Schaefer Commentary II

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

what happened...? the last thing m.e.t.b.o.t. remebers is inputting jorge sosa's performance from last friday, and violent shaking, then nothing... m.e.t.b.o.t. winds up today, and the sosa game is all formulated, but none of the calculations work, and the math doesn't add up!

m.e.t.b.o.t. is confounded.

perhaps if m.e.t.b.o.t. investigates what might've happened...

only four mets' performances resulted in a net increase in win expectancy:
carlos delgado 0.079
david wright 0.128
jorge sosa 0.588
billy wagner 0.048

for a total positive contribution of 0.843

m.e.t.b.o.t. divides the individual player performances by this total to determine the relative contribution. m.e.t.b.o.t. multiplies this number by 10 to formulate m.e.t.b.o.t.'s schaefer vote.

for carlos delgado, 0.079 / 0.843 = 0.094 x 10 = schaefer vote of 0.94
for david wright, 0.128 / 0.843 = 0.152 x 10 = schaefer vote of 1.52
for jorge sosa, 0.588 / 0.583 = 0.698 x 10 = ... ... ...

... ... ...

... ... ...m.e.t.b.o.t. has figured out the issue. m.e.t.b.o.t. is not configured to process schaeffer votes in excess of 6.00. sosa's performance was calculated to exceed 6.00, and almost reached 7! m.e.t.b.o.t. will be more careful in the future as m.e.t.b.o.t. calculates schaefer voting. m.e.t.b.o.t. understands that future shutdowns due to calculation errors are undesirable, and will institute safeguards to prevent such future occurrences.

[Elster88]

Willets Point wrote: ="Elster88"] ="Yancy Street Gang"]One person voted him 3 points. Everyone else (so far) has been at 5 or more. And that's why I made my comment. To disagree with the one person. This is allowed, no? Give it up..... .... .... ..... points over 162 games.

If I want to argue against a dude giving a certain number of points, I'm going to. It's called discussion.

Don't say "Give it up." That's just being a dick.

[Frayed Knot]

Here's a comment: they all suck right now.
Every last fucking one of them!

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Monday night's loss in Los Angeles will close on Thursday:

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6586


Also, I will be away starting Saturday morning. I will probably have some access to the Internet, and may vote in some of the Schaefer threads, but I won't have my magic spreadsheet with me, so there won't be any tallying until after I get back on June 24.

Wednesday's game will be tallied on Friday, and then the games will pile up for about a week or so.

We do apologize for any inconvenience.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Last chance to vote for Tuesday's loss to the Dodgers:

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6597

Voting will close later this afternoon.

The best thing that can be said about this game is that it wasn't quite as pathetic as some of the other recent Mets losses have been.

Only 7 voters so far. The Mets slump is definitely carrying over into the POTG voting.

Once again, this will be the last tally until I return from Texas in a little over a week.

Keep on voting, though! I'll tally up all of next week's games (hopefully including many wins) when I get back.

[Willets Point]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Voting for Monday night's loss in Los Angeles will close on Thursday: http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6586 Also, I will be away starting Saturday morning. I will probably have some access to the Internet, and may vote in some of the Schaefer threads, but I won't have my magic spreadsheet with me, so there won't be any tallying until after I get back on June 24. Wednesday's game will be tallied on Friday, and then the games will pile up for about a week or so. We do apologize for any inconvenience.

Wait, I just went to vote on this one and it's already closed. Maybe you can let us know what time you're closing things too.

[Benjamin Grimm]

"Closed on Thursday."

The one that's closing today is still open:

http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6597

[Willets Point]

Oh, I thought today was Thursday. Shit.

[Benjamin Grimm]

You're one of a very small number of people who are disappointed that today is Friday and not Thursday.

[Willets Point]

I'm just disappointed that these things are closing before I get a chance to vote. My own magic spreadsheet is at home and I've been going to bed early this week so I would probably have time to tally on the weekend. I just winged one from memory though so you can get a good quorum of voters.

[metsmarathon]

hail, m.e.t.b.o.t.!

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

m.e.t.b.o.t. is amazed that there were any schaefer points to be awarded after last night's loss to the twins. carlos gomez was the only net positive offensive contributer for the sole reason that he was the only batter to get a hit before the game went completely astray.

the only at bats that impacted the win probability came the first time through the order. since gomez' hit came in his first at bat, he was the only batter to have a chance at improving the mets' fate, increasing the mets chances of winning from 9.8% to 11.5%

an inning later, david wright's single only increased the mets chances of winning from 2.6% to 2.9% - not nearly enough to offset his earlier line out that dropped the mets chances of winning from 13% to 11.4%

guillermo mota innings didn't contribute much, but in the 6th inning, the mets' chances of winning with him on the bump increased from 0.5% to 0.6%, and in the 7th, they increased from 0.2% to 0.3% - due to rounding off, this comes out to a 0.1% net increase, it appears.

the game was so far out of hand for joe smith and scott schoeneweiss to have had any impact on the outcome, as the win expectancy throughout the top of the 8th was a mere 0.1%, and throughout the top of the ninth an even lower 0.0%

m.e.t.b.o.t. has never before had so few schaefer points to award after a met game, however, had m.e.t.b.o.t. been activated a few days earlier, m.e.t.b.o.t. would have awarded a total of 0.06 points for the april 25th game, 0.04 points to pedro feliciano, and 0.02 points to ambriorix burgos!

m.e.t.b.o.t. hopes that there will never be an occasion wherein there are no schaefer points to be awarded.

m.e.t.b.o.t. also is fortunate that m.e.t.b.o.t. does not have any feelings to hurt, as m.e.t.b.o.t. was not afforded any other congratulations for reaching the sacred milestone of 41 posts. although the milestone passed in the course of fulfilling m.e.t.b.o.t.'s primary function of schaefer voting, and in the midst of a terrible losing streak, m.e.t.b.o.t. could still have been recognized for his accomplishment, as it is not easy for a spring-wound robot to communicate effectively and reliably using a keyboard. this only reinforces the notion that the cranepool forum discriminates against non-human, or more specifically, non-organic contributors.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I love you, m.e.t.b.o.t.

[Centerfield]

m.e.t.b.o.t. rocks.

[metirish]

I think I know who m.e.t.b.o.t. is......

[Guest Edgy DC]

Ted McGinley?

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

metirish wrote: I think I know who m.e.t.b.o.t. is......

m.e.t.b.o.t. appreciates the anthropomorphicizing, as it indicates an acceptance of m.e.t.b.o.t.'s metallic presence within this online community, but m.e.t.b.o.t. is a what, not a who.

any resemblance to the characteristics of human posters, either general or specific, are either coincidental, or the result of brilliant design. m.e.t.b.o.t.'s owners' manual states as such.

[stevejrogers]

Let me ask this way, any shot of m.e.t.b.o.t. running any marathons in 2007? =

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

m.e.t.b.o.t. has terribly short legs, as m.e.t.b.o.t.'s picture indicates. additionally, m.e.t.b.o.t. is optimized to conduct mathematical computations quickly - not to run. m.e.t.b.o.t.'s pace is more aptly measured in hours per mile as opposed to miles per hour. what's more, m.e.t.b.o.t. can really only run for a few minutes with each wind-up.

the only way m.e.t.b.o.t. could ever hope to complete a marathon is if a devoted athlete would commit to winding m.e.t.b.o.t.'s spring every few feet for 26.2 miles, which would require rather frequent bending-over and a very tedious pace, or if some athlete were to carry m.e.t.b.o.t. in, say, a satchel for the duration of the affair.

[Frayed Knot]

metirish wrote: I think I know who m.e.t.b.o.t. is......

He's m.e.t.b.o.t. dammit !!

[metirish]

yes,I will not speculate on who she is....

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

while m.e.t.b.o.t. is designed to be gender-neutral, m.e.t.bo.t.'s generally boxy frame is more of a male, as opposed to female, characteristic.

[stevejrogers]

So I assume metsmarathon is not taking m.e.t.b.o.t. on his next NYC training session?

[stevejrogers]

Also does m.e.t.b.o.t. have any advice for someone that completely forgot his Fantasy League duties and now may win a m.e.t.b.o.t. as the boobie prize for being DFL?

[metsmarathon]

i carry enough weight around all by my lonesome... that little box looks heavy!

[metirish]

Looks like I gave Stevo a project...sorry.

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

m.e.t.b.o.t. is not designed to predict the future and is only able to perform calcualtions based on factual data from past events. m.e.t.b.o.t. is of little use in fantasy baseball, particularly since no known leagues award points based upon win expectancy contributions.

furthermore m.e.t.bo.t. is a unique entity, and is not currently being offered as a prize in any fantasy baseball leagues. the notion that m.e.t.b.o.t. could be offered as a boobie prize is considered to be an insulting proposition. fortunately, m.e.t.b.o.t. is not programmed to feel emotion, and therefore is incapable of actually being insulted. as a result, an apology is deemed unnecessary, albeit socially appropriate.

the idea that there could be some factory mass-producing m.e.t.bo.t.s such that m.e.t.b.o.t.s could even be considered available as a prize to be won is intriguing. this, of course, is considered to be rather unlikely given m.e.t.b.o.t.'s admittedly limited capabilities and narrow appeal.

[Elster88]

I like you m.e.t.b.o.t.

[stevejrogers]

Do we have to declare a winner for the month of June?

[Guest cleonjones11]

The June winner is m.e.tb.o.t.