2010: The Year We Make Coffins

[Chuck to Chuck]

Here's a thread for 2010 lists.  I'd suggest only one change from last year's pool: If you listed a person on your entry in 2009, they are ineligible for your entry in 2010.  No riding out a Bob Hope until he finally kicks it.

[Kermit, B.]

Here's a thread for 2010 lists.  I'd suggest only one change from last year's pool: If you listed a person on your entry in 2009, they are ineligible for your entry in 2010.  No riding out a Bob Hope until he finally kicks it.

Why not?

[Gil Gunderson]

Here's a thread for 2010 lists.  I'd suggest only one change from last year's pool: If you listed a person on your entry in 2009, they are ineligible for your entry in 2010.  No riding out a Bob Hope until he finally kicks it.

That makes no sense and I oppose this motion.

[PenFoe]

Here's a thread for 2010 lists.  I'd suggest only one change from last year's pool: If you listed a person on your entry in 2009, they are ineligible for your entry in 2010.  No riding out a Bob Hope until he finally kicks it.

That makes no sense and I oppose this motion.

For once, I agree with Chuck.
I think it's a nice wrinkle.

[Quality Start Machine]

Why not do a draft, so everyone has unique picks?

I mean, as long as we're throwing out crazy-assed ideas...

[Gil Gunderson]

The draft is an interesting thought.  I'd like to see what the commish of this league has to say, seeing as he has his finger on the pulse of death pools throughout the country.

[Brownie]

A draft is too complicated. Why not award bonus points to a unique pick?

[PenFoe]

The draft is an interesting thought.  I'd like to see what the commish of this league has to say, seeing as he has his finger on the pulse of death pools throughout the country.

Draft is a sweet idea.

Except we'd have to start now because it would take roughly 52 weeks to complete.

[MAD]

The idea of a draft--at first as outlandish sounding as nuts 'n' gum-- is slowly growing interest from my pea-sized brain.  I'd like to explore this a little more.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Chuck's proposed rule is definitely retarded (though it is heartening to see PenFoe be wrong along with him). Who are we to tell anyone they can't continue to ride the same losers that left them high and dry this year?

The draft idea is really intriguing, but I'm not sure about the logistics of it. To make the pool as interesting and competitive as possible, I think we want as many Desipiots as possible participating, without regard to their ability to participate in the draft (however the draft would even work).

Towards the goal of more unique picks, though, a new rule I have been thinking about is discounting common picks.

The way I'm thinking it would work is:

a) Rank your picks and be awarded points by ranking (as before)
b) Get one bonus point for each decade under 90 (again, as before)
c) Get deducted one point for each person other than yourself who picked the same stiff

Each correct pick would be guaranteed a minimum of 1 point, regardless of deductions.


Pros:

It's probably more fair.

TJ scored big this year by taking Michael Jackson (50) at number 3. It was a risky play, but turned out to be a big win that paid off for 12 points (8 for rank + 4 for age), giving TJ the lead for a while.

That said, he could have scored the same number of points by taking slam-dunk sure-thing Patrick Swayze (57) at the same spot.

If we had deducted points for common picks, though, Swayze would have only netted him 5 total points at this spot, on account of the 7 other players (including yours truly) who also picked him (8 for rank + 4 for age - 7 for identical picks).

It seems to me this would better reward hitting on more unlikely picks like Mike, and maybe lead to a more interesting variety of unique picks overall.


Cons:

More unlikely picks probably means fewer hits overall.

In fact, a number of people are only on this year's scoreboard at all by virtue of taking sure things like Swayze or Ted Kennedy.

Encouraging more interesting picks could lead to less interesting competition.

(Then again, nothing's stopping people from taking picking these people if they're willing to live with the deduction. That's just down to gamesmanship.)

I could also be sympathetic to the argument that all this over-complication of the pool might take all the fun out of death and dying. (Let's not lose sight of what this is all about in the first place.)

Finally, in terms of logistics, we'd have to set up some way of submitting picks that hides them from prying eyes until all the picks are in. I could set up a dedicated email address for submissions, though, and you all could just trust my pinkie swear that I wouldn't peek at them until I've posted my own picks.

Additionally, we'd have to have a hard and fast rule against late entries. So the lazy might wind up being left out.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Also: what TJ said.

[Quality Start Machine]

The idea of a draft--at first as outlandish sounding as nuts 'n' gum-- is slowly growing interest from my pea-sized brain.  I'd like to explore this a little more.

Good, because you're my first rounder.

[PenFoe]

Chuck's proposed rule is definitely retarded (though it is heartening to see PenFoe be wrong along with him). Who are we to tell anyone they can't continue to ride the same losers that left them high and dry this year?

The draft idea is really intriguing, but I'm not sure about the logistics of it. To make the pool as interesting and competitive as possible, I think we want as many Desipiots as possible participating, without regard to their ability to participate in the draft (however the draft would even work).

Towards the goal of more unique picks, though, a new rule I have been thinking about is discounting common picks.

The way I'm thinking it would work is:

a) Rank your picks and be awarded points by ranking (as before)
b) Get one bonus point for each decade under 90 (again, as before)
c) Get deducted one point for each person other than yourself who picked the same stiff

Each correct pick would be guaranteed a minimum of 1 point, regardless of deductions.


Pros:

It's probably more fair.

TJ scored big this year by taking Michael Jackson (50) at number 3. It was a risky play, but turned out to be a big win that paid off for 12 points (8 for rank + 4 for age), giving TJ the lead for a while.

That said, he could have scored the same number of points by taking slam-dunk sure-thing Patrick Swayze (57) at the same spot.

If we had deducted points for common picks, though, Swayze would have only netted him 5 total points at this spot, on account of the 7 other players (including yours truly) who also picked him (8 for rank + 4 for age - 7 for identical picks).

It seems to me this would better reward hitting on more unlikely picks like Mike, and maybe lead to a more interesting variety of unique picks overall.


Cons:

More unlikely picks probably means fewer hits overall.

In fact, a number of people are only on this year's scoreboard at all by virtue of taking sure things like Swayze or Ted Kennedy.

Encouraging more interesting picks could lead to less interesting competition.

(Then again, nothing's stopping people from taking picking these people if they're willing to live with the deduction. That's just down to gamesmanship.)

I could also be sympathetic to the argument that all this over-complication of the pool might take all the fun out of death and dying. (Let's not lose sight of what this is all about in the first place.)

Finally, in terms of logistics, we'd have to set up some way of submitting picks that hides them from prying eyes until all the picks are in. I could set up a dedicated email address for submissions, though, and you all could just trust my pinkie swear that I wouldn't peek at them until I've posted my own picks.

Additionally, we'd have to have a hard and fast rule against late entries. So the lazy might wind up being left out.

Needs more words.

[Kermit, B.]

You guys are Weebsing the fun out of this league.

[R-V]

Finally, in terms of logistics, we'd have to set up some way of submitting picks that hides them from prying eyes until all the picks are in. I could set up a dedicated email address for submissions, though, and you all could just trust my pinkie swear that I wouldn't peek at them until I've posted my own picks.

I like this idea. The unveiling of all the picks would be like Christmas morning or the day when the AV Club reveals the worst band names of the year.