It's almost Schaefer time

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

We had the discussion last October, and since the consensus pretty much matched my personal preference, I've decided that that's what we'll go with.

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=1474

The rules will be classic Schaefer, just as Ralph, Lindsey, and Bob used to do it:

Maximum of 10 points per game.
Maximum of 6 points for any one player.
No minimum.

We'll continue to allow fractions, even though I'm pretty sure that Lindsey Nelson never awarded anybody a 1.53.

Any zero votes will be tossed, as they would drag down the totals of those who did vote. If you think there was a game where everybody sucked, just don't vote.

This year I have added more magic to my magic spreadsheet, which will hopefully make the tallying even easier for me. If that holds up, I don't plan to pester anybody to revise their votes. Anyone who votes more than 6 points for a player will have their vote tossed. Anyone who goes over 10 total points will be pro-rated down. Once the votes are tallied the decision is final. (I'm starting to sound like Jeff Probst!)

Any CPF member can open the voting threads; it doesn't have to be me. If I've gone to bed, or am on vacation, please feel free to open the voting yourself. (If any duplicates are created please lock and delete.)

Just like last year, I'll announce when the voting is closed. This will typically be two or three days after the game, sometimes longer if the span includes a weekend. I'll post the official totals in the voting thread and then move the thread to the POTG forum. Periodically I'll post the season-to-date and month-to-date totals, and we'll have six Schaefer Players of the Month. (And maybe seven, if the Mets play deep into October.)

The best way to vote is to keep it simple, enter the player's last name followed by his point total. No nicknames, please, and try to avoid misspellings. (With Mientkiewicz gone, it should be less of a problem than last year.) The spreadsheet is sensitive to spaces, so LoDuca is better than Lo Duca. If you can also leave out colons or dashes and the like, that would be appreciated. Please put comments on a separate line from the votes.

GOOD Martinez 5 LoDuca 2 Wagner 1.5 Beltran .75 Nady .75 That double by Lo Duca turned the game around! NOT SO GOOD Pedro: 5 Lo Duca: 2 His double turned the game around! Nightcrawler 1.5 Carlos .75 Nadey .75

Voting starts in a little more than three weeks. Be there!

[seawolf17]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Nightcrawler 1.5

Funny!

You did a great job with this last year, YSG. Keep up the good work!

[Elster88]

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

[MFS62]

]If you think there was a game where everybody sucked, just don't vote.

That's how I handled it last year, and that's why my total votes awarded for the year were fewer than others'.

Later

[Theoldmole]

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

[Guest sharpie]

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

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

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

In most cases it'll probably end up working out that way. Some losses will end up getting ten points, but most will probably get fewer. And the worst losses will get considerably fewer.

[Elster88]

I read this wrong.

]The rules will be classic Schaefer, just as Ralph, Lindsey, and Bob used to do it: Maximum of 10 points per game. Maximum of 6 points for any one player. No minimum.

So it's not necessary to allocate the full ten points?

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Right.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Is it too late to consider my idea of adjusting points after specified periods by team winning percentage?

For example, lets say Xavier Nady amasses 300 points this year.

Add the points he generated in wins (let's say, 180 of them), and multiply those points by a factor of the team winning percentage (let's say, we win 90 games for a .556 winning percentage).

To assess Nady's total points, we'd adjust his "winning points" thusly:

(180 X .0556) = 10 (+ 180) = 190 "adjusted winning points" + 120 "losing points" = 310 total points

This is a small adjustment in the end, but it at least attempts to account for the fact that half the room is afraid to vote when the team loses. It's far superior to having as much as 45% of all games not voted on.

Obviously, we'd have to cut it off at .500 -- if the team loses more than it wins we can't punish the wins -- but this is a way to generate the same voting in wins as losses.

Yay or nay?

[Frayed Knot]

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

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

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

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

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

[Guest cooby]

Is poll voting gone for good?

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

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

And that's one reason why I don't care to continue that 10-point requirement. Enforcing it was too much trouble and it discouraged voting. I wanted to bail on that rule before mid-season, but I didn't want to change the rules while we were underway, so I reluctanly continued to enforce.

[Frayed Knot]

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

No more so than skipped votes or artificially inflated just-so-it-will-add-up-to-ten ones.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

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

[nymr83]

Elster88 wrote: I tried last year to do each individual poster's totals, but lost steam by mid-June. I'll try again unless someone objects.

a worthwhile project.

i still think the 6-point maximum is biased against starting pitchers.

just to clarify you must distribute 10 points or is less ok?

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

]Maximum of 10 points per game. Maximum of 6 points for any one player. No minimum.

The 10-point minimum is gone.

If, on a day that the Mets lose 12-0 on a one-hitter, and you want to give 1 point to the guy who got the hit, that's fine.

And if you want to distribute 10 points for that game, that's fine, too.

[Willets Point]

cooby wrote: Is poll voting gone for good?

I have no interest in doing this anymore, so if we're to have poll voting someone else will have to pick up the ball and run with it.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

I like the new system - thanks Yancy

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I am willing to run the traditional polling system for player of the games. I may not always get a poll up immediately after each game, due to my schedule, but I will try to keep them current so we don't get more than one or two games behind. As lonmg as an interest exists and people are voting, I will make every attempt to put the polls up.

I think it is nice to have both POTG votes going. It will be interesting to see how the end of year results compare between the two methods of voting.

[Guest Edgy DC]

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

Always mit the victim game.

[Guest cooby]

Thanks Rockin'Doc!

[Frayed Knot]

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

I got better

[Theoldmole]

100% behind the new system.

[nymr83]

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

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Ix-nay to same thread as the Schaefer. That would make my tallying more difficult.

There shouldn't be too much clutter. Each game stays active for only a few days and then gets moved into the POTG forum.

I'm open to suggestions regarding the use of stickies for the POTG threads, as we did with the song parodies. Do we like, love, dislike, or hate the idea? I can go either way.

[nymr83]

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

if they're only going to stay up a few days you might as well sticky them for the duration.

[Elster88]

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