metsmarathon

yes, because how a manager responds to an in-game interview regarding an issue that maybe hasn't been fully resolved yet is always the clearest portal into the true depth of his abilities. or, perhaps, he realizes in some small way that "yes" "no" "not yet" and "i don't know" make for really shitty tv, and/or really awkward conversation.

ok, i know you guys really don't want me in the league because i'm just going to crush the competition like so many of the bones in lastings' hand, but really, this is too much! the league page says that the draft will commence at 6:30 PM EDT (whereas i had thought it was at 7:30...) now, see, my team page says the same thing, and yet, as i type this, i do believe it is ~5:30 EDT, and my team page is telling me that there are about 2 hours left until the draft. its really very clever of you all. setting it up so that the first hour of the draft i will be at the mercy of my prerankings. but no matter. once i am allowed into the draft, my late round sleeper picks will knock your socks off! unless everybody is having this same issue... who knows!

Edgy DC wrote: Marathon, our in-house mathematical idiot savant, forgets that we square the ranking --- his own innovation. now, see, i thought those numbers were too high...

top 30 players in a given season, ranked linearly from 30 (best/most productive/most valuable/etc... ) down to 1 (worst, etc..), with no ties, and agreed to, mostly, via consensus of the participants. points were multiplied by wins, so the best and worst '62 mets would have 1200 and 40 points, respectively, and the best and worst '86 mets would have 3000 and 100 points, respectively. (i forget if we accounted for playoff wins) then add up the points that players got throughout their metly careers, and put em in order. i think that's the way it goes. i'm pretty sure gil hodges has used up all of his opportunities to garner additional ranking points. for milledge, its all up to him, mostly, and us, partly. in six years, trachsel has middlingly stayed just ahead of wright and reyes, who have half his service time, but surely have much higher rankings in the past two years. it isn't exatly the same as win shares, but kinda sorts has the same effect of giving credit for both longevity and quality. nobody's in the top ten with fewer than 8 years as a met, but the guy with 16 just misses.

but it is endorsed by manny...

i haven't proven yet that i can vote at a major league level. when do we make cuts around here? i've got some hard work to do to stay on the opening day roster!

man, do i suck.

in 2005, burgos had a 3.98 ERA in 68 innings. i guess bannister's 4.26 era in 38 innings last year was more convincing...?

the orange bill hurts my eyes!!!!

i wonder what would happen if the crotchal area was not centered in the image...

ooh, square roots... hmm... 2 days works for me.

hmm. the pi day game should be a good opportunity for me to evaluate my scoring. the only real difference between maine and pelfrey is that maine actually pitched better (more strikeouts, fewer hits, no hbp), but because he was awarded the loss, he gets hurt in my methodology, perhaps moreso than he deserves. so i'm thinking that maybe i need to tone down the loss impact... maine also started while pelfrey releived. and in a normal non-spring game, i would consider that pelfrey's job was harder, therefore deserving of more points, but i've pulled out my "starter correction factors" for the spring. that correction factor is essentially awarding 3 negative points for starting a game, but 5 positive points for then achieving a quality start. a QS is worth about a net of 2 points to a starter. note: these are marathon points, not schaeffer points. marathon points become schaeffer points through a distillation process that selects the 6 highest marathoners for game and normalizes their score to a maximum of ten points. marathon points are more of an absolute measure, while schaeffer points are relativistic in nature.

phooey! besides, i can now award bonus points for good things, and take away points for bad things players do that aren't necessarily captured in the stats. hey, i should add in a comment line for future use! this way i can track how players negatively affect games, and how small contributions may add up over the course of a season. besides, i'm a sucker for half-baked quantitative metrics where qualitative observations may suffice.

0.7 Beltran 0.2 Wright 0.2 Alou 0.4 DiFelice 1.4 Maine 3.5 Pelfrey

something similar happened to me. my uber file got corrupted, and while it kept all of the formulae, it lost the formatting, and became quite a bear. i had a hard time fixing it. this year, i've got an even more immense and cumbersome spreadsheet going, and have been practicing using it in the spring training games. if i had both the free time and commensurate lack of life, i'd use it to go back a rescore all of last year to see how well it holds up... but i'm not quite that hardcore. i've got just about everything automated in it, too, once i input the game performances. it automatically assigns up to ten points to the six most deserving players. all it doesn't do is correct if/when a player pulls in more than 6 points (hard to implement in excel, i think), and automatically tally the scores (unwieldy, but doable). i've even got it set up to compare itself to last year's scoring methodology. (yes, i'm a loser, and a damned geeky one at that!) i plan on issuing a special commendation to the top springtime performer.

slow day? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191 and so on...

strikeouts don't move runners. groundouts can. i wonder if there's a way to figure out how many of loduca's groundouts moved a runner as compared to those which resulted in a fielder's choice? and i wonder, then, if he would be more likely to move a runner over than would wright despite wright's higher strikeout ratio...

that's because jose is electric, while wright and carter are and were steadying.

that doesnt make any sense. why would thy take x-rays for a leg strain...?

reyes reminds me of my brother... so it would be awkward to vote for the other guy.

the mets are starving for runs...?

but you had the second-most third-closest answers. so that's something to hang your hat on... right?

hey, does anybody know who won last year?

Gwreck wrote: 11) On base percentage delgado 12) Slugging percentage delgado 13) OPS wright Ummm...I don't think this can be done... not in real life, but it may be a bet-hedging strategy...?

Nymr83 wrote: ="Vic Sage"]why do we need to open it up to outsiders? more teams = more fun i think we need but one more team (12) and we're fine. too many teams (some would say like last year) water down the league and make for really sad roster decisions down the road.