metsmarathon

i think i've let my title as earl grow fallow. in lieu of being reinstated earl, i wouldnt mind taking on the position of forum pet. i mean, as long as there's a good benefits package that includes some sweet business cards.

i like hard hats and i cannot lie you other met fans can't deny...

whew! i had assumed he was just dead or something! of course, he comes back and closes out games i hadn't yet voted on. the bastid...

gonzalez 3 valentin 3 beltran 2 loduca 1 wagner 1

delgado 4 wagner 2 loduca 1 wright 1 floyd 1 chavez 1

wow. you're just all over the place, aren't you?

i'm charlie neal.

="Elster88"]Look, I don't want to tell anyone to vote. Saying "I think a person should choose how to vote for himself" is a little like saying "I think a person should choose how to write his own posts". (In other words, no shit.) But people should have some sort of justification for why they are voting, otherwise, what's the point of doing this? And if I want to challenge that justification, that's my right. It's called discussion and debate. true enough. on my absolute scale, everyone got the following: trachsel 2.00 castro 1.75 matsui 1.25 beltran 0.75 delgado 0.50 wright 0.50 nady -0.30 reyes -0.30 how i award these points is tricky, and maybe i'll hafta go in and look at how i award points for a loss (right now a loss is worth -3 points. i'm thinking of looking at what happens if i make that -5 points... so long as it doesnt screw things up too much maybe i will... for comparison, a win is worth only 1 point, tho the innings pitched, strikeouts, etc that a pitcher did to get that win earn him more.) what i do is then look at the top six performers in a game, and if their total is greater than 10 points, i scale them down to fit. if not, they remain absolute, as in tonight, where the total added up to 6.75 points. the points for these six performers then gets rounded up or down, to the nearest whole number, and often the top performer will get a bonus point, but not tonight. i try to award points to four or at most five. rarely six. and adjust the points around to match ten, and appear fair. this very much overly complicated, and impossible to automate, system has yielded votes in conventional wins that are often exactly the same as those which other voters give out, or are at least very much in line with the consensus. and therefore, i consider hte overall methodology to be sound, and not necessary to abandon it in a loss, or an awkward game like last night. that's how loduca got his 2 points. 1 hit * 0.25 + 1 bb * 0.59 + 2 tb * 0.50 = 1.75 points. rounded up = 2 points. by comparison... trachsel's 2 points came as follows: 4 ip * 2.00 - 6 hits * 0.25 - 2 R * 0.50 - 2 ER * 0.50 - 2 BB * 0.25 + 3 SO * 0.50 - 1 Hr * 0.50 - 1 Loss * 3.00 = 2.00 points. of course, i did go out on a limb and award an effort point for Nady. tough luck on that play. he coulda had over 4 points on the double with three RBI. a five point swing on the nose of mr. roward, on account of the men lob. well, that should just about kill off anybody every questioning my point totals. like you'd ever want to see me walk through that crap again!

see, if i choose to award ten points for each and every game, i think that's my right as a schaeffer voter. the total of my points that i give out should not be subject to scrutiny, however i agree that the distribution of those points should be subject to debate and question. a walk and a double has no absolute value, no theoretical maximum value and no theoretical minimum, either. it is a relative scale. relative to the other players in the game, i chose to award two points (out of 6 or so total) for this performance. if others had performed better than they had, they would have made a case for them deserving higher point totals, and therefore would take away some points for loduca. if we had a game where everybody in the lineup went 0-5, the pitchers all pitched to a 9.00 ERA, but one guy squeaked out a meager hit, then i could conceiveably award him 6 points as the top performer in a game. in any other game, that performance would merit fewer points. but its a relative measure much the same as in a game where the pitcher throws a 1-hitter, and three guys go 4-5 with a homer and double apiece, and a few RBI, and another guy goes 4-4, with a walk, 4 runs scored and three stolen bases in cluding two of home. each of those guys would get maybe two points apiece, or maybe the pitcher would get 6 and the rest would get one each? how does that make sense, absent a relativistic environment? either way, somebody's gonna get screwed for having their good performance in the same game as somebody else. so you live with it, or throw out the whole ten point max thing. if only one guy doesnt completely suck in a game, why isnt that worth some exra schaeffer love?

Trachsel 2 Castro 2 Matsui 1 Nady 1 Beltran 1

Glavine 5 loduca 2 reyes 2 beltran 1

teh day they start making blue-and-orange kool aid that doesn't just turn brown when you mix it will be the happiest day of my life. (as i type this i must admit that it is possible to make blue and orange kool aid. one must only take blue kool aid, and orange kool aid, maintain them at distinctly different temperatures, and very slowly and carefully introduce one to the other, with a minimum of agitation. the less dense, therefore hotter kool aid mixture would stay at the top of your glass while the colder kool aid would stay at the bottom. its a fun science class trick. i'm not sure if the kool aid would make this easier or harder to do, but surely would make it worth while. i am such a nerd.)

="Bret Sabermetric"]="metsmarathon"]and so, sal, what do you resolve that we as met fans should do? I would "accept certain things as more likely to be true, and other things to be more likely to be false, " but I would drectly question why those beliefs applyb, and not just base them "on our own predispositions and experiences," otherwise known as biases and prejudices. just so long as we're all aware that we all have biases and prejudices.

i'll bet mike piazza alreday has one... great idea, too. pink can be a manly color too.

and so, sal, what do you resolve that we as met fans should do? completly ignore anything that ever comes from omar's mouth? treat it all as gospel? or treat it all as the exact opposite of the truth? i mean, surely, it must be one of these options, no? and if we simply ignore everything the organization says, then don't we just become dweebs? if we treat it all as gospel, aren't we just kidding ourselves? and is we treat it all as the opposite of gospel, aren't we doing teh exact same thing? or do we just go on, continue to act like humans do, and accept certain things as more likely to be true, and other things to be more likely to be false, based on our own predispositions and experiences?

of course, while the talent pool was thinned by the exclusion of blacks and the lack of inclusion of latin americans, it was also greatly condensed by the paucity of teams in the leagues at the time. does it even itself out? i dunno, but it does restore some of the comparative balance. if modern hitters are getting fat off the soft middle relief underbelly, then the opposite was true pre-expansion.

if its a waste of time, then why do we care wether we think they're telling the truth, lying, spinning, or later changing their minds?

Martinez 5 Delgado 2 Nady 2 Floyd 1

rats! never got to this one! my first missed schaeffer vote! gotta catch up on the rest tonite...

i think we may have an easier time filling in heilman's bullpen slot than we will filling in zambrano's rotation slot. also, and i know these things shouldn't really enter into the equation, but since they are all humans out there, it would be awfully unfair to heilman to have a season-long spot open up in the rotation and bring up some minor leaguer to fill it, instead of handing it to heilman, who i would think should have some reason to expect to have earned the opportunity. i think the best bet would be to bring up heath bell to fill in the bullpen while heilman gets the promotion to zambrano's spot in the rotation. an other option might be to bring soler into the pen to see what he can do against major leaguers.

i'm willing to accept on face value that vz was trying to tough out the pain of a fraying tendon to try to quiet media and fan criticism, and maybe make better of his reputation, and thereby justify the trade that gothim here. people play through pain for all kinds of stupid reasons, self- and team-detrimental as they often can be. doctors, in that case, can only sit back and watch. that the mets would have been wise to cut bait already is beside this particular point.

Martinez 3 Delgado 2 Chavez 3 Bradford 1 Heilman 1

my reading comprehension abilities slipped, and i said yes when i thought it meant keeping the atlanta lineup (not sure why i thought yes meant that, but go with me here...) the more i though t about it, i started thinking more about rowand, utley and howard, and less about jones and jones. and now, i concur with my brainfart, and indeed i would trade atlanta's lineup for philly's. i wonder which pitching staff i'd use...

delgado 2 nady 1 zambrano 4 sanchez 1 wagner 2

reyes 2 beltran 3 floyd 1 chavez 3 julio 1