Master Index of Archived Threads


It's almost Schaefer time

Yancy Street Gang Mar 10 2006 11:24 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 10 2006 01:58 PM

We had the discussion last October, and since the consensus pretty much matched my personal preference, I've decided that that's what we'll go with. http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=1474 The rules will be classic Schaefer, just as Ralph, Lindsey, and Bob used to do it: Maximum of 10 points per game. Maximum of 6 points for any one player. No minimum. We'll continue to allow fractions, even though I'm pretty sure that Lindsey Nelson never awarded anybody a 1.53. Any zero votes will be tossed, as they would drag down the totals of those who did vote. If you think there was a game where everybody sucked, just don't vote. This year I have added more magic to my magic spreadsheet, which will hopefully make the tallying even easier for me. If that holds up, I don't plan to pester anybody to revise their votes. Anyone who votes more than 6 points for a player will have their vote tossed. Anyone who goes over 10 total points will be pro-rated down. Once the votes are tallied the decision is final. (I'm starting to sound like Jeff Probst!) Any CPF member can open the voting threads; it doesn't have to be me. If I've gone to bed, or am on vacation, please feel free to open the voting yourself. (If any duplicates are created please lock and delete.) Just like last year, I'll announce when the voting is closed. This will typically be two or three days after the game, sometimes longer if the span includes a weekend. I'll post the official totals in the voting thread and then move the thread to the POTG forum. Periodically I'll post the season-to-date and month-to-date totals, and we'll have six Schaefer Players of the Month. (And maybe seven, if the Mets play deep into October.) The best way to vote is to keep it simple, enter the player's last name followed by his point total. No nicknames, please, and try to avoid misspellings. (With Mientkiewicz gone, it should be less of a problem than last year.) The spreadsheet is sensitive to spaces, so LoDuca is better than Lo Duca. If you can also leave out colons or dashes and the like, that would be appreciated. Please put comments on a separate line from the votes. GOOD Martinez 5 LoDuca 2 Wagner 1.5 Beltran .75 Nady .75 That double by Lo Duca turned the game around! NOT SO GOOD Pedro: 5 Lo Duca: 2 His double turned the game around! Nightcrawler 1.5 Carlos .75 Nadey .75 Voting starts in a little more than three weeks. Be there!

seawolf17 Mar 10 2006 11:27 AM Re: It's almost Schaefer time

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Nightcrawler 1.5 Funny! You did a great job with this last year, YSG. Keep up the good work!

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 11:30 AM

I tried last year to do each individual poster's totals, but lost steam by mid-June. I'll try again unless someone objects.

MFS62 Mar 10 2006 11:37 AM

]If you think there was a game where everybody sucked, just don't vote. That's how I handled it last year, and that's why my total votes awarded for the year were fewer than others'. Later

TheOldMole Mar 10 2006 11:49 AM

I still like the idea of more total points for a win, fewer for a loss, but I'm not complaining. Megakudos to Yancey for doing this.

sharpie Mar 10 2006 11:53 AM

It ain't broke! Don't fix it!

Yancy Street Gang Mar 10 2006 11:59 AM

TheOldMole wrote: I still like the idea of more total points for a win, fewer for a loss, but I'm not complaining. Megakudos to Yancey for doing this. In most cases it'll probably end up working out that way. Some losses will end up getting ten points, but most will probably get fewer. And the worst losses will get considerably fewer.

Elster88 Mar 10 2006 12:09 PM

I read this wrong. ]The rules will be classic Schaefer, just as Ralph, Lindsey, and Bob used to do it: Maximum of 10 points per game. Maximum of 6 points for any one player. No minimum. So it's not necessary to allocate the full ten points?

Yancy Street Gang Mar 10 2006 12:11 PM

Right.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 12:30 PM

Is it too late to consider my idea of adjusting points after specified periods by team winning percentage? For example, lets say Xavier Nady amasses 300 points this year. Add the points he generated in wins (let's say, 180 of them), and multiply those points by a factor of the team winning percentage (let's say, we win 90 games for a .556 winning percentage). To assess Nady's total points, we'd adjust his "winning points" thusly: (180 X .0556) = 10 (+ 180) = 190 "adjusted winning points" + 120 "losing points" = 310 total points This is a small adjustment in the end, but it at least attempts to account for the fact that half the room is afraid to vote when the team loses. It's far superior to having as much as 45% of all games not voted on. Obviously, we'd have to cut it off at .500 -- if the team loses more than it wins we can't punish the wins -- but this is a way to generate the same voting in wins as losses. Yay or nay?

Frayed Knot Mar 10 2006 12:38 PM

Half the room was "afraid" to vote in losses because we were told that it had to be 10 points or nothing. I tried to submit one with fewer one time and was taken out in the alley and beaten (more) senseless ... or something like that. Accepting partial scores for good performances in retched games sure cure that problem.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 10 2006 12:39 PM

That's more complexity than I personally care to take on. But the raw data (meaning the number of points that each player earned in each game) will be available to anybody who would be interested in tinkering with the totals.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 10 2006 12:41 PM

But if we all have a different idea of how many points a given game is worth, won't that completely corrupt the data?

cooby Mar 10 2006 12:47 PM

Is poll voting gone for good?

Yancy Street Gang Mar 10 2006 12:48 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Half the room was "afraid" to vote in losses because we were told that it had to be 10 points or nothing. I tried to submit one with fewer one time and was taken out in the alley and beaten (more) senseless ... or something like that. Accepting partial scores for good performances in retched games sure cure that problem. And that's one reason why I don't care to continue that 10-point requirement. Enforcing it was too much trouble and it discouraged voting. I wanted to bail on that rule before mid-season, but I didn't want to change the rules while we were underway, so I reluctanly continued to enforce.

Frayed Knot Mar 10 2006 12:53 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: But if we all have a different idea of how many points a given game is worth, won't that completely corrupt the data? No more so than skipped votes or artificially inflated just-so-it-will-add-up-to-ten ones.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 10 2006 12:56 PM

I think that the 6 and 10 rules keep the points within tight enough bounds that the standards shouldn't vary that much. And the variation might have more of an impact if we took turns voting, if I did Tuesdays, and you did Wednesdays, and somebody else did Thursdays, for example. But the way the tallying is done, it's all about consensus, so the deviations should get pretty well neutralized.

Nymr83 Mar 10 2006 12:57 PM

Elster88 wrote: I tried last year to do each individual poster's totals, but lost steam by mid-June. I'll try again unless someone objects. a worthwhile project. i still think the 6-point maximum is biased against starting pitchers. just to clarify you must distribute 10 points or is less ok?

Yancy Street Gang Mar 10 2006 01:00 PM

]Maximum of 10 points per game. Maximum of 6 points for any one player. No minimum. The 10-point minimum is gone. If, on a day that the Mets lose 12-0 on a one-hitter, and you want to give 1 point to the guy who got the hit, that's fine. And if you want to distribute 10 points for that game, that's fine, too.

Willets Point Mar 10 2006 01:15 PM

cooby wrote: Is poll voting gone for good? I have no interest in doing this anymore, so if we're to have poll voting someone else will have to pick up the ball and run with it.

ScarletKnight41 Mar 10 2006 01:32 PM

I like the new system - thanks Yancy :)

Rockin' Doc Mar 11 2006 12:34 PM

I am willing to run the traditional polling system for player of the games. I may not always get a poll up immediately after each game, due to my schedule, but I will try to keep them current so we don't get more than one or two games behind. As lonmg as an interest exists and people are voting, I will make every attempt to put the polls up. I think it is nice to have both POTG votes going. It will be interesting to see how the end of year results compare between the two methods of voting.

Edgy DC Mar 11 2006 12:56 PM

] I tried to submit one with fewer one time and was taken out in the alley and beaten (more) senseless ... or something like that. Always mit the victim game.

cooby Mar 11 2006 12:57 PM

Thanks Rockin'Doc!

Frayed Knot Mar 11 2006 01:26 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ] I tried to submit one with fewer one time and was taken out in the alley and beaten (more) senseless ... or something like that. Always mit the victim game. I got better

TheOldMole Mar 12 2006 11:44 AM

100% behind the new system.

Nymr83 Mar 12 2006 11:46 AM

the forum gets clutterred very fast with an IGT and two different voting systems going on for every game... if we're going to do the "Poll-vote" can i suggest that it either be put in the same thread as the schaeffer or edited into the IGT after the game?

Yancy Street Gang Mar 12 2006 01:05 PM

Ix-nay to same thread as the Schaefer. That would make my tallying more difficult. There shouldn't be too much clutter. Each game stays active for only a few days and then gets moved into the POTG forum. I'm open to suggestions regarding the use of stickies for the POTG threads, as we did with the song parodies. Do we like, love, dislike, or hate the idea? I can go either way.

Nymr83 Mar 12 2006 01:09 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Ix-nay to same thread as the Schaefer. That would make my tallying more difficult. There shouldn't be too much clutter. Each game stays active for only a few days and then gets moved into the POTG forum. I'm open to suggestions regarding the use of stickies for the POTG threads, as we did with the song parodies. Do we like, love, dislike, or hate the idea? I can go either way. if they're only going to stay up a few days you might as well sticky them for the duration.

Elster88 Mar 12 2006 01:20 PM

Let's just leave it alone. The system of creating threads is just fine.

ScarletKnight41 Mar 12 2006 01:41 PM

Elster88 wrote: Let's just leave it alone. The system of creating threads is just fine. I concur.

Rockin' Doc Mar 12 2006 08:45 PM

Do I sense a backlash against the poll voting? I'm not looking to clutter up the board, but cooby requested the old system be implemented in addition to the Schaeffer POTG and I hate to see her disappointed. I will run it for a few weeks at the start of the season. I guess member participation will determine whether or not the polls will remain beyond that point. Besides, there seemed to be a great deal of discussion last season as to which method of POTG voting people preferred. Personally, I like both and think it will be interesting to see how the voting outcomes compare with one another.

ScarletKnight41 Mar 12 2006 08:55 PM

No backlash from me - I enjoy it.

Zvon Mar 14 2006 12:15 PM

Looking foward to Schaefer time again. :)

Centerfield Mar 14 2006 01:31 PM

Yancy, The new rules sound perfect. You're right, a lot of times, I just couldn't come up with 10 points, which is what kept me from voting. I'm looking forward to it. And thanks for your hard work.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 14 2006 01:37 PM

You're welcome! But it would probably be more accurate to say, "Thanks for your work." If it was hard work I probably wouldn't be doing it! I'm looking forward to it, too. I know we never did that press release, but has anybody sent David Wright a six-pack of Schaefer? Is he even old enough to drink it legally?

Yancy Street Gang Mar 30 2006 02:00 PM

In the past week, I made some nice enhancements to my magic spreadsheet, which will make the tallying much easier for me. I'm also going to be able to leverage the UMDB. There will be a web page we can all go to to see game-by-game voting results, as well as monthly and yearly totals that will automatically update when each game is tallied. So all I have to do is copy and paste the entire thread into a spreadsheet, run a couple of macros, and paste the output into the UMDB. This will insert into the database, update the monthly and season totals, and generate the HTML for me to paste into the thread. I'll also expose the raw data, so if anybody wants to import into Excel and play around with it, they'll be able to. Since this is going to be so much easier for me, I plan to keep it easy. Whereas last year I'd ask people to revise or clarify their votes if they allocated too many or too few points, I won't be doing that anymore. There's no longer any such thing as too few, but if anyone goes over the spreadsheet will automatically prorate the votes down to 10 points. Also, if anyone's vote is unclear, I'm just going to discard it. I'll no longer post messages in the voting threads that say things like, "Harvey123, please clarify your vote for Carlos. I can't tell if it's Beltran or Delgado." If your vote is unclear it won't be counted. Now that the Mets actually have a guy named Chad, I don't want any voting irregularities! I think this should be pretty cool: easier for me and more informative for everybody. Voting starts on Monday! Be there or be square!

Edgy DC Mar 30 2006 02:01 PM

So will the UMDB pages for each game display a Crane Pool Schaefer PotG? Harvey123 is a such pain.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 30 2006 02:05 PM

Edgy DC wrote: So will the UMDB pages for each game display a Crane Pool Schaefer PotG? Not at first, but that's a definite possibility. Do we like that idea?

Elster88 Mar 30 2006 02:10 PM

It'll certainly generate more forum buzz, if you include a link under some sort of "Explanation of Crane Pool Schaefer" header.

KC Mar 30 2006 02:27 PM

I do, especially if we get some new meat around here - not that I don't like the old meat.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 30 2006 02:50 PM

Can you also set that sucker up to tally "The Refeshment Index" -- that is, Schaefer Points Per IP (pitchers) and PA (hitters?). If not I volunteer to tally that sucker with pencil and paper monthly.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 30 2006 02:57 PM

You should be able to get that from the raw data that will be posted. The problem is if a guy pitches 2 innings and doesn't get any votes, he won't generate any data. Here's an example of what the one-game tallies will look like, at least when the UMDB box scores are up-to-date with the Schaefer stuff. (That will be somewhat hit and miss, but there's going to be a page where you can look up old games once the box scores are online.) Here's one of the two 2005 games that are, for now, in the UMDB: Totals for September 30, 2005 (8 votes) New York Mets 3, Colorado Rockies 2 Name Total Points Points Awarded Player Performance Kris Benson 34.60 4.33 (W) 7.1 IP, 6 H, 2 ER, 1 BB, 2 SO. Marlon Anderson 15.55 1.94 2-3, 2 R, RBI, BB. Mike Jacobs 14.25 1.78 2-4, R, RBI, BB. Aaron Heilman 13.50 1.69 (Sv) 1.2 IP, 0 H, 0 ER, 0 BB, 0 SO. David Wright 0.80 0.10 1-3. José Reyes 0.80 0.10 1-4. Cliff Floyd 0.25 0.03 0-3. Carlos Beltran 0.25 0.03 1-4.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 31 2006 09:37 AM

Here's what it's gonna look like. Right now there's two games worth of 2005 data. I'll clear that out once there's 2006 stuff.

Edgy DC Mar 31 2006 09:52 AM

Mexellent!

Giant Squidlike Creature Apr 27 2006 02:54 AM

Someone asked for the rules. Here they are.