Master Index of Archived Threads


THE SCHAEFER METS PLAYER OF THE YEAR 2005

Benjamin Grimm Oct 05 2005 08:03 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 15 2008 11:20 AM

Here it is! The big announcement! Thanks to all CPFers who voted throughout the year. Next spring we can discuss whether or not we'll do it again. The Schaefer Mets Players of the Month for 2005 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER Cliff Floyd Mike Cameron Cliff Floyd Jose Reyes David Wright Tom Glavine APRIL: CLIFF FLOYD 1 Floyd 32.07 2 Diaz 20.61 3 Wright 18.32 4 Martinez 18.02 5 Reyes 17.52 6 Piazza 16.69 7 Mientkiewicz 15.06 8 Beltran 14.85 9 Heilman 11.02 10 Matsui 9.83 Cliff Floyd came out of the gate in a big way, opening up a 12-point lead over second-place Victor Diaz. Pedro Martinez won the first of several Pitcher of the Month awards, finishing fourth overall. MAY: MIKE CAMERON 1 Cameron 27.51 2 Floyd 21.07 3 Martinez 20.46 4 Beltran 19.74 5 Wright 19.25 6 Reyes 18.51 7 Piazza 17.84 8 Glavine 13.96 9 Benson 11.45 10 Mientkiewicz 9.66 In May, Mike Cameron and Kris Benson made their delayed 2005 debuts. Cameron kept Floyd from repeating as Schaefer POTM, taking the May title by more than 6 points. For the second time, Pedro was Pitcher of the Month. With his second-place May finish, Cliff Floyd continued to pad his lead in the season sweepstakes. At the end of May, he had almost a 15-point lead over Martinez. 1 Floyd 53.14 2 Martinez 38.48 3 Wright 37.57 4 Reyes 36.03 5 Beltran 34.59 6 Piazza 34.53 7 Cameron 27.51 8 Diaz 24.74 9 Mientkiewicz 24.72 10 Glavine 23.45 JUNE: CLIFF FLOYD 1 Floyd 27.05 2 Martinez 26.15 3 Wright 24.74 4 Reyes 20.08 5 Zambrano 18.20 6 Beltran 15.16 7 Benson 14.61 8 Piazza 14.18 9 Glavine 12.34 10 Mientkiewicz 10.48 June was another winning month for Cliff Floyd, as he made CPF history as the first player ever to win two Schaefer Mets Player of the Month awards in the same season. This time his margin of victory was a narrow one, less than one point over Pedro Martinez, who won his third consecutive Pitcher of the Month honor. And in the overall season standings, Floyd's lead remains a comfortable 16 points. Will Cliff run away with the title and become the first modern-day Schaefer Mets Player of the Year? 1 Floyd 80.19 2 Martinez 64.63 3 Wright 62.31 4 Reyes 56.11 5 Beltran 49.75 6 Piazza 48.71 7 Cameron 37.48 8 Glavine 35.79 9 Mientkiewicz 35.20 10 Zambrano 33.01 JULY: JOSE REYES 1 Reyes 31.04 2 Wright 23.71 3 Beltran 20.49 4 Martinez 20.09 5 Zambrano 19.00 6 Benson 18.37 7 Cameron 17.25 8 Glavine 16.22 9 Piazza 14.38 10 Floyd 13.88 Cliff stumbled a bit in July, finishing in tenth place for the month. Jose Reyes became the youngest player ever to be named Scheafer Mets Player of the Month, with an almost 8-point margin of victory over another youngster, David Wright. For the fourth consecutive month, Pedro Martinez was the leading pitcher. Cliff Floyd's lead in the race for the big prize no longer looks so insurmountable, as Reyes and Wright make big gains, and Pedro also closes in. 1 Floyd 94.07 2 Reyes 87.15 3 Wright 86.02 4 Martinez 84.72 5 Beltran 70.24 6 Piazza 63.09 7 Cameron 54.73 8 Glavine 52.01 8 Zambrano 52.01 10 Benson 44.43 AUGUST: DAVID WRIGHT 1 Wright 31.69 2 Glavine 22.52 3 Martinez 20.01 4 Seo 19.48 5 Floyd 18.26 6 Beltran 16.08 7 Castro 14.80 8 Reyes 14.63 9 Benson 14.31 10 Diaz 14.10 A big month for Schaefer POTM David Wright, as he makes his move and sets his eye on the ultimate prize. A 9-point win over Tom Glavine, who wins his first Pitcher of the Month award, unseating Pedro for the first time. On August 17, the season-long race narrowed to an incredibly tight difference of .01 points. (Wright led Floyd 104.65 to 104.64.) By the end of the month, that lead had widened, and David led Cliff by over 5 points. 1 Wright 117.71 2 Floyd 112.33 3 Martinez 104.73 4 Reyes 101.78 5 Beltran 86.32 6 Glavine 74.53 7 Piazza 70.82 8 Cameron 61.04 9 Zambrano 60.98 10 Benson 58.74 SEPTEMBER: TOM GLAVINE 1 Glavine 30.51 2 Beltran 21.34 3 Floyd 20.25 4 Wright 19.76 5 Reyes 17.65 6 Matsui 16.51 7 Jacobs 16.02 8 Martinez 15.95 9 Benson 15.69 10 Heilman 14.15 Tom Glavine is both the Schaefer Mets Player of the Month and the Schaefer Mets Pitcher of the Month. He wins September by more than 9 points over Carlos Beltran. A productive month for Cliff Floyd put him back in the Schaefer race. He regained the lead on September 20, 128.99 to 127.25. And now, it's time to raise a glass of Schaefer Beer to the winner of the first modern-day Schaefer Mets Player of the Year. The Schaefer Mets Player of the Year for 2005 is DAVID WRIGHT The Crane Pool Forum extends its congratulations to David Wright on a great season! Despite a late charge by Cliff Floyd, David was able to regain his lead in late September and finished on top with a 5.64 point lead over Floyd. Leading pitcher, Pedro Martinez, despite skipping his last two starts, held on to third place as Jose Reyes was unable to take advantage of Pedro's idleness, falling 0.66 points shy. Other players finishing in the top ten are Carlos Beltran, Tom Glavine, Mike Piazza, Kris Benson, Victor Zambrano, and Mike Cameron. Final 2005 Schaefer Mets Player of the Year Standings Name Total 1 Wright 140.17 2 Floyd 134.53 3 Martinez 120.68 4 Reyes 120.02 5 Beltran 107.97 6 Glavine 105.04 7 Piazza 83.40 8 Benson 74.43 9 Zambrano 66.96 10 Cameron 61.04 11 Diaz 50.78 12 Heilman 48.36 13 Seo 46.61 14 Mientkiewicz 44.98 15 Matsui 43.75 16 Castro 38.91 17 Anderson 36.79 18 R.Hernandez 31.83 19 Ishii 27.40 20 Jacobs 27.09 21 Cairo 26.61 22 Looper 26.46 23 Woodward 21.20 24 Padilla 19.84 25 Bell 16.88 26 Trachsel 14.38 27 Koo 13.53 28 Aybar 8.53 29 Graves 7.66 30 DeJean 7.32 31 Offerman 6.69 32 Ring 5.77 33 Daubach 4.79 34 Williams 4.22 35 Heredia 2.61 36 Santiago 2.59 37 Takatsu 2.40 38 Valent 2.17 39 Matthews 1.51 40 DiFelice 0.57 41 A.Hernandez 0.54 42 Hamulack 0.47

MFS62 Oct 05 2005 08:14 AM

Thank you, Yancy for all your hard work. Congrats to Young David. As Murph used to say "The cream always rises to the top". And we look for good things out of Mike Jacobs in years to come - finishing in the top 20 in only 100 at bats is quite a feat. Later

metirish Oct 05 2005 08:19 AM

Congratulations to David, fully deserved, congrats to Cliff for a great season, here's to a healthy next season. Great job Yancy, excellent work.

Elster88 Oct 05 2005 08:23 AM

Thanks, Yancy. Great job. Congratulations, David.

ScarletKnight41 Oct 05 2005 08:24 AM

Thank you Yancy. And Yea for Mr. Wright - gotta love that boy!

sharpie Oct 05 2005 08:28 AM

Thanks, Yancy. I love this format. Pedro holds off Reyes for third. Jacobs charges into the top 20, prolly on the last day of the season. Cairo passes Looper prolly at the very end as well. Stories within stories...

cooby classic Oct 05 2005 08:37 AM

Thanks Yancy, lots of hard work and time had to go into this. Congrats to David Wright

holychicken Oct 05 2005 08:41 AM

Congrats! And thanks YSG. *gets drunk on Schaefer*

Valadius Oct 05 2005 08:57 AM

Thanks Yancy. We're doing this again. Congrats to David Wright!

Centerfield Oct 05 2005 09:07 AM

Thank you Yancy. Whether we do this or not next year will probably come down to whether you agree to go through all this work again. I, for one, hope you will. I'm sorry I didn't vote much in games that made me want to spit. I'll do better next year. That's going to be one of my resolutions for 2006.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 05 2005 09:12 AM

Wow! I thought Cliff would win. I will prepare a press release

Edgy MD Oct 05 2005 09:16 AM

How about what Jae Seo did with 90 innings pitched?

sharpie Oct 05 2005 09:18 AM

David Wright also won the Player of the Year thing they do on teevee based on who wins the most Player of the Games. Will these be used for 05's rankings in the All-Time Mets List?

Benjamin Grimm Oct 05 2005 09:22 AM

I think it can be a starting point. There are a few players who finished a little lower or higher than they should have. Roberto Hernandez probably should be ranked higher than he was. And I think Zambrano and Mientkiewicz can drop a few notches. And to everyone who said thanks, above: you're welcome! I enjoyed following the precedent set by Ralph, Lindsey, and Bob. I felt like I was walking in the footsteps of greatness. I expect that I'll be willing to do this again in 2006, as long as consensus doesn't dictate that the format change too drastically. But that's a discussion for another time.

Frayed Knot Oct 05 2005 09:23 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 05 2005 09:39 AM

The 2005 rankings will be more of a consensus reached after a subjective analysis from many viewpoints. The idea for the PotG is to use it as [u:8jzo1ykb]AN[/u:8jzo1ykb] opinion in the consensus, not the final word.

Edgy MD Oct 05 2005 09:23 AM

They'll be factored in, I imagine. Jonathan Archer/lubitel (sp?) is supposed to kick off 2005 rankings.

MFS62 Oct 05 2005 09:46 AM

Yancy, there were times this year that I wasn't sure if you were going to go blind, crazy, or both. If you are going to do this again next year (we hope) I propose a rule that says you can't award any fractions of a point other then .25 or .50. Later

Edgy MD Oct 05 2005 09:48 AM

Why?

MFS62 Oct 05 2005 09:54 AM

To save his eyesight and sanity, and the need for him to tell folks to adjust their votes. Later

Benjamin Grimm Oct 05 2005 09:55 AM

The funny fractions only caused me a problem when the voter didn't do their math. If, after 7 votes, the total number of points awarded was 70.08, it could be tough to figure out who misvoted. But, since very few people used funny fractions, it wasn't hard to know who to zero in on. If everyone voted that way, it would have probably driven me crazy. Instead of eliminating funny fractions, I would ask anyone voting that way to sum up their votes on their PC's calculator before hitting submit.

MFS62 Oct 05 2005 09:57 AM

Fair enough. Just trying to be helpful. Later

Benjamin Grimm Oct 05 2005 09:58 AM

And I do appreciate it!

Edgy MD Oct 05 2005 10:05 AM

Instead of eliminating funny fractions, I would ask anyone voting that way to sum up their votes on their PC's calculator before hitting submit. This is what I did.

Edgy MD Oct 05 2005 10:06 AM

My inital add-up of the points came to 1607.48. It should be 1620, give or take a fraction, shouldn't it?

Edgy MD Oct 05 2005 10:13 AM

Schaefer Is the one beer to have When you're having more than one Schaefer pleasure doesn't fade Even when your thirst is done The most rewarding flavor In this man's world For people who are having fun Schaefer is the one beer to have When you're having more than one!

Benjamin Grimm Oct 05 2005 10:20 AM

Edgy DC wrote: My inital add-up of the points came to 1607.48. It should be 1620, give or take a fraction, shouldn't it? A bunch of games were undervoted, meaning not every voter awarded a full ten points per game. This happened more frequently in April and May, but it continued to happen through the end of the season. I'd say, "So-and-so, you only awarded 9 points" and in most cases, So-and-so would not revise their vote. I would prorate votes that went over 10 if they weren't edited, but I didn't do the same for those that were under. So some games got 9.85 points, or something like that, awarded instead of 10. Over the course of the season, that led to 12.52 points being lost.

sharpie Oct 05 2005 11:20 AM

And if Cliff Floyd got those 12.52 missing votes he'd be sippin an ice-cold Schaefer right now.

TheOldMole Oct 05 2005 01:02 PM

Make it clear, make is Schaefer Once you do, you always will Make it clear, make it Schaefer Our hand has never lost its skill

dgwphotography Oct 05 2005 01:17 PM

ok - I heard my name used in vain... do I have a time limit when I should start it?

Edgy MD Oct 05 2005 01:21 PM

Well, it's not in vain now that you've responded. What does that name mean anyway? Is it a type of lens?

Benjamin Grimm Oct 05 2005 01:23 PM

I've been mentally pronouncing it as if it started with an L, but I recently discovered that it's actually an uppercase i.

Zvon Oct 05 2005 03:00 PM

Congrads David Wright! Thanks for doin this Yancy, and dont even think about not doing it next year(if you want to go to the trouble). And as far as I am concerned, yourDAman, and any guidelines or rules you set down I will follow. This is your gig, and you make the calls on it. If you want input Im sure you'll get it. Not only the tracking and math figuring involved, but your graphic display work is appreciated and is one of the major ingredients that has made this board a frequent must visit for me. Please continue this next year and thanks again.

d'Kong76 Oct 05 2005 03:15 PM

Nice presentation, Yance.

dgwphotography Oct 05 2005 06:00 PM

Edgy DC wrote: What does that name mean anyway? Is it a type of lens? It's not a type of lens - it's a nickname I have - it's not an english word.

d'Kong76 Oct 05 2005 06:14 PM

Nor a human word, I'm guessing.

TheOldMole Oct 05 2005 06:15 PM

Romulan?

dgwphotography Oct 05 2005 07:38 PM

Yes, it is human, and no, it's not Romulan.

Rockin' Doc Oct 05 2005 07:46 PM

Great job with the Schaeffer POTG polls Yancy. It was a fine new feature to have added to the CPF. I look forward to another year of polling in 2006.

Nymr83 Oct 05 2005 08:07 PM

congratulations to Wright on an honor he is unlikely to find out about and even less likely to care about. :D i liked the idea, though i stopped voting halfway through after falling behind and deciding i didnt care to catch up. last year's polling method was simpler but lacked the ability to award the 2nd best player in a given game. i liked this better. obviously we could, and may very well, spend the whole offseason debating a method for POTG for next year, but under the assumption that this will be the method here's the few minor changes i'd like to see: 1. ballot must must must add up to ten points or they will be discarded. 2. at first i liked the idea of only allowing 1/2 or 1/4 points as fractions, the only thing that changed my mind is if some stats-freak decided to make a spreadsheet to plug the box score into and determine his points through mathematical formulas rather than more prejudiced personal choices (i have to think that for alot of people here David Wright's or Mike Piazza's 2 for 4 buys them more points than Kaz Matsui or Miguel Cairo's 2 for 4, even if unconsciously) a few potential problems with this system: i still feel pitchers get the short end of the stick here overall. the system rewards long-term mediocrity over short-term greatness...are people ok with this? i suppose this is back to the HOF argument but i for one favor quality. i think that starting 15 games and pitching great is much more helpful to a team than starting 30 games and pitching just above average. why? because a replacement level player can still start those other 15 games and the combined efforts will be better than the guy who started 30 in alot of cases. GREAT JOB by our resident fantastic four fan....its clobberin time!

Johnny Dickshot Oct 05 2005 09:25 PM

Obviously the more voters who take to the spirit of this thing, the better. AS Yogi said, you can observe a lot just by watching and the combined eyes of a lot of us I think would paint a fairly accurate picture when it's all over. Through the year I felt my voting got more sophisticated and that's when I got into fractions: I didn;t want any accomplishments to go unrewarded. I also found myself trying to reward the big moments in a game: The first run or lead run I tended to overreward. I also felt more CAHNfident when I scored the game fresh in my mind. I also thought about applying a multiple of some kind -- perhaps something as small as the team's winning percentage -- afterward to games won as a means of cutting down guys who score big because of a lack of competition in games the team plays poorly in. Longevity counts for something. Whether a guy accumulates points on merit or not is not in our hands.

Edgy MD Oct 05 2005 09:46 PM

I would start by rating the starting pitcher's effort independently, on a scale of 1 to 6. I'd then go and rate everybody's effort relative to him, starting with the relief pitchers, then the batters. I'd always throw the catcher a bone, giving him one defensive point for every 19 earned by the pitchers. This was almost always a miniscule nod. Usually I'd rate these guys with round numbers, but sometimes it would add up to eight points, sometimes to 15. I'd then adjust all the scores to make them add up to ten. If I had 14.25 points awarded, I'd divide everybody's score by 1.425. If I had 8.75 points awarded, I'd divide them all by 0.875.

Nymr83 Oct 06 2005 12:46 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I also thought about applying a multiple of some kind -- perhaps something as small as the team's winning percentage -- afterward to games won as a means of cutting down guys who score big because of a lack of competition in games the team plays poorly in. Longevity counts for something. Whether a guy accumulates points on merit or not is not in our hands. these are two issues on which i know reasonable people can and will disagree. is your output still as meaningful if the team loses? my answer has to be yes, and the best example is a starting pitcher who leaves for a pinch hitter without having allowed a run in a 0-0 game. whether they win or lose it doesnt change the contribution that he made. on the other end of this spectrum i can see not wanting to reward the guy who homers in a losing cause to turn the 10-1 loss into a 10-2 loss. so i'd be all for playing around with multiples after the fact simply for our amusement...but i'd hate to do it the first time around and then not have data that didnt distinuguish btwn win/loss. as far as longevity goes.. replacement level players are assumed to be readily available. when a player's production, in limited time, combined with a replacement level player's production in the remaining time, is better than the production of another player in full time i have to consider the 1st player more valuable. examples? Seo (13th) was imo more important than zambrano and possibly benson (i dont have benson's numbers in front of me so i won't commit to that position.) Mientkiewicz, Cairo, and Matsui, by virtue of themselves being below "replacement level" can not possibly me more valuable than anyone who made a positive contribution to the mets in 2005 (Jacobs being a prime example.) one more thing- i still think there is an inherent bias against starting pitchers in this methodology. The Mets were alot more successful at preventing runs than they were at scoring them, yet pitchers appear at positions 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, & 13 while hitters occupy slots 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, & 11 (i used the top 13 because we can reasonably expect the 8 starting players and 5 starting pitchers to be the 13 most important players, but i wouldnt object to using the top 10 or 15 or whatever in this conversation.)

Elster88 Oct 06 2005 08:45 AM

Mientkiewicz, Cairo, and Matsui, by virtue of themselves being below "replacement level" can not possibly me more valuable than anyone who made a positive contribution to the mets in 2005 (Jacobs being a prime example.) This is, IMHO, a terrible way to look at things. Was Cairo's year long contribution less valuable to the team than Jacobs' 1.5 months? Of course not.

Edgy MD Oct 06 2005 09:18 AM

Were Mientkiewicz, Cairo, and Matsui all indeed below replacement level? By what measure?

Johnny Dickshot Oct 06 2005 09:32 AM

It's not up to us who gets the opportunity to play, just to reward the contributors when they do. If a stiff gets in there for a whole year they will generate some points but if the scorers are getting it right, less than a comparable non-stiff given the same PT. Quick and dirty, if we were to go back and assign a rate (schaefer points per AB) it looks like: Jacobs .27 SP/AB Diaz .18 SP/AB Cairo .11 SP/AB Which I think would be cool as an ancillary Schaefer statistic (I propose calling it, "The Refreshment Index"). I'm afraid if we did the same thing to pitchers per IP the starters would then get crushed by relievers however.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 06 2005 09:52 AM

Maybe instead of per at bat or per inning, you could do it per game. After all, Schaefer points are accumlated game by game, not at bat by at bat. That also would smooth over the problem with starting pitchers vs. relievers. My one suggestion for refining the Schaefer rules for next year would be to allow fewer than 10 points in a loss. Make 10 mandatory in a win, but establish a minimum of 5 points in a loss. Any game the Mets win it should be pretty easy to get to 10 points. If the Mets win 17-15, all the points might go to the hitters. In a 3-0 win, it might tilt more towards the pitchers. Here's an extreme example, though. The Mets win 1-0 on a complete game shutout by Benson. The Mets get only one baserunner themselves: a solo homer by Victor Diaz. In that case, I'd go Benson 6, Diaz 4. Four points is a lot for a single swing of the bat, but as I said, it's the most extreme example. If the Mets lose 17-15, there are still hitters to reward, so we should be able to get to 10. If the Mets lose 2-0, there are pitchers who have earned points. The problem is when the Mets lose 12-0, and everybody pretty much sucked. In games like this, somebody might get 2 points for a lone single, in the effort to stretch to 10 points. If we were only stretching to 5 there would be fewer points earned for mediocrity. Sure, this would have cost Wright, Floyd, and Reyes some points, but I'd bet that it would have removed proportionately more points from guys like Mientkiewicz and Cairo. It's something to think about for next year, anyway.

Nymr83 Oct 06 2005 10:09 AM

Elster88 wrote: This is, IMHO, a terrible way to look at things. Was Cairo's year long contribution less valuable to the team than Jacobs' 1.5 months? Of course not. of course it was. jacobs gave the mets a good chance to win when he played, cairo didn't. it isn't jacobs' fault that he didnt play more or that his platoon mates sucked ass. yancy- good idea, though i'd think we need ard cap on a loss too, say 8 the problem with 5-10 is we'll be valualing some losses way more than others, and i thought the idea was to value all games the same. dickshot- good idea, i like rate statitistics better than raw counting stats anyway, so a per game deal is definetaly something i like. Were Mientkiewicz, Cairo, and Matsui all indeed below replacement level? By what measure? that chart that was posted on mets OPS by position compared to the league seemed to make this obvious to me, i would be happy to go through the numbers tonight when i get home if you wish to argue this point however.

sharpie Oct 06 2005 10:32 AM

This doesn't take into account defense which it should. If Cairo made some spectacular play to save a run or runs I'd throw him a point or two. I like the system as-is. That being said, I did a much better job rating when I actually saw the game than if I just looked at the box scores.

Edgy MD Oct 06 2005 10:33 AM

Is it possible to easily extract what the standings were in PotG wins?

Rotblatt Oct 06 2005 10:36 AM

From Baseball Prospectus, Value Over Replacement Player: Mientkiewicz: 4.8 Matsui: 2.7 Cairo: -1.7 So Cairo was the only one worse than replacement level, according to VORP. They were all clearly well below AVERAGE, but that's not quite the same thing. Jabob's VORP was 16.5, so if you buy into VORP, Jacobs was more valuable to our success (such as it was) this year than all the guys above combined. Here's BP's definition: Value Over Replacement Player. The number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player at the same position would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances. VORP scores do not consider the quality of a player's defense.

Edgy MD Oct 06 2005 10:46 AM

Considering the players' defense would likely truncate the spread of those three. Thanks for finding that. I think we toss around "replacement player" a lot around here without appreciating what we're saying.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 06 2005 10:56 AM

Jabob's VORP was 16.5, so if you buy into VORP, Jacobs was more valuable to our success (such as it was) this year than all the guys above combined. Yeah but only during the time he was here. Like I said, Schaefer really can't be both the judge of who played and who should have played more at the same time, except when using the Refreshment Index. If someone wants to total that up (by game as YSG suggested) that'd be kool. I'm too bizzy again today.

Nymr83 Oct 06 2005 11:09 AM

Mientkiewicz: 4.8 Matsui: 2.7 Cairo: -1.7 ok, so i'll revise my statement, they are all below or marginally above relacement level. ok, defense isn't taken into account so mintky is probably a bit more valuable than this and the 2 blackholes at 2b a bit rse.

Elster88 Oct 06 2005 11:41 AM

of course it was. jacobs gave the mets a good chance to win when he played, cairo didn't. it isn't jacobs' fault that he didnt play more or that his platoon mates sucked ass. By this rationale, you should give Jacobs the same rating as someone who played exactly the same as he did but over the entire year. And that obviously wouldn't work. As far as I understand, the goal for the player rankings is not to rate how well someone played (or whether he gave them "a good chance to win"), but to rate his contribution over the entire year. So Matsui and Cairo get points for playing the whole year, but lose some for playing at an average or above average level. Jacobs gets points for playing at an above average level, but loses some for only playing for a short timespan.

Elster88 Oct 06 2005 11:41 AM

of course it was. jacobs gave the mets a good chance to win when he played, cairo didn't. it isn't jacobs' fault that he didnt play more or that his platoon mates sucked ass. By this rationale, you should give Jacobs the same rating as someone who played exactly the same as he did but over the entire year. And that obviously wouldn't work. As far as I understand, the goal for the player rankings is not to rate how well someone played (or whether he gave them "a good chance to win"), but to rate his contribution over the entire year. So Matsui and Cairo get points for playing the whole year, but lose some for playing at an average or below average level. Jacobs gets points for playing at an above average level, but loses some for only playing for a short timespan.

Nymr83 Oct 06 2005 11:55 AM

By this rationale, you should give Jacobs the same rating as someone who played exactly the same as he did but over the entire year. And that obviously wouldn't work. nope. quality > quantity doesn't mean quality + quantity = quality. So Matsui and Cairo get points for playing the whole year, but lose some for playing at an average or below average level. Jacobs gets points for playing at an above average level, but loses some for only playing for a short timespan. untrue. jacobs cant get pts in games he didnt play, but until we start allowing negative pts for all the times castro took an 0-4 the system will heavily bias quantity over quality, which i dont like.

SwitchHitter Oct 06 2005 12:05 PM

Nymr83 wrote: i liked the idea, though i stopped voting halfway through after falling behind and deciding i didnt care to catch up. Hey, I voted something like three times (after asking if Astros fans could vote) and it worked out. You could've just skipped some and gotten back into it.

Edgy MD Oct 06 2005 12:07 PM

ok, so i'll revise my statement, they are all below or marginally above relacement level. ok, defense isn't taken into account so mintky is probably a bit more valuable than this and the 2 blackholes at 2b a bit rse. No, because players capable of playing second --- even poorly --- are scarcer. They wouldn't be worse.

Nymr83 Oct 06 2005 12:09 PM

why would we discriminate against astros fans? yankee and brave fans may not vote.

SwitchHitter Oct 06 2005 12:35 PM

Nymr83 wrote: why would we discriminate against astros fans? That's easy. Because we don't watch all the Mets games. Nymr83 wrote: yankee and brave fans may not vote. LOL, I'm with you on that. I know about triple happieness--is there double happiness during the play-offs?

Benjamin Grimm Oct 06 2005 12:41 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Is it possible to easily extract what the standings were in PotG wins? Unfortunately, no. In fact, it's not possible to do it at all for the entire season, since all of the details from April have been lost to the ezHacker. If you wanted to do from May 1 through the end of the season, you could probably do that without making yourself crazy. You could do it by scrolling through the five monthly summary threads in the 2005 POTG Forum. Each game's results are listed in chronological order, and for each game, the players are listed with the highest scorer first. For example: May 1, Beltran; May 2, Martinez; May 3, Floyd; May 4, Seo; May 5, Piazza. And so on and so on.

Elster88 Oct 06 2005 12:43 PM

Nymr83 wrote: nope. quality > quantity doesn't mean quality + quantity = quality. I realize this, but the reasoning you were espousing before did not. Nymr83 wrote: jacobs cant get pts in games he didnt play Well, yeah, that's what I was saying. I can explain it in a different way: Matsui and Cairo get smaller increments for the games they played in over a longer period of time, and Jacobs gets larger increments over a much shorter period of time. Since Jacobs' period of time is much shorter, over the long haul Matsui and Cairo attain more points and thus are higher ranked from the prespective of who contributed the most over the year. I'm not sure how else to explain it. I wash my hands of this.

SwitchHitter Oct 06 2005 12:47 PM

I guess the question is whether a lot of small contributions are worth more than a few large ones. Those allegedly mediocre players didn't get points for mediocrity, they got them for contributions they made in games. If they don't contribute, they don't get points. And you can't contribute in games you don't play in. Yes, it's not a player's fault that they don't get in more games, but you can't reward them for contributions they didn't make, either.

Edgy MD Oct 06 2005 01:13 PM

If a voter believes that some players got too far on modest contributions, s-/he can cast her/-is votes throwing a greater spread between outstanding contributions and modest ones. If a voter believes otherwise, s-/he can cast the votes otherwise.

Nymr83 Oct 06 2005 01:24 PM

but jacobs, who was presumably productive in a majority of his games, doesn't have (many) games that DETRACT from their season-long contribution as of where mediocrities/scrubs (whichever you prefer to call them) don't lose any pts in this system for those bad games in which they hurt the team. potential solution: 10 pts per game, but you could grant up to 15 while giving -5.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 06 2005 01:30 PM

Negative points would kill a guy like Looper. When he gets a save, he usually gets about 1 point, because all he did was pitch one inning. But when he blows one, you could argue that he singlehandedly cost the Mets the game, so he'd be sure to get some -5's. Theoretically, if he saved 5 out of every 6 games, he'd end up with a net total of zero points.

Frayed Knot Oct 06 2005 01:42 PM

one suggestion for refining the Schaefer rules for next year would be to allow fewer than 10 points in a loss. Make 10 mandatory in a win, but establish a minimum of 5 points in a loss. Now if only someone had suggested something like this earlier.

TheOldMole Oct 06 2005 01:50 PM

I actually did, but the format had been established, and the incredible thing is that Y actually did it all season, so Zero complaints here. Still, I'd like to see 15 for a win, 5 for a loss.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 06 2005 01:59 PM

TheOldMole wrote: Still, I'd like to see 15 for a win, 5 for a loss. I think that's too extreme. The contributions to a 7-6 win shouldn't be three times that of the contributions in an 8-7 loss. My suggestion of 5 to 10 for a loss, and 10 for a win came about to address those dismal games where the Mets lose 8-0. We end up giving 1 or more points to a player simply for getting a walk or pitching a scoreless mop-up inning.

ScarletKnight41 Oct 06 2005 02:01 PM

I'd go for that Yancy. There have been lots of games where I couldn't find 10 points to award, but 5 would have been easy.

TheOldMole Oct 06 2005 03:27 PM

I'm for it too. Better than my idea. (What am I saying????)

Nymr83 Oct 06 2005 04:12 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Negative points would kill a guy like Looper. When he gets a save, he usually gets about 1 point, because all he did was pitch one inning. But when he blows one, you could argue that he singlehandedly cost the Mets the game, so he'd be sure to get some -5's. Theoretically, if he saved 5 out of every 6 games, he'd end up with a net total of zero points. limit it to -1 per player per game. also, if a closer saves a 1 run game he'll get more credit out of me than "saving" the 3-0 lead (in whch case he is unlikely to even see a point out of me if the starter went 8 scoreless)

Benjamin Grimm Oct 07 2005 07:07 AM

I guess it's time to unsticky this one.

Edgy MD Oct 07 2005 07:09 AM

Negative points is a bad idea.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 07 2005 07:38 AM

I'm not crazy about that idea either.

Nymr83 Oct 07 2005 01:05 PM

what if guidelines were established as to what each game was worth based on run differential? close wins are worth more than blowout wins which are worth more than close losses which are finally worth more than blowout losses. i dont think anyone ever has trouble assigning point when the mets lose 8-7 (give it to the hitters) or 1-0 (10 points for the SP) the problem comes wn they lose 10-0 or worse yet get no hit while every pitcher gives something up.

Edgy MD Oct 07 2005 01:15 PM

That's more or less a direction that I thought we could go in. Give ten points every game, with the understanding that a point is a generally meaningless quantity, except as it compares one performance in one game to other performances in that same game. Then multiply those points by a factor based on the game score --- something like 1.5 for a five-run win and 0.5 for a five-run loss (I'm not endorsing those numbers) --- so a point in a good game is worth more than a point in a bad one. I think we need the ten-pont control. I think we get bad data if everyone is giving diifferent scores. And maybe some programmer can come up with an online balot form with the name of all participants and an empty box next to his name in which a person can fill in the number of points next to the candidates name, with a running count of points at the bottom of the screen as he fills out his or her ballot, and then hit a submit button when the tally equals 10.00. And maybe we can vote for every game ever.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 07 2005 01:46 PM

Edgy DC wrote: I think we need the ten-point control. I think we get bad data if everyone is giving diifferent scores. And maybe some programmer can come up with an online balot form with the name of all participants and an empty box next to his name in which a person can fill in the number of points next to the candidates name, with a running count of points at the bottom of the screen as he fills out his or her ballot, and then hit a submit button when the tally equals 10.00. And maybe we can vote for every game ever. I think we need the ten as a maxium. It gives scale to everything. But in a dud game, if somebody only awards five points, they're effectively giving a zero to a lot of people. And I don't really think that would skew things as much as giving fluff points to guys for not really doing much. As for your "maybe some programmer" idea, that thought did pop into my mind as a UMDB feature. And it would allow all games to be voted without a) me going crazy and b) needing to create 7,000 threads in this forum.

Johnny Dickshot Oct 07 2005 02:00 PM

I know I volunteered to write a press release, but I'm just not good at it. I wanted this to come off funnier than it reads. I'm thinking maybe we can issue this release after the World Series but before the hot stove season -- dearth of bb news then other than stupid awards. Or we could do it next week. Mostly I want this to be funnier. Names removed. Have at it: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DAVID WRIGHT NAMED METS SCHAEFER PLAYER OF THE YEAR Six-Pack Awarded as Fans Cheer Frosty Golden Met Tradition BROOKLYN, N.Y. (Oct. 7, 2005) — Outlasting teammate Cliff Floyd with a late-season surge, New York Mets third baseman David Wright was voted the prestigious Schaefer Mets Player of the Year by the Crane Pool Forum (www.cranepoolforum.net). Representatives of the Crane Pool, an online society devoted to New York Mets history, research and discussion, mailed Wright his prize, a six-pack of Schaefer beer, today. The Schaefer Player of the Year contest recognizes the Mets’ of today while celebrating their past by reviving a mid-1970s marketing scheme performed by the legendary TV/Radio announcing trio of Lindsay Nelson, Ralph Kiner and Bob Murphy. Following each game, the broadcasters would award 10 points recognizing the contributions of each player toward that day’s game. Rules stipulated that 10 points must be awarded for every game, and that no single player may earn more than 6 points in any one game. Though recalled mainly as a lame vehicle for a beer sponsor, Crane Poolians recognized the Schaefer points system as a superior way to value performances. Reviving the tradition in 2005, dozens of Schaefer Player of the Game votes were cast after each Met game in 2005, with running totals tabulated throughout the season by representatives of the Ultimate Mets Database (www.ultimatemets.com) “In previous years we had voted for a player of the game. Pick one guy and a pat on the back to the losers. It quickly became obvious that, if we were to tally the winners for a year-end honor, steady contributors and consistent runners-up would be disadvantaged,â€

Edgy MD Oct 07 2005 02:03 PM

It wouldn't be fluff, you see, because once that factor is applied, a bunch of 0.50 scores would be reduced to rather small scores. I think we all need to apply the same number of points to a given game --- even if that means, after the game, that we all are offered only six points to vote with, or get as many as 14. Control. Control.

ScarletKnight41 Oct 07 2005 02:21 PM

I think it's great. Nicely done, Wide!

Benjamin Grimm Oct 07 2005 02:44 PM

For some reason I can't put my big fat orange finger on, the scaling up disturbs me. I guess the same can be accomplished by only scaling down, where necessary. An up-to-par Mets game would remain at ten points. A sub-par one could be scaled down, perhaps to as low as a 5. There would have to be some standard for what the scaling factor would be. Oh, and Johnny, I like the press release. Always remember, though, it's LINDSEY with an E, not LINDSAY with an A.

Edgy MD Oct 07 2005 02:52 PM

Mostly I want this to be funnier. Somebody poke Centerfield.

Nymr83 Oct 07 2005 03:43 PM

Edgy DC wrote: It wouldn't be fluff, you see, because once that factor is applied, a bunch of 0.50 scores would be reduced to rather small scores. I think we all need to apply the same number of points to a given game --- even if that means, after the game, that we all are offered only six points to vote with, or get as many as 14. Control. Control. i like this alot. even in a crap game you can 2 points to 5 people knowing that once we've scaled it they'll each get only 1 out of it, but it prevents people's votes from being worth different amounts in a given game since everyone must assign 10 pts.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 10 2005 08:49 AM

Okay, here are the options as I see them. (They're not all of the options, just the ones that can work without overly complicating the tallying effort.) 1. Same as in 2005 Ten points per game. No more than six for any one player. 2. Allow fewer points in a loss 2(a) Ten points for a win, anywhere from 5 to 10 points in a loss, up the voter's discretion. Maximum of 6 points for any one player. 2(b) Come up with a rule, based on the final score of the game, that assigns a point value for that game. A win would be ten points. A close loss might be 9, a drubbing might be 5. Everyone who votes allocates a number of points equal to the game's point value. For example, if the game is a 7, every voter awards 7 points. Maximum of 6 points for any one player. The rule to assign point value to a game would still need to be determined. 2(c) Schaefer Classic rules. Award a maximum of 10 points, no more than 6 to any one player. No minimum. 2(b) would get us the same result as the scaling factor that was mentioned previously. Instead of some games being a .7 and others a 1.4, for example (meaning the 10 points would be reduced to 7 or increased to 14) the ceiling remains at 10. No multiplication would be needed, but we'd still get the result of valuing performance in some games more than others. But as I think about it, I'm liking 2(c) more and more. It's a far simpler way of achieving what 2(b) gets us. Instead of creating some abstract formula, the scaling becomes more organic. Not all 10-3 losses are equal. In a game where the starting pitcher goes 8 scoreless innings, and then the bullpen gives up 10 runs in the ninth, you do have an outstanding pitching performace to reward, plus a few points to the guys who helped accumulate the runs that originally gave the Mets a lead. However, there could be a 10-3 loss in which all of the pitchers sucked, some more than others, and the 3 runs came long after the Mets were way behind. In that kind of game, you might only award a few token points. With method 2(c), the first 10-3 game might end up as a 10 point game, or maybe an 8.5, or a 9.3, depending on how everyone votes. The second one might end up as a 4, or a 2.8, or a 3.73, again, depending on how the consensus turns out. It seems to me better to do it this way, valuing the game on a case-by-case basis, than by a hard-and-firm rule that says all x-run losses are the same.

ScarletKnight41 Oct 10 2005 08:59 AM

Personally, I'm good with 2(a) or 2(c). I like the 10 point cap. I like the option of awarding fewer than 10 points for games of particular suckitude. It would get me to vote in more of the bad games - there are plenty of times where I won't vote because I can't see giving a guy 3 points for getting a friggin' single. And again, thanks Yancy for coordinating this. You did a great job this year.

Elster88 Oct 10 2005 09:09 AM

I am all for keeping it at exactly 10 points per game. Who does more: a) the guy who goes 3-3 with 3 bloop singles in a game where four shitty Diamondback pitchers pitch and the Mets win 17-3 b) the guy who goes 1-4, his single coming in the inning where Reyes reaches on an error, goes to third on this single, and scores on a sac fly in a 2-hitter by Smoltz that the Mets lose 4-1. It's all about performance relative to the game. _____________________________ This post had the designation 140) David Weathers

Nymr83 Oct 10 2005 09:59 AM

No more than six for any one player. can we discuss getting rid of this? what happens when a pitcher shuts the other team out and our team scores on an error 1-0? or better yet if a pitcher drives in the runs while shutting them out. the 6 points per player thing is blatently anti-pitching.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 10 2005 10:02 AM

I think, in such a case, I would like to be able to vote 6 for the pitcher and zero for everyone else.

metsmarathon Oct 10 2005 11:50 AM

surely there were good defensive plays, no? and if not, give the remaining 4 to the catcher - he must've called a good game.

Frayed Knot Oct 10 2005 12:25 PM

I'm strongly in favor of 2C: Schaefer Classic rules. Award a maximum of 10 points, no more than 6 to any one player. No minimum. I would have voted in a lot more losses had this been an option. Instead, I wound up skipping a bunch rather than give inflated grades for bad play simply because it was all-or-nothing.

Nymr83 Oct 10 2005 01:01 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I think, in such a case, I would like to be able to vote 6 for the pitcher and zero for everyone else. that still doesnt strike at the root of my problem- a (good) starting pitcher is responsible for a greater number of plate appearances than a hitter is (making him at least as valuable to a team), yet they are concentrated into 1 out of every 5 games. if a hitter contributes 10 points worth of effort in 5 games he can get scores of 3 2 1 2 2. a pitcher should be able to get 0 10 0 0 0 for those 10 points worth of effort in 5 games, yet we are capping him at 0 6 0 0 0. so even though he was objectively as valuable as the hitter over the course of 5 games he is getting far less because of the artificial point cap. i understand the 6 point cap trying to prevent a hitter from getting 10 points when he goes 2-2, 2hr, 6rbi, we want to reward the 4 guys he drove in too, but a pitcher who throws a 9 inning shutout deserves at least the chance to be given more than 60% of the credit for that win. i'd like to lift the 6 point cap entirely, but if thats too extreme how bout a 6 point cap on hitters and no cap on pitchers OR a cap on starters equal to the number of innings they pitched, so a guy who goes 9 can get 9, a guy who goes 8 can get 8.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 10 2005 01:29 PM

i'd like to lift the 6 point cap entirely, but if thats too extreme how bout a 6 point cap on hitters and no cap on pitchers OR a cap on starters equal to the number of innings they pitched, so a guy who goes 9 can get 9, a guy who goes 8 can get 8. I think that's worth thinking about. But remember, David Wright, our 2005 winner, got about 140 points in 160 games. That's .875 points per game. In your example, over 5 games he'd have 4.375 points. The hitter who gets 10 points in 5 games is rare. I think allowing a pitcher to get 10 points in a game would tilt things too far in the other direction. In a game where Pedro throws a 1-0 shutout and the Mets gather four singles, the voting might go something like this: Martinez 6 Wright 1 Floyd 1 Beltran 1 Reyes 1 But if you eliminate the 10-point requirement, there will be some who will simply vote: Martinez 6 And that ends up helping Pedro, too, because his dominance keeps the other guys from getting votes. I think that the rule requiring ten points ended up skewing the results, because there were plenty of cases where guys got more points than they would otherwise have for drawing a walk, or getting a meaningless single, or pitching a scoreless mop up inning. It's why I like 2(c) best.

Centerfield Oct 10 2005 01:35 PM

I like 2(c). Let's face it, in some games there just aren't 10 points to be given out. I don't like the idea of giving someone 3 points just because he pitched a scoreless inning in mop-up duty of a 10-0 loss. To Edgy: Stop poking me.

sharpie Oct 10 2005 01:37 PM

I'll vote 2(c) as well although I didn't have a problem with the way it was.

Valadius Oct 10 2005 01:58 PM

How about a compromise? Although I'd rather keep things the way they are, here's what I propose: 10-point maximum 6 to 10-point minimum (we can debate this) maximum of 6 points per player minimum of two players receiving votes (after all, the whole point was to avoid screwing the also-rans)

Benjamin Grimm Oct 10 2005 02:11 PM

Valadius wrote: 10-point maximum 6 to 10-point minimum (we can debate this) maximum of 6 points per player minimum of two players receiving votes (after all, the whole point was to avoid screwing the also-rans) That's pretty much the 2(a), except for the two-player minimum. The problem with that last wrinkle is that you'd also have to have a minimum point value for that second player, otherwise it's easily subverted. You could just do: Martinez 6 DeFelice 0.01

Nymr83 Oct 10 2005 03:59 PM

ah but wright averaged that amount. i am sure there are 5 game stretches in which he had 10 points, a pitcher cant possibly get that many points. wright had 140 points, and i can easily see a hitter next year having 150-155. a pitcher's absolute maximum with 34 starts would be 204 with a 6 point maximum, if half his starts were shutouts (and i have to assume a shutout gets a 6) and the other half were "worth 3" (something along the lines of 6-7 innings 2-3 runs) he'd get a 153, surely such a pitcher has had a better year than wright had this year? but he could theoretically still get screwed by a hitter having a good year simply because he cant get maximum points for his efforts.

TheOldMole Oct 10 2005 04:02 PM

That's why they have the Cy Young.

Edgy MD Oct 10 2005 06:32 PM

Let's face it, in some games there just aren't 10 points to be given out. Of course there are. A point is an abstraction. It has no real meaning outside of the context of the relative performances of the game.