2010 Schaefer Voting Discussion Thread

[Guest themetfairy]

Edgy DC wrote: I was trying to find a new way to express how we're over-valuing less-than-excellent pitching performances....

Statements like this imply that you're criticizing others for votes that differ from what you would have us award. That your method is the right one and the rest of us should vote in line with your thinking.

Maybe that's not how you intend it. But that's how it comes off.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Criticizing, no. Disagreeing and raising it for discussion, yes. We do that in most every thread.

[metirish]

I know that last season I gave up on the voting partly because there was heavy handed criticism in this thread, well not this one but last years version. It's not that I can't take the criticism, and I don't exactly mean that I was getting hammered in here, I wasn't , but the overall tone in here made the voting a chore and not fun.

I can certainly appreciate that some people like the back and forth discussion that goes with the thread but frankly it stops being fun very quickly.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Let me just ask. Is it Ok to discuss voting in the PotG threads below the ballot like this?

Milledge 3.42 Phillips 2.75 Gooden 1.22 Capra 1.16 Chilcott 0.98 I had to give Capra extra points for picking off Gehrig in the seventh. Don't forget that play!

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yes! Just please don't include any numbers in those comments.

GOOD:
I had to give Capra extra points for picking off Gehrig in the seventh. Don't forget that play!

BAD:
I had to give Capra an extra 0.75 for picking off Gehrig in the 7th. Don't forget that play!


All I really request in that thread is that there are no posts that aren't votes (until after the tallying is complete), that there are no numeric values except those that represent actual votes, and that we avoid nicknames and at least try to spell the names correctly.

So if somebody wanted to reply to Edgy's comment about the points to Buzz Capra, either do it along with your own vote (if it comes later) or here in this thread.

[G-Fafif]

E, I'm sure you're being passionate and conscientious, per usual, but I don't know what "improve" means other than "vote as I do." And that's the turn-off.

No need for another apology; just trust your fellow fan and please soft-pedal the proctoring.

[Guest themetfairy]

metirish wrote: ....the overall tone in here made the voting a chore and not fun. I can certainly appreciate that some people like the back and forth discussion that goes with the thread but frankly it stops being fun very quickly.

I feel the same way.

[Guest Edgy DC]

So opinions are do-able, but back-and-forth not. Got it.

I guess that works better than getting my opinions in after the fact here, which clearly is fatiguing to folks. Who wants to find a thread go back and edit votes, and therefore who wants to read a post implying that they ought. Fine, l'll leave this thread alone.

G-Fafif, clearly "Improve" meant "improve the process." I clearly followed that word with "all of our votes through enlightened exchanges." I don't know how much more I can say it. Of course I come off as obnoxious if I'm talking into a void and nobody is talking back, and I'll certainly stop. But if you're going to pick one word out of a sentence and isolate it from very explicit context demonstrating a request for open two-way discussion and collaboration, and claim you can't understand any other way to interpret it than one-way imperative, you're not being fair.

I'm giving all I can here.

[G-Fafif]

I get the impression from your periodic urgings to remember this and not forget that that you think many of your fellow voters are just dopes who are distracted by shiny RBIs and don't get nuance the way you do. So yes, your use of "improve" does imply you've figured it out and we're all idiots.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It would be better for you tell us why you voted the way you did without telling everyone else how to vote.

But doing that would force him to explain his "system" at which point my head would explode.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Come on. If I think you're a dope, I'll call you a dope. And if I think "improve" is a one-way street, I'll express it as such. And no, "improve" does not mean that when I said it in a way that clearly means the opposite.

This is turning into piling on when youre more interested in taking bits of what I write that can be turned into supporting your case than in respondiing to what I actually write. Completely out of context.

Read back and see what I write in this thread. Some of it may be more urging than others, some less. Most all of it is responded to by people who take it in the spirt it's meant. Just like most every other thread.

Hey, Frayed Knot, welcome to the pile.

[seawolf17]

I never vote in these polls because I'm afraid Edgy will yell at me.

Or it's just that I usually don't watch most of the games, and therefore forget to vote.

[Guest Edgy DC]

That's the spirit.

Let's talk baseball.

[Gwreck]

Setting aside "tones" or perception of meaning (which can sometimes be hard to discern when reading words on the internet rather than hearing them spoken with inflection), I think that offering up opinions and having some disagreement in the discussion thread is a good idea.

G-Fafif is correct that telling people to "vote as I do" is exactly what one is suggesting when offering an opinion but that's the way it's supposed to be. So long as no one is being uncivilized about it, lobbying others to change their mind when you think they are mistaken is a big part of meaningful discourse.

I suppose it's strange given that in many other threads, the forum is united behind a single cause (the Mets winning) but I think some healthy disagreement is a good thing. I personally enjoy a good debate and would readily welcome the opportunity to be challenged on my voting methods and made to consider whether I had made a mistake, missed a key play or had over-valued or under-valued a reliever's impact. I will, however -- (perhaps a tiny bit disappointingly) -- accept that others don't always welcome that debate.

I suppose one of the things that keeps me motivated to remember to do my Schaefer voting is my disagreement with others about how they allocate their points -- and by casting my ballot, making sure that my opinion counts just as much.

[G-Fafif]

In the spirit of it's fun (goddammit) to discuss why we vote as we do, I threw a half-point Bay's way for two very good catches last night: a diving number against Soriano in the fifth when a no-hitter was still in progress and one he tracked down at the wall past the LF foul line off Fukudome, both recording an out and saving Igarashi one more pitch on the potentially bad hammy. I've also been inclined, in Pelfrey's last two excellent starts, to share some of his credit with Blanco as Pelf is quick to do the same.

Ignore or embrace these observations as you wish. I'm only in this for the neato BG cards at the end of each month.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I also gave Blanco love for his terrific pickoff throw of Fontenot, a huge moment in a game that coulda gone either way, and for taking over the team lead in walks by a catcher with 1.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Monday night's win over the Cubs will close on Thursday morning.

Schaefer PotG 4/19/10 - Mets 6, Cubs 1

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Tuesday night's win over the Cubs will close on Friday morning.

Schaefer POTG 4/20/10 - Mets 4, Cubs 0

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Wednesday night's loss to the Cubs will close some time over the weekend, perhaps as early as Saturday morning.

Schaefer POTG 4/21/10 - Cubs 9, Mets 3

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

A balls-of-Jupiter save by Frankie tends to open up my wallet nicely.

(And, yeah, of course Blanco gets love in the Tuesday night game, for both a nice play and one which eliminated a RISP.)

[Benjamin Grimm]

Please remember when voting... Last names only, no nicknames.

Thanks!

[ashie62]

Sorry Frenchie

[Gwreck]

In the rain-shortened game, Luis Castillo was 2-3 with 2 steals. Jose Reyes was 1-3 with 1 steal. Don't shortchange Luis!

[Guest Edgy DC]

Part of me thinks we should award more points for the 20-inning jobbie and fewer for this game.

[Frayed Knot]

Gwreck wrote: In the rain-shortened game, Luis Castillo was 2-3 with 2 steals. Jose Reyes was 1-3 with 1 steal. Don't shortchange Luis!

But ... but .. but ... he's evil!!

[Guest Edgy DC]

Thanks. I inadvertantly had Castillo credited with only one steal and changed my ballot to suit. I gave Reyes more baserunning credit than the one steal however, crediting him with the aggressiveness that helped lead to the game's only run.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Thursday night's win over the Cubs at Citi Field will close early on Tuesday morning. If you still have a vote to cast, please try to do so today.

Schaefer POTG 4/22/10 - Mets 5, Cubs 2

[Gwreck]

Edgy DC wrote: Part of me thinks we should award more points for the 20-inning jobbie and fewer for this game.

I agree that a 5-inning win does not merit 10 points being handed out, especially when we consider
1. While pitching well, Pelfrey still only completed 5 innings (and was taken out after 5, as Valdes was in the game when the rain started); and
2. The offense didn't light the world on fire (1 run in 5 innings).

I gave out 4.75 points and while I don't know if that's perfect, I certainly would think giving out more that 6 or 7 points to be excessive.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy DC wrote: Part of me thinks we should award more points for the 20-inning jobbie and fewer for this game.

To my mind, last night's Mets worked 4 times as efficiently, W-L column-wise. Don't penalize the wasteless*, commie!

*Not counting the 20 or so pitches by both starters that could have been called strikes, and were in fact called strikes when thrown in the same spot in previous innings. BOO, UMP WASTE!

[Benjamin Grimm]

Tomorrow will be yet another Wacky Wednesday, as three games* will be closed and tallied. They're all wins, which is fun and refreshing! If you have votes still to cast, please try to do so today.

Schaefer POTG 4/23/10 - Mets 5, Braves 2

Schaefer POTG 4/24/10 - Mets 3, Braves

Schaefer POTG 4/25/10 - Mets 1, Braves 0 (5 innings)

*Okay, it's more like two and a half games.