metsmarathon

KC had the most correct answers, with 20. TransMonk had the fewest, with 8 the full results, as near as i can tell... pooler one two three 3-2-1 10-4-1 KC 20 7 5 79 233 Rotblatt 19 6 4 73 218 seawolf17 19 12 5 86 243 Vic Sage 17 5 5 66 195 abogdan 17 8 3 70 205 Nymr83 16 7 7 69 195 metsmarathon 16 8 4 68 196 Edgy DC 16 11 8 78 212 Johnny Dickshot 15 9 6 69 192 duan 14 5 4 56 164 elster88 14 7 7 63 175 MFS62 13 7 5 58 163 ABG 13 7 6 59 164 Yancy Street Gang 13 9 10 67 176 Olerud Owned 13 9 8 65 174 metirish 12 3 7 49 139 86-Dreamer 12 7 6 56 154 DocTee 10 12 3 57 151 rpackrat 10 7 6 50 134 sharpie 9 11 6 55 140 The Old Mole 9 7 4 45 122 TransMonk 8 8 8 48 120 y'all may now debate as to whether or not KC is the best prognosticator, or if seawolf is.

NEW TEAM metirish sharpie DocTee Nymr83 smg58 metsmarathon cleonjones11

there's prolly a 50 character limit.

trading players kinda sullies the point of randomly picking them, no? you get the players of whom you defeat. dickshot now has tsuyoshi shinjo, cliff floyd, kelly stinnett, and some other guy to add to his own list. timing it off the first post is unfair to the second guy. the best way is likely to have somebody adminnish post the score at the 24-hr mark as the official score, and then we could just ignore poll count from there onwards. there might be a rules thread in the parody forum, but there might not be.

heh. boudreaux's birth canal is a mystery.

i think that thingies should be kept hidden, irrespective of the ideology of the attached body.

there are those who would argue otherswise, that it is a symbol of regional pride, and that they hold fast to that particular definition rather than ascribe to any definition assigned by someone else - that the confederacy was about much more than just slavery and/or white supremacy, and just because you say it means slavery and racism doesn't make it so. that wiggle room should be enough to stave off the censors. that and its silly to outright ban a symbol such that the simple display of it becomes a criminal act. if people want to wear a shirt that says "i am a racist" i think they should be allowed to. its easier when the idiots announce themselves, instead of forcing you to figure it out for yourself.

if we banned confederate flags, we wouldn't be able to ridicule them.

if eddie guardado and/or roger clemens are the last two free agents left on the board, i'll give credit to those who said "unsigned" or "retired" when spring training starts, i think i'd have to just give up and declare any player who is unsigned at that point to be unsigned as pertains to the contest.

Happy New Year! NEW TEAM metirish sharpie DocTee Nymr83 smg58 metsmarathon cleonjones11

="Edgy DC"]But I'll bet somebody will find (or has found) statistically that he descended into defensive averageness back in Cleveland while he was still winning Gold Gloves. baseball prospectus rates him as six runs above average, defensively, for his career, for what that's worth. his zone rating, more importantly, was the same 0.789 in 2001 for the indians as it was in 2002 for the mets. the next year it was worse. he also would go from a season with 5 errors to a season with 15 errors to a season with 5 then back to 11. very consistently inconsistent. his career .817 zone rating and .984 f% bear out the fact that he was about average, defensively, for his career.

patona314 wrote: though they're all younger, they all seem to have similar #'s trachsel 36 15-8 164 IP 4.97 ERA 87 ERA+ suppan 31 12-7 190 IP 4.12 ERA 107 ERA+ ohka 30 4-5 97 IP 4.82 ERA 93 ERA+ (unsigned) marquis 27 14-16 194 IP 6.02 ERA 73 ERA+ jennings 27 9-13 212 IP 3.78 ERA 127 ERA+ (not free agent) meche 27 11-8 187 IP 4.48 ERA 97 ERA+ how are any of these guys similar to trachsel? all of them had better seasons, save jason marquis and an injured tomo ohka, and they're all a heck of a lot younger, too. do you really think a 37 year old trachsel represents an increased likelihood of a good season in 2007 than any other of the above players? trachsel isn't getting any play because significantly below average 37 year old right-handed pitchers don't often get much play, particuarly when their last memorable moment is viewed widely as him laying down and begging out of a big huge game in as non-winnerly a fashion as possible. dog-rape aside, that is. based on last season's numbers, its hardly shocking that he hasn't been getting much attention. based on last season's last performance, its very much expected. that jeff weaver isn't getting much play is more surprising.

iramets wrote: As a group, the pitchers on the left are miles more accomplished than the group on the right. Can you find an exception? Is there a single pitcher on the left less talented than a single pitcher on the right? Sure. this is a point that i make myself. iramets wrote: But overall, it's not even close. sure it is. there's less than a run difference.

last year, adam dunn hit more home runs than david wright. who was the better hitter? last year, ryan zimmerman had more rbi than jose reyes. who was the better hitter? last year, brad penny had more wins than jason schmidt. who was the better pitcher? the easy to understand stats give you easy to understand answers. who hit more home runs? adam dunn. who drove in more runners? ryan zimmerman. who won more games? brad penny. who was the better hitter? pitcher? the easy stats don't tell enough to answer the question. 70 wins from pedro would indicate that he pitched better as opposed to worse. most likely, id' be thrilled with 70 wins from pedro. but there's a difference between "doesn't really at all" and "doesn't necessarily" in 2005, pedro won 15 games. was that more indicative of the quality of his season (livan hernandez also won 15 games), or was his 2.82 ERA? heck, roger clemens won 13 games with a 1.87 ERA. which is more indicative of his performance? would you rather have pedro pitch 4 years, throw 200 innings in each of them, and win 70 games with a 3.99 ERA, or win 50 games with a 2.99 ERA? you're full of shit if you take the 70 games because it means pedro pitched better. now, i've already conceded that a pitcher with more wins is likely to have pitched better than a pitcher with less wins. are you ready to tell me that brad penny, ryan zimmerman, and adam dunn had better years than jason schmidt, jose reyes, and david wright? getting back to the notion of wether or not $/win is meaningful and fun, i do think its meaningful, but not because it means the pitcher did better or worse, but because the team did better that signed a pitcher to a better $/win ratio. meaning that a bad team that overpays a pitcher will not score enough runs to drive his win total up, and therefore his $/W down, and is therefore getting a worse return on their investment than the team that scores enough runs to drive the wins up, thereby reducing hte amount they are "paying the pitcher for each win" it has nothing to do, really, with how well the pitcher performs with that team, but rather how well the team performs with that pitcher. and that's really what you'd be finding out with the $/W ratio, and along with that info, you'd better identify which GM's more wisely spent their money, as opposed to the GM who wasted his money by overpaying a pitcher who, no matter how well he pitches, just isn't going to win many games. case in point, again, roger clemens, 2005. he won 13 games, and was paid, what, $18M? that's $13.4M per win. but clemens pitched incredibly well! too bad the team threw their money away...

is there a person on the planet who thinks that because a pitcher is on the left, he must therefore be better than any pitcher on the right? or that because a pitcher is on the right, he must therefore be worse than any pitcher on the left? because the whole point is that while a pitcher who has more wins is likely to be better than a pitcher with less wins, it isn't necessarily the case, even when the difference in wins is fairly significant. or to put it another way, you'd surely take chris young or jason schmidt or even jason jennings over some of the pitchers on the left, right? wins may be used to indicate individual success or talent. however, they do not perform this task as well as other readily available statistics, and are also more likely to be influenced by factors outside the domain of the subject pitcher. so while, fine, looking at dollars per win wouldn't be meaningless, it also wouldn't be particularly meaningful. it would just be easy. and that's the kind of thing that gives statistics a bad name.

iramets wrote: If when Pedro signed a four-year deal, I'd told you that he would win over 70 games in his four years, you wouldn't have told me "That's meaningless. He could have great run support, and win 70 and I'd say that he sucked." You would have said "From your mouth to Gods ear." well, the point there is not that those 70 wins would necessarily mean that pedro had done well, but rather that the mets had done well in winning those games. by the same token, if you had been told prior to this season that pedro would win only nine games, you'd likely think that our season was sunk, mired in mediocrity or worse. but more to the point - here ya go top 10 ERA bottom 10 ERA Smoltz 3.49 Maholm 4.76 Lowe 3.63 Jennings 3.78 Penny 4.33 Cook 4.23 Zambrano 3.41 Duke 4.47 Harang 3.76 Morris 4.98 Webb 3.10 Hensley 3.71 Maddux 4.20 Young 3.46 Glavine 3.82 Capuano 4.03 Carpenter 3.09 Peavy 4.09 Oswalt 2.98 Fogg 5.49 Ortiz 5.57 Davis 4.91 Schmidt 3.59 Batista 4.58 AVG 3.58 AVG 4.40 less than a run difference in ERA. also worth noting, is that if you plot wins versus ERA you find that in the NL last year, a 1-run increase in your ERA would on average result in a decrease of less than 1.25 wins hardly a huge difference, and therefore, not a great indicator of the quality of a pitcher. but, on the whole, a pitcher with more wins is likely to have pitched better than the pitcher with fewer wins.

um, i only saw three of 2006's theatrical releases the best of them was cars the worst of them was happy feet and the movie i saw in an airplane was mission impossible iii i need to get out more.

i wish these rankings were as easy as calculus!

i feel compulsed to attempt to do it quantifiably, even if the method for quantification is flawed. especially since i started out the whole process using some inherently flawed quantification method. i must compound the mistake - i simply must! also, it lets me, presumably, go back in and reevaluate my mthodologies a little easier than a subjective ranking would.

i was toying originally with three and five, but then that'd almost force me to go with the world series being 10 times as important as the regular season, and that's a bit much. the postseason would then be worth between 9+20+40 = 69 games minimum and 15+35+70 = 120 games maximum. with my 2, 3, 5 multipliers, it works out instead to 6+12+20 = 38 games minimum to 10+21+35 = 66 games maximum. is that right? i dunno. but postseason games are more important, so i'm going with it! there's still a good argument that i've got oliver too high, and maybe the more meaningful relievers too low. i'll run an excursion wherein saves and holds are granted more points, and see what happens!

updated, in such a fashion as to rectify my voting silliness, as well as to account for the post season. for the record, i counted NLDS games as twice as important as regular season games, and NLCS games as thrice as important. results are as shown below. 30 Beltran 29 Reyes 28 Delgado 27 Wright 26 Glavine 25 LoDuca 24 Valentin 23 Chavez 22 Floyd 21 Martinez 20 Maine 19 Wagner 18 OHernandez 17 Oliver 16 Bradford 15 Heilman 14 Feliciano 13 Trachsel 12 Nady 11 Sanchez 10 Perez 9 Woodward 8 Green 7 Mota 6 Milledge 5 Franco 4 Bannister 3 Rhernandez 2 Castro 1 Bell

Frayed Knot wrote: Yo marathon, are you willing to defend; - Oliver above Wagner (4 slots), Heilman (6), Sanchez (7), Feliciano (10) & Bradford(11)???? - Trachsel over all of the above plus LoDuca, Valentin & Maine??? - Votes for Bell, Williams & Ring, but none for Green, Mota & Franco??? - Soler above Bradford & Feliciano??? maybe... its all based on my schaeffer voting. are you trying to imply that there's a flaw with how i voted! what nerve! of, and i forgot to include the postseason. hee. i'll take a look at what i've done here. i'm not sure my next tabulation won't raise equally many problems...

ditto.

and here's another chart that combines win shares and wins above replacement, averaged together, sorta. i divided win shares by three, and then averaged that with WARP3, and ranked based on that average. feel free to ignore it if you like - its more for informational purposes than anything. rank player WARP3 WS/3 30 Beltran 11.8 12.7 29 Reyes 10.2 10.7 28 Wright 7.2 9.7 27 Glavine 6.2 8.0 26 Delgado 6.8 5.3 25 Martinez 4.9 5.7 24 Ohernandez 6.5 4.0 23 Trachsel 5.6 4.3 22 Valentin 4.6 4.7 21 Maine 3.8 2.7 20 Oliver 3.3 2.7 19 LoDuca 3.3 2.0 18 Chavez 2.8 2.3 17 Floyd 2.1 3.0 16 Wagner 3 2.0 15 Nady 2.2 2.7 14 Heilman 2.5 2.0 13 Feliciano 2.8 1.7 12 Bannister 2.4 2.0 11 Soler 2.5 1.7 10 Sanchez 1.7 1.0 9 Bradford 1.6 1.0 8 Perez 1.4 0.7 7 Woodward 1 1.0 6 Milledge 0.5 1.3 5 Bell 0.6 1.0 4 Williams 0.7 0.7 3 Rhernandez 0.5 0.7 2 Castro 0.5 0.3 1 Ring 0.5 0.3

here's my list, based on my own schaeffer voting: 30 Beltran 29 Reyes 28 Wright 27 Glavine 26 Delgado 25 Martinez 24 Ohernandez 23 Trachsel 22 Valentin 21 Maine 20 Oliver 19 LoDuca 18 Chavez 17 Floyd 16 Wagner 15 Nady 14 Heilman 13 Feliciano 12 Bannister 11 Soler 10 Sanchez 9 Bradford 8 Perez 7 Woodward 6 Milledge 5 Bell 4 Williams 3 Rhernandez 2 Castro 1 Ring