Preview - W-L Predictions Thread

[magnumo]

Some History

Those of you who (like me) are refugees from the old Pirates' board at ESPN.com may recall that I ran a W-L predictions thread over there for each season between 2006 and 2009. We had a surprisingly large number of participants: 97 in 2006, 81 in 2007, 102 in 2008, 88 in 2009.

No one predicted the Pirates actual W-L record for 2006 or 2007..... and we had only one correct prediction each in 2008 and 2009. The primary reason for so few winning predictions was incurable optimism. Each year, most participants (including me) predicted a significantly better record than the Pirates were able to achieve. At any rate, I provided a modest prize to the winners in 2008 and 2009.

After being a dyed-in-the-wool Pirate fan for 60 years, I stopped posting in disgust before the 2010 season (seems that my expectations for 2010 were dead on)..... but then got caught up in the first-half euphoria in 2011 and started following the team again. Burns80y took a shot at running a similar contest at ESPN.com in 2010 and I believe there was some similar activity in 2011 as well, but I don't have the details or results.

At any rate, in August 2011, ESPN.com made another major change (read that "downgrade") to their boards, resulting in major dissatisfaction "across the board" (pardon the pun). At that point, at Darkstone's invitation, some of us migrated to this board.

Upcoming Season

Some time ago, we had some discussion about resurrecting the W-L prediction contest on this board in 2012. Although we're likely to have far fewer participants, I agreed to give it a shot. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS POST IS TO SOLICIT INPUT BEFORE THE CONTEST BEGINS.

Typically, I have opened the contest in early-to-mid February. Hence this PREVIEW thread. (Please don't post any predictions here.) Listed below are the proposed RULES, which I will repeat (and amend if appropriate) at the top of the actual contest thread.

1. Poster must predict an exact won-lost record for the full regular season.

2. Poster may change his/her prediction until the regular season begins, at which time the contest will close to new entries.

3. Since I can't guarantee that I will read every post between now and the beginning of the regular season, please post your prediction in a thread which has an appropriate title (such as this one).

4. If the Pirates do not play 162 games (e.g., due to un-made-up rain-outs) the contest will revert to games won predicted by each participant.

5. I reserve the right to reject any prediction for any reason.

Rules 1, 2, and 3 are the same as used in all previous contests. Rule 4 was added late in the 2009 season, after all those remaining agreed, because the Pirates wound up playing only 161 games. Although previously unpublished, I have applied rule 5 in the past to combat trolls and frivolous entries.

Again, please do NOT post predictions in this thread. Rather, if you have any suggestions (on rule changes or anything else), other thoughts, or input of any kind, please feel free to post those ideas here. I'll let this thread ride for a few days to collect input, and then start the actual contest thread, on or about Monday February 6.

 

[Illinest]

I think its hilarious that you assume a loss in the case of a rain delay. Truly you have become almost as pessimistic as I.

What do you think about giving squatters rights to the first person to make a particular prediction? That way therell be only one winner.

 

[smokeyburgess]

In case you're wondering what happened with the ESPN message board prediction contest last season, someone whose handle was matt94206 was spot on with a prediction of 72-90. I kept track on my own, since whoever started it (Burnsboy?) dropped out of sight somewhere along the line. I posted the result on the ESPN board, but so many people had emigrated from that site that no one was left to even make a comment (including matt).

I'll be looking forward to Magnumo handling the contest again this season.

Smokey

 

[magnumo]

I think its hilarious that you assume a loss in the case of a rain delay. Truly you have become almost as pessimistic as I.

Although I admit to having become pessimistic, that wasn't a factor in the addition of rule 4. It was fairly late in the 2009 season when the Pirates experienced a rainout which was very unlikely to be made up. IIRC, there were still about 15 posters who had NOT been mathematically eliminated, but all had predicted a full 162-game record. There was enough interest remaining that it seemed kind of arbitrary to end the contest and declare that none of the remaining folks could win, just because of a rainout. So..... the only idea I came up with to keep it rolling was going with either games won or games lost. Games won seemed more appropriate, and the remaining contestants agreed. (Fundamentality wound up winning in 2009.)

What do you think about giving squatters rights to the first person to make a particular prediction? That way therell be only one winner.

Thanks for that idea, Illinest. Actually, the same rule was considered but rejected for the previous contests at ESPN.com..... because we expected to have too many participants for it to work well. We may have few enough participants here for it to work. On the other hand, I'd hate to see people decide not to participate because someone else is already sitting on their preferred prediction. ANYONE ELSE HAVE THOUGHTS ON ILLINEST'S SUGGESTION?

In case you're wondering what happened with the ESPN message board prediction contest last season, someone whose handle was matt94206 was spot on with a prediction of 72-90. I kept track on my own, since whoever started it (Burnsboy?) dropped out of sight somewhere along the line. I posted the result on the ESPN board, but so many people had emigrated from that site that no one was left to even make a comment (including matt).

I'll be looking forward to Magnumo handling the contest again this season.

Smokey

Thanks for that feedback, Smokey. I'm pretty sure it was burns80y who started the contest before the 2010 season (he actually emailed me and asked if I'd be OK with him doing it). But I didn't know who did it for 2011. At any rate, I'm glad they had a winner. It was a real downer in 2006 and 2007 when not a single person predicted the Pirates' final record.

If we have a small number of participants for 2012, the odds may not be overwhelming that we'll "crown" a winner this year either.

 

[Darkstone42]

Although I admit to having become pessimistic, that wasn't a factor in the addition of rule 4. It was fairly late in the 2009 season when the Pirates experienced a rainout which was very unlikely to be made up. IIRC, there were still about 15 posters who had NOT been mathematically eliminated, but all had predicted a full 162-game record. There was enough interest remaining that it seemed kind of arbitrary to end the contest and declare that none of the remaining folks could win, just because of a rainout. So..... the only idea I came up with to keep it rolling was going with either games won or games lost. Games won seemed more appropriate, and the remaining contestants agreed. (Fundamentality wound up winning in 2009.)



Thanks for that idea, Illinest. Actually, the same rule was considered but rejected for the previous contests at ESPN.com..... because we expected to have too many participants for it to work well. We may have few enough participants here for it to work. On the other hand, I'd hate to see people decide not to participate because someone else is already sitting on their preferred prediction. ANYONE ELSE HAVE THOUGHTS ON ILLINEST'S SUGGESTION?



Thanks for that feedback, Smokey. I'm pretty sure it was burns80y who started the contest before the 2010 season (he actually emailed me and asked if I'd be OK with him doing it). But I didn't know who did it for 2011. At any rate, I'm glad they had a winner. It was a real downer in 2006 and 2007 when not a single person predicted the Pirates' final record.

If we have a small number of participants for 2012, the odds may not be overwhelming that we'll "crown" a winner this year either.

I say one person to a prediction. It's better that way. Much tidier.

 

[thedddd]

I am with the others first come first serve.


Ah the rainout year in '09. There were a few of us with 99 loses and only one with 62 wins.
If I remember correctly we decided to give it to the person who matched wins which made more sense, so the 62 win person got it.

 

[evolver115]

I am with the others first come first serve.


Ah the rainout year in '09. There were a few of us with 99 loses and only one with 62 wins.
If I remember correctly we decided to give it to the person who matched wins which made more sense, so the 62 win person got it.

i predicted 63-99, that season. I remember reading a couple months after the season ended that they gave it to the fella who predicted the wins correctly, as you said.

Damn rain-out, I woulda had it

 

[magnumo]

Rule Revision

Those who have responded agreed with Illinest's idea to give "squatter's rights" to the first person who predicts a specific record. Thus, I have revised the rules as shown below:

1. Poster must predict an exact won-lost record for the full regular season.

2. The first poster to predict a specific won-lost record will have "squatter's rights" to that prediction. That is, later predictions of the same W-L record will not be accepted.

3. Poster may change his/her prediction until the regular season begins, as long as the change does not violate rule 2. A prediction vacated by such change becomes available to other posters.

4. The contest will close to new entries when the regular season begins.

5. Since I can't guarantee that I will read every post between now and the beginning of the regular season, please post your prediction in a thread which has an appropriate title (such as this one).

6. If the Pirates do not play 162 games (e.g., due to un-made-up rain-outs) the contest will revert to games won as predicted by each participant.

7. I reserve the right to reject any prediction for any reason.

As previously indicated, I plan to open the contest in a new thread tomorrow (Monday, Feb. 6). If you have any other thoughts and ideas, please post them promptly.