. The pick has been made.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12973
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coordinator0 wrote:
I didn't add Klein as the third vote in the second board you listed. That would give him the extra point we have different. I haven't been adding doing that since like the first pick though. After boards were coming in with just one out of three/four of the guys we were voting on I didn't think it would be fair to add some votes to others when I had to leave the ones with more than one guy missing as they were.

Yes, but it makes sense in that it's an implied vote. If someone doesn't include that person on their list, but includes the two others, for such a tally to work, the extra vote has to be submitted into the process to create the correct balance.

If you omit the implied vote, then the entire vote has to be omitted from the process as, in such a case, there is no official vote being made and thus the vote is faulty.

EDIT: The balance is the only way the inverted voting system can work. If it's just plugging numbers then it gives prospects an uneven advantage over another and the vote isn't actually coming to a consensus based on a weighted point total. It's impossible to mix a popular vote and a weight system together without having the potential for discrepancies.
_________________


Last edited by diamondbull424 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anubiz


Joined: 06 Nov 2012
Posts: 108
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I can understand that.

I just think when you turn on the Hunt tape, you see a guy who needs space to be effective hence why he'd probably be used best as a 7 or even 9-technique in general.

While I like Buchanan a lot more as a developmental prospect over even a Margus Hunt which is why I can't complain about the pick.

But man, AJ Klein is a guy I have a huge man-crush on so it hurts to see him lose our tally by 1 vote. Ahah.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7223
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diamondbull424 wrote:
Yes, but it makes sense in that it's an implied vote. If someone doesn't include that person on their list, but includes the two others, for such a tally to work, the extra vote has to be submitted into the process to create the correct balance.

If you omit the implied vote, then the entire vote has to be omitted from the process as, in such a case, there is no official vote being made and thus the vote is faulty.

EDIT: The balance is the only way the inverted voting system can work. If it's just plugging numbers then it gives prospects an uneven advantage over another and the vote isn't actually coming to a consensus based on a weighted point total. It's impossible to mix a popular vote and a weight system together without having the potential for discrepancies.


But then do you omit votes from boards that only have one guy out of the three that we're voting on? I don't agree with that all. In this last vote dcarey20 only had 3 guys on his board.

dcarey20 wrote:
1. Lonnie Pryor
2. Joe Kruger
3. Michael Williams


I only counted Joe Kruger as a vote from his board (giving Kruger 3 points) and didn't guess to see who he had as the 2nd and 3rd players. I'm not putting words in peoples mouths (per say). The system counts who people voted for. Nothing more, nothing less.


Last edited by coordinator0 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12973
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coordinator0 wrote:
diamondbull424 wrote:
Yes, but it makes sense in that it's an implied vote. If someone doesn't include that person on their list, but includes the two others, for such a tally to work, the extra vote has to be submitted into the process to create the correct balance.

If you omit the implied vote, then the entire vote has to be omitted from the process as, in such a case, there is no official vote being made and thus the vote is faulty.

EDIT: The balance is the only way the inverted voting system can work. If it's just plugging numbers then it gives prospects an uneven advantage over another and the vote isn't actually coming to a consensus based on a weighted point total. It's impossible to mix a popular vote and a weight system together without having the potential for discrepancies.


But then do you omit votes from boards that only have one guy out of the three that we're voting on? I don't agree with that all. In this last vote dcarey20 only had 3 guys on his board.

dcarey20 wrote:
1. Lonnie Pryor
2. Joe Kruger
3. Michael Williams


I only counted Joe Kruger as a vote from his board (giving Kruger 3 points) and didn't guess to see who he had as the 2nd and 3rd players. I'm not putting words in peoples mouths (per say). The system counts who people voted for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, in this case dcarey20s vote would be omitted. And it's right in the fact that, he didn't actually submit a vote and he didn't include a board encompassing enough to have enough players so that his board could be implied based on the given information.

And it's not about agreeing with it. It's the system. It creates a mathematical balance.

If you don't agree with that particular system, then your best bet is probably just to do the popular vote system that has been used in the past. But you can't combine them. And here's why:

Each 3 player ballot has exactly 6 points up for grabs to be used.

If five ballots are cast and of those five two ballots are incomplete with only one vote, you now create a process where only half the ballot points have been extended. Now the weighted points is off by 6 points of the possible 30 points from all the ballots. In this scenario the incomplete ballots thus accounts for a 20% loss.

"Right" and "fair" don't always mean the same thing, is it "right" for dcarey20's board to not be included? No. But is it fair to include his vote when doing so will dilute the entire process and thus make the voting system being used worthless? No, it isn't fair. And being "fair" was the entire point of the weighted system that I incorporated. Those properly involved in the process were given equal chance to impact the process via stage one and stage two. Those not as involved weren't.

That may not work for you as GM, but at the same time, its nonsensical to use a flawed version of the system... because it's both not "right" nor not "fair". It'd be like the general election being based partly on electoral college and partly on general votes... you can do either/or... but you can't do both or the system becomes flawed. And a flawed system is neither right nor fair.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7223
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In case anybody was wondering, the only other selection that would have been affected by this is the Hunt pick. We traded up for Bailey and McDonald and Faulk was so far out in front of anybody else it didn't matter. Like I said before I did count the pseudo votes in the first round. For the Hunt pick this is how it played out:

There were three official votes for the consensus vote. diamondbull424, alfalcone, and myself. Each of us had the four guys we voted for in order.

Quote:
db424
1. Terrance Williams  4
2. Stedman Bailey  3
3. John Jenkins  2
4. Margus Hunt 1

alfalcone
1) Hunt  4
2) Jenkins  3
3) Williams  2
4) Bailey 1

coordinator0
1. Williams  4
2. Hunt  3
3. Bailey  2
4. Jenkins 1


Then I went to the boards to fill out the rest of the points. STrid had three out of the four guys we voted on. I'll add Jenkins as the 4th guy for this discussion giving him one point.

Quote:
Strid
1. Margus Hunt. - See below.  4
2. Terrence Williams.  3
4. Stedman Bailey.  2
Jenkins 1


The other three boards I counted only had two out of the four guys we voted on so I'll leave them out at the moment. That brings the totals to: Williams - 13, Bailey - 8, Jenkins - 7, and Hunt - 12. In that situation Williams would have been our pick (which I would have liked lol), but that's excluding the boards/opinions of Anubiz, dcarey20, and drd23. These are what their boards looked like without the guys that we weren't voting on:

Quote:
Anubiz
1. Stedman Bailey  4
3. John Jenkins  3

dcarey20
1. Bailey  4
3. Hunt 3

drd23
3. Margus Hunt  4
5. John Jenkins  3


Which then brought the count to Williams - 13, Bailey - 16, Jenkins - 13, and Hunt - 19. Would have it been fair to exclude the other boards or fill them in with my own opinion? Either way would have affected the pick.

Bleh, no system is perfect. Good thing we have a long time until the next FFMD to find one that's as close to it as possible. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7223
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diamondbull424 wrote:
Yes, in this case dcarey20s vote would be omitted. And it's right in the fact that, he didn't actually submit a vote and he didn't include a board encompassing enough to have enough players so that his board could be implied based on the given information.

And it's not about agreeing with it. It's the system. It creates a mathematical balance.

If you don't agree with that particular system, then your best bet is probably just to do the popular vote system that has been used in the past. But you can't combine them. And here's why:

Each 3 player ballot has exactly 6 points up for grabs to be used.

If five ballots are cast and of those five two ballots are incomplete with only one vote, you now create a process where only half the ballot points have been extended. Now the weighted points is off by 6 points of the possible 30 points from all the ballots. In this scenario the incomplete ballots thus accounts for a 20% loss.

"Right" and "fair" don't always mean the same thing, is it "right" for dcarey20's board to not be included? No. But is it fair to include his vote when doing so will dilute the entire process and thus make the voting system being used worthless? No, it isn't fair. And being "fair" was the entire point of the weighted system that I incorporated. Those properly involved in the process were given equal chance to impact the process via stage one and stage two. Those not as involved weren't.

That may not work for you as GM, but at the same time, its nonsensical to use a flawed version of the system... because it's both not "right" nor not "fair". It'd be like the general election being based partly on electoral college and partly on general votes... you can do either/or... but you can't do both or the system becomes flawed. And a flawed system is neither right nor fair.


I was never operating the voting process under the impression that it had to create a perfect mathematical balance. That's where we differ I think. I'm just trying to include everybody who is participating as long as they have lists with people we're actually deciding on when it comes down to the final vote. The system is flawed either way you look at it. By me not counting pseudo votes it throws it off mathematically, but if I discount anybody's boards or votes that goes against what the creators of FFMD are striving for and that's trying to find a general consensus among the members before we make a move.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Page 23 of 26

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group