Snarky Schaefer comments (split from POTG 8/22/11)

[Vic Sage]

instead of awarding points, i'd like to fuck each and every one of them in the liver with a harpoon.

[MFS62]

Vic Sage wrote: instead of awarding points, i'd like to fuck each and every one of them in the liver with a harpoon.

Now there's a motivational technique that I don't think has been tried yet.
LOL!
Later

[metirish]

A bit of a damp squib this thread.

[Frayed Knot]

metirish wrote: A bit of a damp squib this thread.

So was the game.

[metirish]

Frayed Knot wrote: metirish wrote: A bit of a damp squib this thread. So was the game.

Oh yes, bad enough to make you sick , speaking of which, did Pagan get sick or a case of diarrhea?, it was that type of game for sure.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Tejada is getting shit on in the voting in the meantime. Did you see that catch he made by the tarp?

[Frayed Knot]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Tejada is getting shit on in the voting in the meantime. Did you see that catch he made by the tarp?

Yeah, but it was no Jeter catch.

[Vic Sage]

it was a 4.5 point catch? really? I think you misplaced the decimal point.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I wanted to give him 6 points but was concerned it would look bad.

Also had 2 more hits than most of his teammates.

[Vic Sage]

he had 2 more hits than i did, too.
Yeah, I think that warrants a '6'.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Points aren't handed out in a vacuum, are they?

Relatively-- at least, compared to HIS compatriots-- his game maybe approaches 3-HR-type value.

[Vic Sage]

you can hand them out any way you want, but when i have voted (admittedly not much this year), its not been purely "relative", but as more an objective standard as i can determine, with a bit of subjective context thrown in. Given the limits of a 10pt system, and a 6pt per player limit, there are going to be games where a great individual performance isn't given its due. when, for example, a bunch of guys have good games, the points will be spread out.

But I don't get the point of giving a superstar performance rating to a guy in a 10-0 whitewash. you hit 2 singles, and make a nice catch, but you've not participated in creating any runs. yet, because all your teammates are so much worse, you get 6 pts? No. I can see a few points, maybe, and if more players had contributed, you'd award partial points, but a superstar performance rating? Just cuz he didn't suck like everybody else? No.

If a player goes 5-5, steals a base or 2, hits one out, makes some great defensive plays, then you can forgive the game context and simply award the performance. Its all on a continuum, i guess, but individual performances in a bad team game need to be truly outstanding to warrant those kind of schaefer points from me.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

psst, I was kinda joking about the '6'

[Vic Sage]

i know, but i was just making a point. and you did give Tejada 4.5 points, while everybody else in the thread was (more or less) between .25 point and 2pts, so i do think you misplace the decimal. But if LWFS is to be taken literally, when no one else did ANYTHING of value, and the kid got a couple of hits, he should get a "6", right, cuz its all relative?

But like i said, folks can hand out their Schaefer points on whatever basis they want; theoretically, if enough people vote, an outlier shouldn't skew the voting too much.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I hate Snarky Schaefer. I hope I'm never that thirsty.

[Vic Sage]

it beats skunky Rheingold... or a Coors of any kind.

[Ceetar]