The Great #6org Discussion – Part 4

Okay, wrapping things up.

So what I’m getting at is that the only way to have a satisfying conversation about this sort of thing is to develop some objective standards and quantifiable measurements for these rankings.

This was one of the big complaints about the series from many people – too much opinion, not enough quantification. So, next year, we’ll do things differently. We’ll be far more clear about the respective ratings for each area and the weights that are given to those strengths and weaknesses. There will always be subjectivity in the rankings, of course, since we’re dealing with perceptions of things, but I agree that we can do a better job of explaining things. We’ll try to make them more transparent next year.

You show no acknowledgement for your ranking, if anything you seem more entrenched in your view, when tons of reasonable people have i think made some decisive points in your direction.

That was not at all the intention of this little project. If that’s how it has come across, I’m sorry. I hoped that we could actually have a conversation about the thoughts that went into the ranking, getting beyond basic assumptions of bias and discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the logic that I tried to employ. Based on the responses, it looks like it wasn’t all that successful. That’s somewhat disappointing, but understandable I guess.

But, it seems like most people aren’t really interested in talking about the sausage making process. They just want an apology or an admission of error. So, this is for all of you who fall into that category.

You were right. I was wrong. The Mariners have had a bad year. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have ranked them as highly.

There you go. Tomorrow – back to baseball.