THE SCHAEFER METS PLAYER OF THE YEAR 2005

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy DC wrote: Is it possible to easily extract what the standings were in PotG wins?

Unfortunately, no.

In fact, it's not possible to do it at all for the entire season, since all of the details from April have been lost to the ezHacker.

If you wanted to do from May 1 through the end of the season, you could probably do that without making yourself crazy. You could do it by scrolling through the five monthly summary threads in the 2005 POTG Forum. Each game's results are listed in chronological order, and for each game, the players are listed with the highest scorer first.

For example: May 1, Beltran; May 2, Martinez; May 3, Floyd; May 4, Seo; May 5, Piazza. And so on and so on.

[Elster88]

Nymr83 wrote: nope. quality > quantity doesn't mean quality + quantity = quality.

I realize this, but the reasoning you were espousing before did not.

Nymr83 wrote: jacobs cant get pts in games he didnt play

Well, yeah, that's what I was saying. I can explain it in a different way: Matsui and Cairo get smaller increments for the games they played in over a longer period of time, and Jacobs gets larger increments over a much shorter period of time. Since Jacobs' period of time is much shorter, over the long haul Matsui and Cairo attain more points and thus are higher ranked from the prespective of who contributed the most over the year.

I'm not sure how else to explain it. I wash my hands of this.

[Guest SwitchHitter]

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

[Edgy MD]

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

[nymr83]

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

potential solution: 10 pts per game, but you could grant up to 15 while giving -5.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Negative points would kill a guy like Looper.

When he gets a save, he usually gets about 1 point, because all he did was pitch one inning. But when he blows one, you could argue that he singlehandedly cost the Mets the game, so he'd be sure to get some -5's.

Theoretically, if he saved 5 out of every 6 games, he'd end up with a net total of zero points.

[Frayed Knot]

one suggestion for refining the Schaefer rules for next year would be to allow fewer than 10 points in a loss. Make 10 mandatory in a win, but establish a minimum of 5 points in a loss.

Now if only someone had suggested something like this earlier.

[Theoldmole]

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

[Benjamin Grimm]

TheOldMole wrote: Still, I'd like to see 15 for a win, 5 for a loss.

I think that's too extreme.

The contributions to a 7-6 win shouldn't be three times that of the contributions in an 8-7 loss.

My suggestion of 5 to 10 for a loss, and 10 for a win came about to address those dismal games where the Mets lose 8-0. We end up giving 1 or more points to a player simply for getting a walk or pitching a scoreless mop-up inning.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

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

[Theoldmole]

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

[nymr83]

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

limit it to -1 per player per game.
also, if a closer saves a 1 run game he'll get more credit out of me than "saving" the 3-0 lead (in whch case he is unlikely to even see a point out of me if the starter went 8 scoreless)

[Benjamin Grimm]

I guess it's time to unsticky this one.

[Edgy MD]

Negative points is a bad idea.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm not crazy about that idea either.

[nymr83]

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

[Edgy MD]

That's more or less a direction that I thought we could go in.

Give ten points every game, with the understanding that a point is a generally meaningless quantity, except as it compares one performance in one game to other performances in that same game. Then multiply those points by a factor based on the game score --- something like 1.5 for a five-run win and 0.5 for a five-run loss (I'm not endorsing those numbers) --- so a point in a good game is worth more than a point in a bad one.

I think we need the ten-pont control. I think we get bad data if everyone is giving diifferent scores.

And maybe some programmer can come up with an online balot form with the name of all participants and an empty box next to his name in which a person can fill in the number of points next to the candidates name, with a running count of points at the bottom of the screen as he fills out his or her ballot, and then hit a submit button when the tally equals 10.00.

And maybe we can vote for every game ever.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy DC wrote: I think we need the ten-point control. I think we get bad data if everyone is giving diifferent scores. And maybe some programmer can come up with an online balot form with the name of all participants and an empty box next to his name in which a person can fill in the number of points next to the candidates name, with a running count of points at the bottom of the screen as he fills out his or her ballot, and then hit a submit button when the tally equals 10.00. And maybe we can vote for every game ever.

I think we need the ten as a maxium. It gives scale to everything. But in a dud game, if somebody only awards five points, they're effectively giving a zero to a lot of people. And I don't really think that would skew things as much as giving fluff points to guys for not really doing much.

As for your "maybe some programmer" idea, that thought did pop into my mind as a UMDB feature. And it would allow all games to be voted without a) me going crazy and needing to create 7,000 threads in this forum.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I know I volunteered to write a press release, but I'm just not good at it. I wanted this to come off funnier than it reads.

I'm thinking maybe we can issue this release after the World Series but before the hot stove season -- dearth of bb news then other than stupid awards.

Or we could do it next week.

Mostly I want this to be funnier. Names removed. Have at it:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DAVID WRIGHT NAMED METS SCHAEFER PLAYER OF THE YEAR
Six-Pack Awarded as Fans Cheer Frosty Golden Met Tradition

BROOKLYN, N.Y. (Oct. 7, 2005) — Outlasting teammate Cliff Floyd with a late-season surge, New York Mets third baseman David Wright was voted the prestigious Schaefer Mets Player of the Year by the Crane Pool Forum (www.cranepoolforum.net).

Representatives of the Crane Pool, an online society devoted to New York Mets history, research and discussion, mailed Wright his prize, a six-pack of Schaefer beer, today.

The Schaefer Player of the Year contest recognizes the Mets’ of today while celebrating their past by reviving a mid-1970s marketing scheme performed by the legendary TV/Radio announcing trio of Lindsay Nelson, Ralph Kiner and Bob Murphy. Following each game, the broadcasters would award 10 points recognizing the contributions of each player toward that day’s game. Rules stipulated that 10 points must be awarded for every game, and that no single player may earn more than 6 points in any one game.

Though recalled mainly as a lame vehicle for a beer sponsor, Crane Poolians recognized the Schaefer points system as a superior way to value performances. Reviving the tradition in 2005, dozens of Schaefer Player of the Game votes were cast after each Met game in 2005, with running totals tabulated throughout the season by representatives of the Ultimate Mets Database (www.ultimatemets.com)

“In previous years we had voted for a player of the game. Pick one guy and a pat on the back to the losers. It quickly became obvious that, if we were to tally the winners for a year-end honor, steady contributors and consistent runners-up would be disadvantaged,â€

[Edgy MD]

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

Control. Control.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

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

[Benjamin Grimm]

For some reason I can't put my big fat orange finger on, the scaling up disturbs me. I guess the same can be accomplished by only scaling down, where necessary.

An up-to-par Mets game would remain at ten points. A sub-par one could be scaled down, perhaps to as low as a 5. There would have to be some standard for what the scaling factor would be.

Oh, and Johnny, I like the press release. Always remember, though, it's LINDSEY with an E, not LINDSAY with an A.

[Edgy MD]

Mostly I want this to be funnier.

Somebody poke Centerfield.

[nymr83]

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

i like this alot.
even in a crap game you can 2 points to 5 people knowing that once we've scaled it they'll each get only 1 out of it, but it prevents people's votes from being worth different amounts in a given game since everyone must assign 10 pts.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Okay, here are the options as I see them. (They're not all of the options, just the ones that can work without overly complicating the tallying effort.)

1. Same as in 2005
Ten points per game. No more than six for any one player.

2. Allow fewer points in a loss
2(a) Ten points for a win, anywhere from 5 to 10 points in a loss, up the voter's discretion. Maximum of 6 points for any one player.

2( Come up with a rule, based on the final score of the game, that assigns a point value for that game. A win would be ten points. A close loss might be 9, a drubbing might be 5. Everyone who votes allocates a number of points equal to the game's point value. For example, if the game is a 7, every voter awards 7 points. Maximum of 6 points for any one player. The rule to assign point value to a game would still need to be determined.

2© Schaefer Classic rules. Award a maximum of 10 points, no more than 6 to any one player. No minimum.


2( would get us the same result as the scaling factor that was mentioned previously. Instead of some games being a .7 and others a 1.4, for example (meaning the 10 points would be reduced to 7 or increased to 14) the ceiling remains at 10. No multiplication would be needed, but we'd still get the result of valuing performance in some games more than others.

But as I think about it, I'm liking 2© more and more. It's a far simpler way of achieving what 2( gets us. Instead of creating some abstract formula, the scaling becomes more organic. Not all 10-3 losses are equal. In a game where the starting pitcher goes 8 scoreless innings, and then the bullpen gives up 10 runs in the ninth, you do have an outstanding pitching performace to reward, plus a few points to the guys who helped accumulate the runs that originally gave the Mets a lead. However, there could be a 10-3 loss in which all of the pitchers sucked, some more than others, and the 3 runs came long after the Mets were way behind. In that kind of game, you might only award a few token points.

With method 2©, the first 10-3 game might end up as a 10 point game, or maybe an 8.5, or a 9.3, depending on how everyone votes. The second one might end up as a 4, or a 2.8, or a 3.73, again, depending on how the consensus turns out. It seems to me better to do it this way, valuing the game on a case-by-case basis, than by a hard-and-firm rule that says all x-run losses are the same.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

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

And again, thanks Yancy for coordinating this. You did a great job this year.

[Elster88]

I am all for keeping it at exactly 10 points per game. Who does more:

a) the guy who goes 3-3 with 3 bloop singles in a game where four shitty Diamondback pitchers pitch and the Mets win 17-3

the guy who goes 1-4, his single coming in the inning where Reyes reaches on an error, goes to third on this single, and scores on a sac fly in a 2-hitter by Smoltz that the Mets lose 4-1.

It's all about performance relative to the game.
_____________________________
This post had the designation 140) David Weathers

[nymr83]

No more than six for any one player.

can we discuss getting rid of this? what happens when a pitcher shuts the other team out and our team scores on an error 1-0? or better yet if a pitcher drives in the runs while shutting them out.
the 6 points per player thing is blatently anti-pitching.

[Benjamin Grimm]

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

[metsmarathon]

surely there were good defensive plays, no?

and if not, give the remaining 4 to the catcher - he must've called a good game.