- FanGraphs Baseball - http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs -

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,