All Purpose Schaefer Discussion Thread

[metsmarathon]

GYC wrote: Is it weird that I've created a spreadsheet of my own Schaefer points?

i've done the same thing, so i hope not.

i also did one with my predictions, that i'm gonna update at game 16, 32, etc.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

We seem to be learning that a standard one-inning save is worth a little bit less than one full point. Wagner ended up getting a 0.87 for his Friday night save in the 4-3 win over the Brewers. His chance of being Player of the Year: slim.




Sharpie, did you really mean to snub Delgado in Monday's game? If not, please feel free to edit. Thanks.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Month-to-date totals for April 2006
Through game of April 16, 2006

Name	Points
David Wright	13.40
Carlos Delgado	11.18
Tom Glavine	10.69
Carlos Beltran	9.86
Brian Bannister	8.63
Xavier Nady	8.49
Jos� Reyes	7.40
Pedro Martinez	6.37
Paul Lo Duca	4.50
Duaner Sanchez	4.43
Steve Trachsel	3.58
Billy Wagner	3.12
Aaron Heilman	2.83
Cliff Floyd	2.62
Chad Bradford	1.26
Darren Oliver	1.16
Chris Woodward	1.00
Ramon Castro	0.97
Anderson Hernandez	0.57
Victor Zambrano	0.42
Victor Diaz	0.32
Jorge Julio	0.07
Endy Chavez	0.01
Julio Franco	0.00

[nymr83]

]We seem to be learning that a standard one-inning save is worth a little bit less than one full point. Wagner ended up getting a 0.87 for his Friday night save in the 4-3 win over the Brewers. His chance of being Player of the Year: slim.

i'l usually give a full point at least for a 1-run save, saving a 3-run lead doesnt get the same respect.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Willets Point wrote: Castro 2 Glavine 1 Reyes 1 Woodward 2

Wow.

[Guest abogdan]

From the discussion in the 4/19 thread:

] I only awarded the minimum 6 points

My understanding is that there is no minimum total of points per game. Which proposition is correct?

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

You have it right, abogdan.

Once again...

There is no minimum.

Maximum is 10.
Maximum for any one player is 6.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I think it's safe to say that Willets will never be president of Glavine's fan club.

[nymr83]

How is it that Nady was the run-away favorite in the POTG poll but Pedro got the most avg points in the same game?
either different people are voting or people are voting inconsistently behind the anonymity of the poll!

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I'm surprised that some people are giving Franco and Julio the same number of points for Thursday night's game.

A two-run go-ahead homer has to be worth more than a mop up inning.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Three voters, abogdan, MFS62, and Zvon, all gave both Julio and Franco one point each.

I just don't get it.

[Elster88]

I agree. I don't think that they're reading this.

[MFS62]

Elster88 wrote: I agree. I don't think that they're reading this.

I am now. I promise to be more careful next time.

Later

[Willets Point]

The Schaefer Police:

[Centerfield]

You know, this place could use an FAQ.

Shaefer rules should be front and center on it.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

That's a good idea.

[Willets Point]

Rockin' Doc wrote: I think it's safe to say that Willets will never be president of Glavine's fan club.

Maybe, but folks giving 6 points to the LOSING pitcher really cheapens awarding 6 points. I'll save that for a complete game shutout or a batter who hits 4 for 4 with 6 RBI's in a game (for example).

[Frayed Knot]

Well it doesn't have to be 6 points, folks are just questioning why only 1 pt for a full game w/just 2R (1 ER). You gave Castro twice the love, for ex, for a single and CS.

[metsmarathon]

i certainly think that glavine earned his 6 points, if nobody else on teh team did.

besides, these points are relative, not absolute. in some games, points come easier. in others, points are harder to earn.

[Centerfield]

I think a pitcher who pitches 8 innings, one ER deserves 6 points. Again, it's relative, but I don't see how you can justify merely awarding 1 point.

Anyway, while I happen to remember it, I think we should be allowed to exceed the 6 point maximum for when Pedro throws the first Mets No-Hitter later this summer.

[nymr83]

Sorry, CF. This contest has a built-in anti-pitching bias, allowing more than 6 points to a player would allow starting pitchers to fairly compete with position players, we wouldn't want that to happen.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Despite Namor's contention that starting pitchers don't have a chance, Tom Glavine is the current leader in the Schaefer Mets Player of the Year competition for 2006.


Season-to-date totals for 2006
Through game of April 19, 2006

Name	Points
Tom Glavine	15.95
David Wright	13.44
Carlos Delgado	13.33
Xavier Nady	11.00
Carlos Beltran	9.86
Pedro Martinez	8.85
Brian Bannister	8.63
Jos� Reyes	8.03
Paul Lo Duca	5.64
Duaner Sanchez	5.46
Billy Wagner	4.02
Aaron Heilman	3.58
Steve Trachsel	3.58
Chris Woodward	3.26
Cliff Floyd	2.63
Pedro Feliciano	2.22
Ramon Castro	1.39
Chad Bradford	1.26
Darren Oliver	1.16
Jorge Julio	0.63
Anderson Hernandez	0.57
Victor Zambrano	0.42
Victor Diaz	0.32
Endy Chavez	0.01
Julio Franco	0.00

[Theoldmole]

A pitcher, if he's effective, is going to get at least some points every time goes out there.

[Theoldmole]

If everyone voted the same way, or used the same standards, it would take half the point out of having the voting.

I know I tend to narrow it down to the fewest possible recipients, and give as few fractions as I can. Others make sure that everyone who made a contribution is included. Vive la difference!

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

TheOldMole wrote: If everyone voted the same way, or used the same standards, it would take half the point out of having the voting. I know I tend to narrow it down to the fewest possible recipients, and give as few fractions as I can. Others make sure that everyone who made a contribution is included. Vive la difference!

Exactly. This whole thing is about consensus. Some people will vote extremes, one way or another, but when all the votes are averaged together, we get our collective totals.

[Frayed Knot]

Variations among voters isn't a problem.
It's just that if this thing is going to even attempt to measure something it shouldn't be subject to 'I hate him so I'll screw him in the voting' whims.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Two points: I'm glad to note that the extremely pretentious use of multi-decimal places seems to be declining since my parodic displays of absurdly false precision.

I also had the notion that if Yancy were to eliminate the highest and lowest scores for any player (or even the highest and lowest two or three scores), that would discourage thoughtless, ill-considered, ignorant, vengeful, ill-informed, loony, agenda-driven voting and make for a more accurate tally overall. I don't know how hard that would be to achieve on a technical level, but eliminating outliers is always a good idea statistically, especially wtih small samples where they could seriously affect the outcome.

[nymr83]

the problem is you get games where only 8 or 9 people vote, i wouldn't want to eliminate the outliers there.

you also get games, particulartly weekday games when everyone is working, where 90% of the voters will vote based only on the boxscore, and thus that "outlier" 2 given to the 0-4 Cliff Floyd will get eliminated, only that 2 came from someone who watched the game and saw Floyd scale the wall to rob a homerun and also saw him gun down a runner trying to take an extra base.

i think its fine to ask extremely weird votes (the guy who gives 1 point to a pitcher who goes 8 innings 1 earned, or the guy wo gives an inning of mopup work more credit than the go-ahead homer) to explain themselves and to throw those votes out as typing errors if we don't get a response.

oh yeah, and with the decimal points i think we should limit it to 1/4 points if not half points.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

You realize that I;'m talking about the highest AND the lowest outliers? It's a rare game that this wouldn't result in fairer voting, and it's inevitable that it will work that way in the long run.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I like the concept of tossing the outliers but I suspect it would hurt the low-scoring contributors moreso than the high vote-getters. I'd say most folks don't bother to credit the guy whose single starts the rally if that's the only hit they get. It penalizes those who go into the most detail.