It's almost Schaefer time AGAIN!

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm figuring we'll do the Schaefer thing again this year, unless everyone tells me not to bother.

Rather than type in a lengthy announcement/description, I'll let last year's post speak for itself:

http://archives.cranepoolforum.net/5800/f9_t5858.shtml

We have a few new members here who might not know what Schaefer is (at least, in the CPF context). The link I pasted above, along with the link at the top of the page, will hopefully explain all.

[Guest AG/DC]

Voting forms!

[Valadius]

I'm all in favor of more Schaefer voting.

[Farmer Ted]

Two points here, a point there, a half a point to some other guy. Maximum points per game, per player? Gimme a poll with three names to choose from and I'm in. If I'm drinking Schaefer after the game, I don't want to try to be analytical.

[Willets Point]

I'm not going to participate this year. I found it too time-consuming to spend 30 minutes a day running the boxscores through a complex formula. And usually after doing all that I'd either have a new asshole torn for not awarding enough points to a certain pitcher or Yancy would have already closed the thread and my vote would count for nothing.

[Benjamin Grimm]

So far the reaction seems rather lukewarm.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Perhaps we can create a new system that rewards being slow and wrong. Just kidding.

I'm as hot as always for The Schaef.

[Guest AG/DC]

My first girlfriend was named Schaefer. You know I'm down.

[seawolf17]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: So far the reaction seems rather lukewarm.

It's been less than an hour... I'd say we wait for more responses.

I'm down with it. I didn't vote a lot last year, but with the HD thing, I think we'll be watching a lot more games, so hopefully I'll jump in more. I like it; it's a unique Pool thing that we do, and I'd hate to lose it.

[Guest sharpie]

I generally like it. I usually only vote on games that I've seen. I do, however, hate it when either people challenge others for how they voted or pre-emptively write things like "I hope nobody gives votes to Jose Reyes since his error really cost us the game."

No comments, voting only I say.

[Guest KC]

I give continuing Schaefer voting a resounding yay!

I have to come up with some kind of system this year, I make the voting
too hard on myself some days especially in lopsided contests.

I don't recall Willet getting torn a new one but can someone put his ass back
to the way it was. Thanks.

[Gwreck]

I also am in favor of Schaefer voting.

As to the point Willets and sharpie raised: this is a discussion board. Hence, people discuss things here, and that's going to include whether or not the points people award in Schaefer voting were justified or not. I don't understand why Schaefer voting should be excluded from acceptable points of discussion.

I too don't recall anyone being uncivil in their discussions thereof.

[Guest themetfairy]

I'm in.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Okay, I'm satisfied. There's enough interest here for me to continue the tradition into its fourth year, thereby giving somebody a shot at unseating three-time champion David Wright.

The tallying effort has been automated to such a degree that, even if we only have as few as 6 or 8 die-hard voters, I won't feel like I'm wasting my time running this show.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm in favor of continuing to both vote for, and drink, Schefer.





As far as the time limit, I don't think it's a big deal and too many threads does clutter up the board if they're not retired in some kind of timely manner.
If you miss a game or are unable to get to the board in the time the poll is up than that result will go in without your vote, which, unless you're a 'completionist' who sees this as an all-or-nothing project, shouldn't be a major catastrophe.

[seawolf17]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Okay, I'm satisfied. There's enough interest here for me to continue the tradition into its fourth year, thereby giving somebody a shot at unseating three-time champion David Wright.

No problem. I'm giving Ramon Castro six points every game, whether he plays or not. Intangibles, baby.

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

without schaeffer voting, m.e.t.b.o.t. would face obsolescence, reprogramming or recycling. m.e.t.b.o.t. would prefer not to become knowledgeable in the finer points of either passive or active dust collection.

[RealityChuck]

Shaeffer? Why not Rheingold?

[Benjamin Grimm]

RealityChuck wrote: Shaeffer? Why not Rheingold?

Why Schaefer

[RealityChuck]

Rheingold came first.

[Benjamin Grimm]

There was a Rheingold Mets Player of the Year Award? I have no memory of that. (And I do remember when Rheingold was a Mets sponsor.)

[Valadius]

I'm excited that this year, for the first time, I can enjoy a beer while watching a Mets game.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I would just like to go on record as being in favor of continuing both the Schaefer POTG voting and drinking beer.

[DocTee]

Val needs to edit his post to read "legally" -- unless he wants to maintain that charade for the sake of his future political career.

I tend to vote only on those games I see, which is considerably fewer than my East Coast brethren.

[nymr83]

much as i enjoy schaefering every april i tend give it up as too time consuming at some point, and once i stop for a week or two i jus don't care to start again, i'm sure this year will be no different.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The thing I'm finding most surprising about this thread is that people are saying it's time-consuming to vote.

I just think about the game for a minute or two and then type in my points. I figure that's almost certainly how Lindsey, Bob, and Ralph did it. (Actually, I bet they farmed it out to some nerd who was in the WOR truck.)

[Willets Point]

I originally did it that way and then when the criticisms flooded in that I was not giving enough lauds to a certain CPF favorite I made a formula based on the box score that award points in a non-biased manner. I still got criticisms of under/over-valuing player contributions, so I kept tweaking the formula and it eventually grew into a 30-minute-per-game process. It's just not worth my time and effort to continue to be accused of bias in voting when I've done everything in my power to remove it.

[Frayed Knot]

I didn't know the CPF had agreed-upon favorites.


I'm in the five-minutes tops crowd on PotG votes ... even less than that if I'm thinking about it as the game is still going on.

[Valadius]

Yeah, I usually take about 5-10 minutes to do my scores, depending on how many people I think deserve points.

[metsmarathon]

i've gotten my time down to about 15 minutes i think, depending on how deeply i decide to need to look for specific criteria... i like to give credit for batters who drive in a game-winning (or simply go-ahead) run, and sometimes divining that isn't straightforward. on a side note, i'm planning this year on giving some beer to the guy who actually scores the go ahead run as well.

then i read the game recaps to see if there's something i've missed, like an outstanding defensive play, or a boneheaded baserunning blunder, or the like...

but i've gotten much quicker at inputting the voluminous data into my overly cumbersome spreadsheet, so my cycle time is definitely trending downwards. i

its only when i have to play catchup after a weekend or extended absence that it becomes truly time-consuming. or if i decide to try and tweak the formula midseason or the like...