Need New Scoring System

[Jss0062]

One thing I will note is that the scoring from last year didn't include fielding for pitchers.  This is something that should be included for the upcoming season without needing to overhaul the entire system this year.  I think we all pay pitchers to pitch and field their position and position players to hit and field their position.  For starters it will add 4-6 points to their season total.

Chris will 4.5 points for a save and 3 for a hold work for you?  That way a save is 50% more important than a hold and the overall value of those two highly team and opportunity dependent stats are diminished somewhat.

[chrisetc21]

I agree with the fielding. 

I don't know what the right ratio would be.  My first thought was if holds are 4 points then saves might be 7 or so, something close to that?  That was my first thought.  7 would be 75% more which might be a bit high but I think a closer like Kimbrel should be in the top 25 pitchers or so.  I mean take the 25th best starting pitcher, would you rather have that or the best closer in baseball?  I don't know if 7 points would quite get him in the top 25 but these are the point ratios, saves to holds.

7 points for saves is 75% higher than 4 points for holds.
6.5 points for saves is 62.5% higher than 4 points for holds.
6 points for saves is 50% higher than 4 points for holds. 

And in the future if there is a more established trend showing the closer role being devalued then we can adjust the ratio.

[Lindner]

All this discussion to change the value of a save/hold by a point of two? Haha, alright.  I'm good with any of the following proposed point systems for Saves/Holds.  I see what you're saying.  I don't really agree, but I don't know if there is necessarily a right or wrong answer in this situation.

[Jss0062]

I put together a spreadsheet with 4 different scoring comparisons using last season's point totals.  The first uses last seasons scoring system with the addition of defense for pitchers.  The second is the Fangraphs system Nick posted with a slight adjustment in the value of a save and last year's AFB defensive numbers.  The third is last year's AFB scoring system with the defense replaced by the system I posted back in October.  The forth is a combination of Fangraphs scoring and my defensive system.   Please give it a look over.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Avfh6DsIXtJ1dE4tOTRTM21FdE9jVnBWd1dBaS11Y2c&usp=sharing

[Lindner]

I would vote for the 4th option.  I wouldn't consider the 1st and the 3rd options because it just doesn't seem right to use a scoring system that had Trout outside of the top 10 last season.

[Maydab23]

I would vote 4th option as well.

[sommersd]

I would vote for the 4th option.  I wouldn't consider the 1st and the 3rd options because it just doesn't seem right to use a scoring system that had Trout outside of the top 10 last season.

[Orange Country]

I like the 4th option as well. This old scoring system looking at it is so archaic.

I think it's great for this league to change the scoring system.

[Fitzy1962]

I suspect that people are voting based on the players on their own roster, and how it woulkd positively affect their players, rather than what's good for the league.

Changing the scoring system in a league this deep, which is three years old going on four, seems like cheating to me. In a league this deep, you don't change the rules after 3 years of play.

Every move, every draft-pick, every trade and contract has been based on the scoring system we have used since the inception of the league. 

Considering the fact that chris will no longer run the league, I would say that changing the scoring system, now would be a disaster.

[seanrmgallagher]

I understand the concern. My problem is that having a poor scoring system discourages new members and makes the league worse as a whole. Only 1 of the 14 voters chose to keep the previous scoring system. I am in the same boat and made several moves because of the scoring system. I think it is better to have a more accurate scoring system in place though. If there was more objection to the switch over I would agree to the argument.