ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball => MLB Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Archives => Topic started by: yahoolando on October 07, 2013, 07:42:39 PM
-
We need to change the scoring in this league.
I currently haven't had a chance to analyse it but it makes zero sense to me in regards to the value of certain players.
I want to eliminate any defence scoring as we don't draft players based on defence and never will.
I would like to change it to something like the following but not until the extension period is over so we all have the same variables for the extensions.
This is posted for discussion purposes and by no means is this written in stone but I think something needs to change and I am sure a few of you do as well.
Hitting
Hits (H) 1
Strikeout (SO) -2
Home Runs (HR) 2
Runs Batted In (RBI) 2
Runs Scored (R) 2
Stolen Bases (SB) 1.5
Caught Stealing (CS) -1.5
Walks (BB) 2
Total Bases (TB) 1.5
Grounded Into Double Play (GIDP) -2
Pitching
Blown Saves (BS) -10
Earned Runs Allowed (ER) -3
Hits Allowed (H) -1
Holds (Hld) 5
Quality Starts (QS) 5
Saves (Sv) 10
Strikeouts (K) 3
Walks Allowed (BB) -1.5
Wins (W) 10
Losses (L) -5
Shutout (ShO) 5
In our league Victor Martinez was the 9th ranked Catcher because he only produced 103 Put-outs. But hit .301 with 14 HR and 83 RBI in 159 games. This is absurd.
2013 Catcher Ranks (AFB)
FP PPG Name
655.4 4.82 Yadier Molina
648.6 4.38 Buster Posey
639.6 4.35 Jonathan Lucroy
637.2 4.14 Carlos Santana
601.8 4.07 Matt Wieters
596.6 4.29 Mike Napoli
576.6 4.18 Salvador Perez
532.4 3.97 AJ Pierzynski
516.2 3.25 Victor Martinez
489.8 4.05 Jarrod Saltalamacchia
With my new stats Martinez would be the top ranked catcher.
2013 Catcher Ranks - new scoring layout
FP PPG Name
844.8 5.31 Victor Martinez
810.9 5.27 Carlos Sanatana
768.8 5.65 Yadier Molina
761.4 5.18 Jonathan Lucroy
758.4 5.12 Buster Posey
649.0 4.39 Matt Wieters
642.5 4.66 Salvador Perez
632.4 5.60 Joe Mauer
619.9 4.46 Mike Napoli
587.4 4.85 Wilin Rosario
In our league the way it is Yadier Molina has more PPG at 4.82 than Mike Trout at 4.51 or Andrew McCutcheon at 3.95 PPG!
With the new scoring Trout produces 7.17 PPG and McCutcheon 6.3 PPG.
Lets make the scoring based on how we feel fantasy players should be valued. Depth is one thing. But quality should rank ahead of quantity more often that not!
-
I totally agree that the scoring for this league is screwed up. First basemen/Catchers become way more valuable comparatively. That being said, this league has existed for a while, and I have personally made a lot of moves based on the scoring system as is. For instance, I would not have traded for Ike Davis and John Jaso or pushed to sign James Loney and Carlos Ruiz last year. So, changing the rules would hurt my team as it is set up pretty significantly.
That being said, while I do not want the scoring to change, I like the changes to the offense. I disagree that fielding shouldn't be incorporated though. The previous system was obviously flawed, but fielding is a huge part of evaluating players- I would suggest trying to incorporate fielding in a point system the way that WAR tries to use it. There are fantasy leagues that use a point system like that. Also, I think that the previous point system for pitching was not bad for our league. It may have overvalued closers/set-up men compared to real-life value, but it seemed fair when you compared player's performance.
-
Having examined the scoring system, I agree that a revamp of it might be nice, and I would be in favor of removing defense entirely, due to the weight it places on particular positions. However, I can't understand the idea of giving two points for a homer, but losing 10 for a blown save. With the proposed scoring system, pitchers are valued almost too heavily, however, the metrics used are good at giving more value to depth than talent.
-
The idea behind the league has been to be close to what Major league baseball is. Defense is apart of that. Using V-Mart as an example is not a good one. He barely played the field and is more of a DH. He will not even qualify as a catcher. Actually he will only qualify as UT. He did not have enough to qualify at catcher nor at 1st. He should be behind Yadier, Buster and others. You have Napoli listed there as well and he will not qualify at Catcher either. I think the scoring system should stay as is.
-
I agree that the scoring should be changed, I sent Lando a message about this a while back. However, I do agree that defense should play a role. I prefer more of a WAR scoring system. One in which players who are great defensively get credit for that. That way you can't just load up on DH's and horrible fielders that just put up offensive numbers. That's not realistic.
One other problem I see if position eligibility. There are players eligible for all kinds of positions that they rarely if ever play.
-
I think everybody is making some good points. I agree that it is unfortunate that owners who have been around a while have built their teams around this scoring system and might be adversely affected if it is changed. I also agree with Nicole that if this league is founded on the principle of mirroring MLB it should incorporate defense and V-Mart does not deserve to be the best C nor even a top 5 catcher. While scoring the quality of defense would be difficult in AFB, defense does deserve to be counted for something, if nothing else just to detract value from DH types who obviously don't provide the same value to their MLB teams as players who play the field.
That said there are some clear flaws in scoring that must be addressed in my opinion. Any league that values Anthony Rizzo (719.2) more than Mike Trout (708.8) is clearly flawed. In an effort to be non-biased (as the Angels GM) there is no way Mark Trumbo (643) should be valued more than Andrew McCutchen (619.4).
As a newbie to the league and combing through the stats and rankings it seems everything works pretty well in the scoring except for PO. The fact that 15 out of the 20 best position players are 1B eligible while only 1 primarily plays OF goes to show that it is unrealistic. While I agree with Nicole that the Catchers within themselves are already ranked appropriately because it most closely resembles MLB value it would be hypocritical to not do something about the PO problem.
As far as fixes to the system my recommendation would be to decrease PO from 0.2 to 0.1
This would help decrease the wide advantage 1B have over others (and to a lesser extent C).
The rankings of the 4 players I mentioned earlier would change to:
Trout 672.9
Rizzo 590.2
McCutchen 587.3
Trumbo 546.5
While I still think McCutchen should be more valuable than Rizzo it at least addresses the problem and makes the league more realistic as far as position player value.
It is unfortunate that rules would change after people built clubs according to these rules but if this league is to be what it says it is it must make a change to more closely resemble position player value. As it stands now it is very skewed and unrealistic. In my opinion the change should happen now at the beginning of the offseason.
Sorry that my first post ran so long.
Thanks,
Shane
-
These are my suggestions.
Offense
A single is equal to a walk. For Lando's suggestion above a walk would need to equal 2.5 points.
No bonus points for a HR, in the current system a HR is worth 8 points (H, R, 2RBI, 4 TB) in the above suggestion it would be worth 13 (H, 2 HR,2RBI, 2 R, 6 TB) not counting the RBIs
Runs and RBIs 1 point each, these are highly dependent on the team in front of and behind the player in the lineup.
Minimal K penalty if any, after all it is just another out. I would suggest -.25 points per out as the league average in 2013 was .253 batting average. DP would count as 2.
I like total bases being worth 1.5 as it rewards power
Net Steals +1.5, extra bases taken +1, This rewards baserunning and makes the speedy guys be valued closer to the power guys
Defense
Assists .3, Putouts .1 This eliminates the big advantage 1B and C get by being the primary out makers. Errors = -2, This some what equalizes the error difference between infielders and outfielders
Pitching
IP = 3
Wins +3, Losses -3, These are very team dependent statistics.
Holds and Saves are equal at +2, Blown Saves -3 again team dependent stats.
walks allowed -1, TB allowed x -1 Can't score if they can't get on base
Earned Runs Allowed -1
Ks +1
A bonus of +3 for a High Quality Start (7IP <3ER)
A bonus of +3 for a complete game, +5 for a shutout
Fantasy Baseball is about the the individual players, so the individual stats should be focused on the stats that takes the team around the player to also be good should be lowered in value.
-
Some good ideas for sure but, the teams that have built their teams have built them in a league where there only about 10 owners that pay attention. I had a good team too but feel things need to change.
Sure defense is important in the real world but we aren't making a trade in fantasy because a guy plays great defense. PO don't resemble good defense. Mccutcheon plays great defense but isn't rewarded for it as he is OF. The defensive stats are joke to me.
POs for a catcher doesn't mean he is a great defensive catcher it just means the pitchers get a lot of Ks. Prime example if you use scapegoat Vmart once again. In 2010 he ranked 4th in the league for Catchers and Putouts. We all know why.
-
What is FanTrax's capabilities in terms of defensive stats? Do they have any of these?
Defensive WAR
Range Factor
Runs Saved
-
What is FanTrax's capabilities in terms of defensive stats? Do they have any of these?
Defensive WAR
Range Factor
Runs Saved
No they don't. Scoring can be different per position though. But hat being said an OF assist happens once a week maybe twice. Why should this stat impact the scoring when I am not drafting a defensive OF.
-
No they don't. Scoring can be different per position though. But hat being said an OF assist happens once a week maybe twice. Why should this stat impact the scoring when I am not drafting a defensive OF.
Maybe you can give OF's much higher point values on assists. So if there's one outfield assist for every fifteen infield assists, you rate one fifteen times higher than the other. Same thing for put outs, if there are two infield put outs for every outfield put out then reflect that in the scoring. One thing we can certainly do is give negative points for errors.
My big issue with the defense is the DH. A DH that has the same offensive stats as a position player isn't as valuable as that position player and that's a big reason why the defensive stats need to be in there somewhere.
-
Range factor is no good, it is simply a number based on assists and putouts per inning played. It still greatly favors 1B and C.
Runs saved and dWAR are both really a cumulative statistic.
It may just be as easy as a penalty for errors.
-
Errors are already there. Scoring as it is now is below.
Offense
Total Bases: 1
Runs Scored 1
RBI’s: 2
Net Stolen Bases: 1
Strikeout: – 1
Sacrifice: 1
Fielding
Errors: -1
Put Outs: 0.2
Assists: 0.2
Pitching
Innings Pitched: 3
Hits Allowed: -1
Saves: 6
Blown Saves: -3
Holds: 6
Wins: 12
Losses: -5
Earned Runs: -2
Walks Allowed: -1
Strikeouts: 1
-
Franchise GM has tried to come up with a scoring system based on value, not sure how it has worked out for them but its interesting: http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=10496.0
-
Franchise GM has tried to come up with a scoring system based on value, not sure how it has worked out for them but its interesting: http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=10496.0
Curious what a top 20 player points leaderboard would look like with hitters and pitchers mixed in on that type of scoring. Anyone in that league?
-
That is a big revamp. Something like that would have to be implemented in the offseason 2014. But good thoughts.
-
It may just be as easy as a penalty for errors.
By this I meant just removing assists and putouts from the current system.
-
By this I meant just removing assists and putouts from the current system.
Ahh....sorry bout that. Gotcha. I think Assists are better stat than Putouts. Especially if we make OF assists more valuable per assist then say a SS. PO for a 1B is a waste of time IMO.
-
Hitters at end of 2013 season for FGM:
1. Mike Trout
2. Miguel Cabrera
3. Joey Votto
4. Chris Davis
5. Paul Goldschmidt
6. Shin Soo-Choo
7. Matt Carpenter
8. Andrew McCutchen
9. Robinson Cano
10. Freddie Freeman
11. Josh Donaldson
12. Adrian Beltre
13. Jayson Werth
14. Evan Longoria
15. Troy Tulowitzki
16. Jason Kipnis
17. Dustin Pedroia
18. Michael Cuddyer
19. Carlos Santana
20. Prince Fielder
Pitchers:
1. Clayton Kershaw
2. Adam Wainwright
3. Cliff Lee
4. Yu Darvish
5. Max Scherzer
6. Chris Sale
7. Felix Hernandez
8. Hisashi Iwakuma
9. A.J. Burnett
10. Cole Hamels
11. Matt Harvey
12. Madison Bumgarner
13. James Shields
14. Justin Verlander
15. Homer Bailey
16. Mat Latos
17. Anibal Sanchez
18. Justin Masterson
19. Jordan Zimmerman
20. Jedd Samardzija
-
Those lists look really good except it looks like closers and relievers in general would be incredibly devalued.
-
I don't hate it, but pitchers are not valued enough for me. Also, being top heavy is really beneficial offensively. Trout was worth 2 Buster Poseys and 2.5 Kershaws if I am correct in my calculations, and 4 Kimbrels.
-
Ahh....sorry bout that. Gotcha. I think Assists are better stat than Putouts. Especially if we make OF assists more valuable per assist then say a SS. PO for a 1B is a waste of time IMO.
Agreed, even assists are very situational. The Tigers set a record for strikeouts by their staff so by default the defensive players got less opportunities for assists. OF assists are largely dependent on players on base, 3rd base coach tendencies, outs, and score among others. Even the advanced defensive formulas are inconsistent. Matt Dominguez is an example, great defender to the naked eye, UZR hated him, Runs Saved loved him.
No really good SIMPLE answers
-
The scoring system in this league values hitting over pitching pretty good. You would want to build a hitting lineup more so than a staff.
-
I think I'd prefer a more evened out system. Clayton Kershaw and Mike Trout should be fairly equal in value.
-
Why not just tweak the assists for those two positions? Make putouts for 1st baseman half of that of other positions? To eliminate defense altogether, as one person suggested would make this league too much like ESPN and those other websites.
I love that defense counts, as it does in real baseball. You could even create custom scoring for each position. Basically all scoring is depends on several factors which cannot be controlled or calculated.
And it dramatically change the value of so many players and contracts it would be just like starting from scratch all over again.
-
I would prefer to leave it as is.
-
We will leave it as is....but we should really look into changing some of the defensive points per position. Like PO for 1B should be lower. Assists for OF should be higher.
Good points by all involved though.
-
Later today I am planning on doing a 10 year statistical analysis of where putouts and assists come from and normalizing to position. I will post results here
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
Later today I am planning on doing a 10 year statistical analysis of where putouts and assists come from and normalizing to position. I will post results here
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Sounds great.
-
Lando,
Where did you get him from???
Wow, what an addition to the league. A Taco Bell 12-pack for you.
:taco: :taco: :taco: :taco: :taco: :taco:
:taco: :taco: :taco: :taco: :taco: :taco:
-
I know. We have some great new GMs. Looking forward to a more competitive league.
-
Those lists look really good except it looks like closers and relievers in general would be incredibly devalued.
Just like real life!
If the defense is only Errors: -1,Put Outs: 0.2 and Assists: 0.2 then I don't see a huge deal with it.
What is the current affect of PO and Assists? Is it placing higher value on SS and 1B?
-
Just like real life!
If the defense is only Errors: -1,Put Outs: 0.2 and Assists: 0.2 then I don't see a huge deal with it.
What is the current affect of PO and Assists? Is it placing higher value on SS and 1B?
1B and Catchers. Needs slight adjustment per position
-
Here are the raw numbers of putouts and assists for seasons 2009-2013.
I couldn't find by position stats for the other five years, 5 seasons does give a solid sample size.
Recommendations will follow in a separate post.
There were 2.67 times as many putouts as assists
Position Assists % Putout %
Pitcher 11.2% 2.0%
Catcher 5.3% 25.8%
First 6.6% 31.8%
Second 28.2% 7.0%
Third 18.8% 2.5%
Short 28.3% 5.5%
Left 0.6% 7.0%
Center 0.5% 9.4%
Right 0.6% 7.4%
-
Here are the raw numbers of putouts and assists for seasons 2009-2013.
I couldn't find by position stats for the other five years, 5 seasons does give a solid sample size.
Recommendations will follow in a separate post.
There were 2.67 times as many putouts as assists
Position Assists % Putout %
Pitcher 11.2% 2.0%
Catcher 5.3% 25.8%
First 6.6% 31.8%
Second 28.2% 7.0%
Third 18.8% 2.5%
Short 28.3% 5.5%
Left 0.6% 7.0%
Center 0.5% 9.4%
Right 0.6% 7.4%
Nice work Jeremy! Assists translates into more chance of error as there are two things you need to do, catch and throw whereas a putout is only one.
This is good stuff. We will definitely update this for next season somehow.
-
Here are my recommendations to make assists and putouts equal and to normalize for position.
First to equalize assists to putouts you would need to multiply .2 by 2.67 this gives you .534.
Theoretically every position would get 11.1% of the chances, to normalize this to position you divide 11.1 by the assist and putout percentage. When you do this you get with the pitchers as an example the assist ratio is 1.00 and putout ratio is 5.54 (numbers are rounded to 2 decimal points for final numbers only). The next step is to multiply the ratio to the points per, again for pitchers this would give you .53 points per assist and 1.11 per putout. To check you multiply the points per by the total and you come up with an equal amount of points available for all positions for both assists and putouts.
So here goes. PPA = Points per assist PPP = Points per putout
Position PPA PPP
Pitcher .531 1.109
Catcher 1.124 0.086
First Base 0.903 0.070
Second Base 0.210 0.316
Third Base 0.316 0.890
Shortstop 0.209 0.405
Left Field 10.463 0.317
Center Field 12.306 0.235
Right Field 9.500 0.299
-
I think Assists should be worth slightly more than putouts as catching a ball compared with catching at throwing multiplies the chance of error by double.
Or maybe we normalize the assists like you have shown and then lessen the putouts by a certain percentage?
Nice work!
-
I think Assists should be worth slightly more than putouts as catching a ball compared with catching at throwing multiplies the chance of error by double.
Or maybe we normalize the assists like you have shown and then lessen the putouts by a certain percentage?
Nice work!
I view them as equal. A good defensive first baseman saves a lot of errors from the other infielders with his ability to make difficult picks, in those cases the putout is often the more difficult part of that play, same goes for catchers who are above average at catching foul tip 3rd strikes. This goes for outfielders too, the guys who get better reads on balls and have better speed catch more balls than those who don't thus giving them more putouts and less chance of throwing out someone trying to stretch a single into a double. Most above average fielders will get to more balls thus giving them more chances for either putouts or assists.
-
I view them as equal. A good defensive first baseman saves a lot of errors from the other infielders with his ability to make difficult picks, in those cases the putout is often the more difficult part of that play, same goes for catchers who are above average at catching foul tip 3rd strikes. This goes for outfielders too, the guys who get better reads on balls and have better speed catch more balls than those who don't thus giving them more putouts and less chance of throwing out someone trying to stretch a single into a double. Most above average fielders will get to more balls thus giving them more chances for either putouts or assists.
Sure picks are great and so are foul tips but how many of those plays are way too easy? I played community college ball and there is a lot to be said for a great defensive 1B for sure. But making the throw and the fielding play on an assist is worth more in my books. Just my 2 cents. Chances double for an error. That is why best athletes play up the middle for great defence.
-
Sure picks are great and so are foul tips but how many of those plays are way too easy? I played community college ball and there is a lot to be said for a great defensive 1B for sure. But making the throw and the fielding play on an assist is worth more in my books. Just my 2 cents. Chances double for an error. That is why best athletes play up the middle for great defence.
I just don't see how it can be done. How would we figure the amount to lower it by? Trying to figure how much more an assist is worth is completely arbitrary. The system I outlined over the last five years averaged nearly 2892 points per position for each assists and putouts. Even a 10% decrease would not make much of a difference in a weekly league like this one. Granted there are more chances for an error, but most errors occur on routine plays that should be easy or by making a throw that shouldn't have been made. An error is only charged when an ordinary play is botched. Plays made deep in the hole where the throw is off line or a charging 3rd basemen who can't bare hand a slow roller are not charged an error. This is why the average points for an assist in my proposed system is 2.67 times the amount of an average putout.
-
Fair enough. Great job Jeremy. Have a good weekend. Ciao.
-
I Started running numbers with the numbers I proposed, they needed some work. Outfielders got overvalued with assists, first base and catcher also needed some work, shortstop was still low.
This lead me to look into errors. I took errors per assist and divided it by the assist ratio from the earlier numbers. This gives an error penalty that works each position with higher error positions such as 3B and SS with lower penalties and the low error outfield positions with higher penalties.
The numbers a lot better but didn't reflect dWAR so I added in postion bonuses to the assist numbers and error numbers.
The numbers from earlier are updated to this
No Change to the PPP number for any positions
No Change to PPA for
Pitchers
Left Field
Right Field
Catchers
First base PPA = 0.677
Second base PPA = 0.263
Third base PPA = 0.395
Shortstop PPA = 0.314
Center Field PPA = 15.383
Error penalties would be as follows.
Pitchers -7.52
Catchers -9.75
First Base -12.68
Second Base -5.94
Third Base -3.71
Shortstop -2.48
Left Field -19.92
Center Field -16.33
Right Field -18.17
-
Damn, is it possible to take two players, one good defender and one bad defender, and see the defensive point differential?
-
Comparisons from the 2013 season
The top 5 in dWAR were
1) SS Anderalton Simmons 5.4 dWAR
2) CF Carlos Gomez 4.6 dWAR
3) 3B Manny Machado 4.4 dWAR
4) RF/CF Gerardo Parra 4.0 dWAR
5) 3B Nolan Arenado 3.6 dWAR
other examples
9) C Russell Martin 2.6 dWAR best defensive catcher to the eye test
10) 2B Dustin Pedroia 2.3 dWAR top 2nd baseman
LF Alex Gordan 1.3 dWAR 5 time gold glove winner likely 6th this year
1B Anthony Rizzo 0.6 dWAR first base leader
8) C Welington Castillo 2.8 dWAR
SS J.J. Hardy 2.0 dWAR
Here are the numbers current then proposed in ().
Simmons 133.8 (218.9) tied for highest dWAR ever
Gomez 75.6 (194.8) 6th best dWAR ever
Machado 81.2 (195.3) tied for 8th best dWAR ever
Parra 67 (183.7) 17 assist vs 5 errors
Arenado 69 (162.3)
Martin 197.2 (176.2) corrects C putout problem
Pedroia 131.6 (163.2)
Gordan 67 (260.3) 17 assist vs 1 error
Rizzo 282.2 (127.6) corrects 1B putout problem
Castillo 153 (60.8) 10 errors, dWAR is based off catching base stealers and limiting passed balls
Hardy 114.6 (189.7)
-
Smoking Gun, is it possible to take two players, one good defender and one bad defender, and see the defensive point differential?
who do you want to see?
-
who do you want to see?
Cabrera and Machado at 3B, that should be a good contrast.
-
Cabrera and Machado at 3B, that should be a good contrast.
Miggy under current system 42.2 defensive points, 105.65 under proposed system
Machado current system 81.2, 195.3 under proposed system
-
We....I like it
-
Miggy under current system 42.2 defensive points, 105.65 under proposed system
Machado current system 81.2, 195.3 under proposed system
That is pretty good. Makes the defense really matter. Thank you for work!
-
Great work!
-
Anyone else have any thoughts? Also we need some adjustment to better include base running stats probably using extra bases taken. Thoughts?
-
As a new owner, I'm obviously a little behind in this conversation, but hopefully I can add some value. One of the reasons I wanted to join this league was that there was some value placed on defensive stats. As someone mentioned earlier, if defensive stats were removed, we are one step closer to just being any other league out there.
I am in another league that uses defensive stats, so I thought I'd share how they score it. To be fair, it's not perfect, but it does help even out the positions a little better.
Catchers:
0.4 Assists
-1 Catcher's Interference
-0.5 Passed Ball
-0.5 Stolen Base Allowed
Infielders:
0.67 Assists
Outfielders:
2.5 Outfield Assists
0.4 Putout
Side note: To help weight the positions, catchers also received 0.05 points per AB while other batters are docked -0.5. This kind of skews catchers a little higher than intended, though.
So, as you can see, infielders/catchers do not get any credit for putouts. I realize that is a different league with a different scoring system, but just wanted to give you an idea of how others handle it. Lando mentioned that each position can be scored separately, so it's an option worth looking into.
-
ThePetis, PM me about your other league. Folks, check out Franchise GM as another great example of defensive scoring.
-
We got age limits taken care of any movement on scoring?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
We got age limits taken care of any movement on scoring?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Well we aren't changing it for this year but the thoughts about updating the Defensive stats per position is a start.
-
Maybe we can select a few of the best ideas and put them up for vote to be implemented for 2015?
-
I think Assists should be worth slightly more than putouts as catching a ball compared with catching at throwing multiplies the chance of error by double.
Or maybe we normalize the assists like you have shown and then lessen the putouts by a certain percentage?
Nice work!
I agree with you. Catching and throwing is more difficult. I have played every position outside of 2nd base at some point. It was a lot more work playing any of the other infield positions besides 1st base, which I also played. It's widely accepted that 1st base is generally the weakest fielder on the team, with exceptions, of course.
-
To bring this back a bit on offense, have we considered instead of 1pt per total base as it currently is, moving to a wOBA-like system? The point system would be the constants for the 2012 formula:
unintentional walk: 0.691 (or all walks w/ intentional walks worth the negative)
HBP: 0.722
1B: 0.884
2B: 1.257
3B: 1.593
HR: 2.058
This fits a more realistic system, where doubles are not in fact worth 2x as much as a single, and singles are worth a little more than a walk.
Thoughts?
-
I think the bigger fish to fry in this league is defensive positional values.
-
I entirely agree, entirely. But why not look at offense as well while we're at it. Better to get all changes in at once than to have to make changes year after year, no?
-
I entirely agree, entirely. But why not look at offense as well while we're at it. Better to get all changes in at once than to have to make changes year after year, no?
Yes, I think the entire system should be shifted to a SABR scoring system. A lot of the stats used are highly team dependent (Wins, Losses, Saves, RBI, etc.) Fantasy baseball should be about the player on his own merit not if the player produces more because the team around him allows it.
-
I concur. I wish the league were on ottoneu instead of fantrax
-
I'm on board with updating the scoring for 2015. At this point teams have geared their rosters for the current system so I think it's unfair to change it now. I think we should stay true to a system that incorporates defense but continues to value players the way actual teams value them, the closer position in particular.
-
This is the point system I use in the league I run. I'm very, very happy with it. It doesn't address defense, but I think it is really strong on the offensive side. As you can see, it was inspired (AKA "stolen") from my favorite website; Fangraphs.
Scoring/Schedules
Offense
At Bat: -1
Single: 5.6
Double: 8.5
Triple: 11.3
Homerun: 15
Walk: 3
Hit by Pitch: 3
Stolen Base: 1.9
Caught Stealing: -2.8
Pitching
Inning Pitched: 7.4
Hit Allowed: -2.6
Walk Allowed: -3
Hit by Pitch: -3
Strikeout: 2
Homeruns: -12.3
Save: 5
Hold: 4
Inspirations:
Hitting: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/how-hitting-is-scored-in-ottoneu-fangraphs-points-leagues/
Pitching: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/a-new-fantasy-pitching-points-system-proposal/
Here’s how 2013’s season would have looked with this scoring system: http://games.espn.go.com/flb/freeagency?leagueId=278257&teamId=1&seasonId=2013#&seasonId=2013&=undefined&scoringPeriodId=1&view=stats&context=freeagency&version=currSeason&avail=-1
-
This is the point system I use in the league I run. I'm very, very happy with it. It doesn't address defense, but I think it is really strong on the offensive side. As you can see, it was inspired (AKA "stolen") from my favorite website; Fangraphs.
I'm completely on board with this if we can work in defense in some fair way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
I'm completely on board with this if we can work in defense in some fair way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Agreed on both. I like the Fangraphs-style system and I would agree that including defense would be ideal.
-
I am not reacting here to any specifics in the current scoring system, but just looking at the best players from last season, it seems suspect to me that Anthony Rizzo trumps Mike Trout, and that James Loney is sneaking up right behind the two-time MVP runner-up.
-
I am not reacting here to any specifics in the current scoring system, but just looking at the best players from last season, it seems suspect to me that Anthony Rizzo trumps Mike Trout, and that James Loney is sneaking up right behind the two-time MVP runner-up.
The system is pretty flawed but we're not going to change it for this season since teams have structured their teams to work under this system. It'd be nice to have a new one in place for 2015 however. My only problem with the Fangraphs scoring is that it greatly diminishes the closer role which isn't real baseball. If we can work in defense and fix the scoring for closers then I'm all for it.
-
We could begin a 3 year phased transition so that everyone can contract and re-sign players appropriately. Our goal is to have it the way we want it by 2018? We'd just need to compile a wish list of scoring.
-
We can't wait three years. The scoring in here is absurdly bad so changing that has to be a priority. I'd like to do it this year but I just don't think it would be fair to owners. Making it known now gives all owners a year's warning which I feel is plenty of notice.
-
Make it a one year transition then. Those of us who took over Craptty rosters and are just rebuilding will be just as happy. I was saying 3 years to appeal to those who have created dynastic level teams at the expense of our previous owners.
-
My only problem with the Fangraphs scoring is that it greatly diminishes the closer role which isn't real baseball.
It is quickly becoming real baseball. Over the last 4 years only 31.6% of the top 10 save leaders returned to the list the next season. Rosenthal and Uehara took over the closer role as the 3rd options last season. Mo and Kimbrell to a certain extent are exceptions.
http://www.faketeams.com/2013/12/17/5218750/fantasy-baseball-2014-the-closer-carousel-continues
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/story/2012-02-21/MLB-closers-turnover/53199238/1
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/more-closer-turnover-002100906--mlb.html
http://www.deepleagues.com/2013/02/15/closer-debate-buy-buy/
-
We can't wait three years. The scoring in here is absurdly bad so changing that has to be a priority. I'd like to do it this year but I just don't think it would be fair to owners. Making it known now gives all owners a year's warning which I feel is plenty of notice.
This would be really great for the league so long as we know specifically the scoring settings we should begin to adjust for.
-
If the role were diminished there would be three guys per team with 10+ saves each because with it being a diminished role you could put your most valuable reliever in the most crucial role rather than the closer role. When middle relievers make what closers make, that will be an indicator of diminished role.
-
If the role were diminished there would be three guys per team with 10+ saves each because with it being a diminished role you could put your most valuable reliever in the most crucial role rather than the closer role. When middle relievers make what closers make, that will be an indicator of diminished role.
I disagree. The Fangraphs settings reflect how well a player performs. Putting such a heavy emphasis on something as unpredictable as the closer carousel is poor policy, imo. Teams also used to payout tons of money to players because they accumulated a lot of RBIs/Runs. The times are a-changing and that's why advanced fantasy leagued don't give much merit to the "luck stats" (Wins, RBIs, Runs, Saves, etc.).
-
I disagree. The Fangraphs settings reflect how well a player performs. Putting such a heavy emphasis on something as unpredictable as the closer carousel is poor policy, imo. Teams also used to payout tons of money to players because they accumulated a lot of RBIs/Runs. The times are a-changing and that's why advanced fantasy leagued don't give much merit to the "luck stats" (Wins, RBIs, Runs, Saves, etc.).
You're free to run your team how you like. Again, closers make much more than middle relievers and it's not because they have a diminished role. You can't cherry pick some parts of data over two years to make claims contradicted by other sets of data like salary. If the closer role were diminished, it would be a carousel within the season. Managing payroll and dropping older closers like Mujica for arbitration pitchers like Rosenthal doesn't equate to a diminished role for the position, especially when the younger, cheaper closer is just flat out better.
And if you read particularly the pitching breakdown of the fangraphs scoring you will see that by their own admission, non-pitcher performance
plays a factor in the scoring. BTW, those stats aren't luck. They're team dependent stats much like home runs, obp, and era are park dependent stats.
-
You're free to run your team how you like. Again, closers make much more than middle relievers and it's not because they have a diminished role. You can't cherry pick some parts of data over two years to make claims contradicted by other sets of data like salary. If the closer role were diminished, it would be a carousel within the season. Managing payroll and dropping older closers like Mujica for arbitration pitchers like Rosenthal doesn't equate to a diminished role for the position, especially when the younger, cheaper closer is just flat out better.
And if you read particularly the pitching breakdown of the fangraphs scoring you will see that by their own admission, non-pitcher performance
plays a factor in the scoring. BTW, those stats aren't luck. They're team dependent stats much like home runs, obp, and era are park dependent stats.
If the league wants to give closers a prominent role, I'm fine with it. I just think players should receive points based on how well they perform, not by how many times they luck into a save opportunity.
-
I know I am one of the new guys here, but here is my take on a few things:
1. I think that the transition period to whatever new scoring system can be done in one year and still be fair to all parties, both the built and the building, just as long as the parameters are set in detailed stone. This is something that probably should be settled BEFORE free agency begins. Maybe push back the start date to FA as an option.
2. While middle relievers are not getting what closers are getting contract wise, the gap between the closer and those who pave the way for his save opportunity has closed considerably recently. The has happened for two reasons, first the argument has been heard that the 7th and 8th inning guy is almost as important as the closer, so their contracts have been raised in value as such. Second, the closer's salary has fallen on average recently and teams are much more reluctant to sign a closer to a monster contract, except the elite of the elite. Alot of teams would rather let that closer walk in FA and bring up the cheaper kid with the electric fastball and serviceable offspeed offering. The school of thought is spreading that if that closer is not a Mo or Kimbrel, then they can be replaced.
I said all that to say this, the save is a stat. The save matters and should have value since in some instances it is a 1 run game in the 9th and that closer has to face the likes of Trout, Pujols, Hamilton or Miggy, Prince, and Vmart with Austin Jackson's speed sitting on 2nd. But there is a bit of luck to it also where the closer comes in with a 3 run lead and faces the 7th,8th, and an ice cold PH off the bench. If there is a way to specify the in game situation in the scoring, weighing each save than that would be optimal. I have not seen this yet, and I am unfamiliar with the scoring features available with our chosen site. If that is not an option than the value a save represents should be lowered slightly but still kept around.
Also, I am a huge fan of defensive metrics and think they are becoming a focus of today's game more and more. While the voters of awards have not totally come around to this yet, it certainly does matter and should be represented in league as realistic as this. Just my thoughts.
-
If the league wants to give closers a prominent role, I'm fine with it. I just think players should receive points based on how well they perform, not by how many times they luck into a save opportunity.
I know what you're saying but a lot of these stats are dependent on something. If you have bad infielders you give up more hits. If you play in Coors you give up more hits. If you play at Wrigley you give up more home runs. If you pitch at Dodger stadium, you give up fewer hits. If this and that, you get x. If you pitch against certain teams you give up certain types of stats more often. That's part of the game. As far as the prominence of the closer role, in these stats a save is 20% more than a hold. I think that's out of whack from their importance in baseball. It might break down value wise with sabermetrics but that's not how teams overwhelmingly value those stats. Jim Johnson gets $10 million a year and a good middle reliever doesn't get half that. As much as there may be a belief that closer carousels will be a continuing trend, middle relief carousels have always been the case. So I think saves should be valued more than 20% of holds to reflect how teams actually value those players. And if it changes over time and it might, then we can update the scoring to reflect what is happening in baseball. This might be fantasy baseball but the key word in that is baseball. I mean we can play a game of WAR and pitching independent stats and stuff like that but the tradition is to measure home runs and rbi and strikeouts, etc. That's the tradition. Maybe in 20 years baseball cards will note WAR and those are the stats that will get cited most often. Then we can play Fantasy WAR Baseball or something. Miguel Cabrera was the MVP and if baseball tradition were about the sabermetrics then Mike Trout would have won in a landslide. We can mix the old with the new but let's not throw tradition out the window as irrelevant.
Offense
At Bat: -1
Single: 5.6
Double: 8.5
Triple: 11.3
Homerun: 15
Walk: 3
Hit by Pitch: 3
Stolen Base: 1.9
Caught Stealing: -2.8
Pitching
Inning Pitched: 7.4
Hit Allowed: -2.6
Walk Allowed: -3
Hit by Pitch: -3
Strikeout: 2
Homeruns: -12.3
Save: 5
Hold: 4
-
I don't want to delay free agency. We can continue to discuss and hash this out. I would like to have something set in stone prior to the start of the season so that people will have a full year to plan for the changes. If we delay free agency we put the start of the season in jeopardy.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I would vote 4th option as well.
-
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.
:iatp:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:iatp: X 100
If the scoring system was somewhat decent, I would be against changing it. Our scoring system is absolutely terrible though. The vast majority would like to see it change and it's not because it would help their team...
-
i agree with chris on this. i think the save is getting a little undervalued in these discussions and the hold a little overvalued. we have to remember that while there are some young up and coming closers earning holds in a set-up role, there are also a ton of also rans, has beens and never weres who couldn't hold a closers role for a week, let alone a season who are racking up holds.
-
having said that, for what it is worth, i would also vote for the 4th system based on the reality and balance of the final rankings.