Schaefer Voting Discussion Thread

[Gwreck]

What does m.e.t.b.o.t calculate as David Wright's fielding contribution (including a nice play in the 8th inning that could've been a double instead of an out if a lesser player had been at 3rd)?

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

m.e.t.b.o.t. is not properly articulated to allow for typing. internal to m.e.t.b.o.t. is a complicated system of miniature armatures and levers which actuate tiny magnets. the movement of these magnets in the presence of an electrical current creates a hall effect, which can be detected and interpreted as a data stream.

in order to communicate with human participants on an electronic message board, m.e.t.b.o.t. must be placed in the vicinity of a USB cable, and wound up. the signals resulting from the internal workings of m.e.t.b.o.t. are then translated into a format appropriate for human interpretation and transmitted to the cranepool forum.

m.e.t.b.o.t. only has this rudimentary level of data pertaining to the ability of m.e.t.b.o.t. to communicate electronically. m.e.t.b.o.t. has very limited memory capability, as would be expected from a tiny spring-wound contraption, and is not programmed with the ability to interpret complex mechanical structures. m.e.t.b.o.t. has determined through observation of humans that humans have similarly rudimentary understandings of their own inner workings, specifically pertaining to the ability to receive, process, and transmit data.

for each character presented on screen, m.e.t.b.o.t. articulates at least one magnet-bearing armature. m.e.t.b.o.t. does not take shortcuts, and is prone to taking what humans are observed to describe as "the scenic route."

m.e.t.b.o.t. is not programmed to quantify defensive value. m.e.t.b.o.t. is capable of perceiving that defense may have some contribution towards winning baseball games, but is not currently aware of any algorithms which calculate its value in terms of the additive probability of winning a baseball game. similarly, m.e.t.b.o.t. is not aware of any algorithms which are capable of differentiating the contribution made by the pitcher and by the fielder(s) for a given batted ball in terms of the additive probability of winning a baseball game.

[Guest cooby]

I guess he told me!

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

m.e.t.b.o.t. is not programmed to quantify defensive value. m.e.t.b.o.t. is capable of perceiving that defense may have some contribution towards winning baseball games, but is not currently aware of any algorithms which calculate its value in terms of the additive probability of winning a baseball game. similarly, m.e.t.b.o.t. is not aware of any algorithms which are capable of differentiating the contribution made by the pitcher and by the fielder(s) for a given batted ball in terms of the additive probability of winning a baseball game.[/quote:309q34ya]

So this is the "scenic route" way of saying b.o.t., baseball-valuation-wise, is more Davey Johnson than Gil Hodges?

[Guest themetfairy]

GYC - you voted twice in the 4/8 thread, with different numbers in the two posts. You need to erase one of them.

ON EDIT - thanks for fixing that.

[Guest GYC]

GYC - you voted twice in the 4/8 thread, with different numbers in the two posts. You need to erase one of them.

ON EDIT - thanks for fixing that.[/quote:24istlw4]

They were actually the same numbers, but I hadn't put them in my spreadsheet yet and reorganized in alphabetical order. Sorry, I'm a nerd. And I've learned a few more shortcuts in Excel lately, so I'm getting dorkier with how I keep the stats.

[Guest Edgy DC]

LeiterWagner: in the voting thread, we can't refer to the players by their nicknames. Ben Grimm's got a machine that gobbles up the votes and it won't understand "K-Rod."

[MFS62]

Is it possible to assign a minus one point to the first base ump who apparently forgot about the "automatic" call?

Later

[Guest themetfairy]

Is it possible to assign a minus one point to the first base ump who apparently forgot about the "automatic" call?

[/quote:2du3m4y2]

You know full well the answer is no. No negative numbers are allowed in the Schaefer voting - that's a longstanding rule. And one only votes for Mets players.

[Gwreck]

I'm somewhat surprised to see people leave Rodriguez off their ballots for Wednesday's game. He allowed no runs while preserving the victory; required no special defensive plays to get there, and worked around a bad fielding error/bad call by the umpire.

[Guest themetfairy]

I'm somewhat surprised to see people leave Rodriguez off their ballots for Wednesday's game. He allowed no runs while preserving the victory; required no special defensive plays to get there, and worked around a bad fielding error/bad call by the umpire.[/quote:1mb2vzom]

I'm glad that he got himself out of trouble, but he also got himself into trouble in the first place. Plus I wanted to give more suds to the RBI men.

[Gwreck]

Isn't that like saying "I'm glad he hit a double, but he shouldn't have gotten himself into an 0-2 count before doing so?"

[Guest Edgy DC]

He also had to get through a four-out inning.

[Frayed Knot]

I feel pretty confident in saying that no subject pops up in as many discussions in the PotG thread than that of how to (or even if to) award the closer.

[metirish]

Rodriguez also needed to negotiate what might have been a bad call on the Delgado play.

[batmagadanleadoff]

But is "Win Expectancy" the best way to assess the value of a relief inning? According to WE, a relief pitcher who is asked to preserve a four run lead in the ninth inning gets the same credit whether he strikes out the side or allows (in this order) three HR's, three walks, and then three line outs to the warning track. (OE -- three deep lineouts where some Ramon Castro type player, but on crutches, was the runner on third).[/quote:1a7yew1q]

m.e.t.b.o.t. is programmed to look only at deterministic results pertaining to the winning and losing of a baseball game. to m.e.t.b.o.t. a baseball hit weakly by a human batter carries the same weight as if that same human batter hit a line drive off the top of the fence, provided in each instance the batter advanced the same number of bases and the runners, if any, advanced the same number of bases.[/quote:1a7yew1q]

Win Expectancy (assuming WE is the best way to award Schaefer points, an idea I would disagree with) might justify awarding the same credit to a pitcher who gets the out, whether by strikeout or 415 foot flyout, but ignores the three HR's and three walks allowed in my hypothetical.

Also, WE percentages are, presumably, based on thousands and thousands of game situations, smoothed out to calculate values for average innings and at-bats. But I'm awarding Schaefer points based on events in a specific Met game I just finished watching -- still fresh in my memory in all of its nuances and subtleties.

So why should I ignore the uniqueness of that contest and instead, treat the game as a statistically smoothed out composite? I'm not analyzing reams of game data -- just one game. Why do I need to automatically pretend that in this particular game, the ninth inning is tougher on the Met pitcher? Perhaps, in the specific game at hand, the eighth inning pitcher faces the middle of the order and the ninth inning "closer" (groan) inherits the bottom. WE doesn't account for specific batter-pitcher matchups.

WE is a neat little toy. But I wonder about its usefulness in awarding Schafer points.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Maybe. But I think Pelf hasn't gotten enough love here, myself. As agonizing as the first inning was, he pulled himself together and proceeded to get more efficient each inning (going 17, 14, and 12 in his last three). If the first hadn't been quite as pitch-heavy, we could have seen him go into the seventh.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Plus his first inning was extended by the lazy fielding behind him. But no fair way to divide 10 points each time since every game is different.

[Guest themetfairy]

Isn't that like saying "I'm glad he hit a double, but he shouldn't have gotten himself into an 0-2 count before doing so?"[/quote:3m94glxf]

No. That analogy would be that I'm glad he got the strikeout, but he shouldn't have gone 3-0 on the guy.

Trust me - during the course of a 162 game season, I don't cheat the pitchers. But in light of everyone else's performances and the 10-point cap, I chose to distribute my beer to other guys.

[Gwreck]

Eh, I agree it was a poor analogy but penalizing the pitcher for putting a runner (or runners) on without any of them scoring -- and while still finishing the inning -- seems silly.

[Guest themetfairy]

The failure to reward a mediocre performance isn't the same as penalizing him for it. I just didn't see it as beer-worthy under the totality of the circumstances. Other guys deserved the suds more, IMO.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I would like to take this opportunity to request that none of the polls be closed and tabulated until Monday afternoon, if possible. That would allow some of us (me) that are traveling for the holiday weekend to vote when we return home. I have very limited internet access this weekend. More importantly, I desire to use the time I have visiting with relatives that I get to see far too infrequently due to the mileage that seperates us and our busy family lives.

Thank you and I wish everyone a joyful and peaceful Easter weekend.

[Guest themetfairy]

I would like to take this opportunity to request that none of the polls be closed and tabulated until Monday afternoon, if possible. That would allow some of us (me) that are traveling for the holiday weekend to vote when we return home. I have very limited internet access this weekend. More importantly, I desire to use the time I have visiting with relatives that I get to see far too infrequently due to the mileage that seperates us and our busy family lives.

Thank you and I wish everyone a joyful and peaceful Easter weekend.

[MFS62]

Is it possible to assign a minus one point to the first base ump who apparently forgot about the "automatic" call?

[/quote:1y35zmap]

You know full well the answer is no. No negative numbers are allowed in the Schaefer voting - that's a longstanding rule. And one only votes for Mets players.[/quote:1y35zmap]
I knew that. But this thread was my place to quantify my displeasure with the ump.
Later

[Guest Kong76]

Is there anyone on the the interwebsphere more pleasant to be around than
Rockin' Doc? Happy Easter weekend, RD ... enjoy!

[Guest themetfairy]

Is it possible to assign a minus one point to the first base ump who apparently forgot about the "automatic" call?

[/quote:2j1ktp39]

You know full well the answer is no. No negative numbers are allowed in the Schaefer voting - that's a longstanding rule. And one only votes for Mets players.[/quote:2j1ktp39]
I knew that. But this thread was my place to quantify my displeasure with the ump.
Later[/quote:2j1ktp39]

No - this thread is for legitimate Schaefer voting questions and concerns. Snarky remarks that are likely to confuse voters who are new to the system don't belong here. If you're displeased with the ump, the IGT is the appropriate place to express that.

[MFS62]

I posted this the next morning. (check the time stamp)
How can I post it in the IGT when the game was already over? Isn't that against your rules, too?

Later

[Guest themetfairy]

The IGTs don't get locked. Comment on a given game in one as long as you like.

[MFS62]

Thank you.
Later

[Guest themetfairy]

In the 4/11 game, even though David Wright made an ugly throwing error in the 9th, he should still get something for the unassisted double play he made earlier in the game.