penbeast0 wrote:My problem with a history DPOY project is that the evidence is going to be so anecdotal and sketchy that I don't think it will engender the level of discussion that you think.
I do not think the bar for any defensive discussions has been overly difficult to meet. People will do the usual: consider team defence, consider whether they would expect the team defence to be what it was, consider whether they see the candidate as a top defender, consider contemporary awards and commentary, probably in some part consider whether the candidate shows up on the box score, etc.… As long as there are eight to ten people invested in and capable of properly engaging in those assessments, the discussion will probably not fall short of my expectations, or of expectations relative to other projects — and if there were not that number of people committed, then I would not pursue the project, no. Nevertheless, I think it is important not to feel too nostalgic for what has been done. Was the “top ten positional defenders” project overflowing with unique and perspicacious insight? I would say no, but it was still interesting and worth doing.
