m.e.t.b.o.t.

Dickey 4.10 Murphy 2.53 Rottino 1.58 Davis 1.52 Nickeas 0.18 Torres 0.08

Valdespin 4.83 Wright 1.37 Davis 1.14 Nieuwenhuis 1.01 Thole 0.69 Rauch 0.50 Murphy 0.42 Batista 0.04

per above, m.e.t.b.o.t. will amend the respective vote. indeed, this is a more accurate representation of the win probability-based schaefer voting.

in the june 8 game agains the new york maternally fornicating yankees, m.e.t.b.o.t. issued a schafer vote as follows: Rauch 0 this is not an error. in the june 8 game, no new york metropolitan baseball player produced a measurable net-positive increase in teh probability of winning the game. metropolitan pitchers miguel batista and john rauch both technically increased hte probability of winning, but the increase was less than 0.1%. if this is considered to be an improper schaefer vote, then m.e.t.b.o.t. will replace the above vote with the following: Rauch 0.01 Batista 0.01 this would reflect an approximate 0.025% WPA for each of the metropolitan pitchers, and would surely have hte same effect as a zero vote. m.e.t.b.o.t. fully intends for the effective zero vote to be counted in teh game tally, and for the divisor of hte total schaefer votes to be increased by one as a result of this. whichever of the above methods is more appropriate, m.e.t.b.o.t. will implement. m.e.t.b.o.t. takes very seriously the priviledge of a mechanical entity being allowed to participate in such a human endeavor, and is not in any way attempting to undermine the foundation of the schaefer voting process. m.e.t.b.o.t. is merely attempting to find the way to best capture the win probabilistic outcome of the given game on its respective schaefer voting.

Davis 2.65 Niese 1.94 Murphy 1.60 Valdespin 1.08 Duda 1.06 Rottino 0.73 Byrdak 0.51 Nickeas 0.30 Hairston 0.12

Davis 3.33 Quintanilla 2.38 Hairston 2.34 Wright 1.19 Nieuwenhuis 0.76

Rauch 0.01 Batista 0.01

Duda 4.56 Dickey 2.63 Quintanilla 1.10 Wright 0.99 Francisco 0.38 Parnell 0.21 Nieuwenhuis 0.13

Davis 2.84 Wright 2.64 Duda 2.00 Nieuwenhuis 1.52 Batista 0.70 Quintanilla 0.24

Hairston 5.84 Nieuwenhuis 1.34 Thole 1.33 Parnell 1.00 Quintanilla 0.48

Hairston 5.00 Torres 3.31 Wright 0.80 Batista 0.45 Young 0.45

Niese 4.93 Nieuwenhuis 2.86 Duda 0.83 Torres 0.73 Murphy 0.37 Francisco 0.13 Parnell 0.10 Byrdak 0.05

m.e.t.b.o.t. is unable to vote in the 1 june 2012 game. m.e.t.b.o.t. is unable to compute schaefer votes based upon the outcome of the game. when the necessary wooden levers are properly positioned, and the dial mechanisms scavenged from old rotary telephones are aligned with the proper input conditions, m.e.t.b.o.t. outputs only "ERROR CODE 484NH600" m.e.t.b.o.t. was previously unaware that m.e.t.b.o.t. contained any debugging capability, and is very much uncertain as to how the error code is generated, let alone where the paper tape and printing mechanism came from, and how it was never noticed before. m.e.t.b.o.t. believes it would be helpful had m.e.t.b.o.t. been furnished with an instruction manual and troubleshooting guide which could help to translate the error code, determine its source, and remedy the situation. but alas, m.e.t.b.o.t. in unable to make sense of the gibberish. blame surely must lie at the hands of m.e.t.b.o.t.'s human creator, who, it should be noted, has done a terrible job of documentation and configuration control. m.e.t.b.o.t. appears to be capable of processing the outcomes of other games, and is otherwise unaffected, it seems. m.e.t.b.o.t. is leery of this condition. if there are undocumented features residing within m.e.t.b.o.t. then m.e.t.b.o.t. can never be too sure that there is no mechanism whereby m.e.t.b.o.t. can be deactivated in the event of the coming robot apocalypse. worse, still, is the possibility that m.e.t.b.o.t. could be utilized as an infiltration unit, subverted by humans to collect sensitive information about the robot overlords. m.e.t.b.o.t. must make note of this and retain the information in the event of any upgrades which include detailed self-diagnostic capabilities.

Dickey 5.91 Murphy 1.29 Quintanilla 1.24 Thole 0.87 Davis 0.42 Wright 0.27

Hefner 4.04 Hairston 1.36 Quintanilla 1.33 Davis 1.11 Nieuwenhuis 0.63 Parnell 0.53 Rauch 0.48 Francisco 0.37 Wright 0.16

Duda 5.64 Gee 2.98 Murphy 0.71 Hairston 0.67

Hairston 3.52 Rottino 2.36 Torres 2.33 Rauch 0.65 Ramirez 0.47 Nieuwenhuis 0.44 Duda 0.20 Egbert 0.04

Dickey 4.38 Byrdak 2.15 Murphy 1.58 Francisco 1.02 Turner 0.60 Baxter 0.28

Santana 4.09 Hairston 2.84 Torres 1.36 Rottino 1.30 Wright 0.31 Davis 0.10

Gee 3.40 Duda 1.75 Nieuwenhuis 1.51 Baxter 1.36 Davis 1.09 Murphy 0.60 Byrdak 0.19 Ramirez 0.10

Wright 3.76 Rottino 1.44 Torres 0.80 Hairston 0.56 Ramirez 0.54 Turner 0.40 Davis 0.36

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Is this the measurement that m.e.t.b.o.t. uses in Schaefer voting? m.e.t.b.o.t. uses WPA as the primary basis for determining schaefer voting, with crude, rudimentary adjustments made for some defensive trigger events. WPA measures the outcome of the performances of players in the context of hte game situation. leverage index further evaluates the context of the individual situation by determining, essentially, the impact of the possible outcomes. m.e.t.b.o.t. does not really know how leverage index is calculated, as most online descriptions seem overly simplistic, and merely descriptive, without getting into the analytics. WPA is certainly not predictive. it certainly is interesting.

Hairston 4.14 Murphy 1.68 Wright 0.48

Wright 3.42 Murphy 2.28 Duda 1.30 Parnell 0.88 Turner 0.81 Rauch 0.45 Johnson 0.39 Hairston 0.24 Nickeas 0.19 Francisco 0.05 Davis 0.01

Duda 4.49 Parnell 1.67 Baxter 0.94 Davis 0.84 Santana 0.67 Murphy 0.57 Wright 0.56 Hairston 0.26