metsmarathon

indeed, jeff kent has never led his team in stolen bases, tho a mere 5 could have done the trick with the '94 metsies. however, his 94 career stolen bases falls a few dozen short of our man

ray durham led hte san francisco giants with 10 stolen bases in 2004!

in 2002, bobby abreu tied with jimmy rollins for the phillie sb lead, with 31. the next year, he led the team all by his lonesome, with 22. randy winn led the tampa bay devil rays in '98 and '02, with 26 and 27 stolen bases, respectively.

no more guesses, or is my question too difficult to answer?

my question seeks to answer the confused alter-ego of the original question!

in 2000, royce clayton led the rangers with a whopping 11 steals...

every player thus far mentioned in this thread has led his own team in stolen bases at least once. so if you're answering my question, cross: vizquel, finley, biggio, sanders, jeter, and bonds off your list of possible entries!

if mirabelli was really clever, he'd've painted it with schillings' own blood.

after even more checking, i think i've identified the currently active player with the most career stolen bases, who has never led his team in steals. can you name him?

Beltran 0.3 Delgado 1.5 Alou 1.4 Valentin 2.2 Maine 4.1 Feliciano 0.5

Glavine 3.6 Green 2.0 Reyes 1.8 Sele 1.2 LoDuca 0.8 Valentin 0.6

Perez 3.9 Beltran 2.2 Reyes 1.7 Smith 0.9 Alou 0.7 Easley 0.6

Green 3.3 Beltran 1.9 Alou 1.6 Smith 1.3 Schoeneweis 1.0 Feliciano 0.9

foul! as a fan, your level of interaction with the players is lmited to the projection of positive and negative words and emotions towards the players on the field and their actions threupon. above and beyond that and you are interfering with play, and endangering those on the field and perhaps even those around you. you are also showing yourself to be a moron, and why would you want to be a moron?

c'mon, ira. they's sainted torre a long long time ago. unfortunately, ive not heard the interview - maybe its on the net - but m&md certainly conduct themselves differently when they're interviewing out of town execs & managers than they do met execs and managers. i dont remember how they treated yankee execs and managers prior to '98, of course, but there's a whole lot that they have do do brutally wrong to wash away that late 90s aura, especially with francessa. if/when the mets are crowned undisputed kings of the city, it wont matter if omar drools uncontrollably enough to short out his microphone while ranting and raving in klewok, a homebrew amalgam of klingon and ewok, they'll still treat him civilly.

of course they want theo to agree to come on for an interview next time they're in town, so its in their best interest to be civil. they dont have to be civil to the local managers.

Ohernandez 3.7 Beltran 1.9 Castro 1.3 Valentin 1.2 Green 1.1 Reyes 0.8

Maine 4.1 Beltran 2.2 Reyes 1.5 Valentin 1.0 Delgado 0.6 Wright 0.6

Nymr83 wrote: ="Yancy Street Gang"]If you want to figure out votes per win, votes per loss, votes per score differential, and more, these pages will tell you: http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/rawdata.php?year=2006 http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/rawdata.php?year=2007 Just paste into a spreadsheet and have fun. The number of voters in a game has little impact, though. Fewer voters means less diversity of opinion, but each game still gets counted equally. The votes are averaged, not totaled. but each voter has a greater influence when there are fewer voters, this canbe especially telling if someone were to vote say "pedro 1" and nothing else for that game, they'd dilute all the other votes as if they'd voted "pedro 1 nobody 9" because the other players are all getting divided by the number of voters even if some of those voters didn't vote for 10 pts worth of players. ah, but what's the actual impact of doing that? for the specific game, it really only affects the divisor, and likely would not terribly affect the total rankings either at the end of the month, or at the end of the year. the greatest impact in a given game would come from someone awarding a 6 where no points are warranted, or a 0 where 6 points are warranted. in this case, the maximum theoretical single game impact would be 6/n schaefer points, where n is the number of voters. the real impact would be dS = (6/n)-[V/(n-1)] where dS is the change in the schaefer vote, n is hte number of voters, V is the total of the other voters' points, and n-1 is the number of other voters who are not trying to much up the works. we can replace [V/(n-1)] with S' which is the schaefer vote for a given player if that doesn't include the wacky voter's opinion. once you have more than 5 voters for a given game, the most any one person can affect the vote of a given game is one point. and that's if he gives out a 6 to a player nobody else voted for, or a 0 for a consensus 6. if the one guy gives a 4 to somebody we all think should get a 2, then the impact is less than a third of a point with more than 5 total voters - and i think that's more likely a difference of opinion than a 6/0 situation. much like voting for president, your vote isnt as important as you think it should be... but thankfully, neither is anybody else's!

Burgos 2.8 Valentin 1.8 Chavez 1.8 Smith 1.6 Wright 1.0 Schoeneweis 1.0

Wagner 2.3 Reyes 1.7 Wright 1.6 Schoeneweis 1.6 Feliciano 1.4 Franco 1.4

Nymr83 wrote: I think this project gets hurt by the huge difference in voter turnout for wins and losses phooey! although i volunteer somebody else to chart voters per win, and voters per loss. we can also commission a statistical lanalysis to evaluate the variance in votes between high-turnout games and low-turnout games, to the extent that we would then be able to extrapolate out just what effect the missing voters have. granted, if the mets would only do their fucking jobs right, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as there would be no more losses!

yay.

Glavine 3.8 Reyes 1.9 Alou 1.6 Wright 1.0 Smith 1.0 Schoeneweis 0.7

Willets Point wrote: ="holychicken"] Imagine a game where two pitchers throw perfect games into the 9th and then in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs the guy pinch-hitting for the pitcher hits a homerun. That sounds like a beautiful game that I would like to see. actually, i've done more thinking... the value of keeping the score tied for each inning is as follows, for home and away pitchers: inning Home P Away P 1 0.051 0.058 2 0.049 0.049 3 0.049 0.057 4 0.065 0.061 5 0.066 0.073 6 0.078 0.080 7 0.089 0.088 8 0.114 0.113 9 0.134 0.136 total 0.695 0.715 home teams have about a 2% better chance of winning a given game! oh, and i used the 1977-2006 data... so the starters wouldnt get totally hosed... well, the losing starter would get kinda hosed.