Schaefer Voting Discussion Thread

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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.[/quote:177hbwzx]

And for batting a Rey-Rey like 1-for-5? He'll get something... it'll just be the kind of money that jingles, rather than the kind that folds.

[Guest themetfairy]

Small change is fine. A lot of guys are getting small bills for big production tonight.

It's one of those nights where there aren't enough suds to go around.

But that unassisted DP early in the game was a complexion changer, IMO.

[Guest themetfairy]

LWFS - please change your Schaefer post to say Rodriguez. Nicknames play havoc with Grimm's spreadsheet.

Thanks.

[Gwreck]

Wright's play saved a run, but he also gave that run back in the 9th. Did very little with his bat to justify anything. He gets nothing from me tonight, mostly because so many other people did more.

I also think that it's strange to give Feliciano less than Wright, as Feliciano succeeded in a much higher-leverage situation (he was facing the tying run), much later in the game.

[Guest themetfairy]

The run that Wright saved early in the game was more important than the run he allowed in the 9th, IMO. Additionally, that play single-handedly ended an inning. And he did get an RBI with that bat, which should justify a sip of suds.

As for Feliciano, it was indeed a tight situation, but there's a limit to what I'm going to give a reliever for a third of an inning (even a great one).

[Guest Kong76]

I like Moles ballot for 4/11 ... straight and to the point.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

I don't care that he didn't win, Santana pitched a 6 point game today. He's incredible.

[Guest themetfairy]

I went for 5.5. I generally save the 6.0 for complete games.

But he pitched damn well, that's for sure.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Certainly fair enough. I didn't penalize him for being lifted only because he would have stayed in the game anyway had he been given the lead he deserved.

[Theoldmole]

I'm trying to go for minimalist -- no more than three players in any game. Let's see how long I can stay with it.

[Guest themetfairy]

I'm trying to go for minimalist -- no more than three players in any game. Let's see how long I can stay with it.[/quote:x15a5osu]

I tend to err in the other direction - I try to give a sip of beer to as many guys as I can justify.

Whatever our tendencies, I think that the key is that we should try to be consistent throughout the season.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

LWFS - please change your Schaefer post to say Rodriguez. Nicknames play havoc with Grimm's spreadsheet.

Thanks.[/quote:174n1m7f]

Caught this now, and saw that it had already been edited... thanks, and apologies.

[Guest themetfairy]

No blood, no foul

[Guest themetfairy]

LWFS - I'm once again going to ask you to amend something.

In the 4/12 thread, you awarded Santana 6.5. The maximum that any one player can get in any one game is 6 points.

Sorry.

[Frayed Knot]

Quickie review of PotG guidelines:

http://archives.cranepoolforum.net/6200/f9_t6278.shtml

Like the post says, we don't have a lot of rules around here but because this is an ongoing project that tabulates over the entire season and because that tabulation is automated so as to not be a lot of work for any one person, PotG is one of the few places where we're procedural sticklers.

[Guest themetfairy]

LWFS - I'm once again going to ask you to amend something.

In the 4/12 thread, you awarded Santana 6.5. The maximum that any one player can get in any one game is 6 points.

Sorry.[/quote:2wr0yivk]

*62 - You also have to edit your vote (7.0 for Santana).

[metsmarathon]

damned meetings trying to get in the way of me placing my overdue schaeffer votes!

[metsmarathon]

in yesterday's system, my system actually tried to award santana 7.7 schaeffer votes. that's gotta be some sort of record for a loss. if i had entirely too much time, i'd look into it. but i'm lazy, too.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'd imagine with most systems that attempt objectivity, you'd be more likely to blow through that 6-point ceiling in a loss than a win.

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

m.e.t.b.o.t. is not confident in the ability of a tiny spring-wound contraption with a rudimentary locomotion mechanism to be able to outrun dissenting human schaeffer voters carrying virtual torches and pitchforks.

m.e.t.b.o.t. is unable to yield to peer pressure and will not amend the schaefer voting for metropolitan pitcher johan santana, as the deterministic outcome of his efforts produced only 0.057 WPA pitching, and -0.041 WPA hitting. since m.e.t.b.o.t. ascribes the outcomes of batted balls to the pitcher and not to any fielder, m.e.t.b.o.t. presumes that metropolitan pitcher johan santana would have improved the probability of winning the baseball game by not inducing a long fly ball that could be dropped by a fielder, or a subsequent hit.

[metirish]

m.e.t.b.o.t. clearly has no capacity for letting emotion play any part in his voting. I like it.

[metsmarathon]

I'd imagine with most systems that attempt objectivity, you'd be more likely to blow through that 6-point ceiling in a loss than a win.[/quote:1qi7azy9]

a quick and dirty check says that if murphy catches the ball, and the rest of the game goes the same way, he pulls in an 8.3 or so.

i actually take away 5 points from a losing pitcher in my objective formula. even with that, santana had 18.3 "marathon points."

to blow though the ceiling by so much is really a testament to how dominating he was, and how ineffective our offense was (or how dominating his opponent was...)

[Guest *62]

I went "Santana 7 and Parnell 1" .... did I violate some regulation pertaining to SP points?

He effectively threw a shutout, 13 strikeouts on only 98 pitches .....

Do I need to, grudgingly, make a change?

[Guest *62]

LWFS - I'm once again going to ask you to amend something.

In the 4/12 thread, you awarded Santana 6.5. The maximum that any one player can get in any one game is 6 points.

Sorry.[/quote:3bebsdlg]

*62 - You also have to edit your vote (7.0 for Santana).[/quote:3bebsdlg]

Done.

It stinks, though.

He deserved every one of the 7, IMHO.

[A Boy Named Seo]

When you guys read m.e.t.b.o.t.'s posts, is the voice in your head a monotoned robot voice, too?

[Benjamin Grimm]

LWFS - I'm once again going to ask you to amend something.

In the 4/12 thread, you awarded Santana 6.5. The maximum that any one player can get in any one game is 6 points.

Sorry.[/quote:29v31cd2]

*62 - You also have to edit your vote (7.0 for Santana).[/quote:29v31cd2]

Done.

It stinks, though.

He deserved every one of the 7, IMHO.[/quote:29v31cd2]

It's a scale of one to 6.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Oh, and thanks to Metfairy for staying on top of the Schaefer threads in my absence!

[metsmarathon]

When you guys read m.e.t.b.o.t.'s posts, is the voice in your head a monotoned robot voice, too?[/quote:1bjwi68n]

yes, and its very distracting.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

http://192.20.225.55/tts/speech/af0ba7175e25a71788f06ac14a495d77.wav

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for all three of the games played in Cincinnati last week will close on Tuesday morning:

Monday: http://cranepoolforum.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=11288

Wednesday: http://cranepoolforum.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=11305

Thursday: http://cranepoolforum.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=11312