2009 Celticsblog Draft: Voting Analysis : Team of the Future

[Roy Hobbs]

When do the results get posted?

After Dons wakes up. 

My unofficial tally has the winners as Buffalo, Portland, Houston, and Seattle.

Next round:

Seattle vs. Buffalo
Houston vs. Portland

On the tie-breaker...  I think they may have tied. 

[nickagneta]

When do the results get posted?

After Dons wakes up. 

My unofficial tally has the winners as Buffalo, Portland, Houston, and Seattle.

Next round:

Seattle vs. Buffalo
Houston vs. Portland

On the tie-breaker...  I think they may have tied. 

No I'm pretty sure Cleveland won 11-9. Congrats Cleveland.

Of course if the 20 people who had votes had just voted the way they did in the original poll and just clarified their votes the tally would have been 12-8 Washington but I guess we all learned a lesson. If the game continues down it's current path, clear rules need to be put in place for tie breakers that do not result in a second vote.

There's no such thing as a one game playoff in basketball.

[Roy Hobbs]

When do the results get posted?

After Dons wakes up. 

My unofficial tally has the winners as Buffalo, Portland, Houston, and Seattle.

Next round:

Seattle vs. Buffalo
Houston vs. Portland

On the tie-breaker...  I think they may have tied. 

No I'm pretty sure Cleveland won 11-9. Congrats Cleveland.

Of course if the 20 people who had votes had just voted the way they did in the original poll and just clarified their votes the tally would have been 12-8 Washington but I guess we all learned a lesson. If the game continues down it's current path, clear rules need to be put in place for tie breakers that do not result in a second vote.

There's no such thing as a one game playoff in basketball.

Yeah, no idea.  I could have counted wrong.  Some of the ballots (for instance, Lucky17's) were a little fuzzy.  I think I counted that one as a non-vote.

I agree on the tie-breaker, though.  It's something for next year's Commish to take into account.

As for people changing their vote, it happens, just due to however people decided to treat the "tie" scenario.  I treated it like you guys had the same regular season record (which I guess you did) and then the first tie-breaker in the "real" NBA is "head to head".  I thought Cleveland slightly won that particular matchup.  Also, didn't you change your vote, nick?    (Just teasing; I didn't expect you to vote against your own team.)

[nickagneta]

When do the results get posted?

After Dons wakes up. 

My unofficial tally has the winners as Buffalo, Portland, Houston, and Seattle.

Next round:

Seattle vs. Buffalo
Houston vs. Portland

On the tie-breaker...  I think they may have tied. 

No I'm pretty sure Cleveland won 11-9. Congrats Cleveland.

Of course if the 20 people who had votes had just voted the way they did in the original poll and just clarified their votes the tally would have been 12-8 Washington but I guess we all learned a lesson. If the game continues down it's current path, clear rules need to be put in place for tie breakers that do not result in a second vote.

There's no such thing as a one game playoff in basketball.

Yeah, no idea.  I could have counted wrong.

I agree on the tie-breaker, though.  It's something for next year's Commish to take into account.

As for people changing their vote, it happens, just due to however people decided to treat the "tie" scenario.  I treated it like you guys had the same regular season record (which I guess you did) and then the first tie-breaker in the "real" NBA is "head to head".  I thought Cleveland slightly won that particular matchup.  Also, didn't you change your vote, nick?    (Just teasing; I didn't expect you to vote against your own team.)

Actually, since I knew someone would call me on that, I figured that into the numbers. If I said only those that changed their votes for the Boxers, the tally would have been 13-7 and looked even worse. I figured my changed vote into the numbers being a good and honest guy and all.

[Rondo2287]

Nick there is absolutely nothing wrong with voting for yourself here, nobody is going to call you on that!But just think, all this could have been avoided if you had voted yourself number 1 oringinally

[Rondo2287]

So do we think the east playoffs are gonna get done today? I have no problem with a little shorter voting period, I mean everyteam has the same alloted time to get voted for so it will still be fair

[nickagneta]

Nick there is absolutely nothing wrong with voting for yourself here, nobody is going to call you on that!But just think, all this could have been avoided if you had voted yourself number 1 oringinally

Which of course calls into effect the whole objectivity and accountability part of the process.

9 GMs in the East voted themselves conference or division champs. 3 more would most assuredly had done so if they could have voted, Atlanta, New York and Chicago. So 12 GMs took an object view and decided the were the best in their division or conference?

I find that hard to believe.

I think there was definitely some strategic voting going on there. As well as some retaliatory voting as well.

What I don't understand is, was the vote made public just to expose those people who did it and make it obvious to everyone what they did so as to effect their ability to play or be dealt with next year, or was the vote made public to eradicate that type of voting, expose it and remove it from the voting process to make it as objective as possible?

There was obviously one very well documented case of retaliatory voting and it was removed. Why was that the only one? Looking at the votes I can envision at least 5-6 votes combined from both conferences that look like they could be called into question for retaliation and another 5-6 combined from both conferences that appear to be obvious strategic voting of their own team.

Hence why I feel one rule change should be not being able to vote for your own team. That then removes that aspect of the strategic objectivity out the window.

If the goal of the game is to have fun, great, don't keep score, no voting.

If the goal is to have fun but also to attempt to find the most objective way possible to determine a winner, then the current rules need some tweaking.

I will say I never expected to win and said that from the very beginning. Even if I made the playoffs at best I was going to the ECF where the Boxers would probably have died a miserable death. I think the Boxers could honestly have upset Orlando. I think we would have had a shot at either second round opponent. After that, bye bye.

[ChampKind]

When do the results get posted?

After Dons wakes up. 

My unofficial tally has the winners as Buffalo, Portland, Houston, and Seattle.

Next round:

Seattle vs. Buffalo
Houston vs. Portland

On the tie-breaker...  I think they may have tied. 

No I'm pretty sure Cleveland won 11-9. Congrats Cleveland.

Of course if the 20 people who had votes had just voted the way they did in the original poll and just clarified their votes the tally would have been 12-8 Washington but I guess we all learned a lesson. If the game continues down it's current path, clear rules need to be put in place for tie breakers that do not result in a second vote.

There's no such thing as a one game playoff in basketball.

Overall though, I had us tied 15-15 after the 30 original eastern conference ranking votes, so we knew it would be close going in.  Let's see how the ruling turns out.

[indeedproceed]

Nick there is absolutely nothing wrong with voting for yourself here, nobody is going to call you on that!But just think, all this could have been avoided if you had voted yourself number 1 oringinally

Which of course calls into effect the whole objectivity and accountability part of the process.

9 GMs in the East voted themselves conference or division champs. 3 more would most assuredly had done so if they could have voted, Atlanta, New York and Chicago. So 12 GMs took an object view and decided the were the best in their division or conference?

I find that hard to believe.

I think there was definitely some strategic voting going on there. As well as some retaliatory voting as well.

What I don't understand is, was the vote made public just to expose those people who did it and make it obvious to everyone what they did so as to effect their ability to play or be dealt with next year, or was the vote made public to eradicate that type of voting, expose it and remove it from the voting process to make it as objective as possible?

There was obviously one very well documented case of retaliatory voting and it was removed. Why was that the only one? Looking at the votes I can envision at least 5-6 votes combined from both conferences that look like they could be called into question for retaliation and another 5-6 combined from both conferences that appear to be obvious strategic voting of their own team.

Hence why I feel one rule change should be not being able to vote for your own team. That then removes that aspect of the strategic objectivity out the window.

If the goal of the game is to have fun, great, don't keep score, no voting.

If the goal is to have fun but also to attempt to find the most objective way possible to determine a winner, then the current rules need some tweaking.

I will say I never expected to win and said that from the very beginning. Even if I made the playoffs at best I was going to the ECF where the Boxers would probably have died a miserable death. I think the Boxers could honestly have upset Orlando. I think we would have had a shot at either second round opponent. After that, bye bye.

The thing about the retaliatory voting is that its kinda hard to prove.

Sure, if I voted Toronto 15th then its kinda obvious, but if I vote Toronto 7th and everyone else has him 1st or 2nd, whos to say I don't believe he's 7th.

I know multiple teams voted me 7th or 8th and personally I felt (as did the majority of voters) that I was talent wise the 3rd or 4th best team in the conference, and allowing for divisional seeding, the 4th or 5th seed. One of the teams that voted me 8th was very vocal about his team and I was vocal towards him about what I thought about his team, and I voted him out of the playoffs.

Is it a stretch to think that his voting was retaliatory? No, but at the same he was very high on his team, and not high on mine, so I don't think his vote was retailiatory.

Just kind of the way it goes. 

[Rondo2287]

Toronto is ready to Vote

[nickagneta]

Nick there is absolutely nothing wrong with voting for yourself here, nobody is going to call you on that!But just think, all this could have been avoided if you had voted yourself number 1 oringinally

Which of course calls into effect the whole objectivity and accountability part of the process.

9 GMs in the East voted themselves conference or division champs. 3 more would most assuredly had done so if they could have voted, Atlanta, New York and Chicago. So 12 GMs took an object view and decided the were the best in their division or conference?

I find that hard to believe.

I think there was definitely some strategic voting going on there. As well as some retaliatory voting as well.

What I don't understand is, was the vote made public just to expose those people who did it and make it obvious to everyone what they did so as to effect their ability to play or be dealt with next year, or was the vote made public to eradicate that type of voting, expose it and remove it from the voting process to make it as objective as possible?

There was obviously one very well documented case of retaliatory voting and it was removed. Why was that the only one? Looking at the votes I can envision at least 5-6 votes combined from both conferences that look like they could be called into question for retaliation and another 5-6 combined from both conferences that appear to be obvious strategic voting of their own team.

Hence why I feel one rule change should be not being able to vote for your own team. That then removes that aspect of the strategic objectivity out the window.

If the goal of the game is to have fun, great, don't keep score, no voting.

If the goal is to have fun but also to attempt to find the most objective way possible to determine a winner, then the current rules need some tweaking.

I will say I never expected to win and said that from the very beginning. Even if I made the playoffs at best I was going to the ECF where the Boxers would probably have died a miserable death. I think the Boxers could honestly have upset Orlando. I think we would have had a shot at either second round opponent. After that, bye bye.

The thing about the retaliatory voting is that its kinda hard to prove.

Sure, if I voted Toronto 15th then its kinda obvious, but if I vote Toronto 7th and everyone else has him 1st or 2nd, whos to say I don't believe he's 7th.

I know multiple teams voted me 7th or 8th and personally I felt (as did the majority of voters) that I was talent wise the 3rd or 4th best team in the conference, and allowing for divisional seeding, the 4th or 5th seed. One of the teams that voted me 8th was very vocal about his team and I was vocal towards him about what I thought about his team, and I voted him out of the playoffs.

Is it a stretch to think that his voting was retaliatory? No, but at the same he was very high on his team, and not high on mine, so I don't think his vote was retailiatory.

Just kind of the way it goes. 

Yeah but then there are some that really need to be called into question and the voter should justify his vote.

Memphis 15th?
Washington 14th behind a team that 26 times out of 30 was voted 15th?
New Jersey 13th?
Detroit 13th?
Even my vote of New York 14th?

Call the voter out and have then justify the vote. If they don't disregard the vote.

[Roy Hobbs]

What I don't understand is, was the vote made public just to expose those people who did it and make it obvious to everyone what they did so as to effect their ability to play or be dealt with next year, or was the vote made public to eradicate that type of voting, expose it and remove it from the voting process to make it as objective as possible?

There was obviously one very well documented case of retaliatory voting and it was removed. Why was that the only one? Looking at the votes I can envision at least 5-6 votes combined from both conferences that look like they could be called into question for retaliation and another 5-6 combined from both conferences that appear to be obvious strategic voting of their own team.

I think a lot of the plan was, indeed, peer pressure and public shame.  Also, I guarantee that some of the voting was done to manipulate playoff matchups; I have inside info on this, too, but I won't share it so as to save everybody some drama.

However, in the vast majority of cases, things can't be proven.  I had personal problems with WW, and voted Houston out of the playoffs.  Was this personal?  No -- I just think Houston is a poorly constructed team.  However, people could view it as a vendetta; obviously a lot of people had divergent opinions on that particular team, with some people thinking they were the very best team in the Western Conference.

How can you tell when somebody's cheating, versus when they have a legit difference of opinion?  It's all pretty subjective.

[Donoghus]

After careful review of the results of the 8th seed vote, I have determined that Cleveland is a winner by a vote of 10-9 using valid ballots. 

Cleveland will now go on to face Orlando in the first round of the playoffs

[Rondo2287]

If she can get some votes for the Democratic Nominee we can certainly get some votes for the first round of playoffs!



VOTE RAPTORS

Vote Toronto Over NJ:

 starting Lineup PPG
Miller:16.3       Fisher:9.9
Garcia:12.7       Lee:8.4
Artest:17.1       Pierce:20.4
Kg:15.8            Brand:13.8
Camby:10.3        Wallace:12.00

totals
72.2                   64.5

in 26 career matchups,
Garnett is 18-8 with roughly 22ppg, 12 rbs, 5 assts, 2stls, 2blks.

Brand is 18ppg, 9rbs, 2assts, 1stl, 2blks

Career Matchup

Miller is averaging, 16.2/4.2/7.3
Fisher is averaging. 9.8/2.0/3.7

Camby vs Wallace
Last Season stats
Camby: 10.1 pts, 11.3 rbs, 2.0 Ass, 2.1 Blks, .512%
Wallace:12.1 pts. 7.5 rbs, 1.4 ass, 1.3 Blks, .419%

Then take into account Backups
Drew Gooden/Eddy curry(If he plays at all this season)
vs
Hakim Warrick and Big Z

Gooden is quality, but they have nobody to match up with Warrick

NJ is a very good team, however we were voted over them in the regular season for a reason. 

[Donoghus]

Eastern Conference Voting thread is now up in the fantasy sports forum.