THE SCHAEFER METS PLAYER OF THE YEAR 2005

[Benjamin Grimm]

Here it is! The big announcement! Thanks to all CPFers who voted throughout the year. Next spring we can discuss whether or not we'll do it again.

The Schaefer Mets Players of the Month for 2005
APRIL	MAY	JUNE	JULY	AUGUST	SEPTEMBER

[MFS62]

Thank you, Yancy for all your hard work.

Congrats to Young David. As Murph used to say "The cream always rises to the top".

And we look for good things out of Mike Jacobs in years to come - finishing in the top 20 in only 100 at bats is quite a feat.

Later

[metirish]

Congratulations to David, fully deserved, congrats to Cliff for a great season, here's to a healthy next season.

Great job Yancy, excellent work.

[Elster88]

Thanks, Yancy. Great job. Congratulations, David.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Thank you Yancy.

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

[Guest sharpie]

Thanks, Yancy. I love this format.

Pedro holds off Reyes for third.

Jacobs charges into the top 20, prolly on the last day of the season.

Cairo passes Looper prolly at the very end as well.

Stories within stories...

[Guest cooby classic]

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

[Guest holychicken]

Congrats! And thanks YSG.

*gets drunk on Schaefer*

[Valadius]

Thanks Yancy.

We're doing this again.

Congrats to David Wright!

[Centerfield]

Thank you Yancy. Whether we do this or not next year will probably come down to whether you agree to go through all this work again. I, for one, hope you will.

I'm sorry I didn't vote much in games that made me want to spit. I'll do better next year. That's going to be one of my resolutions for 2006.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Wow! I thought Cliff would win.

I will prepare a press release

[Edgy MD]

How about what Jae Seo did with 90 innings pitched?

[Guest sharpie]

David Wright also won the Player of the Year thing they do on teevee based on who wins the most Player of the Games.

Will these be used for 05's rankings in the All-Time Mets List?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think it can be a starting point. There are a few players who finished a little lower or higher than they should have.

Roberto Hernandez probably should be ranked higher than he was. And I think Zambrano and Mientkiewicz can drop a few notches.

And to everyone who said thanks, above: you're welcome! I enjoyed following the precedent set by Ralph, Lindsey, and Bob. I felt like I was walking in the footsteps of greatness. I expect that I'll be willing to do this again in 2006, as long as consensus doesn't dictate that the format change too drastically. But that's a discussion for another time.

[Frayed Knot]

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

[Edgy MD]

They'll be factored in, I imagine.

Jonathan Archer/lubitel (sp?) is supposed to kick off 2005 rankings.

[MFS62]

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

Later

[Edgy MD]

Why?

[MFS62]

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

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

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

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

[MFS62]

Fair enough. Just trying to be helpful.

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

And I do appreciate it!

[Edgy MD]

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

This is what I did.

[Edgy MD]

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

[Edgy MD]

Schaefer Is the one beer to have
When you're having more than one

Schaefer pleasure doesn't fade
Even when your thirst is done

The most rewarding flavor In this man's world
For people who are having fun

Schaefer is the one beer to have
When you're having more than one!

[Benjamin Grimm]

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

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

[Guest sharpie]

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

[Theoldmole]

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

[dgwphotography]

ok - I heard my name used in vain...

do I have a time limit when I should start it?

[Edgy MD]

Well, it's not in vain now that you've responded.

What does that name mean anyway? Is it a type of lens?