Schaefer 2013: Ninth Year of Having More Than One!

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

m.e.t.b.o.t. has been determining the appropriate level of schaefer points to distribute to a metropolitan baseball player for long enough that m.e.t.b.o.t. is able to anticipate a potential criticism from a human crane pool forum poster regarding hte voting for the april 24 game, specifically the relatively little schaefer points awarded to metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin.

in this case, metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin hit a walk away big bang home run which resulted in a metropolitan win in the bottom of the tenth inning. superficially, this would appear to have generated a tremendous amount of WPA. however, the bases were loaded with one out, and the metropolitans faced only a one-run defecit. in this situation, the metropolitans had an 82.8% probability of winning hte game. indeed, any number of outcomes could have resulted in the winning run having scored, and the additional three runs don't factor into the WPA. so in this case, metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin contributed 0.172 WPA - which is not a very small amount.

however, earlier in the game, in the eighth inning, metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin was at bat with two outs, a runner on third base, and the metropolitans trailing by one run to the avoiders.

with a runner on third, down one run with two outs in the 8th inning, the metropolitans had only a 25.7% probability of winning the game. bringing in the run in this situation would have greatly increased the metropolitans chances of winning hte game, by likely more than 25% (as the game would then be tied and a runner would likely be on first base). instead, metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin grounded out to first base, resulting in a loss of 0.108 WPA - a nearly 11% reduction in the chances of the metropolitans winning the game.

the later contributions made by metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin did indeed offset this earlier failure, however, the sum total of these contributions factors into the schaefer voting. and therefore, metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin contributed a total of only 0.064 WPA, which converts to 0.61 schaefer points given the relative environment of this specific game.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

That sounds right.

[Zvon]

M.e.t.b.o.t., on reviewing last nights game I'm thinking that David Wright contributed more than I gave him credit for (.5). If he doesn't get that two out hit in the 9th to tie the game Valdespin does not get the chance to go deep into his cups (of beer). So I'm thinking of trying to throw him more sips. How important a contribution is that hit in your thinking?

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

within the context of the entire game, m.e.t.b.o.t. has assessed metropolitan third baseman with a total of 0.266 WPA, 25.5% of the total net-positive WPA contributions in the game, as reflected in the shaefer vote of 2.55.

for the specific play in the ninth inning, however, with a runner on third base, down one run with two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning, the metropolitans had only a 15.1% probability of winning the game. with the game tied, a runner on first, and two outs in the bottom of the ninth, the metropolitans then had a 55.9% chance of winning the game. the total swing was 0.408 WPA for that play. that metropolitan third baseman david wright then squandered 0.059 WPA in his subsequent caught stealing should be considered as well.

for comparison sake, at the start of each game, each team is assumed to have a 50% probability of winning the game. a team must accrue a net addition of 50% probability (or 0.500 WPA) in order to win the game. one way to then frame the contribution by david wright in that specific at bat is to consider it 80% of a win. (this is perhaps a deeply flawed way to contextualize this one play, but m.e.t.b.o.t. will let it stand for now) in other activity in the same game, metropolitan third baseman david wright also produced about 28% of a loss by the same measure.

because m.e.t.b.o.t. has been programmed to believe that by providing more and more data and analysis, humans will come to further appreciation and acceptance of m.e.t.b.o.t., me.t.b.o.t. is compelled to offer up the following additional piece of information regarding the game. with no outs in the bottom of the ninth inning, with a runner on second base, and the team trailing by one run, the metropolitans had a 42.2% chance of winning the game. after the sacrifice bunt by metropolitan shortstop ruben tejada, the metropolitans had only a 39.7% chance of winning the game. in this instance, the sacrifice was not beneficial.

later in the game, with the score tied in the bottom of the tenth inning, with runners on first and second and no outs, the metropolitans had a 80.6% probability of winning the game. after the sacrifice bunt, the metropolitans had a 83.7% probability of winning the game. here, the sacrifice bunt was actually a beneficial play.

also worthy of mention is the subsequent intentional walk issued to metropolitan left fielder lucas duda, which actually reduced the metropolitan's probability of winning the game to 82.8%, indicating that it may actually have been a wise move by the opponent - an assertion m.e.t.b.o.t. is making without evaluating the probabilities of various alternative outcomes given the players involved.

[Zvon]

Thank you very much for your prompt reply m.e.t.b.o.t.. I will factor things and make an adjustment. Now who do I steal sips from...

[Frayed Knot]

The main point on this type of discussion is how highly to reward/award Valdespin for the GS over and above what you would have if he won the game with "only" a 1B, or SacFly or GR 2B (not possible in that case for him to get a regular 2B or 3B) or even simply beating out a GiDP?
There are arguments to be made either way. me.t.b.o.t. makes his own but he's incapable of doing anything other than what he's programmed to do. I'm tempted (haven't voted yet) to give him a bit more because it was a GS but, as JCL says, it's not the same as the Stevie Henderson game where a HR and only a HR would have won it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

m.e.t.b.o.t. wrote: in this case, metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin hit a walk away big bang home run which resulted in a metropolitan win in the bottom of the tenth inning. superficially, this would appear to have generated a tremendous amount of WPA. however, the bases were loaded with one out, and the metropolitans faced only a one-run defecit....

Is it about contributing to a team win, or about individual accomplishments irrespective of team outcome? And how do you even begin to separate the two? Why did Santana practically* max out the scoring for his no-hitter? By your logic, because the Mets won by eight, Johan could've given up seven runs on 12 hits without jeopardizing the team win. Why then, was he credited fully for a brilliant, but according to your rationale here, superfluous performance? And then why does any Met, for that matter, ever get any Schaefer points in a team loss?


* But see my ballot.

[Chad ochoseis]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: m.e.t.b.o.t. wrote: in this case, metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin hit a walk away big bang home run which resulted in a metropolitan win in the bottom of the tenth inning. superficially, this would appear to have generated a tremendous amount of WPA. however, the bases were loaded with one out, and the metropolitans faced only a one-run defecit.... Is it about contributing to a team win, or about individual accomplishments irrespective of team outcome? And how do you even begin to separate the two? Why did Santana practically* max out the scoring for his no-hitter? By your logic, because the Mets won by eight, Johan could've given up seven runs on 12 hits without jeopardizing the team win. Why then, was he credited fully for a brilliant, but according to your rationale here, superfluous performance? And then why does any Met, for that matter, ever get any Schaefer points in a team loss? * But see my ballot.

The difference is that there was no point where Santana could have clinched the win by doing less than what he actually did - every out he got increased the Mets' win probability, however infinitesimally. So his performance wasn't really superfluous.

Valdespin's home run increased the Mets win probability to 1. A simple poke into short center would have done the same.

What if he'd lined the ball off the RF wall - an easy double and possibly a triple under ordinary circumstances, but a single in a walk-off situation? Would he then get Schaefer credit for a single, or for an XBH? I'd guess a single. Why treat a GS differently?

I very rarely Schaefer, but if I were Schaefering on June 1, 2012, I probably wouldn't have given Santana the full six points. Sentimentality aside, it was an 8-0 shutout, and there was plenty of offensive and defensive credit (Baxter!) to go around.

[Benjamin Grimm]

SCHAEFER METS PLAYER OF THE WEEK, 2013
Week ending April 6: John Buck, 7.21 points.
Week ending April 13: Matt Harvey, 9.04 points.
Week ending April 20: David Wright, 6.24 points.

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

batmagadanleadoff wrote: m.e.t.b.o.t. wrote: in this case, metropolitan centerfielder jordanny valdespin hit a walk away big bang home run which resulted in a metropolitan win in the bottom of the tenth inning. superficially, this would appear to have generated a tremendous amount of WPA. however, the bases were loaded with one out, and the metropolitans faced only a one-run defecit.... Is it about contributing to a team win, or about individual accomplishments irrespective of team outcome? And how do you even begin to separate the two? Why did Santana practically* max out the scoring for his no-hitter? By your logic, because the Mets won by eight, Johan could've given up seven runs on 12 hits without jeopardizing the team win. Why then, was he credited fully for a brilliant, but according to your rationale here, superfluous performance? And then why does any Met, for that matter, ever get any Schaefer points in a team loss? * But see my ballot.

m.e.t.b.o.t. does not fully understand the question. m.e.t.b.o.t. has one primary purpose - to process per-game win probability values into schaefer votes. a need was determined, and m.e.t.b.o.t. was shoddily cobbled together from readily available scrap material. it was a very low budget affair.

win probability values place the players' individual accomplishments into the overall context of a team win. not all home runs are equal. some are completely meaningless in the context of a single game. others can swing a sure loss into a total victory.

similarly, not all shutouts are equal. in many cases, the contributions of the offense make less meaningful the efforts of the pitcher. although it could be argued that in throwing a shutout, the pitcher has made less meaningful the contributions of the offense.

if it is necessary to revisit the no-hitter thrown by metropolitan pitcher johan santana, then m.e.t.b.o.t. will revisit this game in the context of win probability.

in the game in question, metropolitan pitcher johan santana is credited with a +0.348 WPA as a pitcher. as a batter, he is credited with a -0.028 WPA. his net unadjusted WPA is then +0.320

m.e.t.b.o.t. does not generate these WPA values. m.e.t.b.o.t. only attempts to utilize these values to generate schaefer votes. as has previously been discussed, m.e.t.b.o.t. long ago recognized that the WPA outcome from a fielder's error is counted against the pitcher. m.e.t.b.o.t. implemented an adjustment process which transfers the WPA lost by the error to the fielder who committed the error. similarly, m.e.t.b.o.t. recognized that the defender who makes an outstanding defensive play is similarly unrewarded, and so m.e.t.b.o.t. implemented an adjustment process which shares the WPA gained by the outstanding defensive effort between the pitcher and the fielder.

m.e.t.b.o.t. believes that the vast majority of defensive plays are neutral. and those neutral plays need not be credited to a defensive player when, effectively, any defensive player could have achieved the same outcome. m.e.t.b.o.t. is limited to believing that the only non-neutral defensive plays are errors and those outstanding defensive plays which are recorded as highlights in the mlb.com video highlight reel. this is an acknowledged limitation, but m.e.t.bo.t. is forced to accept this limitation until and unless a better solution presents itself in such a fashion as to be easy and rational to implement.

this all strays from the analysis of the game, but lays the foundation for the following. in the game in question, metropolitan left fielder mike baxter made an outstanding defensive effort in catching a deep fly ball and subsequently crashing into the wall and damaging his body. this was recorded in the mlb.com highlight reel and as such was designated an outstanding defensive play by m.e.t.b.o.t. however, the play was only worth 0.005 WPA, due to the score and the late inning. so, while a human schaefer voter might credit metropolitan left fielder mike baxter with a significant amount of schaefer votes, m.e.t.b.o.t. increased his WPA total by only 0.0025 WPA, increasing his total from -0.040 to -0.0375. the negative total would make metropolitan left fielder mike baxter ineligible for a schafer vote from m.e.t.b.o.t.

looking specifically at the performance of metropolitan pitcher johan santana, while it is true that the offense scored many runs, they did not score those runs very early in the game, and by the time they game was as humans might consider a blowout, the majority of his contributions to winning the game had been made.

in the first inning, he increased the probability of the metroplitans winning the game from 50.0% to 54.6%
in the second inning, he increased the probability of the metroplitans winning the game from 50.0% to 54.9%
in the third inning, he increased the probability of the metroplitans winning the game from 50.0% to 55.2%
in the fourth inning, he increased the probability of the metroplitans winning the game from 50.0% to 55.7%
in the fifth inning, he increased the probability of the metroplitans winning the game from 77.2% to 82.9%
in the sixth inning, he increased the probability of the metroplitans winning the game from 80.1% to 86.1%
in the seventh inning, he increased the probability of the metroplitans winning the game from 97.6% to 98.9% (although here he did have the 0.25% assist from metropolitan left fielder mike baxter)
in the eight inning, he increased the probability of the metroplitans winning the game from 99.9% to 100.0% (unsure if rounded)
and finally, in the ninth inning, he increased (or maintained) the probability of the metroplitans winning the game from 100.0% (unsure if rounded) to 100.0%

as is apparent, metropolitan pitcher johan santana contributed to the probability of winning the game throughout the game, and only after the score became significantly lopsided late in the game did the scale of his contributions begin to slow.

the 0.318 WPA accrued by metropolitan pitcher johan santana accounted for 48.4% of the contributions by net-positive players, and therefore would have been worth 4.84 schaefer votes.

m.e.t.b.o.t. is most typically accused of not awarding enough schaefer votes to pitcher in the wake of well-pitched games. it is curious that m.e.t.b.o.t. is being questioned on the mindset behind awarding a full complement of 6 schaefer votes to a metropolitan pitcher in a game in which m.e.t.b.o.t. did not award 6 schaefer votes.

m.e.t.b.o.t. has no influence over the schaefer voting of other humans, except in those instances where m.e.t.b.o.t. is asked specific questions, or in those instances where m.e.t.b.o.t. expounds on the machinations behind a specific schaefer vote. m.e.t.b.o.t. cannot account for why any metropolitan player should ever be awarded schaefer votes in a loss except to comment that it is indeed a team game made up of the sum aggregate of the contributions of a collections of individuals. one single player alone can very rarely win a game all of his own accord, and one single player can very rarely lose a game all of his own accord. in the context of a single losing effort, one or many players may make contributions big or small which increased the likelihood of winning a given game, even if the ultimate outcome was a loss. the ultimate outcome does not undo or unmake those earlier contributions.

m.e.t.b.o.t. is programed to view each players performance within the context of a single game. it is theoretically possible for m.e.t.b.o.t. to tabulate the outcomes for each individual at bat within a game, and only credit for those at bats which had a positive outcome, and ignore those at bats which had a negative outcome, for the purposes of schaefer voting, but this approach would be more complicated, and perhaps less meaningful. the end product is the player of the game vote, and m.e.t.b.o.t. strives to identify which players contributed to winning a game, and the relative valuation of those contributions against each other.

some voters may view an outstanding statistical achievement or outstanding physical performance as noteworthy and therefore meaningful within the context of determining how to vote for a player of the game.

m.e.t.b.o.t. does not and cannot do this. m.e.t.b.o.t. focuses solely on WPA, and the appropriate apportionment thereof within the best and most reasonable limits of time, freely available data, and clockwork mechanical contraptions.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Tuesday and Wednesday's games against the Dodgers will close on Monday morning. Please try to get any remaining votes posted today or over the weekend.

Schaefer POTG 4/23/13 - Dodgers 7, Mets 2
Schaefer POTG 4/24/13 - Mets 7, Dodgers 3 (10 Innings)

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Thursday's loss to the Dodgers will close on Tuesday afternoon after 2 p.m.

Schaefer POTG 4/25/13 - Dodgers 3, Mets 2

[Zvon]

Hey m.e.t.b.o.t., how are you doing?

For this game:

http://cranepoolforum.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19463

Where's all that love for Duda come from?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for all three games played against the Phillies over the weekend will close on Wednesday afternoon, after 2 p.m.

Schafer POTG 4/26/13 - Phillies 4, Mets 0
Schaefer POTG 4/27/13 - Phillies 9, Mets 4
Schaefer POTG 04/28/2013. Philadelphia 5, Mets 1

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

Hey m.e.t.b.o.t., how are you doing? For this game: http://cranepoolforum.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19463 Where's all that love for Duda come from?

metropolitan left fielder lucas duda generated a total of 0.089 WPA in the game, more than any other metropolitan.

while metropolitan left fielder lucas duda had two negative WPA at bats, first flying out to right with the score tied 0-0 and no outs in the second inning (-0.023 WPA) and later flying out to left with the metropolitans trailing 3-8 with a runner on second and two outs in the fifth (-0.012 WPA), the at bat in the fourth inning generated a significant amount of WPA.

with the metropolitans trailing 1-3 in the fourth inning, with a runner on first and no outs, metropolitan left fielder lucas duda singled to right field, advancing the baserunner from first to third. (note, the baserunner gets no credit for advancing the extra base as m.e.t.b.o.t. is unable to reliably ascertain whether the advancement was a neutral act or not). prior to the at bat, the metropolitans had a 33.3% probability of winning hte game. following hte at bat, teh metropolitans had a 45.7% probability of winning the game. metroplitan left fielder generated +0.124 WPA in this at bat.

0.089 WPA constituted 28.6% of the total 0.311 net-positive WPA generated by metropolitan players, and therefore metropolitan left fielder lucas duda is awarded 2.86 schaefer votes.

[metsmarathon]

john buck is getting a lot of love in the 15 inning loss to the fish.

it seems to me a bit much for a guy who, while, yes, he knocked in two runs with yet another home run, but he also went 1-7, with 3k's and 6 lob's, including 4 runners left in scoring position to end an inning.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, but without that homer, they would have lost in nine innings.

Which, I suppose, might have been better than losing in 15 innings...

[metsmarathon]

i suppose it's true, but in a general sense, we're typically much more likely to view players' at bats and defensive contributions as discrete units that don't weigh against each other good vs bad, whereas we typically tend to view pitchers performances as a whole.

[Zvon]

Hey m.e.t.b.o.t., how are you doing? For this game: http://cranepoolforum.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19463 Where's all that love for Duda come from? metropolitan left fielder lucas duda generated a total of 0.089 WPA in the game, more than any other metropolitan. while metropolitan left fielder lucas duda had two negative WPA at bats, first flying out to right with the score tied 0-0 and no outs in the second inning (-0.023 WPA) and later flying out to left with the metropolitans trailing 3-8 with a runner on second and two outs in the fifth (-0.012 WPA), the at bat in the fourth inning generated a significant amount of WPA. with the metropolitans trailing 1-3 in the fourth inning, with a runner on first and no outs, metropolitan left fielder lucas duda singled to right field, advancing the baserunner from first to third. (note, the baserunner gets no credit for advancing the extra base as m.e.t.b.o.t. is unable to reliably ascertain whether the advancement was a neutral act or not). prior to the at bat, the metropolitans had a 33.3% probability of winning hte game. following hte at bat, teh metropolitans had a 45.7% probability of winning the game. metroplitan left fielder generated +0.124 WPA in this at bat. 0.089 WPA constituted 28.6% of the total 0.311 net-positive WPA generated by metropolitan players, and therefore metropolitan left fielder lucas duda is awarded 2.86 schaefer votes.

Bleep-blaap-bloop. Translation=ty for the explanation. So Duda gets credit for 'might have beens'? Interesting.

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

m.e.t.b.o.t. is all about what might have been. future events do not affect WPA. in the specific example, metropolitan left fielder lucas duda generated +0.124 WPA irrespective of whether or not the subsequent batters drove in any subsequent runs, or whether or not any subsequent metropolitan pitchers would surrender additional runs.

the only way future events affect the schaefer voting of m.e.t.b.o.t. is to change the total net-positive WPA generated by players, in which case a individual player's share of the available schaefer votes for that game will be affected.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Monday's loss in Miami will close on Thursday afternoon after 2 p.m.

Schaefer POTG, 4/29/2013: Marlins 4 Mets 3 (15)

[Benjamin Grimm]

SCHAEFER METS PLAYER OF THE WEEK, 2013
Week ending April 6: John Buck, 7.21 points.
Week ending April 13: Matt Harvey, 9.04 points.
Week ending April 20: David Wright, 6.24 points.
Week ending April 27: David Wright, 4.68 points.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Tuesday's loss in Miami will close on Friday afternoon after 2 p.m.

Schaefer POTG 4/30/13 - Marlins 2, Mets 1

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Wednesday's win over the Marlins will close on Monday morning.

Schaefer POTG 5/1/13 Mets 7, Marlins 6

[Benjamin Grimm]

As the losses grow more frequent, the Schaefer participants grow less participatory.

Nevertheless, voting for the two games played in Atlanta last weekend will close on Wednesday afternoon, some time after 2 p.m.

Schaefer POTG 5/3/13 - Mets 7, Braves 5 (10 Innings)
Schaefer POTG 5/5/13 - Braves 9, Mets 4

[metsmarathon]

lets not leave parnell hanging for preserving the shutout in the tenth last night. a reliever can't do much more than come into a tie game in extra innings, surrender nothing and record two k's.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Tuesday night's win over the White Sox at Citi Field will close on Friday afternoon after 2 p.m.

Schaefer POTG 5/7/13 - Mets 1, White Sox 0 (10 Innings)

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Wednesday night's loss to the White Sox will close on Monday morning.

Schaefer POTG 5/8/13 - White Sox 6, Mets 3

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for all four games played against the Pirates will close on Wednesday afternoon, some time after 2 p.m. The May 12 game is particularly low on votes.

Schaefer POTG 5/9/13 - Mets 3, Pirates 2
Schaefer POTG 5/10/13 - Pirates 7, Mets 3
Schaefer POTG 5/11/13 - Pirates 11, Mets 2
Schaefer POTG 5/12/13 - Pirates 3, Mets 2

[Benjamin Grimm]

Voting for Monday's loss in St. Louis will close on Thursday afternoon, some time after 2 p.m.

Schaefer POTG 5/13/13 - Cardinals 6, Mets 3