Schaefer commentary

[Willets Point]

mm...don't confuse them with logic.

[G-Fafif]

Thirty-six games in, I just want to say I'm enjoying the heck out of POTG voting, my first season participating. It's very challenging. Having restricted myself to slicing and dicing no thinner than by the half-point, I find the greatest (and most enjoyable) task is to find points for everybody in a great win like yesterday's. I probably shortchanged Mr. Perez because of all the offensive contributions that also defined the game, but I'll stand by it because there were enough big hits to go around.

On one or two occasions I could feel slight personal biases creeping in, not in a "I don't like him, he gets nothing" sense but rather in a judgmental way. There was a game when Wright seemed to be breaking out but I withheld support because I was growing impatient with his sporadic performance. "You got points in such-and-such game and you let me down for the next three days" was my thinking. It was bizarre reasoning, but across 162 games, I don't expect it will be the last time my logic twists and turns.

Wasn't the original mid-'70s Schaefer voting awarded on a 6-3-1 basis? I can remember a rather depressing 5-0 type of loss after which Bob Murphy rather harshly (for Murph) noted no points would be awarded. Wow, I thought, it was that bad.

Anyway, just wanted to tip my cap to Yancy and all who got and keep this thing going. It's become a most welcome ritual in my rooting experience.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Thank you, G!

I don't recall any 6-3-1, though it's possible that for a time that rule was in effect. I simply remember up to 10 per game, up to 6 per player. I don't recall exactly in which years the Mets broadcasters awarded Schaefer points, but the player names I most associate with Schaefer points are, for whatever reason, Rusty Staub and Jerry Koosman. (They may have been the 1975 and 1976 winners.) There's practically nothing on the web at all about Schaefer Awards, other than what's been generated here at the CPF.

(Oh, and you might want to try clicking the Shaefer [sic] Awards link at the top of this page. The page you'll be directed to is a work in progress. Eventually it will display actual results of our voting here.)

[G-Fafif]

Don't remember '75 winner (Rusty is the logical choice) but I feel fairly certain Koosman edged Kingman in '76, something like 86 to 85 points. Kooz finished up strong and Kingman lost so much time due to injury.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Wow, you even remember the Schaefer point totals from 30 years ago?

I'm impressed. (I think. It's also possible that you're insane!)

Anyway, it's time to announce the impending closure of the voting threads for this past weekend's series against Milwaukee. Voting will close on Wednesday morning.

Friday
Saturday
Sunday


Sunday's 9-1 victory is still a bit undervoted, so if you haven't put in your 2¢ yet, now is the time to do so.

[Willets Point]

I only put in 1¢, should I put in another.

[nymr83]

5/14- he didn't get an E in the box score, but Easley failed to make a play that pretty much any 2Bman would have made that scored 2 runs, so i denied him any points figuring his RBI at best made up for that.

[G-Fafif]

Nymr83 wrote: Zambrano 6 Floyd 4

Now THAT'S funny!

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Monday night's series opener against the Cubs will close on Thursday:

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6356

[nymr83]

G-Fafif wrote: ="Nymr83"]Zambrano 6 Floyd 4 Now THAT'S funny!

don't delete my posts, i'd have edited it before you tallied.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Don't post fake votes and I won't delete them.



Voting for Tuesday night's 10-1 loss against the Cubs will close on Friday morning:

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6364

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for the third game of the Cubs series, the 8-1 win on Wednesday, will close over the weekend.

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6371

[Frayed Knot]

General comment here (and I know it all depends on perceived "points earned" by others) but it seems to me that a full-inning save, especially in a one-run game, esp against the middle of the order against a high-scoring team, esp in a subway series game, is generally worth at least a full Schaefer point*.

Think of it this way; if it's not, then why do we get so upset if it's not converted?



* and I especially don't get the votes where Smith's 1 out in the 8th is worth the same as Wagner 3 outs (kinda like 4) in the 9th

[Gwreck]

Re the first game vs. the Yankees, I'm scratching my head at the lack of points for LoDuca (2-3, 2 Doubles). Left off some ballots, undervalued on others. Was there something so great about Reyes' 1-4 that warrants him getting points instead of LoDuca?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Reyes and Lo Duca each scored one run, so I think they should get roughly equal points.

And I agree with Frayed Knot. I think Wagner certainly deserves at least a full point, if not more.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for the exciting comeback victory over the Cubs will close on Tuesday morning:

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6377

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Gwreck wrote: Re the first game vs. the Yankees, I'm scratching my head at the lack of points for LoDuca (2-3, 2 Doubles). Left off some ballots, undervalued on others. Was there something so great about Reyes' 1-4 that warrants him getting points instead of LoDuca?

Oftentimes I will reward a can-opener benefit to the guy who makes the first run happen, as Reyes did there and I guess the crowd did too. That said they did overlook LoDuca some -- he was really the only guy who Pettitte well.

His 2nd double would be more conspicuous if it involved scoring on either end.

[Guest iramets]

I don't vote in these things any more on principle, but I do think if you were to eliminate the outlying votes, perhaps several of each, you'd get less idiosyncratic voting, especially on the high end..

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't recall that you ever participated in these, but maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, I think that eliminating the outliers would have little effect on the totals, but would simply require more effort on my part.

Anyone who wants to experiment can compare the actual results for a game or two with the results we'd have gotten with outlying votes eliminated. I'm curious to see what the impact would be, but not curious enough to try it myself.

[Guest iramets]

="Yancy Street Gang"]I don't recall that you ever participated in these, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I think that eliminating the outliers would have little effect on the totals, but would simply require more effort on my part. Anyone who wants to experiment can compare the actual results for a game or two with the results we'd have gotten with outlying votes eliminated. I'm curious to see what the impact would be, but not curious enough to try it myself.

No, you're wrong. I used to participate often in the voting. At the end of my voting days, I'd give eight or twelve digits of decimil points, to mock the absurdity of those who felt that they could work out votes to two or three decimil points--maybe you remember that?

The idea is not only that eliminating the outliers would give cleaner results immediately, but that people would realize that by voting absurd point totals for someone who didn't deserve them he was actually causing that vote to be eliminated. Instead of helping Joe Smith by giving him three points for getting a single out, he was causing his vote to disappear, that voter would be motivated to give only a reasonable total for Joe Smith, in line with what other voters were awarding Smith.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I do remember a mock vote from you, but I think (thought) it was the only time you voted. But I don't pay that close attention to who's voting and who isn't.

That aside, I have a system that makes the tallying very quick and simple, and I don't feel motivated to make it more complicated.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Willets Point wrote: Chavez .50 Easley 2 Feliciano 1 Gotay 1 Greeen 1 Heilman 1 Schoeneweis 1 Wright 1.50

This is curious. Why is Easley's home run worth more than Wright's?

[Willets Point]

It's not. Easley gets credit for a walk earlier in the game.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

That was an intentional walk iirc. unless there was another. Easley also committed the crime of making the third out in the 4th inning. Not a good game for him until the HR.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for all three games against the Yankees at Shea will close on Wednesday morning:

Friday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6390
Saturday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6396
Sunday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6402

[metsmarathon]

="Yancy Street Gang"]I don't recall that you ever participated in these, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I think that eliminating the outliers would have little effect on the totals, but would simply require more effort on my part. Anyone who wants to experiment can compare the actual results for a game or two with the results we'd have gotten with outlying votes eliminated. I'm curious to see what the impact would be, but not curious enough to try it myself.

hmm... we just did a whole outlier thing here at work not too long ago...

to begin, though, i'd suggest that you define "outlier"

if you intend to toss out any vote that is not considered to be part of an expected population of votes, then its going to be difficult to toss any out. tho that newhan game might be a good test for it...

otherwise, you're left with either arbitrarily tossing a vote that appears wonky, or automatically tossing the highest and/or lowest votes for a given player in a given game.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think when this was first proposed last year, each individual player's highest and lowest vote would be tossed.

[metsmarathon]

so we would then toss out a zero vote for a player who was not listed, then?

well, assuming that to be the correct interpretation of the outlier rule, we've got the following situation for the "infamous" newhan game.

hopefully, the table below will be self-explanatory...

player	Newhan	Beltran	Green	Loduca	Chavez	Sele	Feliciano
1	5.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
2	2.00	0.50	2.00	0.50	0.25	0.75	0.20
3	4.00	0.50	0.80	0.50	0.50	0.50	1.00
4	2.00	0.50	1.00		0.50		0.75
5	2.00	1.00	1.25		0.60		0.25
6	2.25	0.80	1.00				0.75
7	6.00		2.00				0.50
8	3.00		1.50				1.34
9	2.50		1.00
10	2.50		1.00
11	2.00		1.00
12	4.00		0.75
13	2.00		0.75
14	2.00		0.70
15	3.60		0.34
16	3.66
old total points	48.51	4.30	16.09	2.00	2.85	2.25	5.79
old schaefer	3.03	0.27	1.01	0.13	0.18	0.14	0.36
outhigh	6.00	1.00	2.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.34
oullow	2.00	-	-	-	-	-	-
new total points	40.51	3.30	14.09	1.00	1.85	1.25	4.45
new schaefer	2.89	0.24	1.01	0.07	0.13	0.09	0.32

every player who is not david newhan had a 0 vote removed from his total. the total points awarded for this game dropped from 5.11 to 4.75

[Benjamin Grimm]

And instead of dividing by 16, you divided everyone's total by 14.

Newhan loses 0.14 points. Green has no change. All remaining players lose between 0.03 and 0.06 points.

As I suspected, the extra effort in tallying would result in minimal impact to the final totals. And this was perhaps the game that had the most extreme variance.

Thanks for doing the grunt work, marathon! Good job.

[metirish]

I think tossing a person's votes might not do much for voter participation ,is this an isolated incident,if so I am sure the voter could correct such voting in the future.