Broadcaster Rankings (TV): Comments and Questions
Over the course of this week, we’ve been releasing the results of our television broadcaster rankings — itself the product of reader crowdsourcing that started in late November. Click the relevant links to read the Introduction and 31st-ranked team, broadcast Nos. 30 – 21, Nos. 20 – 11, and Nos. 10 – 1.
In this post, we’ll reflect briefly on the project, and then look at ahead at a similar endeavor for radio broadcasters.
Specifically, like this:
1. Final TV Broadcaster Rankings
2. Comments and Questions
3. On This Same Thing for Radio Broadcasts
Final TV Broadcaster Rankings
Here’s a complete, sortable table of the broadcaster rankings, including the number of ballots cast for each team.
| Num | Team | Votes | Charisma | Analysis | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LA NL (Home) | 322 | 4.8 | 4.5 | 4.7 |
| 2 | New York NL | 276 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.7 |
| 3 | San Francisco | 233 | 4.7 | 4.4 | 4.7 |
| 4 | Houston | 79 | 4.3 | 4.1 | 4.2 |
| 5 | Boston | 258 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 4.0 |
| 6 | Chicago NL | 170 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.9 |
| 7 | Milwaukee | 100 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 3.6 |
| 8 | Detroit | 92 | 3.6 | 3.0 | 3.5 |
| 9 | Oakland | 52 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.4 |
| 10 | Tampa Bay | 35 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.4 |
| 11 | LA AL | 85 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.3 |
| 12 | Baltimore | 101 | 3.4 | 3.2 | 3.3 |
| 13 | Seattle | 88 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
| 14 | Minnesota | 100 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 3.2 |
| 15 | Texas | 51 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| 16 | Miami | 37 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 3.1 |
| 17 | San Diego | 102 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
| 18 | Cincinnati | 117 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.1 |
| 19 | Kansas City | 24 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 3.0 |
| 20 | Pittsburgh | 74 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.0 |
| 21 | Arizona | 259 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 3.0 |
| 22 | New York AL | 219 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.9 |
| 23 | Washington | 38 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.9 |
| 24 | Cleveland | 59 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.9 |
| 25 | Toronto | 414 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.8 |
| 26 | Philadelphia | 107 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.7 |
| 27 | Atlanta | 189 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 2.7 |
| 28 | Colorado | 51 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 2.5 |
| 29 | St. Louis | 110 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 2.3 |
| 30 | LA NL (Away) | 20 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| 31 | Chicago AL | 255 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.0 |
Comments and Questions
Here are two comments:
• As noted in the introduction, the data reveal a significant correlation (0.88 r-squared) between the average Charisma and Analysis ratings for each broadcast team. This doesn’t necessarily discount the data. What it reveals, more likely, is that the more charismatic the broadcaster, the less we care — or the more forgiving we are — about the analysis.
• There was, I think, some correlation between the number of ballots cast and the date on which that ballot was published. Which is to say, because ballots were published in alphabetical order, that teams towards the end of the alphabet generally received fewer votes (with Toronto, and its very active blogging community, proving to be a notable exception). A post containing links to every ballot helped, but perhaps not significantly.
Here are two questions for readers:
• There were some very entertaining and also some well articulated comments provided alongside each ballot. The vast majority, however, were hyperbolic and unhelpful (ex. “I hate X”, “Y is awful”). How, do you think, is it possible to elicit more articulate/amusing responses?
• Generally speaking, is there a way that you can see this project being improved upon? I mean, like, in a way that wouldn’t create a lot more work? Because, for example, work is the enemy?
On This Same Thing for Radio Broadcasts
On Monday, I’ll begin publishing ballots for radio broadcast teams. Ballots will appear in the Daily Notes column that appears in these pages, uh, daily. We’ll begin this round of balloting in reverse alphabetical order, starting with Washington,
Carson Cistulli has published a book of aphorisms called Spirited Ejaculations of a New Enthusiast.
“How, do you think, is it possible to illicit more articulate/amusing responses?”
You can start by using elicit, not illicit.
Tou and ché, my friend.
Look how much effort went into this. Why deride it? It’s really interesting!
I think a permanent link on the homepage would help you even out the votes, but I’m not sure if that’s stylistically appealing.
Really cool, though.
Perhaps what could be done is having a single link on the side, and that link takes you to a page that contains links for every single team where we can vote. It would remain uncluttered, and it would take only one more click for us to find the team we want to vote on.
Oh, I don’t know, responses into the illicit side of baseball broadcasting would probably attract more readers too …
Have a page that displays responses that we can vote up, hence eliciting people to be more amusing.
I think, and this may just be my feeling so take it for what it’s worth, that the best, quickest, and most reliable method of eliciting more articulate responses is to post it somewhere other than “the Internet.”
E.g., I get great responses from my cat on most everything I post on my refrigerator. He’s not a fan of some of the more advanced metrics, but I think he’s coming around.