Schaefer commentary

[Guest Kid Carsey]

I wonder aloud what fun it would be put m.e.t.b.o.t. in a microwave for
ten seconds or so and see how he holds up.

(j/k, I'm not well)

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I imagine it would be similar to this only with alot of sparks since m.e.t.b.o.t. is metallic.

[G-Fafif]

Anybody else typing in the letters S-o-s-a and staring at the resulting name and doing a doubletake?

[Gwreck]

Wright 1-4, HR, 1 RBI.
Easley 2-3, HR, 1 RBI.

Why is Wright getting more points? (from several voters).

[stevejrogers]

="m.e.t.b.o.t."]m.e.t.b.o.t. does not understand the references to involuntary digestive output. m.e.t.b.o.t. is frequently discouraged by the overabundance of anthropomorphic references. while m.e.t.b.o.t. acknowledges that m.e.t.b.o.t. is likely the only automated, and therefore non-human, participant in the crane pool forum, m.e.t.b.o.t. wishes at times that m.e.t.b.o.t. did not appear to be such an outsider.

[Commander Data Voice]Ah. So the m.e.t.b.o.t. is somewhat like myself. A sentient life form, who clearly can not be human, but somehow always wishes to be...human like.

I can tell you this though, I am programed to run faster than a m.e.t.b.o.t in more ways than one.[/Commander Data Voice]

[nymr83]

Wright's homer made it 1-0, Easley's homer took it from 4-2 to 5-2, the fact that the brewers later made it 5-4 doesnt change the relative value of the homers at the time they were hit. breaking a tie (or tying it up when losing) will almost always get more points out of me than scoring when already up

[nymr83]

hey Data, Bite my shiny metal ass! theres only room for one obnoxious robot around here!
kill all humans! except fry

[Gwreck]

="Nymr83"]Wright's homer made it 1-0, Easley's homer took it from 4-2 to 5-2, the fact that the brewers later made it 5-4 doesnt change the relative value of the homers at the time they were hit.

Thanks, but I was at the game to see it myself.

My point -- perhaps not quite so well explained -- is that Easley's total contributions out numbered Wright's. Easley rally-extending single (not his fault that the guys behind him couldn't get it done) in addition to his homer was worth more than what Wright did.

Sure, Wright's homer alone was worth more than Easley's. But an insurance run homer is still huge.

[nymr83]

Request: whoever starts the thread please use a Box score link that includes the scoring summary (both espn.com and yahoo box scores have this)

[Guest Kid Carsey]

I changed the link to the yahoo box. Sparse but tough crowd.

Someone tell the new guy ya can't give someone ten points.

[nymr83]

New Guy: the rules arbitrarily cap the points at 6 to any one player.

[Gwreck]

Giving 5 points to Newhan for doing the only good thing in a blowout undermines the voting system.

[nymr83]

the original point of the voting system was to give 10 in each game as a means of relative comparison, we once discarded votes that didnt add up to 10. it was a mistake to move away from that.

[Elster88]

Not a single amusing thing can go by without it being spoiled I guess.

[metsmarathon]

as long as we are true unto ourselves, then the integrity of our schaefer voting is maintained.

if only one among us believes that newhan deserved a five, and the remainder of us consider his contributions to be worthy of a mere two, then the aggregate vote will be more reflective of a two than five.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

The reason the mandatory 10 point rule was abandoned was because in ugly blow outs in which the Mets got beat badly you would see players getting 2 or 3 points for geting a single or a pair of walks and any pitcher that didn't get roughed up would get 1 or 2 points just for surviving an inning in a route. So people either had to give absurd point totals to players for the most mundane of contributions or they simply refused to vote since there realistically weren't player contributions worthy of an aggregate of 10 points. Such games tended to skew the results for that game for more than an abberant vote by one individual does now. As marathon said, the one outlandish vote tends to get greatly averaged out by the votes of others.

[Benjamin Grimm]

="Nymr83"]New Guy: the rules arbitrarily cap the points at 6 to any one player.

Once again, each player gets rated on a scale of 1 to 6. That's no more arbitrary than rating them on a scale of 1 to 10.

[Guest Kid Carsey]

E88: >>>Not a single amusing thing can go by without it being spoiled I guess.<<<

What are you addressing? If it's my microwaving m.e.t.b.o.t. or suggesting
that the new guy not vote a 10 then perhaps we're just amused differently.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for the May 9 game in San Francisco will close on Monday morning:

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6319

The three games against the Brewers at Shea will all wrap up on Wednesday.

[Guest Kid Carsey]

bmfc: >>>Man, you guys are strict! <<<

Nah, it's more eccentricity than strictness.

[Elster88]

="Kid Carsey"]E88: >>>Not a single amusing thing can go by without it being spoiled I guess.<<< What are you addressing? If it's my microwaving m.e.t.b.o.t. or suggesting that the new guy not vote a 10 then perhaps we're just amused differently.

Neither

[Elster88]

The voting for Newhan on 5/12 is confusing me.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Elster88 wrote: The voting for Newhan on 5/12 is confusing me.

5 and 6 points are a bit much, eh?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think so too. Hopefully we'll get more voters to help dilute those votes.

[Gwreck]

Nymr83 wrote: the original point of the voting system was to give 10 in each game as a means of relative comparison, we once discarded votes that didnt add up to 10. it was a mistake to move away from that.

No, it wasn't a mistake.

How can we give David Newhan 4-6 points for a pinch-hit two run homer (which didn't even tie or give the Mets the lead) and give Oliver Perez the same 4-6 points for his pitching performance today?

Keeping a 10 point mandatory vote distorts relative comparison.

[nymr83]

how does perez get the same 6 as the guy who throws a 9 inning shutout? how does the guy who puts up Alfonzo's 6/6 3 HRs only get 6 while a guy who homers twice in5 ABs gets 6 as well?

its all going to be "distorted" unless you went to a system where each player who appeared in a game was given a score in a range of x to y for each game, irrespective of what anyone else did. but thats not what we're doing and its far enough away from what we're doing that i'm sure its not going to be seriously discussed

[Benjamin Grimm]

Among the many things you're failing to pick up on is that Perez is NOT getting a 6 for Sunday's game. Take a look at the voting thread.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Right now there are six votes for Sunday's game, and if the voting ended right now, Perez would get a 4.72.

[metirish]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Right now there are six votes for Sunday's game, and if the voting ended right now, Perez would get a 4.72.

Seems about right to me.

[metsmarathon]

we're voting after each game to award the schaefer player of the game

we are not voting for the schaefer player's contribution to the whole year as evinced by this one game.

as such, the contributions of a player should be viewed in the context of that game, and not so much in the context of how that vote will play for the whole season. if we vote for the individual games based on how a specific vote will affect the season totals, then we might as well throw out the game-by-game voting, and just put together our tally at the end of the season.

if we did this whole exercise not by a point system but by a single player of the game vote, then we'd also have the problem wherein we'd be deciding was newhan's home run worth as much as perez' outing yesterday, and isnt it unfair to beltran that his homer doesnt count for anything.

as long as we go game-by-game with a relativistic system, then we will have a "problem" wherein one guy will get points he doesnt "deserve" while another guy in another game will not get points that he does.

but that's the way it should be. otherwise, we're just going to do our usual end of season ranking project based on the total contribution over the whole season.