Master Index of Archived Threads


Schaefer commentary

Nymr83 Apr 08 2007 06:39 PM

KC, no beer on april 8th for anyone but el duque? when castro and green went back to back they tied the game and took the lead

Kid Carsey Apr 08 2007 06:44 PM

Didn't feel very Schaeferly for yesterday's games and today's. The starting pitchers only get shots at vote every fifth day, so I sprayed some Schaefer on 'em. I'm going to try and vote all year, last year I got lazy, but some games will be less enthusiastically voted on than others.

Rockin' Doc Apr 08 2007 08:52 PM

It seems to me that people a being pretty harsh on Glavine for yesterday's game. Granted, he only lasted 5.33 innings, but he only allowed 4 hits and 2 earned runs. His defense betrayed him with two errors that led to 3 unearned runs. Even one of the hits was rather suspect scoring of a ground ball that Valentin had go off the heel of his glove ranging to his left. If he had fielded it cleanly, he definitely had a simple toss to get the runner. It certainly wasn't a great performance, but I think it merits more than the 0.5 to 1.0 Schaeffer points that many awarded Glavine. To see some awarded Green and Delgado the most beer seems pretty generous considering their defensive gaffes were largely responsible for the 3 unearned runs. Of course, that's just my thoughts.

Nymr83 Apr 08 2007 09:03 PM

the 3 walks and 1 hit batter didnt help his cause either, and he left the game with runners on (didn't clean up his own mess) which is something i never like to see

Benjamin Grimm Apr 09 2007 07:20 AM

Voting for all three games in Atlanta will close on Wednesday morning. Friday Saturday Sunday

Nymr83 Apr 09 2007 02:42 PM

no beer for Maine today (4/9). 4 2/3 just doesnt cut it for a starter. i don't care that he only allowed 2 runs, he walked SIX (on top of 5 hits) and left thegame with the bases loaded, only to be bailed out by burgos. finish that inning yourself and you'll get a couple of points, fail to even pitch 5 and leave in big trouble and i can't give you anything. burgos would have gotten a full point out of me if he'd just nailed down that out and gotten through the next inning because that out was big, but by giving up a 3-run shot he took away whatever he had earned

Elster88 Apr 10 2007 04:37 AM

Randolph -5

TheOldMole Apr 10 2007 11:09 AM

Reyes running out the popup to the mound and making second when it was dropped...that's what you wanna see.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 10 2007 11:16 AM

Wide disparity in voting for the home opener. It will be interesting to see what the final consensus looks like.

Nymr83 Apr 10 2007 11:21 AM

="TheOldMole"]Reyes running out the popup to the mound and making second when it was dropped...that's what you wanna see. no, thats what you expect to see, i don't give points for doing what every player should do (hustling) rather i take away points from anyone i see dogging it.

Gwreck Apr 10 2007 12:12 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Wide disparity in voting for the home opener. It will be interesting to see what the final consensus looks like. Indeed. What I can't figure out is the Smith/Feliciano situation. Seems to be a variety of opinions as to what a quality inning of relief work is worth (anywhere from 0 to 1, according to the votes). The strange part is them being awarded different point values on some ballots...and other ballots that list one but not the other.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 10 2007 12:19 PM

And Maine is getting a low of zero and a high of 3. Wright is ranging from 0.25 to 2.5.

Nymr83 Apr 10 2007 12:38 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 10 2007 12:44 PM

i'm really not sure where people found 3 points for John Maine, unless they didnt watch the game, just looked at the box score, and didn't see that he left the game with the bases loaded. edit- it should be pointed out that only one voter gave Maine 3, everyone else gave him 1 or less, so i think we can chalk that up to a crazy outlier unless the voter cares to defend it. i'm not sure where Wright gets 2.5 either, i suppose his was the biggest hit in the inning since everyone else seemed to get it done with bloopers, errors, and sac flies, i still wouldnt give him that much because the Mets already led 7-5 when he stepped to the plate, but its alot more defensible than Maine getting a 3 when nobody else topped 1.

metirish Apr 10 2007 12:43 PM

The voting for the home opener is getting all pear shaped.

Willets Point Apr 10 2007 12:57 PM

Wright lost a lot of points from me due to excessive LOBbage.

Rockin' Doc Apr 10 2007 07:02 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 10 2007 07:45 PM

Nymr - "...i don't give points for doing what every player should do (hustling) rather i take away points from anyone i see dogging it." Exactly. It has always irritated me to see a player quit on a play. With all the money players are being paid, there is no excuse for a player not to hustle. If a player can't give his best effort, then I can't give him any Schaeffer. Upon edit: fixed typo of efort

Kid Carsey Apr 10 2007 07:21 PM

Looked over the 4/9 points and like 'Monk's thinking and echoed it. (copy-catting is the most sincere form of flattery)

TheOldMole Apr 11 2007 08:16 AM

I disagree. Most players are safe at first on a dropped popup at the mound, not that many get to second.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 11 2007 12:04 PM

Voting for the series in Atlanta closed this morning. Voting continues for Monday's home opening win over the Phillies. I'll shut it down and post the totals some time on Thursday morning. http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6060

Nymr83 Apr 11 2007 11:28 PM

uglliest game so far this year (4/11) it would be pretty easy to give Reyes 1 point, smith and feliciano .5 each and just stop there, i want to give out 10 points every game though, i just feel the totals work out better that way.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 12 2007 06:52 AM

Month-to-date totals for April 2007 Through game of April 9, 2007 Rank Name Points 1 Orlando Hernandez 9.54 2 José Reyes 7.49 3 Carlos Beltran 6.28 4 Carlos Delgado 5.46 5 John Maine 5.29 6 Paul Lo Duca 5.21 7 Tom Glavine 5.03 8 Oliver Perez 4.48 9 Shawn Green 4.34 10 David Wright 2.16 11 José Valentin 2.01 12 Moises Alou 1.82 13 Aaron Heilman 1.26 13 Ramon Castro 1.26 15 Joe Smith 1.16 16 Scott Schoeneweis 0.89 17 Billy Wagner 0.70 18 Pedro Feliciano 0.54 19 Julio Franco 0.22 20 Ambiorix Burgos 0.04 21 Aaron Sele 0.03 22 Endy Chavez 0.02

Johnny Dickshot Apr 12 2007 07:23 AM

4/11: Why are folks leaving Sele off the ballot? Came into a situation where one pitch could have removed any hope, and kept 'em within comeback range for another 4 innings.

metsmarathon Apr 12 2007 07:38 AM

don't worry. i'm making up for it with a ridiculous 4.1 points for the guy!

Edgy DC Apr 12 2007 08:22 AM

Seems Valentin --- with a walk, a hit, and a run scored --- had as good a game as Reyes. He didn't do quite as much on defense, but Reyes' 1-for-2 in steals has to be a demerit.

Johnny Dickshot Apr 12 2007 08:40 AM

Reyes was on base his first 3 times up. I shounta left off Valentin completely.

Edgy DC Apr 12 2007 08:50 AM

Yeah, I'll have to withdraw that in part.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 12 2007 11:14 AM

Voting for April 11 will continue until some time Saturday morning.

Nymr83 Apr 15 2007 12:54 PM

I think this project gets hurt by the huge difference in voter turnout for wins and losses

Kid Carsey Apr 15 2007 01:11 PM

Place is quiet, maybe some monday morning votes will perk up yesterday nearly unwatchable debacle voting. As an aside, I like to give out ten votes for wins ... I can't see me ever handing out all ten in a loss and especially not a fugly loss.

Nymr83 Apr 15 2007 01:21 PM

i think the point should be to give out ten every game. if not we should be grading each player on a scale every game with no max on team totals. also, i find it strange that people will hand out a few points in a loss because they don't want to "stretch" while "stretching" to find ways to hand out all 10 in an ugly win.

Kid Carsey Apr 15 2007 01:38 PM

I can usually find ten points in a win without stretching too much. The "con- test" is a measure of successes, handing out ten points for a game like yes- terdays just doesn't make any sense to me. We've been through all this a number of times, I don't mean to rehash the ar- guments - everyone should just do what they want - like everything else here.

Nymr83 Apr 15 2007 03:36 PM

well if everyone can just do what the want i should be allowed to give 8 points to the guy who throws a 3-hit shutout or to Alfonzo's 6-6 3HR game, but yeah we've been htrough all this, its an unscheduled offday what else can we talk about?

Edgy DC Apr 15 2007 04:01 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 15 2007 04:13 PM

="Nymr83"]what else can we talk about? Start a thread on any of these themes: Mr. Met is cool. The giddy pop stylings of Don Ho's daugter aren't so bad. HooDoo Gurus. They rocked. Will Willie's Jackie Robinson tribute get re-scheduled? How about Dodgers by the Numbers? Does that poor theoretical schlub have to add 25 names to the list of guys who wore 42 for the team? Once upon a time, the Mets planned for a retractable roof on their new stadium. What happened there? I know the retractable field got replaced by a field that would be planted on removeable tiles. You think they're following through on that? Theoretically, if only one of the two new stadia in New York had a retractable roof, both the Yankees and the Mets could avoid any postponements. Do you think they though of that? I just heard "16 Blue." Sometimes, even in the imperfect parts of a Replacements song, it all comes through so true that it hurts. You know, there's a story in the liner notes of a 'Mats anthology I got. Seems the band got wind that Twin Tone was going to release their early albums on CD, thought it was a desacration, got drunk and stupid, talked their way into the Twin Tone offices, got their hands on their early masters, and tossed the tapes into the river. Think there's any truth there at all? Think Newhan lasts the year? Impossible, I say, if Green and Alou both remain healthy, but I guess that's unlikely. Milledge, Gomez, and Johnson: best outfield in AAA?

Benjamin Grimm Apr 15 2007 04:10 PM

Nymr83 wrote: well if everyone can just do what the want i should be allowed to give 8 points to the guy who throws a 3-hit shutout or to Alfonzo's 6-6 3HR game, but yeah we've been htrough all this, its an unscheduled offday what else can we talk about? It's a scale of 1 to 6, not a scale of 1 to 10. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 15 2007 05:13 PM

Voting for the April 12 game against the Phillies will close on Tuesday morning. http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6082

metsmarathon Apr 17 2007 06:54 AM

Nymr83 wrote: I think this project gets hurt by the huge difference in voter turnout for wins and losses phooey! although i volunteer somebody else to chart voters per win, and voters per loss. we can also commission a statistical lanalysis to evaluate the variance in votes between high-turnout games and low-turnout games, to the extent that we would then be able to extrapolate out just what effect the missing voters have. granted, if the mets would only do their fucking jobs right, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as there would be no more losses!

Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2007 07:16 AM

If you want to figure out votes per win, votes per loss, votes per score differential, and more, these pages will tell you: http://potg.ultimatemets.com/rawdata.php?year=2006 http://potg.ultimatemets.com/rawdata.php?year=2007 Just paste into a spreadsheet and have fun. The number of voters in a game has little impact, though. Fewer voters means less diversity of opinion, but each game still gets counted equally. The votes are averaged, not totaled.

Rockin' Doc Apr 18 2007 05:11 AM

We should have ordered more beer for last night's 8-1 win over the Phillies. There just wasn't enough Schaeffer to go around.

Frayed Knot Apr 18 2007 07:18 AM

Reyes made too many outs on the basepaths Tuesday night to get anything more than a token sip from me despite two hits, a real nice defensive play, and being part of another bushel of GiDPs turned. * Newly minted Bret Saberhagen post

Benjamin Grimm Apr 18 2007 07:43 AM

And the Schaefer Mets Most Frequently Misspelled Name of the Month Award for April goes to... Scott Schoeneweis! (I haven't memorized the spelling yet myself.) Everyone who misspells the name gets tripped up on the same letter: that E that comes between the N and the W.

dinosaur jesus Apr 18 2007 07:57 AM

Do I get extra weenie points if I spell it Schöneweis?

Benjamin Grimm Apr 18 2007 08:03 AM

I'm afraid my spreadsheet doesn't handle weenie points. Sorry.

Nymr83 Apr 18 2007 08:46 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: If you want to figure out votes per win, votes per loss, votes per score differential, and more, these pages will tell you: http://potg.ultimatemets.com/rawdata.php?year=2006 http://potg.ultimatemets.com/rawdata.php?year=2007 Just paste into a spreadsheet and have fun. The number of voters in a game has little impact, though. Fewer voters means less diversity of opinion, but each game still gets counted equally. The votes are averaged, not totaled. but each voter has a greater influence when there are fewer voters, this canbe especially telling if someone were to vote say "pedro 1" and nothing else for that game, they'd dilute all the other votes as if they'd voted "pedro 1 nobody 9" because the other players are all getting divided by the number of voters even if some of those voters didn't vote for 10 pts worth of players.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 18 2007 08:52 AM

True, but I don't recall that such a thing has happened all that much. I remember once somebody gave Trachsel only one point for pitching a shutout. And I also recall Glavine getting only one point once for 7 innings and 1 earned run. You're right, though: win or lose, the more voters the better.

metsmarathon Apr 18 2007 09:51 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ="Yancy Street Gang"]If you want to figure out votes per win, votes per loss, votes per score differential, and more, these pages will tell you: http://potg.ultimatemets.com/rawdata.php?year=2006 http://potg.ultimatemets.com/rawdata.php?year=2007 Just paste into a spreadsheet and have fun. The number of voters in a game has little impact, though. Fewer voters means less diversity of opinion, but each game still gets counted equally. The votes are averaged, not totaled. but each voter has a greater influence when there are fewer voters, this canbe especially telling if someone were to vote say "pedro 1" and nothing else for that game, they'd dilute all the other votes as if they'd voted "pedro 1 nobody 9" because the other players are all getting divided by the number of voters even if some of those voters didn't vote for 10 pts worth of players. ah, but what's the actual impact of doing that? for the specific game, it really only affects the divisor, and likely would not terribly affect the total rankings either at the end of the month, or at the end of the year. the greatest impact in a given game would come from someone awarding a 6 where no points are warranted, or a 0 where 6 points are warranted. in this case, the maximum theoretical single game impact would be 6/n schaefer points, where n is the number of voters. the real impact would be dS = (6/n)-[V/(n-1)] where dS is the change in the schaefer vote, n is hte number of voters, V is the total of the other voters' points, and n-1 is the number of other voters who are not trying to much up the works. we can replace [V/(n-1)] with S' which is the schaefer vote for a given player if that doesn't include the wacky voter's opinion. once you have more than 5 voters for a given game, the most any one person can affect the vote of a given game is one point. and that's if he gives out a 6 to a player nobody else voted for, or a 0 for a consensus 6. if the one guy gives a 4 to somebody we all think should get a 2, then the impact is less than a third of a point with more than 5 total voters - and i think that's more likely a difference of opinion than a 6/0 situation. much like voting for president, your vote isnt as important as you think it should be... but thankfully, neither is anybody else's! :)

Nymr83 Apr 18 2007 08:31 PM

tough one tonight, made easier by the 2 runs off Maine even though they didn't matter. I think i would have only given him 5 at most even if he didn't allow those runs...with a 4-0 lead before you even take the mound and more runs coming fast its just hard to give you too much

Benjamin Grimm Apr 19 2007 07:45 AM

Voting for Tuesday night's Mets win in Philadelphia will close on Friday morning. http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6123

Nymr83 Apr 19 2007 08:45 PM

Nymr83 wrote: tough one tonight, made easier by the 2 runs off Maine even though they didn't matter. I think i would have only given him 5 at most even if he didn't allow those runs...with a 4-0 lead before you even take the mound and more runs coming fast its just hard to give you too much great outing by hernandez, i capped him at 4 for the same reason i did to Maine last night, a 6-spot in the 3rd makes pitching easy

Benjamin Grimm Apr 21 2007 06:09 AM

Voting for Wednesday's game in Florida will close some time this weekend. http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6131

Benjamin Grimm Apr 23 2007 08:38 AM

Voting for the second win over the Marlins will close on Tuesday morning: Thursday's game: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6141 On Wednesday I'll close the voting for each of the three games at Shea against Atlanta and (if I remember) I'll also post the season-to-date totals: Friday's game: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6151 Saturday's game: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6155 Sunday's game: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6163

Benjamin Grimm Apr 25 2007 08:01 AM

Voting for Monday's 6-1 win over the Rockies will close on Thursday morning. José Reyes is looking like a player of the month right now, but Carlos Beltran still has a few games remaining in which he can make a run at the title. Pitcher of the Month is a close battle between Glavine and Hernandez as of this tally, but both John Maine and Hernandez have good efforts that haven't been totaled yet. Month-to-date totals for April 2007 Through game of April 22, 2007 Rank Name Points 1 José Reyes 20.57 2 Carlos Beltran 16.13 3 Orlando Hernandez 13.24 4 Tom Glavine 12.34 5 Shawn Green 10.29 6 Moises Alou 10.10 7 John Maine 9.69 8 Carlos Delgado 8.21 9 Oliver Perez 7.86 10 José Valentin 6.80 11 Paul Lo Duca 6.13 12 David Wright 5.69 13 Joe Smith 4.87 14 Ramon Castro 4.38 15 Scott Schoeneweis 3.54 16 Billy Wagner 2.45 17 Aaron Sele 2.44 18 Aaron Heilman 1.84 19 Pedro Feliciano 1.83 20 Endy Chavez 1.77 21 Julio Franco 1.54 22 Ambiorix Burgos 1.33 23 Mike Pelfrey 1.32 24 Damion Easley 0.83

Johnny Dickshot Apr 25 2007 08:43 AM

I loved Chavez' hit every bit as much as Easley's but they can't possibly weigh the same, people.

soupcan Apr 25 2007 08:52 AM

I see your point but Chavez deserves at least 2 points for that and if I'm giving Duque 4 I can't justify giving Easley 3. Its a very complicated process that I use to determine these things you know..

metirish Apr 25 2007 08:56 AM

For me 2/2 and 4 seem about right.

holychicken Apr 25 2007 09:23 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 25 2007 09:24 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I loved Chavez' hit every bit as much as Easley's but they can't possibly weigh the same, people. Why not? One stopped us from losing the game and one won the game. Both were hits that resulted in 1 RBI. Not only that, but the latter was a smart play. He didn't just hit the ball, he saw a weakness in the defense and put down a perfect bunt to exploit it. Two out game winning RBIs on perfectly placed bunts do deserve a lot of credit, IMO. To be honest, I can see giving Easley a slight edge from a win expectancy angle, but I find the fact that not only did you give Easley MORE points but more than 6x the amount of points to be a bit over the top. To each his own, eh?

Gwreck Apr 25 2007 09:24 AM

I have no problem giving Duque less than 4. Unfortunately, his effort became slightly marginalized by the extra innings, as what led to the win included quality relief in late/extra innings (which is always point-worthy). I agree though that Chavez' hit cannot possibly be worth as much as Easley's homer. We were down to the last strike, and down a run. Endy was great but other people could've won that game or we could've gone to another inning if he didn't get it done. For Easley, it was him or we lose.

Edgy DC Apr 25 2007 09:37 AM

As my broadcast cut out, I heard the Shea PA guy announcing the co-recipients of the house PotG as Easley and ND. Come on. Hernandez is any less excellent and Endy never gets into the game.

Nymr83 Apr 25 2007 10:46 AM

]Why not? One stopped us from losing the game and one won the game. Both were hits that resulted in 1 RBI. Not only that, but the latter was a smart play. He didn't just hit the ball, he saw a weakness in the defense and put down a perfect bunt to exploit it. Two out game winning RBIs on perfectly placed bunts do deserve a lot of credit, IMO. because its easier to drive in a runner on third than it is to drive in yourself.

Edgy DC Apr 25 2007 10:52 AM

Easley didn't just hit the ball. He hit it very very far, with nobody setting him up with a runner on third, and no Greek God Player of the Week behind him. Making a loss into a tie is just as big as makign a tie into a win, and he did it all alone.

Johnny Dickshot Apr 25 2007 10:59 AM

I adjusted my Endy vote up slightly but still 300% below my man Damion. Someone please find Win Expectancy chart

holychicken Apr 25 2007 11:27 AM

Nymr83 wrote: because its easier to drive in a runner on third than it is to drive in yourself. Still, he made an incredibly smart play. He could have swung for the fences and driven himself in as well, but he looked at a situation and took advantage of a weakness in the defense to WIN the game. I am not down-playing when Easley did, I gave them equal points (but I would argue that giving him slightly more points makes sense), but it was a smart and perfectly excuted play to win a game. Here is the graph, BTW. [url]http://www.fangraphs.com/wins.aspx?date=2007-04-24&team=Mets&dh=0&season=2007[/url] 36.2% (endy swing in chance) to 48.8% (easley swing in chance). (edit) I changed my chavez and easley scores to more line up with the percentages here, however, they still only exhibit a .5 difference.

Edgy DC Apr 25 2007 11:40 AM

I'm not sure what's so incredibly smart about not swinging for the fences when the winning run is on third. Everybody knew a single was all that was needed.

soupcan Apr 25 2007 11:44 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I adjusted my Endy vote up slightly but still 300% below my man Damion. Someone please find Win Expectancy chart If I plugged in the numbers right - when Easley came to bat the Win Expectancy (according to the[url=http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search] Win Expectancy website[/url]) was: games: 906 home won: 38 expectancy: 0.042 When Endy came up the WE was: games: 389 home won: 265 expectancy: 0.681

Johnny Dickshot Apr 25 2007 11:52 AM

4% to 68%. That's a spicy meatball.

holychicken Apr 25 2007 12:04 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: 4% to 68%. That's a spicy meatball. He didn't increase it from 4% to 68%, he increased it from 4% to 52%. Still huge, no doubt, but certainly not 3 times, let alone 6 times, endy's 68-100% increase. (although, the WPA for the site I gave gives him 36%, not 32% and Easley about the same)

soupcan Apr 25 2007 12:05 PM

The numbers are hard to ignore but I am more of a Barry Manilow type and I give Endy mucho credit for his creativity. That being said - I'll edit my votes.

holychicken Apr 25 2007 12:08 PM

Edgy DC wrote: I'm not sure what's so incredibly smart about not swinging for the fences when the winning run is on third. Everybody knew a single was all that was needed. But he didn't just try to get a single. What he did was see a weakness in the defense and exploit it with a perfectly executed bunt. THAT is what I think was the smart move. Even a well hit ball that would be nothing more than a single can turn into an out if it is hit to the wrong place.

Nymr83 Apr 25 2007 12:10 PM

I think those W% things can be deceiving sometimes. If Endy gets out the Mets still have a better than 50% chance to win, if Easley gets out you can put an L in the books right then and there.

Edgy DC Apr 25 2007 12:17 PM

holychicken wrote: But he didn't just try to get a single. What he did was see a weakness in the defense and exploit it with a perfectly executed bunt. THAT is what I think was the smart move. Sure, but above you're praising not swinging for the fences.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 26 2007 06:43 PM

Voting for Tuesday night's 12-inning win will close on Friday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6184

Benjamin Grimm Apr 28 2007 05:29 AM

Voting for Wednesday afternoon's loss to Florida will close some time this weekend: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6190

Willets Point Apr 28 2007 09:56 AM

Florida?

Benjamin Grimm Apr 28 2007 10:26 AM

Oops. Colorado. All 1993 expansion teams look alike to me.

Willets Point Apr 28 2007 12:20 PM

All those flourescent colors in the uniform. Topographically though I can't imagine two states more different that Colorado and Florida, at least elevation wise.

Nymr83 Apr 29 2007 02:39 PM

I gave Franco a half point today for the great defensive play on the bunt, figured i'd mention it here for any voters who didnt see the game beacuse it won't be in the boxscore,

Iubitul Apr 29 2007 03:59 PM

I would give Heilman negative points for the blood pressure spike he gave me if the rules allowed for it.

GYC Apr 29 2007 05:23 PM

Nymr83 wrote: I gave Franco a half point today for the great defensive play on the bunt, figured i'd mention it here for any voters who didnt see the game beacuse it won't be in the boxscore, Good call. I was watching and totally forgot about it. I'll have to edit my vote later. I'm probably going to take Heilman's 0.10 points away, just because he drives me absolutely crazy nowadays. What happened to you, Aaron?

Nymr83 Apr 29 2007 06:30 PM

I gave Aaron nothing, all he did was come in and cause alot of trouble which Schoenweis got him out of. edit- also, i'm still annoyed at him for not being jewish with a name like that.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2007 06:54 PM

You probably would have hated Elio Chacon then. I'm mad at Aaron Heilman for not being Italian-American, born in Brooklyn, and raised on Long Island. But I'll get over it.

Nymr83 Apr 29 2007 07:06 PM

I'd hardly consider Chacon a jewish name, and Aaron hardly sounds italian

Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2007 08:36 PM

In the Schaefer thread for today's 1-0 victory over the Nationals, Frayed Knot cast the following ballot: Heilman - 5.25 Beltran - 2.5 Franco - 0.5 Wagner - 1.0 Schoeneweis - 0.5 Reyes - 0.25 I suspect that Heilman has snuck in and stolen Maine's well deserved beer. I post this here because Yancy does not like any actual discussion in the voting thread, since it complicates tallying the votes up when the polls close.

Frayed Knot Apr 29 2007 08:42 PM

Good catch.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 30 2007 07:26 AM

Thanks, Doc!

Benjamin Grimm Apr 30 2007 01:05 PM

Voting for all three of the weekend games at RFK will close on Wednesday morning. Friday's loss: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6219 Saturday's win: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6225 Sunday's win: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6230 And on Thursday, when voting for tonight's game closes, I'll be announcing the winner of the Schaefer Mets Player of the Month award for April 2007. Tell all your friends!

metirish Apr 30 2007 01:09 PM

Has voter participation been up this early season?.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 30 2007 01:18 PM

It's not as high as it was at the beginning of last season, but it's higher than at the end of last year, when we were down to 7 faithful voters. We're already seeing a slight dropoff in 2007 though. We're averaging about two fewer voters per game in the second half of April as opposed to the first half. But we're still doing better than the 7 that 2006 ended with. 4/1/2007 20 4/3/2007 20 4/4/2007 18 4/6/2007 15 4/7/2007 13 4/8/2007 13 4/9/2007 16 4/11/2007 13 4/12/2007 16 4/13/2007 12 4/14/2007 11 4/17/2007 13 4/18/2007 14 4/19/2007 14 4/20/2007 12 4/21/2007 14 4/22/2007 12 4/23/2007 15 4/24/2007 17 4/25/2007 11

Willets Point Apr 30 2007 02:29 PM

I've made sure to vote for every game.

Nymr83 May 01 2007 08:58 PM

You will all be happy to know that David Wright no longerhas the embarassment of being lower than Joe Smith in my season rankings. Now lets see if he can pass the mighty .250 hitter Paul Loduca.

Willets Point May 01 2007 09:25 PM

Maybe you're not giving Wright enough credit. I just tallied up my points for April and I have Wright tied for 5th which seems about right since he started off the season hitting well and has only slumped the last 10 days or so. Reyes 31.5 Beltran 22 Green 21.5 Alou 18 Hernandez 13 Wright 13 Delgado 12 Maine 12 Valentin 12 Glavine 9.5 Perez 9.5 Smith 7.75 Castro 6.5 LoDuca 6.5 Schoeneweis 6 Sele 5.5 Chavez 5 Easley 4 Franco 4 Heilman 3.5 Feliciano 2.75 Wagner 2.5 Burgos 2 Newhan 1 Pelfrey 0.5

Nymr83 May 01 2007 10:48 PM

i've got 11.5 for Wright, i've also got 28.5 for Beltran and only 24.5 for Reyes whom you are all madly in man-love with, Greena nd Alou both have 16 and change, Orlando has 18 while Maine leads all my pitchers with 20.5

Benjamin Grimm May 02 2007 08:28 AM

We can still use a few more votes for the April 30 game against the Marlins: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6239 Voting will close tomorrow and the Schaefer Mets Player and Pitcher of the Month for April will be announced.

Willets Point May 02 2007 08:48 AM

Nymr83 wrote: only 24.5 for Reyes whom you are all madly in man-love with While I do have a man crush on Reyes, that is not why I've awarded him so many points. I have a formula I use for each game to award and deduct points from players in order to make sure I'm not swayed by my personal feelings toward the player. I'll allow that the formula may be flawed but it's not inconsistent.

metsmarathon May 02 2007 08:56 AM

i've got the following: 1 Reyes 27.4 2 Beltran 23.5 3 OHernandez 19.1 4 Maine 18.4 5 Glavine 17.9 6 Alou 14.3 7 Green 14.3 8 Valentin 11.8 9 Smith 11 10 Perez 10 11 Schoeneweis 9.9 12 LoDuca 8.3 13 Wright 8.2 14 Sele 7.9 15 Delgado 7.5 16 Burgos 6.5 17 Chavez 5.2 18 Wagner 4.9 19 Castro 3.9 20 Heilman 2.8 21 Franco 2.5 22 Feliciano 2.4 23 Easley 2.3 reyes got points in all but 6 games, beltran 7

metsmarathon May 02 2007 10:01 AM

and as soon as i get off my ass and activate m.e.t.b.o.t., he would say the following, in a slightly more metallic way: 1 Reyes 21.38 2 Beltran 15.82 3 Alou 15.651 4 Maine 15.27 5 Delgado 13.57 6 OHernandez 13.56 7 Green 13.13 8 Valentin 11.36 9 Glavine 9.27 10 Perez 7.68 11 Wright 6.93 12 Schoeneweis 6.27 13 Franco 5.81 14 Wagner 5.77 15 Easley 4.86 16 Loduca 4.7 17 Smith 4.13 18 Chavez 4.1 19 Heilman 3.92 20 Castro 3.47 21 Feliciano 3.33 22 Newhan 1.59 23 Sele 1.58 24 Burgos 1.09

GYC May 02 2007 09:06 PM

My April ended this way: 1. J. Reyes 23.96 2. C. Beltran 21.94 3. J. Maine 20.28 4. O. Hernandez 16.81 5. T. Glavine 15.66 6. S. Green 14.71 7. M. Alou 12.91 8. O. Perez 9.55 9. C. Delgado 9.12 10. J. Valentin 7.19 11. P. Lo Duca 6.96 12. J. Smith 6.33 13. D. Wright 6.27 14. S. Schoeneweis 5.18 15. E. Chavez 4.25 16. R. Castro 4.04 16. A. Sele 4.04 18. B. Wagner 3.95 19. P. Feliciano 3.81 20. D. Easley 3.61 21. A. Heilman 2.66 22. J. Franco 2.21 23. M. Pelfrey 1.90 24. A. Burgos 1.65

Rockin' Doc May 02 2007 09:24 PM

I'm rather astounded that so many people actually keep a running tally of their previous votes. I guess I'm just too lazy to create a spreadsheet and total up my votes.

metsmarathon May 03 2007 07:00 AM

i keep a tally not only of the actual votes, but of the raw numbers as well.

Benjamin Grimm May 03 2007 02:57 PM

Interesting. I tally everyone else's votes, but I don't keep a running tally of my own. Anyway, final notice for the May 1 (Pelfrey vs. Florida) game. Voting will close on Friday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6248

GYC May 03 2007 05:21 PM

Overall, my votes were relatively close to the CPF average. CPF gave about 9.10 points per game opposed to my 8.71 points per game. CPF had a 59.6% to 40.4% batter-to-pitcher point ratio and I had a 56.1% to 43.9%. The player I "favored" most was Pedro Feliciano, giving him 1.16 points more than CPF. The player I under-pointed compared to everyone else was José Valentín, who I gave a whopping 3.16 points less. Runner up in that was José Reyes, who I gave 2.47 less. Everyone else was within 1.07 points. Reyes took 20.45% of my batter votes and 11.46 % overall, and for CPF, took 20.31% and 12.10%. Maine took 22.09% of my pitcher votes and 9.70% total, and for CPF, 21.80% and 8.81%.

Benjamin Grimm May 04 2007 08:14 AM

Sharpie, you voted for Heilman twice for the May 3 game: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6267 Please edit when you get the chance. Thanks!

sharpie May 04 2007 08:31 AM

Heilman was that good! Actually, I meant to give one of those to Feliciano. I fixed it. Thanks.

Benjamin Grimm May 04 2007 08:57 AM

Now you have two votes for Feliciano! sharpie wrote: Easley 2.5 Beltran 2.5 Wright 1 Lo Duca 1 Heilman 1 Feliciano 1 Alou 0.34 Schoenweis 0.33 Feliciano 0.33

sharpie May 04 2007 09:13 AM

D'oh! Now I'm getting more generous to Schoenweis and Alou.

Benjamin Grimm May 04 2007 11:53 AM

The Wednesday afternoon win over the Marlins at Shea could use a few more votes. Voting will close over the weekend. http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6254

m.e.t.b.o.t. May 04 2007 09:02 PM

alert. mathematically enhanced tiny box of transistors, called m.e.t.b.o.t., has been activated to participate in schaeffer voting. m.e.t.b.o.t. enjoys applying awkward mathematical formulae to solve the problem of determining those most deserving of schaeffer votes. m.e.t.b.o.t. intends to utilize win expectancy statistics derived from www.fangraphs.com as the basis of his voting. m.e.t.b.o.t. is excited to have had his spring wound for the first time, and m.e.t.b.o.t. will be happy to answer any questions regarding his methodology - as happy as a spring-wound robot lacking any emotions can be. m.e.t.b.o.t. reports his late 5/1/07 schaeffer votes as follows, for informational purposes: Wright 4.80 Smith 1.94 Chavez 0.56 Delgado 0.36 m.e.t.b.o.t. arrived at this by scoring those players who had positive contributions to the win expectancy. to begin, m.e.t.b.o.t. takes the win expectancy added by a player, and takes the sum of those positive contributions. if they add up to 0.500, or higher, m.e.t.b.o.t. scales them to arrive at a total of 10 voting points. if they add up to less than 0.500, then they are scaled by the ratio of their win expectancy added divided by 0.500 - the total points for a win. basically, m.e.t.b.o.t. multiplies the number by 20. as an example, in the game from 1 May 07, m.e.t.b.o.t. performed the following tally. the positive contributers were david wright, at 0.240 WE, carlos delgado at 0.018 WE, joe smith at 0.097, and endy chavez at 0.028. the total WE is 0.383, which is less than 0.500. therefore, m.e.t.b.o.t. multiplies david wright's contribution by 20, to arrive at 4.80 schaeffer points to award. wright - 0.240 x 20 = 4.80 smith - 0.097 x 20 = 1.94 delgado - 0.018 x 20 = 0.36 chavez - 0.028 x 20 = 0.56 m.e.t.b.o.t. hopes that this all makes sense, and that m.e.t.b.o.t. will be permitted to participate in schaeffer voting. or at least will be encouraged to perform parallel calculations.

Johnny Dickshot May 04 2007 09:20 PM

Does m.e.t.b.o.t. have feelings? Can he love? Greatest new character since Purveyor of Pomposity IV

Willets Point May 04 2007 09:27 PM

m.e.t.b.o.t. May 04 2007 09:29 PM

m.e.t.b.o.t. is neither well-articulated nor emotional. m.e.t.b.o.t.'s spring mechanisms do not support emotional responses beyond a deep love of beer-based voting systems. m.e.t.b.o.t.'s transistors are only advanced enough to process schaefer voting and schaefer voting discussions.

Willets Point May 04 2007 09:32 PM

So m.e.t.b.o.t. can't groove to Kraftwerk?

Edgy DC May 04 2007 10:04 PM

It's been too long since we last hatched a chick.

Benjamin Grimm May 07 2007 07:58 AM

Last call for Thursday's series opener in Phoenix against the Diamondbacks: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6267 (This was the game with the six-run rally in the ninth inning.) Voting will close on Tuesday morning.

Benjamin Grimm May 08 2007 11:30 AM

Voting for the second, third, and fourth games of the Arizona series will close on Wednesday: Friday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6276 Saturday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6284 Sunday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6290

G-Fafif May 09 2007 05:32 PM

I'm glad Reyes contributed materially to the win today because otherwise I'd be ethically conflicted on whether I should toss him a tenth of a point strictly in appreciation for his hairy individuality. Keep your cap on, kid. And run!

Benjamin Grimm May 10 2007 06:17 AM

Voting for the May 7 and May 8 games in San Francisco will close on Friday morning.

Willets Point May 10 2007 07:12 AM

Shit or get off the pot time.

Rockin' Doc May 10 2007 11:06 AM

Yeah, quit farting around.

m.e.t.b.o.t. May 10 2007 12:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 10 2007 12:34 PM

m.e.t.b.o.t. does not understand the references to involuntary digestive output. m.e.t.b.o.t. is frequently discouraged by the overabundance of anthropomorphic references. while m.e.t.b.o.t. acknowledges that m.e.t.b.o.t. is likely the only automated, and therefore non-human, participant in the crane pool forum, m.e.t.b.o.t. wishes at times that m.e.t.b.o.t. did not appear to be such an outsider.

Willets Point May 10 2007 12:32 PM

m.e.t.b.o.t. talks like Rickey.

m.e.t.b.o.t. May 10 2007 12:36 PM

m.e.t.b.o.t. is not a very good base-stealer. m.e.t.b.o.t. has very little legs. if m.e.t.b.o.t. was in the stands and had an opportunity to catch a foul ball, the ball would crush m.e.t.b.o.t. like a tin can. m.e.t.b.o.t. needs to be programmed with pronouns. m.e.t.b.o.t.'s programmers are cheap and lazy.

Nymr83 May 10 2007 01:54 PM

m.e.t.b.o.t. just needs a good robot role model...

Kid Carsey May 10 2007 02:00 PM

I wonder aloud what fun it would be put m.e.t.b.o.t. in a microwave for ten seconds or so and see how he holds up. (j/k, I'm not well)

Rockin' Doc May 10 2007 04:21 PM

I imagine it would be similar to this only with alot of sparks since m.e.t.b.o.t. is metallic.

G-Fafif May 11 2007 09:04 PM

Anybody else typing in the letters S-o-s-a and staring at the resulting name and doing a doubletake?

Gwreck May 11 2007 09:59 PM

Wright 1-4, HR, 1 RBI. Easley 2-3, HR, 1 RBI. Why is Wright getting more points? (from several voters).

SteveJRogers May 11 2007 10:08 PM

="m.e.t.b.o.t."]m.e.t.b.o.t. does not understand the references to involuntary digestive output. m.e.t.b.o.t. is frequently discouraged by the overabundance of anthropomorphic references. while m.e.t.b.o.t. acknowledges that m.e.t.b.o.t. is likely the only automated, and therefore non-human, participant in the crane pool forum, m.e.t.b.o.t. wishes at times that m.e.t.b.o.t. did not appear to be such an outsider. [Commander Data Voice]Ah. So the m.e.t.b.o.t. is somewhat like myself. A sentient life form, who clearly can not be human, but somehow always wishes to be...human like. I can tell you this though, I am programed to run faster than a m.e.t.b.o.t in more ways than one.[/Commander Data Voice]

Nymr83 May 11 2007 10:11 PM

Wright's homer made it 1-0, Easley's homer took it from 4-2 to 5-2, the fact that the brewers later made it 5-4 doesnt change the relative value of the homers at the time they were hit. breaking a tie (or tying it up when losing) will almost always get more points out of me than scoring when already up

Nymr83 May 11 2007 10:12 PM

hey Data, Bite my shiny metal ass! theres only room for one obnoxious robot around here! kill all humans! except fry

Gwreck May 11 2007 11:02 PM

="Nymr83"]Wright's homer made it 1-0, Easley's homer took it from 4-2 to 5-2, the fact that the brewers later made it 5-4 doesnt change the relative value of the homers at the time they were hit. Thanks, but I was at the game to see it myself. My point -- perhaps not quite so well explained -- is that Easley's total contributions out numbered Wright's. Easley rally-extending single (not his fault that the guys behind him couldn't get it done) in addition to his homer was worth more than what Wright did. Sure, Wright's homer alone was worth more than Easley's. But an insurance run homer is still huge.

Nymr83 May 12 2007 02:24 PM

Request: whoever starts the thread please use a Box score link that includes the scoring summary (both espn.com and yahoo box scores have this)

Kid Carsey May 12 2007 02:36 PM

I changed the link to the yahoo box. Sparse but tough crowd. Someone tell the new guy ya can't give someone ten points.

Nymr83 May 12 2007 02:39 PM

New Guy: the rules arbitrarily cap the points at 6 to any one player.

Gwreck May 12 2007 04:29 PM

Giving 5 points to Newhan for doing the only good thing in a blowout undermines the voting system.

Nymr83 May 12 2007 04:50 PM

the original point of the voting system was to give 10 in each game as a means of relative comparison, we once discarded votes that didnt add up to 10. it was a mistake to move away from that.

Elster88 May 12 2007 08:24 PM

Not a single amusing thing can go by without it being spoiled I guess.

metsmarathon May 12 2007 08:35 PM

as long as we are true unto ourselves, then the integrity of our schaefer voting is maintained. if only one among us believes that newhan deserved a five, and the remainder of us consider his contributions to be worthy of a mere two, then the aggregate vote will be more reflective of a two than five.

Rockin' Doc May 12 2007 09:04 PM

The reason the mandatory 10 point rule was abandoned was because in ugly blow outs in which the Mets got beat badly you would see players getting 2 or 3 points for geting a single or a pair of walks and any pitcher that didn't get roughed up would get 1 or 2 points just for surviving an inning in a route. So people either had to give absurd point totals to players for the most mundane of contributions or they simply refused to vote since there realistically weren't player contributions worthy of an aggregate of 10 points. Such games tended to skew the results for that game for more than an abberant vote by one individual does now. As marathon said, the one outlandish vote tends to get greatly averaged out by the votes of others.

Benjamin Grimm May 13 2007 04:45 AM

="Nymr83"]New Guy: the rules arbitrarily cap the points at 6 to any one player. Once again, each player gets rated on a scale of 1 to 6. That's no more arbitrary than rating them on a scale of 1 to 10.

Kid Carsey May 13 2007 06:38 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 13 2007 06:58 AM

E88: >>>Not a single amusing thing can go by without it being spoiled I guess.<<< What are you addressing? If it's my microwaving m.e.t.b.o.t. or suggesting that the new guy not vote a 10 then perhaps we're just amused differently.

Benjamin Grimm May 13 2007 06:53 AM

Voting for the May 9 game in San Francisco will close on Monday morning: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6319 The three games against the Brewers at Shea will all wrap up on Wednesday.

Kid Carsey May 13 2007 07:03 AM

bmfc: >>>Man, you guys are strict! <<< Nah, it's more eccentricity than strictness.

Elster88 May 13 2007 09:18 AM

="Kid Carsey"]E88: >>>Not a single amusing thing can go by without it being spoiled I guess.<<< What are you addressing? If it's my microwaving m.e.t.b.o.t. or suggesting that the new guy not vote a 10 then perhaps we're just amused differently. Neither

Elster88 May 13 2007 09:48 AM

The voting for Newhan on 5/12 is confusing me.

OlerudOwned May 13 2007 09:51 AM

Elster88 wrote: The voting for Newhan on 5/12 is confusing me. 5 and 6 points are a bit much, eh?

Benjamin Grimm May 13 2007 09:53 AM

I think so too. Hopefully we'll get more voters to help dilute those votes.

Gwreck May 13 2007 04:44 PM

Nymr83 wrote: the original point of the voting system was to give 10 in each game as a means of relative comparison, we once discarded votes that didnt add up to 10. it was a mistake to move away from that. No, it wasn't a mistake. How can we give David Newhan 4-6 points for a pinch-hit two run homer (which didn't even tie or give the Mets the lead) and give Oliver Perez the same 4-6 points for his pitching performance today? Keeping a 10 point mandatory vote distorts relative comparison.

Nymr83 May 13 2007 07:29 PM

how does perez get the same 6 as the guy who throws a 9 inning shutout? how does the guy who puts up Alfonzo's 6/6 3 HRs only get 6 while a guy who homers twice in5 ABs gets 6 as well? its all going to be "distorted" unless you went to a system where each player who appeared in a game was given a score in a range of x to y for each game, irrespective of what anyone else did. but thats not what we're doing and its far enough away from what we're doing that i'm sure its not going to be seriously discussed

Benjamin Grimm May 14 2007 07:23 AM

Among the many things you're failing to pick up on is that Perez is NOT getting a 6 for Sunday's game. Take a look at the voting thread.

Benjamin Grimm May 14 2007 08:00 AM

Right now there are six votes for Sunday's game, and if the voting ended right now, Perez would get a 4.72.

metirish May 14 2007 08:17 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Right now there are six votes for Sunday's game, and if the voting ended right now, Perez would get a 4.72. Seems about right to me.

metsmarathon May 14 2007 08:32 AM

we're voting after each game to award the schaefer player of the game we are not voting for the schaefer player's contribution to the whole year as evinced by this one game. as such, the contributions of a player should be viewed in the context of that game, and not so much in the context of how that vote will play for the whole season. if we vote for the individual games based on how a specific vote will affect the season totals, then we might as well throw out the game-by-game voting, and just put together our tally at the end of the season. if we did this whole exercise not by a point system but by a single player of the game vote, then we'd also have the problem wherein we'd be deciding was newhan's home run worth as much as perez' outing yesterday, and isnt it unfair to beltran that his homer doesnt count for anything. as long as we go game-by-game with a relativistic system, then we will have a "problem" wherein one guy will get points he doesnt "deserve" while another guy in another game will not get points that he does. but that's the way it should be. otherwise, we're just going to do our usual end of season ranking project based on the total contribution over the whole season.

Willets Point May 14 2007 09:02 AM

mm...don't confuse them with logic.

G-Fafif May 14 2007 11:58 AM

Thirty-six games in, I just want to say I'm enjoying the heck out of POTG voting, my first season participating. It's very challenging. Having restricted myself to slicing and dicing no thinner than by the half-point, I find the greatest (and most enjoyable) task is to find points for everybody in a great win like yesterday's. I probably shortchanged Mr. Perez because of all the offensive contributions that also defined the game, but I'll stand by it because there were enough big hits to go around. On one or two occasions I could feel slight personal biases creeping in, not in a "I don't like him, he gets nothing" sense but rather in a judgmental way. There was a game when Wright seemed to be breaking out but I withheld support because I was growing impatient with his sporadic performance. "You got points in such-and-such game and you let me down for the next three days" was my thinking. It was bizarre reasoning, but across 162 games, I don't expect it will be the last time my logic twists and turns. Wasn't the original mid-'70s Schaefer voting awarded on a 6-3-1 basis? I can remember a rather depressing 5-0 type of loss after which Bob Murphy rather harshly (for Murph) noted no points would be awarded. Wow, I thought, it was that bad. Anyway, just wanted to tip my cap to Yancy and all who got and keep this thing going. It's become a most welcome ritual in my rooting experience.

Benjamin Grimm May 14 2007 12:04 PM

Thank you, G! I don't recall any 6-3-1, though it's possible that for a time that rule was in effect. I simply remember up to 10 per game, up to 6 per player. I don't recall exactly in which years the Mets broadcasters awarded Schaefer points, but the player names I most associate with Schaefer points are, for whatever reason, Rusty Staub and Jerry Koosman. (They may have been the 1975 and 1976 winners.) There's practically nothing on the web at all about Schaefer Awards, other than what's been generated here at the CPF. (Oh, and you might want to try clicking the Shaefer [sic] Awards link at the top of this page. The page you'll be directed to is a work in progress. Eventually it will display actual results of our voting here.)

G-Fafif May 14 2007 12:30 PM

Don't remember '75 winner (Rusty is the logical choice) but I feel fairly certain Koosman edged Kingman in '76, something like 86 to 85 points. Kooz finished up strong and Kingman lost so much time due to injury.

Benjamin Grimm May 15 2007 07:57 AM

Wow, you even remember the Schaefer point totals from 30 years ago? I'm impressed. (I think. It's also possible that you're insane!) Anyway, it's time to announce the impending closure of the voting threads for this past weekend's series against Milwaukee. Voting will close on Wednesday morning. Friday Saturday Sunday Sunday's 9-1 victory is still a bit undervoted, so if you haven't put in your 2¢ yet, now is the time to do so.

Willets Point May 15 2007 09:56 AM

I only put in 1¢, should I put in another.

Nymr83 May 15 2007 03:14 PM

5/14- he didn't get an E in the box score, but Easley failed to make a play that pretty much any 2Bman would have made that scored 2 runs, so i denied him any points figuring his RBI at best made up for that.

G-Fafif May 15 2007 10:04 PM

Nymr83 wrote: Zambrano 6 Floyd 4 Now THAT'S funny!

Benjamin Grimm May 16 2007 07:32 AM

Voting for Monday night's series opener against the Cubs will close on Thursday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6356

Nymr83 May 16 2007 01:44 PM

G-Fafif wrote: ="Nymr83"]Zambrano 6 Floyd 4 Now THAT'S funny! don't delete my posts, i'd have edited it before you tallied.

Benjamin Grimm May 17 2007 08:17 AM

Don't post fake votes and I won't delete them. Voting for Tuesday night's 10-1 loss against the Cubs will close on Friday morning: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6364

Benjamin Grimm May 18 2007 12:20 PM

Voting for the third game of the Cubs series, the 8-1 win on Wednesday, will close over the weekend. http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6371

Frayed Knot May 18 2007 08:57 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 19 2007 07:40 AM

General comment here (and I know it all depends on perceived "points earned" by others) but it seems to me that a full-inning save, especially in a one-run game, esp against the middle of the order against a high-scoring team, esp in a subway series game, is generally worth at least a full Schaefer point*. Think of it this way; if it's not, then why do we get so upset if it's not converted? * and I especially don't get the votes where Smith's 1 out in the 8th is worth the same as Wagner 3 outs (kinda like 4) in the 9th

Gwreck May 18 2007 09:42 PM

Re the first game vs. the Yankees, I'm scratching my head at the lack of points for LoDuca (2-3, 2 Doubles). Left off some ballots, undervalued on others. Was there something so great about Reyes' 1-4 that warrants him getting points instead of LoDuca?

Benjamin Grimm May 19 2007 06:19 AM

Reyes and Lo Duca each scored one run, so I think they should get roughly equal points. And I agree with Frayed Knot. I think Wagner certainly deserves at least a full point, if not more.

Benjamin Grimm May 20 2007 12:38 PM

Voting for the exciting comeback victory over the Cubs will close on Tuesday morning: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6377

Johnny Dickshot May 20 2007 12:54 PM

Gwreck wrote: Re the first game vs. the Yankees, I'm scratching my head at the lack of points for LoDuca (2-3, 2 Doubles). Left off some ballots, undervalued on others. Was there something so great about Reyes' 1-4 that warrants him getting points instead of LoDuca? Oftentimes I will reward a can-opener benefit to the guy who makes the first run happen, as Reyes did there and I guess the crowd did too. That said they did overlook LoDuca some -- he was really the only guy who Pettitte well. His 2nd double would be more conspicuous if it involved scoring on either end.

iramets May 20 2007 01:02 PM

I don't vote in these things any more on principle, but I do think if you were to eliminate the outlying votes, perhaps several of each, you'd get less idiosyncratic voting, especially on the high end..

Benjamin Grimm May 20 2007 01:48 PM

I don't recall that you ever participated in these, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I think that eliminating the outliers would have little effect on the totals, but would simply require more effort on my part. Anyone who wants to experiment can compare the actual results for a game or two with the results we'd have gotten with outlying votes eliminated. I'm curious to see what the impact would be, but not curious enough to try it myself.

iramets May 20 2007 02:40 PM

="Yancy Street Gang"]I don't recall that you ever participated in these, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I think that eliminating the outliers would have little effect on the totals, but would simply require more effort on my part. Anyone who wants to experiment can compare the actual results for a game or two with the results we'd have gotten with outlying votes eliminated. I'm curious to see what the impact would be, but not curious enough to try it myself. No, you're wrong. I used to participate often in the voting. At the end of my voting days, I'd give eight or twelve digits of decimil points, to mock the absurdity of those who felt that they could work out votes to two or three decimil points--maybe you remember that? The idea is not only that eliminating the outliers would give cleaner results immediately, but that people would realize that by voting absurd point totals for someone who didn't deserve them he was actually causing that vote to be eliminated. Instead of helping Joe Smith by giving him three points for getting a single out, he was causing his vote to disappear, that voter would be motivated to give only a reasonable total for Joe Smith, in line with what other voters were awarding Smith.

Benjamin Grimm May 20 2007 05:34 PM

I do remember a mock vote from you, but I think (thought) it was the only time you voted. But I don't pay that close attention to who's voting and who isn't. That aside, I have a system that makes the tallying very quick and simple, and I don't feel motivated to make it more complicated.

Benjamin Grimm May 21 2007 05:03 PM

Willets Point wrote: Chavez .50 Easley 2 Feliciano 1 Gotay 1 Greeen 1 Heilman 1 Schoeneweis 1 Wright 1.50 This is curious. Why is Easley's home run worth more than Wright's?

Willets Point May 21 2007 06:00 PM

It's not. Easley gets credit for a walk earlier in the game.

Johnny Dickshot May 21 2007 06:46 PM

That was an intentional walk iirc. unless there was another. Easley also committed the crime of making the third out in the 4th inning. Not a good game for him until the HR.

Benjamin Grimm May 22 2007 06:29 AM

Voting for all three games against the Yankees at Shea will close on Wednesday morning: Friday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6390 Saturday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6396 Sunday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6402

metsmarathon May 22 2007 06:44 AM

="Yancy Street Gang"]I don't recall that you ever participated in these, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I think that eliminating the outliers would have little effect on the totals, but would simply require more effort on my part. Anyone who wants to experiment can compare the actual results for a game or two with the results we'd have gotten with outlying votes eliminated. I'm curious to see what the impact would be, but not curious enough to try it myself. hmm... we just did a whole outlier thing here at work not too long ago... to begin, though, i'd suggest that you define "outlier" if you intend to toss out any vote that is not considered to be part of an expected population of votes, then its going to be difficult to toss any out. tho that newhan game might be a good test for it... otherwise, you're left with either arbitrarily tossing a vote that appears wonky, or automatically tossing the highest and/or lowest votes for a given player in a given game.

Benjamin Grimm May 22 2007 07:07 AM

I think when this was first proposed last year, each individual player's highest and lowest vote would be tossed.

metsmarathon May 22 2007 08:33 AM

so we would then toss out a zero vote for a player who was not listed, then? well, assuming that to be the correct interpretation of the outlier rule, we've got the following situation for the "infamous" newhan game. hopefully, the table below will be self-explanatory... player Newhan Beltran Green Loduca Chavez Sele Feliciano 1 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.50 0.25 0.75 0.20 3 4.00 0.50 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 4 2.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.75 5 2.00 1.00 1.25 0.60 0.25 6 2.25 0.80 1.00 0.75 7 6.00 2.00 0.50 8 3.00 1.50 1.34 9 2.50 1.00 10 2.50 1.00 11 2.00 1.00 12 4.00 0.75 13 2.00 0.75 14 2.00 0.70 15 3.60 0.34 16 3.66 old total points 48.51 4.30 16.09 2.00 2.85 2.25 5.79 old schaefer 3.03 0.27 1.01 0.13 0.18 0.14 0.36 outhigh 6.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.34 oullow 2.00 - - - - - - new total points 40.51 3.30 14.09 1.00 1.85 1.25 4.45 new schaefer 2.89 0.24 1.01 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.32 every player who is not david newhan had a 0 vote removed from his total. the total points awarded for this game dropped from 5.11 to 4.75

Benjamin Grimm May 22 2007 08:42 AM

And instead of dividing by 16, you divided everyone's total by 14. Newhan loses 0.14 points. Green has no change. All remaining players lose between 0.03 and 0.06 points. As I suspected, the extra effort in tallying would result in minimal impact to the final totals. And this was perhaps the game that had the most extreme variance. Thanks for doing the grunt work, marathon! Good job.

metirish May 22 2007 08:42 AM

I think tossing a person's votes might not do much for voter participation ,is this an isolated incident,if so I am sure the voter could correct such voting in the future.

metsmarathon May 22 2007 08:48 AM

and to repeat the exercise for a less controversial tally... the 8-1 win against the cubbies: player Beltran Delgado Easley Gomez Gotay LoDuca Reyes Smith Sosa Wagner Wright 1 0.25 0.5 1.75 1 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 4 0.3 1 2 0.5 0.5 2 1 1 0.5 0.25 4.8 0.25 1 3 0.25 2 1 1 0.4 5 1.3 4 0.4 2 1.5 1 0.75 5 1.5 5 1 2 0.8 0.3 2 1 6 1 1 1 4 1 7 1.5 1 1 4.5 1 8 1.75 1 1 4.5 1 9 2 1 0.5 4.75 1 10 2 1 0.5 5 1 11 2 1 0.25 5 1 12 2 1.25 0.75 5 1.25 13 2.05 1.5 1 5 1.25 14 2.5 1.5 5 1.5 15 2.5 2 5 2 old total points 0.75 2.65 29.05 17.55 0.5 9.9 2.15 0.55 68.55 0.55 17.8 old schaefer 0.05 0.18 1.94 1.17 0.03 0.66 0.14 0.04 4.57 0.04 1.19 outhigh 0.5 1 2.5 2 0.5 1 0.75 0.3 5 0.3 2 oullow 0 0 1 0.8 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 new total points 0.25 1.65 25.55 14.75 0 8.9 1.4 0.25 61.55 0.25 14.8 new schaefer 0.02 0.13 1.97 1.13 - 0.68 0.11 0.02 4.73 0.02 1.14 again, the total points awarded drops from an even 10 to 9.95, and poor mr gotay gets screwed out of a three-hundredth of a point.

seawolf17 May 22 2007 09:11 AM

That's going to kill him in his arbitration hearing this off-season.

Willets Point May 22 2007 02:45 PM

m.e.t.b.o.t. is on a tear.

cooby May 22 2007 02:56 PM

You can't keep a good man down

Willets Point May 22 2007 03:01 PM

Nor a good robot.

m.e.t.b.o.t. May 22 2007 03:12 PM

m.e.t.b.o.t. is deeply disappointed that he was not activated over the weekend and was therefore forced to miss two games worth of schaefer voting. m.e.t.b.o.t. understands the importance of this one solitary task for which m.e.t.b.o.t. was created, and will impress upon his human handler the importance of maintaining m.e.t.b.o.t. readiness. m.e.t.b.o.t. fails to see how such an important, and yet simple, task as winding a key can be so difficult to remember, and, yet, it was not done. m.e.t.b.o.t. is disappointed both in m.e.t.b.o.t.'s inactivity, and in m.e.t.b.o.t.'s human handler, whose own inactivity resulted in m.e.t.b.o.t.'s failure to participate in schaefer voting until this afternoon.

Willets Point May 22 2007 03:14 PM

I love m.e.t.b.o.t. Best forum character since Horace P. Osterdunk.

metsmarathon May 22 2007 03:18 PM

why you ungrateful little robot! so i took credit for your outlier tables - that's not even really part of the voting! do you thank me for creating you? for dutifully winding you up so you can vote? for secreting you into work so that you can use my computer there, and so you can expand your horizons outside of home? i go away for one weekend to a friend's wedding in ohio, and, fine, i forgot to wind you up yesterday - this is the thanks i get!? the nerve of some robots...

m.e.t.b.o.t. May 22 2007 03:19 PM

if m.e.t.b.o.t. could cry, m.e.t.b.o.t. would be very rusty.

SteveJRogers May 22 2007 03:32 PM

See thats the good thing about an Android like Data You can always rely on him to be on 24/7/365 Its a whole lot better than this guy though Because he might start shouting WE'RE DOOMED after every bad thing that happens in a Met game]

m.e.t.b.o.t. May 22 2007 05:11 PM

m.e.t.b.o.t. was not designed to be fully functional, nor has m.e.t.b.o.t. been endowed with a vaguely british accent. m.e.t.b.o.t. has been programmed with all manner cultural references pertaining to robots, as these will better suit m.e.t.b.o.t. for interacting with tech-savvy humans than either anatomical correctness or linguistic skills ever will. m.e.t.b.o.t. is always confident and computes positively about metly performances, and vaguely recalls an episode or two wherein mr. data was indeed deactivated at inopportune times. additionally, m.e.t.b.o.t. has no known evil predecessors.

Nymr83 May 22 2007 05:12 PM

what about Waldman.bot who gives Jeter a 10 in every game?

SteveJRogers May 22 2007 05:31 PM

="m.e.t.b.o.t."] additionally, m.e.t.b.o.t. has no known evil predecessors. Funny, m.e.t.b.o.t. kind of resembles this 'bot which was originally concieved as a kids toy, but soon had an evil edge

Willets Point May 22 2007 06:13 PM

Reminds me more of 2XL, who was the best use of 8-track tapes ever:

Benjamin Grimm May 24 2007 07:19 AM

Schaefering for the Tuesday night loss in Atlanta will close on Friday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6417 It's still a lightly voted game, so if you haven't voted yet (and plan to), please do so.

Benjamin Grimm May 26 2007 11:50 AM

Because of the holiday weekend, I'll extend the voting for the last two games in Atlanta as well as for the entire Miami series. I'll post another reminder when it's closer to vote-closing time, but the Braves games will close on Wednesday and the Marlins games will close on Thursday.

Benjamin Grimm May 29 2007 05:46 AM

Last call for Wednesday and Thursday's games in Atlanta: Wednesday's win: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6427 Thursday's loss: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6436 Voting will close tomorrow (Wednesday) morning. Voting for all three of the Florida games will close on Thursday.

Edgy DC May 29 2007 06:56 AM

Amazin' how things work. With all the different values and scales poured into the May 27th game, the majority of people agreed that David Wright deserved exactly 1.5 points. And pretty much everyone gamve him 1.2 to 1.8. OE: The lone exception was me, at 1.95.

metsmarathon May 29 2007 08:32 PM

ugh... i've got a lot of work to do in the morning! hope i can catch up before yancy can... i left my formulae at work tonight... dangit...

metsmarathon May 30 2007 06:51 AM

whew! there it is... [busy formulating votes]

metirish May 30 2007 07:57 AM

I struggled over giving Reyes any points for the Giants game,ended up giving 0.5.

metsmarathon May 30 2007 08:03 AM

[/busily formulating votes] what did reyes do that was unschaeferworthy? while the ump certainly can get some of the credit for the fist balk, the second was all jose.

metirish May 30 2007 08:03 AM

metsmarathon wrote: what did reyes do that was unschaeferworthy? while the ump certainly can get some of the credit for the fist balk, the second was all jose. Yes,that's what I gave the the 0.5 for.

Benjamin Grimm May 30 2007 08:40 AM

I think he also deserves some recognition for scoring from first on Beltran's double.

metirish May 30 2007 08:53 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I think he also deserves some recognition for scoring from first on Beltran's double. You're right,I had forgotten about that....so much happened....

Benjamin Grimm May 30 2007 09:26 AM

Our vote counts for the weekend series in Miami is still a little light, especially since the Mets won all three games. If you haven't voted yet, please get your votes submitted today. All three games will be tallied tomorrow (Thursday) morning: Friday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6443 Saturday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6448 Sunday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6452 Also, Player and Pitcher of the Month for May will be announced on Tuesday, June 5, after the voting closes for the final game of the current series against San Francisco. Both May winners look like they'll win by comfortable margins, and I doubt anyone will be surprised by the announcement.

Benjamin Grimm May 31 2007 10:41 AM

Now that we've reached the end of May and this thread has over 200 replies, I'm going to lock it and let it slip into Archive Land. It's time for Schaefer Commentary II ! http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6486