Schaefer 2013: Ninth Year of Having More Than One!

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for the 2013 Schaefer Mets Player of the Year Award will begin on Monday, April 1, the Crane Pool Forum has announced. This will be the ninth season that Crane Pool Forum members will be participating in Schaefer voting. The Schaefer Mets Player of the Year Award was established in the 1970's, and Schaefer points were awarded by Mets broadcasters Lindsey Nelson, Ralph Kiner, and Bob Murphy. The award was re-established by the Crane Pool Forum in 2005. Third baseman David Wright has been the winner in in six of the eight years of the revived prize. The other winners were Johan Santana in 2008 and Jose Reyes in 2011. A voting thread is opened in the forum at the conclusion of each regular season Mets game, according to CPF spokesmodel Benjamin Grimm. Voting generally stays open for two business days, after which the votes are tallied and the results are posted in the voting thread. In addition, says Grimm, each month a Schaefer Mets Player, Pitcher, Relief Pitcher, and Bench Player of the Month will be named. Voters are asked to adhere to a specific format, which is outlined at http://archives.cranepoolforum.net/6200/f9_t6278.shtml

[Edgy MD]

Greatness.

[Guest themetfairy]

Looking forward to it - Thanks BG!

[metsmarathon]

time to dust off the cumbersome spreasheet!

hey, where did i put that skate key...?

[ashie62]

Vote early and often...

[Edgy MD]

Looking forward to the return of m.e.t.b.o.t.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree. He's not going to Cooperstown.

[Edgy MD]

I dunno. m.e.t.b.o.t. has a lot of good years ahead of him.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yikes! I somehow replied to the wrong thread!

Sorry, m.e.t.b.o.t.!

[Benjamin Grimm]

Fifteen voters so far for the Opening Day game! It would be great if we can maintain this level of participation deep into the season!

Voting for Monday afternoon's opener will close on Thursday morning. If you haven't voted yet and intend to, please try to do so today.

Schaefer POTG 4/1/2013 Mets 11 Padres 2

[Benjamin Grimm]

Schaefer voting for the second game of the season will close on Monday morning.

Schaefer POTG 4/3/13 - Mets 8, Padres 4

[Centerfield]

I see votes as low as 2 points for Gee yesterday. 6 1/3 of one run ball doesn't buy you as much as it used to.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Gave up 3 leadoff walks and hit a guy, a good opponent would have knocked him out of the box in 4. Didn't help himself with the bat when a single run was all we needed to get him off the hook.

Plus I'm on a campaign to temper starting-pitching points in general, I'm afraid the win team win/starting pitcher Schaefer indexes too closely.

[Edgy MD]

Welcome aboard!

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

metropolitan starting pitcher dillon gee earned +151 WPA as a pitcher, but cost -67 WPA as a batter. furthermore, because m.e.t.b.o.t. apportions WPA for stolen bases against and caught stealings against between the pitcher of record and the catcher of record, metropolitan pitcher received +6 WPA for the stolen base by san diego father shortstop everth cabrera but lost -21 WPA for the caught stealing by san diego father left fielder mark kotsay. accordingly, metropolitan catcher john buck recieved -6 WPA for the stolen base by san diego father shortstop everth cabrera but gained +21 WPA for the caught stealing by san diego father left fielder mark kotsay.

metropolitan pitcher dillon gee had a net WPA of +70, which is scaled to 2.21 schaefer votes.

m.e.t.b.o.t. is a very tough grader of pitchers. however, this is largely due to the equal weight m.e.t.b.o.t. gives to the performance of pitchers while batting. m.e.t.b.o.t. believes that there are two potential solutions to this problem. one is that pitchers should become more proficient with the bat so at to then increase their contribution to the probability of winning the games in which they appear. the other alternative would be to prevent pitchers from batting. m.e.t.b.o.t. is careful to note that the latter solution is incompatible with the spirit of the game of baseball, at least to the extent that m.e.t.b.o.t. has been able to observe. if a shortstop who plays excellent defense but cannot hit himself out of a dried pressed wood mulch grocery container is still required to wield a bat, then so too should pitchers regardless of their current general level of offensive proficiency.

[Edgy MD]

I'm with Springy.

[metsmarathon]

i lack the sophistication to look beyond 6 innings, one run? good! nobody else did anything much of good? even better!

[Vic Sage]

m.e.t.b.o.t. is a very tough grader of pitchers. however, this is largely due to the equal weight m.e.t.b.o.t. gives to the performance of pitchers while batting. m.e.t.b.o.t. believes that there are two potential solutions to this problem. one is that pitchers should become more proficient with the bat so at to then increase their contribution to the probability of winning the games in which they appear. the other alternative would be to prevent pitchers from batting. m.e.t.b.o.t. is careful to note that the latter solution is incompatible with the spirit of the game of baseball, at least to the extent that m.e.t.b.o.t. has been able to observe. if a shortstop who plays excellent defense but cannot hit himself out of a dried pressed wood mulch grocery container is still required to wield a bat, then so too should pitchers regardless of their current general level of offensive proficiency.

...or you could simply give a pitcher's offense less value in your computations, right? Given that (1) a pitcher good enough to be a hitter is often made one at some point early in his career, (2) the others do not have the time to improve their already lesser offensive skills as they are too busy trying to perfect the skill that they are on the team for (ie., pitching), and (3) half of baseball thinks pitcher's offense is so superfluous to the game that they changed the rules just to replace them at the plate with actual hitters.

But somehow you, in your robotic wisdom, choose to give their hitting "prowess" equal weight to their pitching, in your formulation.

Yes, a weak-hitting short stop still has to hit. But first of all, that's part of what he's expected to do as a player, and is expected to be proficient enough at it to be a major leaguer (except for Rey Ordonez). And defense, while important in the aggregate, is primarily impacted by pitching, not by fielding. And the extent fielding has an impact, it is a job shared by all 9 players. So a shortstop generally cannot impact the defense enough to make up for his bad hitting. There is, of course, a certain amount of era-context in determining this. Mark Belanger and Buddy Harrelson were very good SSs in a small-ball era; whether a team could afford to carry them in the steroids era, where SSs were hitting 30 HRs a year (except for ours, of course), is at least an open question. But when games are determined by small margins because of run scarcity, a SS that can prevent a run is more valuable than one that can prevent a run when runs are more plentiful (and therefore worth less). On the whole, every fielder has to carry their glove with their bat. A pitcher does not, and shouldn't be penalized for not doing so, in my view. You could simply give those handful of pitchers who are actually good hitters, too, a bonus for their extra value.

Don't blow a fuse now; i'm just sayin'.

[batmagadanleadoff]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Plus I'm on a campaign to temper starting-pitching points in general, I'm afraid the win team win/starting pitcher Schaefer indexes too closely.

I think you guys way over-score the pitchers, in general. I gave Johan less than 5 points for his no-hitter. What's the max? Six? If so, everyone else gave Johan six pts. for his no-hitter, if I remember. Johan woulda had to strike everybody out, and then run behind home plate to catch his own third strikes to get five points from me. If he wanted six, he woulda had to hit a home run, as well.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Plus I'm on a campaign to temper starting-pitching points in general, I'm afraid the win team win/starting pitcher Schaefer indexes too closely. I think you guys way over-score the pitchers, in general. I gave Johan less than 5 points for his no-hitter. What's the max? Six? If so, everyone else gave Johan six pts. for his no-hitter, if I remember. Johan woulda had to strike everybody out, and then run behind home plate to catch his own third strikes to get five points from me. If he wanted six, he woulda had to hit a home run, as well.

I remember when I used to participate in Schaeffer points, everyone would give 5 to 6 points to Tom Glavine every outing and would tear me several new assholes when I would give him fewer points. That's why I don't participate anymore, it's not the worth the headaches.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The idea is that a player can get a maximum of 6 points, but 10 points are awarded. When a pitcher throws a complete game shutout, he's done everything expected of him (hence the 6), and those other 4 points are for the guys who hit the ball and catch the ball.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The idea is that a player can get a maximum of 6 points, but 10 points are awarded. When a pitcher throws a complete game shutout, he's done everything expected of him (hence the 6), and those other 4 points are for the guys who hit the ball and catch the ball.

That's one way of looking at it. I suppose that a bottom of the 9th inning pinch hitter in a tie game who singles in the winning run has also done all that was expected of him. But six points worth?

[Benjamin Grimm]

You're just trying to be argumentative. There's a difference between a nine-inning effort and a single at bat.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: You're just trying to be argumentative. There's a difference between a nine-inning effort and a single at bat.

I know. What I ought to have written was that offense (run scoring) is half the game and pitching/defense (run prevention) comprises the other half. And from that view, a pitching performance alone, no matter how dominant, can't be worth five out of the 10 points.

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

were m.e.t.b.o.t. to begin to attempt to calculate positional adjustments for hte offensive contributions of pitchers it would perhaps send m.e.t.b.o.t. down a slick gradient of attempting to then positionally adjust the offensive contributions of, for instance, catchers, relative to first basemen and left fielders. because, therefore, are not the first basemen and left fielders generally assumed to be better offensive performers than catchers?

and while this would perhaps be a meaningful exercise in the effort of finding some deeper meaning in the grand scheme of baseball, it would be meaningless in the search for determining which players contributed the most to the probability of winning a specific baseball game.

and, more practically, it would beg the question: if m.e.t.b.o.t. were to somehow take away the -67 WPA that metropolitan pitcher dillon gee contributed to the probability of winning hte game, where does that missing probability then go? the mets would have a total probability of -433 WPA for the game (implying that there was still some non-zero chance that they could win the game). do the missing -67 WPA get apportioned to the other batters who should never have placed metropolitan pitcher dillon gee in the position where he could have a meaningful at bat? certainly some of the missing WPA would belong to those metropolitan batters who contributed positively - should their total be reduced as well to fully account for the missing WPA?

more to the point, m.e.t.b.o.t. would likely have to apportion the missing WPA to the metropolitan batters on a play-by-play basis where metropolitan pitcher dillon gee's turn at bat would then be assumed to be an automatic out. this could in theory be done, but not quickly, not easily, and not simply. a potentially meaningful thought exercise, perhaps, but certainly beyond the capabilities of a simple clockwork automaton that somehow manages to interface with the internet.

it also raises the question of how to treat the performances of opposing pitchers when they are batters? should metropolitan pitcher dillon gee not receive any credit for retiring san diego father pitchers? this too raises some significant algorithmical difficulties.

m.e.t.b.o.t. takes WPA away from pitchers who fail to contribute offensively because their failings lead to a reduction of the probability of winning a specific game. m.e.t.b.o.t. attempts as best as possible to account for hte contributions of defensive players as well when their performances merit either an error or a web gem. (the absence of an error or web gem causes me.t.b.o.t. to assume that the defensive effort was then neutral and is not to be attributed to the defensive players. this may or may not be supported by babip theory or defense-independent pitching theory.) m.e.t.b.o.t. has observed that when pitchers make outs on offense, those outs count just the same as when other batters make outs, and therefore their performances as batters carry the same weight. the quality of the given performance relative to the generally accepted quality of performance expected of either the player in specific or the defensive positional assignment of the player in general does not factor into this evaluation, nor does it factor into the outcome of the game. it may be a factor in the future liklihood of winning games, or in evaluating and establishing true talent levels, but m.e.t.b.o.t. is not capable of evaluating or assessing neither future outcomes nor true talent levels.

m.e.t.b.o.t. does not enjoy penalizing pitchers for their failings as batters, but, then, m.e.t.b.o.t. cannot enjoy anything. except perhaps the feeling of a freshly wound skate key. spring has sprung, as humans might occasionally be observed to say.

[metsmarathon]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: You're just trying to be argumentative. There's a difference between a nine-inning effort and a single at bat. I know. What I ought to have written was that offense (run scoring) is half the game and pitching/defense (run prevention) comprises the other half. And from that view, a pitching performance alone, no matter how dominant, can't be worth five out of the 10 points.

i don't believe that's particulatly true. unless you also establish that you cannot give out more than 5 points for offense (of course allowing for some points to be awarded for noteworthy defensive performances)

a pitcher who throws 9 innings of shutout ball is almost certainly doing more than half the share of the winning, especially if the offense isn't doing much on it's own end. if the offense is also scoring 8 or 10 runs, then maybe you've found a balance, i guess. but i don't believe that it's appropriate to slice it right down the middle as such.

as i recall, the 'bot also didn't give out a full 6 points either. damned robots.

[batmagadanleadoff]

A pitcher doesn't throw a shutout, or a no-hitter, all by himself. Fielders must make the plays behind him. And the catcher has to hold on to the third strike. I don't believe that Schaefer correlates perfectly with what we'd consider dominant performances. For example, the most dominant thing that a pitcher could do is strike out all 27 batters in a perfect game. But for Schaefer purposes I'd award a pitcher more points if he pitched a perfect game where every batter popped out to that pitcher.

[Gwreck]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: I remember when I used to participate in Schaeffer points, everyone would give 5 to 6 points to Tom Glavine every outing and would tear me several new assholes when I would give him fewer points. That's why I don't participate anymore, it's not the worth the headaches.

I have never understood this complaint (and I don't mean to pick on you, WP, personally, as you are not the only person who as voiced it). This is a discussion board, your Schaefer vote isn't sacred, and someone questioning it is not personally offending you.

I can recollect several interesting discussions regarding Schaefer voting but nothing uncivil, although perhaps my memory is faulty.

[Edgy MD]

Oh, well, it was tough there for a while.

I gave Johan six. I shouldn't have.

http://archives.cranepoolforum.net/17900/f9_t17985.shtml

[metsmarathon]

oh come now.

when was the last time you awarded points to a catcher for routinely catching routinely pitched balls?

when was hte last time you awarded points to a second baseman for fielding a routine ground ball and tossing that ball routinely to the first baseman who routinely caught the routine throw to routinely retire a routinely running runner?

i think you're intentionally trying to read too much into the schaefer vote. likely for the sake of being difficult. we're voting for the player of the game. the frame of reference is that specific game.

pitchers are not rated on a scale where 6 points is a perfect game and zero is something less. and hte batters are likewise not rated on a scale where 6 points is hitting 5 home runs while playing spectacular defense and zero is something less. or well, i guess you could do that if you want. it's up to you. that's kindof the beauty of the whole thing.

but it is the schaefer player of the game. as in who did hte most in that specific game. and if one guy did hte most of all the positive things done in the game, and he did more than everybody else who did positive things in the game, then i see no reason why he should not be awarded 6 points. especially if a lot of other players did routine things routinely, or worse.