Master Index of Archived Threads


It's almost Schaefer time AGAIN!

Benjamin Grimm Mar 12 2008 09:06 AM

I'm figuring we'll do the Schaefer thing again this year, unless everyone tells me not to bother. Rather than type in a lengthy announcement/description, I'll let last year's post speak for itself: http://archives.cranepoolforum.net/5800/f9_t5858.shtml We have a few new members here who might not know what Schaefer is (at least, in the CPF context). The link I pasted above, along with the link at the top of the page, will hopefully explain all.

AG/DC Mar 12 2008 09:07 AM

Voting forms!

Valadius Mar 12 2008 09:12 AM

I'm all in favor of more Schaefer voting.

Farmer Ted Mar 12 2008 09:27 AM

Two points here, a point there, a half a point to some other guy. Maximum points per game, per player? Gimme a poll with three names to choose from and I'm in. If I'm drinking Schaefer after the game, I don't want to try to be analytical.

Willets Point Mar 12 2008 09:54 AM

I'm not going to participate this year. I found it too time-consuming to spend 30 minutes a day running the boxscores through a complex formula. And usually after doing all that I'd either have a new asshole torn for not awarding enough points to a certain pitcher or Yancy would have already closed the thread and my vote would count for nothing.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 12 2008 09:55 AM

So far the reaction seems rather lukewarm.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Mar 12 2008 10:05 AM

Perhaps we can create a new system that rewards being slow and wrong. Just kidding. I'm as hot as always for The Schaef.

AG/DC Mar 12 2008 10:14 AM

My first girlfriend was named Schaefer. You know I'm down.

seawolf17 Mar 12 2008 10:16 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: So far the reaction seems rather lukewarm. It's been less than an hour... I'd say we wait for more responses. I'm down with it. I didn't vote a lot last year, but with the HD thing, I think we'll be watching a lot more games, so hopefully I'll jump in more. I like it; it's a unique Pool thing that we do, and I'd hate to lose it.

sharpie Mar 12 2008 10:19 AM

I generally like it. I usually only vote on games that I've seen. I do, however, hate it when either people challenge others for how they voted or pre-emptively write things like "I hope nobody gives votes to Jose Reyes since his error really cost us the game." No comments, voting only I say.

KC Mar 12 2008 10:20 AM

I give continuing Schaefer voting a resounding yay! I have to come up with some kind of system this year, I make the voting too hard on myself some days especially in lopsided contests. I don't recall Willet getting torn a new one but can someone put his ass back to the way it was. Thanks.

Gwreck Mar 12 2008 11:16 AM

I also am in favor of Schaefer voting. As to the point Willets and sharpie raised: this is a discussion board. Hence, people discuss things here, and that's going to include whether or not the points people award in Schaefer voting were justified or not. I don't understand why Schaefer voting should be excluded from acceptable points of discussion. I too don't recall anyone being uncivil in their discussions thereof.

themetfairy Mar 12 2008 11:24 AM

I'm in.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 12 2008 11:29 AM

Okay, I'm satisfied. There's enough interest here for me to continue the tradition into its fourth year, thereby giving somebody a shot at unseating three-time champion David Wright. The tallying effort has been automated to such a degree that, even if we only have as few as 6 or 8 die-hard voters, I won't feel like I'm wasting my time running this show.

Frayed Knot Mar 12 2008 11:30 AM

I'm in favor of continuing to both vote for, and drink, Schefer. As far as the time limit, I don't think it's a big deal and too many threads does clutter up the board if they're not retired in some kind of timely manner. If you miss a game or are unable to get to the board in the time the poll is up than that result will go in without your vote, which, unless you're a 'completionist' who sees this as an all-or-nothing project, shouldn't be a major catastrophe.

seawolf17 Mar 12 2008 11:42 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Okay, I'm satisfied. There's enough interest here for me to continue the tradition into its fourth year, thereby giving somebody a shot at unseating three-time champion David Wright. No problem. I'm giving Ramon Castro six points every game, whether he plays or not. Intangibles, baby.

m.e.t.b.o.t. Mar 12 2008 11:54 AM

without schaeffer voting, m.e.t.b.o.t. would face obsolescence, reprogramming or recycling. m.e.t.b.o.t. would prefer not to become knowledgeable in the finer points of either passive or active dust collection.

RealityChuck Mar 12 2008 12:20 PM

Shaeffer? Why not Rheingold?

Benjamin Grimm Mar 12 2008 12:34 PM

RealityChuck wrote: Shaeffer? Why not Rheingold? Why Schaefer

RealityChuck Mar 12 2008 12:40 PM

Rheingold came first.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 12 2008 12:42 PM

There was a Rheingold Mets Player of the Year Award? I have no memory of that. (And I do remember when Rheingold was a Mets sponsor.)

Valadius Mar 12 2008 01:50 PM

I'm excited that this year, for the first time, I can enjoy a beer while watching a Mets game.

Rockin' Doc Mar 12 2008 10:09 PM

I would just like to go on record as being in favor of continuing both the Schaefer POTG voting and drinking beer.

DocTee Mar 12 2008 10:23 PM

Val needs to edit his post to read "legally" -- unless he wants to maintain that charade for the sake of his future political career. I tend to vote only on those games I see, which is considerably fewer than my East Coast brethren.

Nymr83 Mar 12 2008 11:20 PM

much as i enjoy schaefering every april i tend give it up as too time consuming at some point, and once i stop for a week or two i jus don't care to start again, i'm sure this year will be no different.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 13 2008 10:42 AM

The thing I'm finding most surprising about this thread is that people are saying it's time-consuming to vote. I just think about the game for a minute or two and then type in my points. I figure that's almost certainly how Lindsey, Bob, and Ralph did it. (Actually, I bet they farmed it out to some nerd who was in the WOR truck.)

Willets Point Mar 13 2008 10:55 AM

I originally did it that way and then when the criticisms flooded in that I was not giving enough lauds to a certain CPF favorite I made a formula based on the box score that award points in a non-biased manner. I still got criticisms of under/over-valuing player contributions, so I kept tweaking the formula and it eventually grew into a 30-minute-per-game process. It's just not worth my time and effort to continue to be accused of bias in voting when I've done everything in my power to remove it.

Frayed Knot Mar 13 2008 01:52 PM

I didn't know the CPF had agreed-upon favorites. I'm in the five-minutes tops crowd on PotG votes ... even less than that if I'm thinking about it as the game is still going on.

Valadius Mar 13 2008 02:17 PM

Yeah, I usually take about 5-10 minutes to do my scores, depending on how many people I think deserve points.

metsmarathon Mar 13 2008 02:36 PM

i've gotten my time down to about 15 minutes i think, depending on how deeply i decide to need to look for specific criteria... i like to give credit for batters who drive in a game-winning (or simply go-ahead) run, and sometimes divining that isn't straightforward. on a side note, i'm planning this year on giving some beer to the guy who actually scores the go ahead run as well. then i read the game recaps to see if there's something i've missed, like an outstanding defensive play, or a boneheaded baserunning blunder, or the like... but i've gotten much quicker at inputting the voluminous data into my overly cumbersome spreadsheet, so my cycle time is definitely trending downwards. i its only when i have to play catchup after a weekend or extended absence that it becomes truly time-consuming. or if i decide to try and tweak the formula midseason or the like...

Frayed Knot Mar 13 2008 02:56 PM

I think the solution to your problems may be found in the words: Overly, Cumbersome, and Spreadsheet

KC Mar 13 2008 03:43 PM

WP: >>>when the criticisms flooded in -- be accused of bias<<< I remember that time when Frayed Knot told me that I wouldn't know a baseball if it hit me off the schnoz just because I didn't give Wagner an extra point or two when I thought he was lucky and besides I don't like the son of a bitch much. I quit for ten days after that until my shrink told me not be such a nancy and vote the way I wanna and not care what big fat bullies like Knot and his ilk say or do to sway my vote. I think that's how I remember it. Willet, you're killing me. Vote NOW!!!

metsmarathon Mar 13 2008 04:57 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: I think the solution to your problems may be found in the words: Overly, Cumbersome, and Spreadsheet no, that can't be it. its gotta be something else...

Willets Point Mar 13 2008 07:56 PM

KC wrote: Willet, you're killing me. Vote NOW!!! KC 4 Benjamin Grimm 3 Metsmarathon 1.5 Seawolf 1 AG/DC .5

KC Mar 13 2008 08:07 PM

Funny

GYC Mar 13 2008 08:16 PM

I plan on doing it, hopefully for a full season. I keep intense spreadsheets but continually lose hard drives, so...

Nymr83 Mar 13 2008 08:35 PM

Willets Point wrote: ="KC"]Willet, you're killing me. Vote NOW!!! KC 4 Benjamin Grimm 3 Metsmarathon 1.5 Seawolf 1 AG/DC .5 HOW THE HELL DOES GRIMM ONLY GET 3 POINTS?? I'M SICK AND TIRE DOF YOU GUYS NOT GIVING ENOUGH CREDIT TO THE STARTER (of the thread)!!!!

Rockin' Doc Mar 13 2008 10:28 PM

]KC 4 Benjamin Grimm 3 Metsmarathon 1.5 Seawolf 1 AG/DC .5 Damn, shut out again. That's it, I'm taking my ball and going home.

metsguyinmichigan Mar 13 2008 11:36 PM

DocTee wrote: Val needs to edit his post to read "legally" -- unless he wants to maintain that charade for the sake of his future political career. I tend to vote only on those games I see, which is considerably fewer than my East Coast brethren. Bad ass! Count me in, though I share in the second sentiment.

metirish Mar 20 2008 07:03 AM

I'm in, this board wouldn't be the same without it.

holychicken Mar 20 2008 07:25 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The thing I'm finding most surprising about this thread is that people are saying it's time-consuming to vote. I just think about the game for a minute or two and then type in my points. I figure that's almost certainly how Lindsey, Bob, and Ralph did it. (Actually, I bet they farmed it out to some nerd who was in the WOR truck.) I find it relatively easy to vote if I watched the game, but to give a fair vote when I did not watch the game does take some time. I am going to write a program that votes for me. Problem solved. I am taking seawolf's advice and the first line of my program will read: private const decimal _RamonCastroPoints = 6.0;

seawolf17 Mar 20 2008 10:15 AM

Yes! Operation: Ramon is going exactly as planned.

Centerfield Mar 20 2008 11:34 AM

I would love to see this continued and I will try to vote more often.