| |
BGonline.org Forums
Seriously...
Posted By: Justin N. In Response To: a better way to pick the giants(assuming the giants are the best) (David Wells)
Date: Saturday, 2 June 2012, at 12:30 a.m.
David, I have little doubt you would profit from this challenge... but I don't think it really addresses the best way to pick Giants.
However, it did get the little hamster wheel spinning inside my head. That said, here is my two cents:
Why not (besides laziness) start with a nomination process that qualifies players to be on the initial list? Then choose a variety of categories on which to rate these players, and then assign weights to each category?
For example, create a list of 128 (or 100 or 200 or whatever) players, in alphabetical order, based on a preliminary nomination vote, or a quiz of some kind, or whatever. Then distribute this list (or, better yet, post it as a web form) to qualified voters for a "fine tuning". For each name on the list, a voter must rate them on a scale of 1-5 on various weighted categories, including but not necessarily limited to match play, money play, PRs, ELOs, live results, online play, contributions to the game, level of activity, willingness to travel, etc., etc., etc. (I don't expect this list of categories to be the end-all breakdown, rather it is a work in process.) Then let the computer crunch the numbers, and rank the players based on their scores.
I realize this process sounds quite labor intensive (for both administrators and voters), but I think it would be an improvement over the current method of selecting Giants... but would the extra labor be worth the gains in accuracy? I do not know. But I will be the first to stand in line to volunteer my personal time, and my computer time, to make this a reality.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.