ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Archives => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits => Topic started by: Colby on June 26, 2009, 12:01:35 PM
-
Please give details regarding your answer selection. This poll will most likely affect 2010 scoring.
-
My choices reflect a 6x6 format:
Hitting: R, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, OPS
Pitching: K, W, ERA, H, S, WHIP
The hitting choices offer a pretty level playing field with all hitters, and the OPS will benefit hitters who tally a lot of extra base hits and walks, a stat that is overlooked in my opinioin.
My pitching choices encompass all pitchers relatively evenly. Holds offer an incentive to go after good relievers, not just closers, during the year.
In my opinion, negative stats aren't necessary for leagues, only positive ones. It does give a little more strategy to the selection of players, but most managers I know feel more confident in stats that are encouraging, not discouraging. So when it comes to hitter's K's, Losses, hits allowed, etc., I don't really appeal to them. My two cents. :-)
-
Well, it is in my interest to keep a good amount of defensive oriented statistics in this league. The Washington Nationals are a prime example of a team with excellent hitters, but whose porous defense aids their horrible pitching to produce the worst record in baseball. Defensive stats (FLD%, E, PO, A) will also be considered each year.
Ideally, I would like to come to a conclusion as to what the stat categories are to be by 2010.
-
Well, it is in my interest to keep a good amount of defensive oriented statistics in this league. The Washington Nationals are a prime example of a team with excellent hitters, but whose porous defense aids their horrible pitching to produce the worst record in baseball. Defensive stats (FLD%, E, PO, A) will also be considered each year.
Ideally, I would like to come to a conclusion as to what the stat categories are to be by 2010.
In that respect, I would have no problem with those categories either. Defense, while not in any of my current leagues, would definitely add something to the league.
-
I would do a 6x6 scoring system. The offensive stats I would like to see are AVG, OBP, SLUG, OPS, SB%, and FLD%. For pitching, I would do wins, K/9, K/BB, ERA, WHIP, and IP.
I chose those offensive stats because I think it covers all hitters well. Some hitters hit for average, and not much else. Adam Dunn is an example of a hitter who has a terrible AVG, but has a good OBP and a good SLUG. SB% is better than SB because it measures how good you are at stealing. SB alone won;t do, since there is a cahnce that they steal alot, but also get caught alot. FLD% would be good as the defensive stat, if you want one more you can take out either AVG or OPS. I thought OPS was important because it measure how good the hitter is at his job, getting on base and hitting for power. I woud rather you take out AVG, since OBP is better at determining how often he gets on base.
I chose those pitching stats beacuse K/9 is good to see how good the pitcher is at getting strike outs, K/BB is a measure of his control, ERA is how a measure of holding down the oppsing teams offense, WHIP is a good measure of keeping the oppsing team from getting base runners, and IP shows how long a pitcher can last. I didn't choose any realiever stats since they usually help out with the ERA, since most have awesome ERA's, K/9, K/BB, and WHIP. Those apply to all pitchers evenly. Wins I don't like as much, since it depends to much on the talent off the pitchers team and not the talent of just the pitcher. An example of that is Dan Haren this year, but I guess it is neccasery. I would prefer a BB/9 rather than Wins, since that shows how good his control is. H/9 innings is also a good option, but that also depends on how good the defence behind the pitcher is. if he has a horrible defence, not all the plays will be made, while if a pitcher has an incredible defence behind him some hits would be taken away. That is my opinion on the scoring system for next year,
-
My biggest thing would be to get 30 commited GM's!
-
My biggest thing would be to get 30 commited GM's!
We are currently at 28 with the Astros and Mariners open, but it is possible the GM of the Dodgers will be stepping down already. If you know of anyone that would be interested, then please refer them over this way.
-
My friend would like to join, a good fantasy player. His e-mail is jimylewis@hotmail.com. He would like the Dodgers if they are available, if not then the Mariners, then finally the Astros. Thanks Colby.
-
Ditto on a friend wanting to join. As I stated in my email, he would be interested as well. I don't know which team he would prefer if the Dodgers are already spoken for, but I'm checking with him now. His email is ocnomad77@yahoo.com
-
I emailed both, asking them to sign up here, read over the rules and confirm their interest. Thanks guys.
-
I love this.....some of these people are in it!
-
I trimmed the pool down a bit, interesting results so far may keep the 2010 stats reasonable close to the 2009 stats.
-
Would anyone support making this a head to head points league (as opposed to roto)? This would give us the opportunity to assign different weightings to each statistical category. For instance, a hr would be worth more than a sb. I'm in a league configured like this and has it worked well... Also, I think the current format is flawed and can be manipulated. For instance, given that it's roto style and all percentage-based, wouldn't the best strategy be to only play your best players and put minor leaguers/injured players/backup players in the other spots (therefore weighting your best players performance more heavily). For example, I surely would be better with an injured schmidt in my rotation than eric milton.
Scoring for Batting Categories
1B - Singles 1 point
2B - Doubles 2 points
3B - Triples 3 points
BB - Walks (Batters) 1 point
CS - Caught Stealing -1 point
GDP - Ground Into Double Plays -1 point
HR - Home Runs 4 points
IB - Intentional Walks 0.5 points
KO - Strikeouts (Batter) -1 point
R - Runs 1 point
RBI - Runs Batted In 1 point
SB - Stolen Bases 1.5 points
Scoring for Pitching Categories
BBI - Walks Issued (Pitchers) -1 point
BS - Blown Saves -3 points
CG - Complete Games 5 points
ER - Earned Runs -1 point
INN - Innings 1 point
K - Strikeouts (Pitcher) 1 point
L - Losses -5 points
QS - Quality Starts 7.5 points
S - Saves 7 points
SO - Shutouts 5 points
W - Wins 7.5 points
I think, if people are interested in this set up, we could try to modify to add defense. Also, we could attempt to strip out team-related statistics (such as rbi's, runs, wins, losses) while adding hr allowed, holds, and perhaps add values for gballs, fballs to reflect the diff between fb and gb pitchers. Just some ideas, not sure what the website's capabilities are but I'm certain there are better ways to setup scoring to accurately reflect our teams' performance.
-
I decided to change the scoring categories for 2009. I was unhappy with the current settings as the integrity of the game could possibly be ruined if a GM manipulated the stats by plugging only their best stars in the lineup. Granted, you must have players filled in the active role, but you could theoretically put your few best players in there plus a bunch of guys who are not playing in the majors.
There is a necessity for recognizing playing time. However, I did not want stats that are dependent upon teammates' performances such as R, RBI, W, L, SV, HLD. With that said, I still wanted defense to be recognized. I also rethought about K/9 and how this shouldn't be a stat. There are quality pitchers that do not get many strikeouts. On offense, there are quality players that do not steal bases either, so I removed that as a solo stat.
I have set it to be a 3x3 weighted H2H matchup where 50% of the points are countable stats that you need your players to play in games and the other 50% are points earned from performance ratios.
Position Players
RC (3)* - Runs Created = TB*(H+BB)/PA <- This is actually a stat that increases with game play, and is not a ratio... take a look at career runs created leaders (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/RC_career.shtml)
RF (2) - Range Factor = (PO + A)/GP <- The factor combined PUTOUTS and ASSISTS
OPS (1) - On-Base + Slugging Percentage = OBP + SLUG
Pitchers
IP (3) - Innings Pitched <- One of the very few things that Fantrax does not have is a minimum IP setting for H2H, this will ensure that people play their pitchers.
WHIP (2) - Walks + Hits / Innings Pitched <- The most widely used pitching sabermetric
K/BB (1) - Strikeouts / Walks <- The Greg Madduxes of the world make it by keeping their walks to a minimum, this stat usually tells the tale of a false ERA just as much as WHIP
12 points for the taking, 6 on each side, and 6 that are ratios and 6 that are stats that increase with time
*There are a few different Runs Created formulas out there, the one I show is the most simple, but another variation applies stolen bases and another one applies HBP and GIDP on top of that. I emailed Fantrax to find out which one they do use.
-
I think this is a big improvement although I think we could go a step further by using the underlying counting stats assigning a value for each and having a h2h points league. This would solve two issues; one, is the equal weighting of each category, and two, is the fact that a huge discrepancy doesn't turn up in weekly scores (if a team completely out-slugs it's opponent it's not quantified in the weekly total, etc).
I understand how runs created will be calculated for each player. How will they be calculated for an entire lineup? I assume each player in the lineup will be added up in order to calculate the weekly total?
Also, although a better statistic than ERA, I'd question the merit of WHIP as the "hits" component is reliant on a pitcher's defense.
-
Agreed on WHIP - maybe use FIP instead?
-
Agreed on WHIP - maybe use FIP instead?
I would prefer FIP over WHIP, but it is currently unavailable. There really isn't a way to manipulate the stats to produce the desired results of Fielding Independent Pitching.
-
I imagine there's no xera option either?
-
I imagine there's no xera option either?
Here is what is available:
POSITION PLAYERS
Avg - Batting Average
CS - Caught Stealing
DP - Double Plays Fielded
2B - Doubles
E - Errors
XBH - Extra Base Hits
FLD% - Fielding Percentage
FB - Fly Balls
GP - Games Played
Sl - Grand Slams
GB/FB - Ground Ball/Fly Ball Ratio
GB - Ground Balls
GIDP - Grounded Into Double Plays
HBP - Hit By Pitches
Cyc - Hit For The Cycle
H - Hits
HR - Home Runs
IBB - Intentional Walks
MHG - Multiple Hit Games
MHRG - Multiple Home Run Games
NSB - Net Stolen Bases
OPS - On Base + Slugging Percentage
OBP - On Base Percentage
PB - Passed Balls
PKO - Picked Off
P/PA - Pitches Faced per Plate Appearance
PA - Plate Appearances
PO - Putouts
RF - Range Factor
LOB - Runners Left On Base
RL2O - Runners in Scoring Position Left On Base with 2 Outs
RBI - Runs Batted In
RC - Runs Created
RC27 - Runs Created Per 27 Outs
RP - Runs Produced (RBI + R)
R - Runs Scored
SF - Sacrifice Flies
SH - Sacrifice Hits
1B - Singles
SLG - Slugging Percentage
SBA% - Stolen Base Against %
SB% - Stolen Base Percentage
SB - Stolen Bases
SBA - Stolen Bases Against
SO - Strikeouts
TB - Total Bases
TB+BB - Total Bases + Walks
TP - Triple Plays Fielded
3B - Triples
BB - Walks
ZR - Zone Rating
PITCHERS
A - Assists
Bk - Balks
BRA - Baserunners Allowed (BB + H + HB)
BR/9 - Baserunners Allowed Per Nine Innings
BAA - Batting Average Against
BS - Blown Saves
CG - Complete Games
DP - Double Plays Fielded
2B - Doubles Allowed
ERA - Earned Run Average
ER - Earned Runs Allowed
E - Errors
XBHA - Extra Base Hits Allowed
FLD% - Fielding Percentage
FB - Fly Balls Allowed
GP - Games Played
GS - Games Started
GB/FB - Ground Ball/Fly Ball Ratio Against
GB - Ground Balls Allowed
GIDP - Grounded Into Double Plays Against
HB - Hit Batsmen
H - Hits Allowed
H/IP - Hits Allowed Per Inning Pitched
Hld - Holds
HR - Home Runs Allowed
HR/9 - Home Runs Allowed Per Nine Innings
IR - Inherited Runners
IRS - Inherited Runners Stranded
IRS% - Inherited Runners Stranded %
IP - Innings Pitched
IBB - Intentional Walks Allowed
L - Losses
NS2 - Net Saves (Saves - Blown Saves + .5 * Holds)
NS - Net Saves (Sv - BS)
NW - Net Wins (W - L)
NH - No Hitters
OPS - On Base + Slugging Percentage
OBP - On Base Percentage
PG - Perfect Games
PKO - Pickoffs
P/PA - Pitches Thrown per Plate Appearance
PO - Putouts
QS - Quality Starts
RF - Range Factor
RL - Relief Losses
RW - Relief Wins
R - Runs Allowed
Sv - Saves
ShO - Shutouts
1B - Singles Allowed
SLG - Slugging Percentage
SBA% - Stolen Base Against %
SBA - Stolen Bases Against
SO - Strikeouts Pitched
SO/9 - Strikeouts Pitched Per Nine Innings
SO/BB - Strikeouts Pitched Per Walk
TB - Total Bases
TP - Triple Plays Fielded
3B - Triples Allowed
WHIP - Walks + Hits per Inning Pitched
BB - Walks Allowed
BB/9 - Walks Pitched Per Nine Innings
WP - Wild Pitches
W% - Win Percentage
W - Wins
ZR - Zone Rating
-
:bump: for sarge
-
There is big support for standard fantasy baseball categories such as R, HR, RBI, AVG, W, SV, ERA, WHIP, and HLD. Also in support are SB%, OPS, FLD%, and K/9.
My comments...
I would include some standard categories, but they would be weighed much less than some of the sabermetric categories and ratios. I do not like K/9 in this league as it has a bias against successful "soft-tossers". OPS, FLD%, and WHIP are already included. I may develop something like this for 2010 with weights in parenthesis. It is also a goal to have some of the stats be ratios and the other half be cumulative. Defense is important for position players as well. I already talked to Fantrax about incorporating Fielding Independent Pitching ERA (FIP) for 2010.
Position Players
FLD% (4), RC/27 (2), OPS (1), AVG (1)
RC (4), R (1), HR (1), RBI (1), SB (1)
Pitchers
FIP (4), K/BB (2), WHIP (2)
QS (5), W (1), HLD (1), SV (1) <- I would rather have a category such as HLD+SV be worth 2 points
Within these settings, GMs get to see their player's on-field stats that they are used to seeing. The amount of runs a player creates is about a third of the offense as an RC stat, but if you include the R, HR, RBI, and SB, it makes up just over half. Defense is 25% of a position player's game, a bit less than the 33% we have for 2009. Pitchers, the stats change dramatically as needed. Quality starts are introduced along with common pitching game stats. Quality starts are just games when your pitchers don't blow it, and beyond minimum IP counts, it forces teams to play their pitchers. FIP is probably the best pitching sabermetric out there.
The weighting and many stat may be confusing, but I think this is a good middle ground for all of us. In total, the stats are split 50/50 for pitching and position players, 50/50 for ratios and cumulative stats. The appropriation of defense is in there in total 25% (FLD% and FIP). And of course, it includes the sabermetrics that some of us want, and the basic stats that others want. :D
-
I, personally, would prefer to see a system that comes closest to accurately gauging the talent-level of each team. This system is way off. According to Bill James wins are factored approximately on 48% hitting, 36% pitching and 17% fielding, that should be a starting point, from there I think things would work best if we could somehow attribute a points system that weights factors similarly to such sabermetric measurements as Runs Created, FIP and Range Factor. I'm not sure how to do this but it's likely the only way to accomplish what you're setting out to do (if I understand what you're trying to do). Perhaps we can chat at some point and kick around some ideas. I haven't had an opportunity to do much research into how we're currently scoring and how we could optimally score. Head to head would be a huge plus too. I think it'd spur more active participation and the playoff format would be much better.
I like Mike's idea here about splitting about how categories are weighted. With that said, my stats above are 12.5% fielding, 37.5% hitting, and 50% pitching. We already have runs created and Fantrax has Range Factor and FIP available, so I would like Mike to lead the way with refitting the scoring categories. Generally, this year, I think some teams are making their way around pitching, but overall, the standings are fairly accurate after a month.
-
Here's a scoring system that goes in line with Mike's suggestions.
AVG (1)
OBP (1)
SLUG (1)
FLD% (2)
RC (5)
RF (1)
WHIP (1)
FIP (1)
K/BB (1)
QS (3)
It is 48% hitting, 18% fielding, and 35% pitching which is damn close to the 48/17/36 numbers by Bill James. It is also almost a 50/50 split per cumulative and ratio stats.
-
Is Fantrax going to add FIP? I didn't see it on your list of possible categories... If they are, I would be in favor of using it and giving it a decent weight - maybe make FIP the (3) and QS only (1). Also, if we're going to use FIP we might not want a separate category for K/BB, as it would be somewhat double counted. I'd also like to see something like their NS2 to give some weight to relievers that have more importance in real games (NS2 = NS - BS + 0.5*HD). If FIP is an option and we want a total of 6 pitching points, how about:
FIP (3)
WHIP (1)
QS (1)
NS2 (1)
OR
FIP (2)
QS (2)
NS2 (2)
If for some reason we decided not to enforce a minimum innings pitched, I'd definitely go with the 2nd version as the 1st is too ratio heavy.
Edit: Also, I like what you have for the hitting/fielding categories (although we will not reward speed as much as most other fantasy leagues do), and I like the overall split with H/F/P.
-
They are saying that FIP will be available in 2010 along with custom scoring category combos.
NS2 = SV - BLSV + 0.5*HLD, right?
I was thinking about devising some type of category like that even though it depends on the team's performance and the situation rather than the player. It is tough to find great cumulative pitching stats though.
-
They are saying that FIP will be available in 2010 along with custom scoring category combos.
Any chance they'd add Leverage Index?
NS2 = SV - BLSV + 0.5*HLD, right?
That's the one I'm talking about, but I just grabbed what you had posted earlier in this thread so I can't confirm it's the correct formula.
I was thinking about devising some type of category like that even though it depends on the team's performance and the situation rather than the player. It is tough to find great cumulative pitching stats though.
I agree that it's not easy to find good ones, but I also don't think its bad to have a category or two that are situation dependent (specifically with relievers). Hunting for the next closer/setup man can be fun, as long as we don't weigh it too heavily.
-
Assuming we will continue to use them going forward, how are we going to enforce a minimum for AB/IP constraints?
Will we have a strict limit, and if you don't meet it you're disqualified from any categories to which the limit applies (not enough IP, you get no points for K/BB, WHIP)? Any chance Fantrax would allow us to enforce some sort of penalty based on how far under you are, either by subtracting points or enforcing the difference in playing time is replaced with a 'replacement level' player (ie: a really bad player)?
Here's the replacement level idea I took from the Mendoza League Rules I posted earlier:
2.4. Replacement Level
Teams that do not accumulate enough playing time at a given position receive playing time from a “replacement level” player. This feature is meant to mimic the ability of MLB teams to promote players from their minor league system in the event of an injury to a starter or other need of playing time, an ability that Mendoza teams do not have.
From the other sample constitution, here is how they enforce the minimums (probably stricter than I would prefer, but an idea non the less):
At the end of the regular season, the six teams with the most rotisserie points qualify for the playoffs. Only teams whose pitching staffs have accumulated at least 1,300 innings during the regular season are eligible for the playoffs.
-
How is this replacement player determined? Is he a "ghost" player that simply provides "average" stats over his course based on the position's averages?
Like say the average OF position player in the MLB has a batting average of .250, is that what this "replacement" has counted towards his stats for his playing time, like say if the position is twenty games under the minimum for that team? So the team gets 20 games out of one "player" with a .250 batting average over those games.
Or are these real player's that are brought up and whose real statistics are use?
Maybe I'm thinking too much into this.
-
It will be weekly H2H next year, so we can probably have a minimum PA setting.
-
We should have a minimum and maximum setting for plate appearances and innings pitched. I'll make the request to Fantrax for 2010. I would like to see the following categories...
BATTING: RC, AVG, OBP, SLUG
FIELDING: RF, FLD%
PITCHING: K/BB, FIP, NS2, QS
-
BTW, there was a reason why roto was used this year. H2H in Fantrax requires that no division have two more teams than any other division. The NL Central and AL West throw this balance off. They are not sure if this will be fixed for next year, so we may have to stick with roto yet again or find another provider. I still think Fantrax is the best out there for this league.
-
BTW, there was a reason why roto was used this year. H2H in Fantrax requires that no division have two more teams than any other division. The NL Central and AL West throw this balance off. They are not sure if this will be fixed for next year, so we may have to stick with roto yet again or find another provider. I still think Fantrax is the best out there for this league.
That would be a shame if they can't fix it, but you would think it's a simple thing somewhere in their code that sets the maximum difference... just increase it. Obviously it must me more complicated than that.
-
BTW, Fantrax emailed me that they overhauled their H2H setup for football and all other sports. The only question remaining is the divisional setup.
-
We should have a minimum and maximum setting for plate appearances and innings pitched. I'll make the request to Fantrax for 2010. I would like to see the following categories...
BATTING: RC, AVG, OBP, SLUG
FIELDING: RF, FLD%
PITCHING: K/BB, FIP, NS2, QS
I personally would like to finalize these before bidding on FA's, especially things like whether or not we'll include NS2 (does a RP's role matter or not?).
-
I personally would like to finalize these before bidding on FA's, especially things like whether or not we'll include NS2 (does a RP's role matter or not?).
The intention of this game was to measure individual players' success independent of their teammates. With that said, QS and NS2 cannot be considered. I am thinking of two more metrics though...
Win Shares - Ranges from 0 to 1 over 9 innings
Runs Allowed - Opposite of Runs Created for pitchers
-
BTW, we could do H2H next year, but it will be without divisions. I can manually set the playoffs per the division leaders and wildcard teams of each league. Bringing H2H into the game will make it more interesting.
-
BTW, we could do H2H next year, but it will be without divisions. I can manually set the playoffs per the division leaders and wildcard teams of each league. Bringing H2H into the game will make it more interesting.
I don't know if I would put a vote of confidence in H2H, unless it did have divisions. I've got a couple reasons, but they are mostly just personal preferences, so I won't state them unless I can think of a good way to make them solid points. But I do know that I would really like to keep divisions, and if H2H requires a loss of divisions, it will take some convincing for me to support it. I won't say no outright, but taking away divisions would really detract from the feel of an MLB league, in my opinion.
-
Logging into Fantax and seeing my Pirates at the bottom of the NL Central made it feel more real. :toast: H2H would lose the visual aspect of seeing the divisions, but the division winners would be selected by looking for each division's top team in the overall standings.
-
Well, if we were to use H2H without divisions, I would like to see a weekly schedule that puts emphasis on divisional play. For instance, in the Angels case, more matchups against real life divisional opponents (A's, Rangers, Mariners). And maybe on the forum we can have weekly updates, with divisions branched out. Thoughts?
-
Well, if we were to use H2H without divisions, I would like to see a weekly schedule that puts emphasis on divisional play. For instance, in the Angels case, more matchups against real life divisional opponents (A's, Rangers, Mariners). And maybe on the forum we can have weekly updates, with divisions branched out. Thoughts?
I could construct a spreadsheet to transform the overall H2H standings into a divisional layout with GB listed. It's too much work to calculate the divisional W-L record. A custom schedule can easily be made to put more emphasis on divisional play.
-
I could construct a spreadsheet to transform the overall H2H standings into a divisional layout with GB listed. It's too much work to calculate the divisional W-L record. A custom schedule can easily be made to put more emphasis on divisional play.
I agree, a divisional W-L is a bit too much work. But with an emphasis on divisional play in the H2H schedule, I think that would still bring divisions as the front runner of looking at standings. I believe me and you are on the same page. :koolaid:
-
I'm in for any of the above options re: H2H and Divisions...
-
The intention of this game was to measure individual players' success independent of their teammates. With that said, QS and NS2 cannot be considered. I am thinking of two more metrics though...
Win Shares - Ranges from 0 to 1 over 9 innings
Runs Allowed - Opposite of Runs Created for pitchers
Runs Allowed is a good category, but we already have 2 ratio's and this is a negative counting stat - we need a positive counting stat to go with K/BB and FIP to give incentive for more playing time rather than a deterrent.
How does Fantrax calculate Win Shares for pitchers (it's not in their statistics glossary)? This might be a good positive counting category if the formula is simple enough for everyone to understand.
Another simple category to balance the ratios is IP... with 30 teams we may see much less of the streaming/chasing IP effect since teams won't have more than 5-6 starters. While it's a boring statistic, every team looks for innings eaters and this could help bring that effect to our league.
-
I favor RA, IP, WHIP, FIP, K/BB for pitching with the premise, as always, that weight of ratios equals weight of countable stats.
-
I favor RA, IP, WHIP, FIP, K/BB for pitching with the premise, as always, that weight of ratios equals weight of countable stats.
I'd be on board with these if either
A) we weight IP a little more since it is the only category that rewards playing time,
or B) we have an IP minimum that enforces a realistic amount of playing time
-
If somebody wouldn't mind bringing summing up where we are it with scoring, I would really appreciate that and I can throw my two cents in... I am however behind using FIP for pitching. I also think innings should be used, otherwise someone could plug in an RP who threw 8 inning all year, and still score better than someone who had a mediocre starter in all year.
I don't think we should use wins, because wins aren't really reliant on the pitcher himself. It relies on his bullpen, defense, offense etc. Also I don't think saves is a worthwhile category, since all teams save relatively the same amount of games, and since we have 30 teams, there won't be too many available saves outside of your own organization. But again to contradict myself, there is no reason why Francisco Cordero should make 11 million a year if saves aren't involved. I would be better off cutting him and picking up some scrub at 500K.
Also, just a quick question, is there a way to increase your cap? Say by winning? If you make the playoffs you get an extra 2 million or something along those lines? Just thinking out loud. Kind of like what MLB the Show does when you have a successful season.
-
This is why Fantrax is the official league service for MLFB....
When your league decides which new scoring categories you want, let us know the exact formula for each one and we should be able to add them.
Thanks,
Neil
The Fantrax Team
-
Another option for a counting stat would be K-BB (replacing K/BB).
K-BB, RA, FIP
-
Another option for a counting stat would be K-BB (replacing K/BB).
K-BB, RA, FIP
That is such a simple solution, and it does not favor one type of pitcher over another (which is why I am against K's or K/9) with the inclusion of walks. Anyways, Fantrax said that may create some stats as permanent options for Fantrax, so I think we should take advantage of this opportunity. :thumbsup:
-
Why isn't the K/BB ratio weighted by innings pitched? That would be the proper way to use this statistic... For instance the Dodgers team K/BB ratio would be much more heavily weighted by Billingsley's ratio over Hong-Chih Kuo. This would be a more accurate depiction of quality of team pitching. Why include RA when we have FIP? FIP is a more accurate statistic measuring essentially the same thing.
-
Why isn't the K/BB ratio weighted by innings pitched? That would be the proper way to use this statistic... For instance the Dodgers team K/BB ratio would be much more heavily weighted by Billingsley's ratio over Hong-Chih Kuo. This would be a more accurate depiction of quality of team pitching. Why include RA when we have FIP? FIP is a more accurate statistic measuring essentially the same thing.
It is the constant battle between cumulative and ratio statistics (which I argue we need 50/50 of). Isn't FIP a ratio statistic?
-
Why isn't the K/BB ratio weighted by innings pitched? That would be the proper way to use this statistic... For instance the Dodgers team K/BB ratio would be much more heavily weighted by Billingsley's ratio over Hong-Chih Kuo. This would be a more accurate depiction of quality of team pitching. Why include RA when we have FIP? FIP is a more accurate statistic measuring essentially the same thing.
It will inherently be more heavily weighted by a player that has more total K's and BB's (which are going to correlate relatively close to IP), but as Colby mentions the idea is to offer up an additional positive counting stat.
-
It will inherently overvalue the counting statistics that are variables in multiple categories.
Any time you use ratios, the most balanced team will win while the "best" team may not.
For instance, if a team's ops is .400 points better but their fip is .02 worse that's an even matchup.
Why not establish point values for the statistics that most closely are cleanly affiliated with pitchers'/hitters'? We're never going to get this perfect but we'll get closest with a points system.
If we must use a ratio system our best bets are probably Runs Created, FIP and RF only but then we have two big issues... One, team performance is roughly, 48% hitting, 36% pitching and 17% fielding, they'd each be weighted 33%. Second, and this one is big, this does not account for the performance differential in each category (you either win the category or you don't).
Perhaps we could have a conference call/ brainstorming? Does anyone agree with what I'm stating here. I think it's important we draft a scoring system that most accurately reflects team performance. It's vital to making this league work.
-
M.J.,
Your 48% hitting, 36% pitching and 17% fielding recommendation has been an integral part of drafting the 2010 stats. I'll give my reason for the ratio stats and then we can move on from there. We try to simulate the real as much as we can, but we depend on the real transactions in the real game itself. Over time, most likely, larger market teams will have more starters where small market teams scramble to pick up the extra AB and IP needed to get their countable stats up. The ratio stats are used almost as a pro-ration factor to show how the players on a team would do if they had the average number of AB or IP. Now, this brings up a good question for Fantrax. I will ask them if they would consider prorating the stats per AB/IP (or another user inputted field) on a matchup (usually weekly) or seasonal basis.
Colby
-
Only way this league will work is a points system based on the following formulas...
Hitting 48%
Runs Created ((H+BB-CS+HBP-GIDP)*((S+2D+3D+4D)*(.26(BB-IBB+HBP))+(.52*(SH+SF+SB))/(AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF)
Pitching 36%
H.Times FIP ((13HR+3(BB+HBP)-2K)/IP)+3.20
Fielding 17%
RF (Putouts+Assists)/Innings Played at a Position
We have to pull out the ratio portion and establish properly weighting point values for relevant statistics. Otherwise, this won't work. Anyone else follow what I'm saying here?
1. Fantrax doesn't properly weight pitchers and hitters ratios based on each sample size. It simply averages each hitters' and pitchers' ratio (regardless of at bats and innings pitched) causing a huge margin of error.
2. I can simply plug a minor league player into a weak position to skew my numbers (simply adding one counting category doesn't remedy this problem)
3. The margin of difference from one ratio statistic to another is simply thrown out, this is a huge discrepancy.
Without coming up with a solid system that'll properly evaluate each team it's difficult to imagine this being worthwhile, time-wise. I love the idea but it's all a waste of time if the scoring doesn't reflect team performance.
-
Only way this league will work is a points system based on the following formulas...
Hitting 48%
Runs Created ((H+BB-CS+HBP-GIDP)*((S+2D+3D+4D)*(.26(BB-IBB+HBP))+(.52*(SH+SF+SB))/(AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF)
Pitching 36%
H.Times FIP ((13HR+3(BB+HBP)-2K)/IP)+3.20
Fielding 17%
RF (Putouts+Assists)/Innings Played at a Position
We have to pull out the ratio portion and establish properly weighting point values for relevant statistics. Otherwise, this won't work. Anyone else follow what I'm saying here?
1. Fantrax doesn't properly weight pitchers and hitters ratios based on each sample size. It simply averages each hitters' and pitchers' ratio (regardless of at bats and innings pitched) causing a huge margin of error.
2. I can simply plug a minor league player into a weak position to skew my numbers (simply adding one counting category doesn't remedy this problem)
3. The margin of difference from one ratio statistic to another is simply thrown out, this is a huge discrepancy.
Without coming up with a solid system that'll properly evaluate each team it's difficult to imagine this being worthwhile, time-wise. I love the idea but it's all a waste of time if the scoring doesn't reflect team performance.
I like your proposal with my pro-ration scheme that I mentioned in the last post.
-
Only way this league will work is a points system based on the following formulas...
There are countless numbers of successful and entertaining leagues out there, all using their own scoring systems. I don't think there is any one correct way to do it. Some people prefer Roto, some H2H. Some prefer points based leagues, some prefer breaking it into categories. As long as all owners know the system, they adjust their strategies accordingly.
Hitting 48%
Runs Created ((H+BB-CS+HBP-GIDP)*((S+2D+3D+4D)*(.26(BB-IBB+HBP))+(.52*(SH+SF+SB))/(AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF)
Pitching 36%
H.Times FIP ((13HR+3(BB+HBP)-2K)/IP)+3.20
Fielding 17%
RF (Putouts+Assists)/Innings Played at a Position
These are good categories, but having a number of categories (more than 3) adds to the strategic value of the game... you can try to be balanced or target specific categories you want to win everytime.
1. Fantrax doesn't properly weight pitchers and hitters ratios based on each sample size. It simply averages each hitters' and pitchers' ratio (regardless of at bats and innings pitched) causing a huge margin of error.
Ratios should be calculated based on team totals, no weighting is necessary. If Fantrax is incorrectly calculating team ratios by simply averaging the individual player ratios then that's a bug and should be corrected, although I'm not sure that is the case.
2. I can simply plug a minor league player into a weak position to skew my numbers (simply adding one counting category doesn't remedy this problem)
I agree that we need a method to reward/enforce realistic levels of playing time... this is my primary concern with whatever system we select.
3. The margin of difference from one ratio statistic to another is simply thrown out, this is a huge discrepancy.
This is realistic. In MLB a 10-0 win counts the same in the standings as a 1-0 win.
-
We have to pull out the ratio portion and establish properly weighting point values for relevant statistics. Otherwise, this won't work. Anyone else follow what I'm saying here?
Ratios are important to reward quality over quantity... we need to find a balance between the two. A scoring system that leads to teams chasing playing time and streaming in as many starters as possible would lead the league away from reality.
-
We play weekly lineup changes and we have a fixed number of starters. Also it's a 30 team league. Streaming players isn't an option. I think a points league remedies all the issues I outlined.
-
"3. The margin of difference from one ratio statistic to another is simply thrown out, this is a huge discrepancy.
This is realistic. In MLB a 10-0 win counts the same in the standings as a 1-0 win."
I meant this as an argument against roto where you might hold a huge lead in half categories and a slight loss in the other half or slight majority. Your team would have performed better but would tie or lose. In a points league you have a value attributed to each statistic given a more accurate total team score.
I'm sorry I'm harping on this, if you guys disagree let me know. I'm just trying to explain my view, given I'm probably doing a Crapty job, so we can agree on the best way. I just want the league to be as accurate as possible, however I understand if you guys see things differently. I've been in both roto, head to head and points leagues... My strong preference is head to head, points leagues. I've been in a couple very competitive league for 5-6 years now and dropped the others.
-
I'm sorry I'm harping on this, if you guys disagree let me know. I'm just trying to explain my view, given I'm probably doing a Crapty job, so we can agree on the best way. I just want the league to be as accurate as possible, however I understand if you guys see things differently. I've been in both roto, head to head and points leagues... My strong preference is head to head, points leagues. I've been in a couple very competitive league for 5-6 years now and dropped the others.
No need to apologize, we wouldn't need a RC if everyone agreed all of the time. I think we should be able to find a solution that satisfies everyone's concerns. Maybe our next step should be to compile a list of those so we're all brainstorming with the same goals in mind. I'll try provide a highlight of mine later tonight.
I'll re-iterate what I said earlier though, I think a long-term agreement for the scoring categories needs to be confirmed before free agency, as the value for players may vary widely (I personally put together value estimations based on scoring categories, and with 30 teams I'm sure other GM's do also).
-
I emailed Fantrax about my pro-rating idea, and they said they would consider the enhancement. BTW, Ben, what M.J. is proposing is a H2H points based league, not categories. As in fantasy football, you can earn points from your QB, WR, RB, TE, K, and DEF/IDP. All of the points are weighted accordingly, so that certain statistics matter more than the other. With the James' ratios, we can do just that with what M.J. outlined.
I also think it is important to add in some "zero" weighted stats for display purposes only.
AVG, OBP, SLUG
K/BB, ERA, WHIP
We could also consider other countable stats such as R, RBI, HR, SB, W, SV, HLD, K.
-
I enjoy a basic 6 X 6 league and add in FLD % as well.
R, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, OBP
FLD %
W SV, K/BB, ERA, WHIP, HLD
I really like leagues with OBP and HLD you can easily find surprise sources of these stats, therefore evening the playing ground for Smaller Market teams.
-
I enjoy a basic 6 X 6 league and add in FLD % as well.
R, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, OBP
FLD %
W SV, K/BB, ERA, WHIP, HLD
I really like leagues with OBP and HLD you can easily find surprise sources of these stats, therefore evening the playing ground for Smaller Market teams.
You are not going to find those stats in this league. We may include them for reference only as I mentioned above with zero-weighted stats. We're looking for pure individual contributions to a team's run production / run prevention.
-
You are not going to find those stats in this league. We may include them for reference only as I mentioned above with zero-weighted stats. We're looking for pure individual contributions to a team's run production / run prevention.
I can live with that. I was answering the question using what I am used to. I will adapt.
-
I'm on board with the reference statistics for sure... Other considerations for pitching scoring statistics could be ground balls, quality starts and innings pitched... Typically, with all other variables held constant (most importantly walks), ground ball and strike out pitchers perform best.
-
I'm on board with the reference statistics for sure... Other considerations for pitching scoring statistics could be ground balls, quality starts and innings pitched... Typically, with all other variables held constant (most importantly walks), ground ball and strike out pitchers perform best.
Something like...
GB+K-BB-HBP
?
-
Yes, roughly. Values should be assigned to each so that pitching is roughly, on average 36-37% of a teams performance. Should I try to draft point values? Should we include quality starts and ground balls? Are there any other statistics, not mentioned in the formulas I listed that should be added?
-
Yes, roughly. Values should be assigned to each so that pitching is roughly, on average 36-37% of a teams performance. Should I try to draft point values? Should we include quality starts and ground balls? Are there any other statistics, not mentioned in the formulas I listed that should be added?
How about we come up with our metric for QS that is not based on ER?
-
Yes, roughly. Values should be assigned to each so that pitching is roughly, on average 36-37% of a teams performance. Should I try to draft point values for discussion? Should I include quality starts and ground balls? Are there any other statistics, not mentioned in the formulas I listed that should be added?
-
Yes, roughly. Values should be assigned to each so that pitching is roughly, on average 36-37% of a teams performance. Should I try to draft point values for discussion? Should I include quality starts and ground balls? Are there any other statistics, not mentioned in the formulas I listed that should be added?
Did you say the same thing over again?
Anyways, I think the rest of the R.C. trusts your guidance with the scoring categories. I like what you have already proposed if it can be done in a points-based fashion rather than category based. If we can get that going along with my requested enhancement for prorating stats (given they are above the minimum), then I think we will be set. I can also set matchups on a basis that is not weekly such as X number of days. A 3-day matchup against a team is a good representation of a series. Of course, there is no 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3 result, just 1-0 and 0-1, so we will probably end up with 45-48 games/matches for the regular season.
-
I received an error message when I sent it so I sent it again... The three day series is an interesting idea. I would probably favor a standard week, however, as sample size would be small and there's the potential one team might have a number of players with off-days, rain-outs, etc? That's my opinion. Also, weekly would coincide with lineup changes, if that matters.
I'll try to draft a points system today and post it for discussion.
-
I received an error message when I sent it so I sent it again... The three day series is an interesting idea. I would probably favor a standard week, however, as sample size would be small and there's the potential one team might have a number of players with off-days, rain-outs, etc? That's my opinion. Also, weekly would coincide with lineup changes, if that matters.
I'll try to draft a points system today and post it for discussion.
We can do weekly... probably 23 weeks with:
15 weeks - Divisional Opponent - This would give at least 3 matchups with each one of your rivals... AL East would have 5 matchups, NL Central would have 3, and everyone else would be 3.75
2 weeks - Inter-league Play
6 weeks - League Opponent
-
:iatp:
-
I like the idea of a 3-day series, but I think it our pitching staffs might be an issue. As teams diverge from their MLB counterparts, their pitchers starts will not be evenly distributed - they won't have one starter going every game. In a 3 day series, you might have 4 starts in one and then only 1 or none in the next series (especially when injuries work their ways in). I think we should use a 1-week period for now.
-
There seems to be good support for it, so I'll join in and agree with a points based system, with the category totals for Hitting, Fielding and Pitching weighted according to mj's suggestions.
Where do we stand on what those categories will be? Would Fantrax be able to implement something for a Win Shares for each, or a Runs Created / Runs Prevented type system? With quality based counting stats like those, I'm not sure we'd need a pro-rating system or playing time limits.
-
Fangraphs tracks each player's Win Values for Hitting, Fielding and Pitching... the also provide an explination for how each is calculated http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/#winvalues (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/#winvalues).
The hitting values are essentially based on a players wOBA, adjusted based on league averaged and scaled by their PA.
wOBA = (0.72xNIBB + 0.75xHBP + 0.90x1B + 0.92xRBOE + 1.24x2B + 1.56x3B + 1.95xHR) / PA
http://www.insidethebook.com/woba.shtml (http://www.insidethebook.com/woba.shtml)
For pitching, it seems to be similar to hitting but with FIP as the metric (again, adjusted based on league average and scaled by IP).
Unfortunately for defense, they use UZR and Fantrax probably doesn't have the data for this.
-------------------------
Edit:
Rather than converting to this Win Value oriented approach, we could stick with the runs oriented one we already have.
For hitting, we use the existing Runs Created formula.
For pitching, we'd do (FIP - league_FIP) * IP, to give a measure of Runs Prevented.
still not sure on fielding, but RF isn't a bad approach.
We get the team totals for these 3 categories, and then apply the weightings mj suggests.
-
Hitting 48%
Runs Created ((H+BB-CS+HBP-GIDP)*((S+2D+3D+4D)*(.26(BB-IBB+HBP))+(.52*(SH+SF+SB))/(AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF)
Pitching 36%
H.Times FIP ((13HR+3(BB+HBP)-2K)/IP)+3.20
Fielding 17%
RF (Putouts+Assists)/Innings Played at a Position
... so exactly what you have here, but we adjust the FIP based on league average and the pitchers IP's.
-
I have put together hitting and pitching point values for review. Once I figure out how to incorporate fielding I'll circulate the spreadsheet.
-
Two things, however, a team with two first basemen playing at CI will have an edge due to defense statistics. We would have to pass a rule that only RP's can be placed at RP regardless of eligibility, otherwise an SP with RP eligibility would provide a big edge. Let me know what you guys think.
-
Two things, however, a team with two first basemen playing at CI will have an edge due to defense statistics. We would have to pass a rule that only RP's can be placed at RP regardless of eligibility, otherwise an SP with RP eligibility would provide a big edge. Let me know what you guys think.
Could you please post a pre-2007 version of the xls?
-
Pre-2007 Excel version
-
Looks like great work.
:iatp:
-
Two things, however, a team with two first basemen playing at CI will have an edge due to defense statistics.
Weighting A more than PO could help narrow the gap
We would have to pass a rule that only RP's can be placed at RP regardless of eligibility, otherwise an SP with RP eligibility would provide a big edge. Let me know what you guys think.
I agree that it would be a concern, but adjusting our eligibility settings would probably do the trick.
Position Eligibility
* Games needed for a player to qualify at a position from previous season: 20
* Games needed for a player to qualify at a position from current season: 5
Changing this to 20/10, or maybe even 20/20?
-
Another thing to note, ace pitchers seem to gain more points than star hitters:
Top 5 Hitters:
12417
11527
10697
10454
10433
Top 5 Pitchers:
17000
15790
15690
15210
15120
While I wouldn't necessarily object to this, wanted to point it out since I was expecting a split similar to the H/F/P breakdown of 48/17/36 (although I see you've done it based on the sum for starters, and this is a result of the higher variation among pitchers).
-
I weighted it by top 270 hitters average points and top 150 sp + 180 rp average points.
9 hitters * 30 teams
5 starting pitchers * 30 teams
6 relief pitchers * 30 teams
-
I weighted it by top 270 hitters average points and top 150 sp + 180 rp average points.
9 hitters * 30 teams
5 starting pitchers * 30 teams
6 relief pitchers * 30 teams
I see that, and it looks fine, it's just that the results were not what I expected. What are your thoughts on valuing A more than PO for fielding? I was also wondering why we'd want to include both GB and HR, since HR is essentially the result of not getting the GB. I would say either we use FB/10 to estimate expected number of HR's, or just use HR directly. Thoughts?
I'd pass the system as is, these are just minor questions.
-
I like the stats M.J. and I trust in you to have some good settings for 2010 and beyond. I think I may add in some zero stats for display purposes only in Fantrax such as R, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, OBP, SLUG, RC, FLD% and W, L, SV, HLD, K/9, BB/9, K, K/BB, ERA, WHIP, FIP, etc...
-
As far as zero stats for display purposes, I'd like to see range factor, either FIP or xERA, and RC.
I'm going to change the defense weightings so that assists are more valuable than putouts, and perhaps weighting defense overall slightly less since the metrics are slightly flawed. I will try to post an updated spreadsheet tonight.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll wait for more feedback vis a vis the GB and HRA, Brewers GM poses a good question.
Changing the game requirements won't totally alleviate the potential issue starting an RP-eligible pitcher that's currently starting. For instance, even though Feliz satisfies requirements at RP next season, if he's slated to start he should not be eligible at RP...
-
Changing the game requirements won't totally alleviate the potential issue starting an RP-eligible pitcher that's currently starting. For instance, even though Feliz satisfies requirements at RP next season, if he's slated to start he should not be eligible at RP...
I am afraid there is not much we can do there unless there is a setting on Fantrax that says that a position cannot accumulate more than X IP/AB on a day or it is disqualified and the same for reaching a certain level to qualify. If there was a setting like that, I wouldn't want to impose it on position players, but I can see the reasoning for pitchers.
-
I think it's something that we should add to the rules and circulate to the league if the points system is adopted. We could impose forfeiture of the illegal pitchers points (this is how we handle this in another league I'm in). Given we'll likely playing weekly, head to head, it'll be up to an opponent to raise the issue if someone accidentally places a starter at RP.
-
I think it's something that we should add to the rules and circulate to the league if the points system is adopted. We could impose forfeiture of the illegal pitchers points (this is how we handle this in another league I'm in). Given we'll likely playing weekly, head to head, it'll be up to an opponent to raise the issue if someone accidentally places a starter at RP.
If this was something we did, and an opponent didn't realize their bullpen hand became a starter then they shouldn't lose out on all of the points, just the points that the now-starter got in the RP spot. This works much easier with a points based H2H than category based-H2H/roto.
-
Updated scoring attached! 8)
-
Updated scoring attached! 8)
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
NICE!
-
:iatp:
NICE!
I just had an opportunity to look at this, thanks for picking it up. Is there any way to tweak the fielding points per position? The only two issues that remain at this point is the overvaluation of defense for first basemen and the ability to place an sp at rp. I think we need some sort of restriction/penalty there, hopefully we can come up with something that's fair.
-
I just had an opportunity to look at this, thanks for picking it up. Is there any way to tweak the fielding points per position? The only two issues that remain at this point is the overvaluation of defense for first basemen and the ability to place an sp at rp. I think we need some sort of restriction/penalty there, hopefully we can come up with something that's fair.
Overvaluation of defense for 1B
There is nothing we can do about limiting a team from fielding multiple 1B. However, we can reduce the defensive points per position (such as CI and Util).
SP/RP limitation
Fantrax may look into it, but all we have available to us is a straight up min/max for the week. The min/max may apply to At-Bats, Innings Pitched, and Games Started. I suggest min/max for AB and IP and a max for GS.
-
Overvaluation of defense for 1B
There is nothing we can do about limiting a team from fielding multiple 1B. However, we can reduce the defensive points per position (such as CI and Util).
SP/RP limitation
Fantrax may look into it, but all we have available to us is a straight up min/max for the week. The min/max may apply to At-Bats, Innings Pitched, and Games Started. I suggest min/max for AB and IP and a max for GS.
I think a limit, either innings or games started is a good idea. I don't think a utility player should accrue defense points, as it's essentially a dh. Defense is tough regardless, I just can't think of a way to statistically represent this part of the game that has any meaning. You could inflate outfield and shrink ci but now you have a larger issue if a first baseman is outfield eligible. I don't think I can support including defense because it severely skews players' values and it's no way related to performance. I apologize if this is an unpopular view, I'm just trying to maintain the integrity of the game and would like to see us adopt a system that most closely translates performance.
-
I think a limit, either innings or games started is a good idea. I don't think a utility player should accrue defense points, as it's essentially a dh. Defense is tough regardless, I just can't think of a way to statistically represent this part of the game that has any meaning. You could inflate outfield and shrink ci but now you have a larger issue if a first baseman is outfield eligible. I don't think I can support including defense because it severely skews players' values and it's no way related to performance. I apologize if this is an unpopular view, I'm just trying to maintain the integrity of the game and would like to see us adopt a system that most closely translates performance.
MJ,
If you are happy with everything else, then we can work to tweak defense. I agree with you that we don't want anything skewed that much. However, defense should be included. What countable stat categories do we have to work with?
Assists
In descending order... SS, 2B, 3B, C, 1B, OF
Luckily, SS and 2B tend to get almost as many assists as each other, so it applies evenly for MI. 3B usually get twice as many assists as 1B. OF barely get any - a few dozen a year at the very most.
Errors
In descending order... SS, 2B, 3B, C, OF, 1B
It's a negative counting stat that not many of us are fond of, but it's worth nothing for creating our own defensive metrics that generally follows the same order as Assists. Shortstops get the most because they have blazing speed balls coming at them. Outfielders have plenty of time to field, and 1B simply have to catch from another fielder for the most part.
Passed Balls
This only applies to catchers, but it's essentially an error catching the pitch itself.
Putouts
In descending order... 1B, C, OF, 2B, SS, 3B
Once again, SS and 2B are about the same. OF is weighted a bit more toward CF, but it's not something too egregious. The problem with putouts is the disparity between 1B and 3B.
I would like to gather some data on these stats for all players, so that we can figure out defense independently and add it in with the rest of the stats. I agree with MJ's point that defense should not count for the Utility position. We will need to come up with five formulas here where the results are such that MI are weighed the most for defense, with OF and CI following and C last.
-
I did a little work to get some defensive countable stats that add up correctly and fit in with the rest of our scheme. This should do the trick. In the attached spreadsheet, you will see how the defensive points in 2009 for the players from the Yankees, Cardinals, and Phillies add up. I chose these three teams because they total up to five gold glove winners (six if you include pitchers). Also, everyone can agree that Pujols should be a GG winner. Interesting enough, there are players like Feliz who the Phillies have on their team just for defense (his bat is horrid), so it's nice to see how he fits in the mix. I noted in one column how many GG each player won in their career as well.
I only use three stats: PO, A, and E... I know most people are not fan of errors, but they are actually thrown in there as a statistical control variable per the positions. Here are the top results for those of you that are interested...
2B Chase Utley: 830
1B Albert Pujols: 802
2B Robinson Cano: 768
C Yadier Molina: 745
3B Pedro Feliz: 744
CF Shane Victorino: 674
SS Jimmy Rollins: 659
RF Jayson Werth: 574
C Carlos Ruiz: 570
SS Derek Jeter: 570
2B Skip Schumaker: 532
C Jorge Posada: 497
3B Alex Rodriguez: 485
SS Brendan Ryan: 481
1B Ryan Howard: 465
CF Melky Cabrera: 460
1B Mark Teixeira: 454
I suppose we could set it back on how much the MI are getting, but their defensive prowess cannot be understated. We should increase the number of GP, GS, DIP (defensive innings played) that players need for position eligibility to limit the abuse of switching positions on players.
-
Looks great Colby!
-
Looks great Colby!
Colby,
This looks great. I think this is probably the best we can do. Only outstanding questions how should we handle players that are eligible at a position they're no longer playing (i.e. of-eligible player playing ci/1b or rp-eligible sp, etc.)?
-
Colby,
This looks great. I think this is probably the best we can do. Only outstanding questions how should we handle players that are eligible at a position they're no longer playing (i.e. of-eligible player playing ci/1b or rp-eligible sp, etc.)?
Thanks MJ... That is next on this scoring categories hit list. What Fantrax has to offer is fairly simply, but at least we can alter it.
Position Eligibility
Games needed for a player to qualify at a position from previous season: ___
Games needed for a player to qualify at a position from current season: ___
In 2009, we used 20 and 5 to determine positions. I think 20 and 20 would work much better.
-
Of all of the pending RC issues, this one is the most important. It appears that we are all in support of my revisions to MJ's work, so all that remains is the position eligibility.
-
ill confirm 20:20
-
I'll confirm, well done gentlemen.
-
ill confirm 20:20
20/20 works for me.
-
20/20 works for me.
Is is possible to have a re-set midway through the season? I think last season's 20 games eligibility should go away at some point. I also think we'll have to keep an eye on this during the season as issues arise. An of or c eligible first baseman could very easily become the most valuable player in the league.
-
Is is possible to have a re-set midway through the season? I think last season's 20 games eligibility should go away at some point. I also think we'll have to keep an eye on this during the season as issues arise. An of or c eligible first baseman could very easily become the most valuable player in the league.
Settings can be changed mid-season, so this is something we could do. If I picked a time in which last season's games do not count toward eligibility then I would pick the All-star break.
-
Do we really need this? I think teams should be able to know what positions they can plan to start players at based on the previous season, and I don't think they should be penalized by players losing eligibility mid-season when it is much harder to make adjustments (MLB teams just tell the guy to switch positions, we don't have that luxury).
-
i agree with ben
-
I'll side with the Brewers regarding midseason position restructuring. Should be for a whole season, for the reason Ben stated above.
-
I agree with Ben as well. MJ, I think we have enough that we could just see how this season goes.
*BTW, Fantrax emailed me saying that they did change their scoring algorithm, but I heard nothing about if we can get their old rankings. We may have to roll out the new scoring system a bit early for the purpose of contract extensions. To be fair to the pending transactions, I would say allow them to use the old extensions already posted (as long as they didn't edit the post) or the new ones. We can't go back and re-value old contract extensions... they were made and set in stone. At least basing values off of fantasy points will be set in stone and not change based on Fantrax.
-
I agree with Ben as well. MJ, I think we have enough that we could just see how this season goes.
*BTW, Fantrax emailed me saying that they did change their scoring algorithm, but I heard nothing about if we can get their old rankings. We may have to roll out the new scoring system a bit early for the purpose of contract extensions. To be fair to the pending transactions, I would say allow them to use the old extensions already posted (as long as they didn't edit the post) or the new ones. We can't go back and re-value old contract extensions... they were made and set in stone. At least basing values off of fantasy points will be set in stone and not change based on Fantrax.
yes need to get the scoring system out!
-
Understood, Colby. Might be best we roll out with the new scoring now if Fantrax cannot guarantee we will get our old rankings back.
-
Alright, fair enough. This will likely be a huge issue when a 1b is of-eligible and record over a thousand putouts at 2 points each. I guess the winning strategy is to accrue as many outfield eligible first basemen as you can and start them in the outfield... Unless I'm not understanding this accurately.
-
Alright, fair enough. This will likely be a huge issue when a 1b is of-eligible and record over a thousand putouts at 2 points each. I guess the winning strategy is to accrue as many outfield eligible first basemen as you can and start them in the outfield... Unless I'm not understanding this accurately.
If this is going by where the player plays for his actual mlb team then there's no issue, if it's dependent on where you play him for your fantasy league it's a huge problem. Can anyone clarify?
-
Alright, fair enough. This will likely be a huge issue when a 1b is of-eligible and record over a thousand putouts at 2 points each. I guess the winning strategy is to accrue as many outfield eligible first basemen as you can and start them in the outfield... Unless I'm not understanding this accurately.
Such players are few and far between... let's bring up common 1B/OF...
Adam Dunn - 67 at 1B, 84 in OF
I can't think of anyone who had so many appearances at both first and the outfield. Dunn is horrible at defense hence why he was shipped to first base. He can gain a lot of extra defensive points as an outfielder for the Nationals or another team in 2010.
Nick Swisher - 20 at 1B, 134 in OF
He will be 1B/OF eligible in 2009 thanks to just making the cusp. Most of his games will be in OF/DH for the season unless Teixiera is hurt.
Kendry Morales - 152 at 1B, 0 in OF (12 in OF in 2008)
Morales would have never gained OF eligibility in 2009 with our 20/20 setup. He played every game at 1B in 2009 and will stay at that position in 2010.
Steve Pearce - 42 at 1B, 1 in OF (29 in OF in 2008)
Similar to Morales, he'll be losing the OF eligibility, but he would have had during all 42 of his games at 1B in 2009 because of his +20 outfield appearances in 2008
Carlos Guillen - 2 at 1B (24 in 2008), 0 at 3B (89 in 2008), 42 in OF (2 in 2008)
Guillen has been commonly used at the hot corner, first base, and outfield. He will be an OF in 2010 per our eligibility rules, but he may end up playing at 1B/3B in real life.
-
If this is going by where the player plays for his actual mlb team then there's no issue, if it's dependent on where you play him for your fantasy league it's a huge problem. Can anyone clarify?
Per my examples, issues of starting OF who are 1B in real life will be few and far between. I have a feeling we will always be tweaking scoring year-to-year, but I think all of the work we put in over the last five months has been solid enough to be in the rules and be better than any fantasy baseball league I have ever seen.
-
Such players are few and far between... let's bring up common 1B/OF...
Adam Dunn - 67 at 1B, 84 in OF
I can't think of anyone who had so many appearances at both first and the outfield. Dunn is horrible at defense hence why he was shipped to first base. He can gain a lot of extra defensive points as an outfielder for the Nationals or another team in 2010.
Nick Swisher - 20 at 1B, 134 in OF
He will be 1B/OF eligible in 2009 thanks to just making the cusp. Most of his games will be in OF/DH for the season unless Teixiera is hurt.
Kendry Morales - 152 at 1B, 0 in OF (12 in OF in 2008)
Morales would have never gained OF eligibility in 2009 with our 20/20 setup. He played every game at 1B in 2009 and will stay at that position in 2010.
Steve Pearce - 42 at 1B, 1 in OF (29 in OF in 2008)
Similar to Morales, he'll be losing the OF eligibility, but he would have had during all 42 of his games at 1B in 2009 because of his +20 outfield appearances in 2008
Carlos Guillen - 2 at 1B (24 in 2008), 0 at 3B (89 in 2008), 42 in OF (2 in 2008)
Guillen has been commonly used at the hot corner, first base, and outfield. He will be an OF in 2010 per our eligibility rules, but he may end up playing at 1B/3B in real life.
There are more from last year and there will likely be more in season. Adam Dunn would likely be the most valuable player in our league, maybe double Pujols' value. Daniel Murphy would likely be the second best player in the league. Although it might only be a handful of players these players value will significantly alter the league scoring.
-
There are more from last year and there will likely be more in season. Adam Dunn would likely be the most valuable player in our league, maybe double Pujols' value. Daniel Murphy would likely be the second best player in the league. Although it might only be a handful of players these players value will significantly alter the league scoring.
If you're comfortable with it, roll it out... You don't need my approval.
-
There are more from last year and there will likely be more in season. Adam Dunn would likely be the most valuable player in our league, maybe double Pujols' value. Daniel Murphy would likely be the second best player in the league. Although it might only be a handful of players these players value will significantly alter the league scoring.
Defensive scoring isn't that high to make them that good. Let me check that spreadsheet of mine again and mess with players such as Dunn, Swisher, Murphy, and Pearce.
-
If you're comfortable with it, roll it out... You don't need my approval.
Sorry, I think my question was missed, will the defensive points accrue based on player's actual position for the mlb team or by placement in the lineup on fantasy team? If it's by mlb team lineup, there's a tiny issue and I approve. If it's fantasy value then Dunn's value would be about 50% more than Pujols (correction)?
-
Sorry, I think my question was missed, will the defensive points accrue based on player's actual position for the mlb team or by placement in the lineup on fantasy team? If it's by mlb team lineup, there's a tiny issue and I approve. If it's fantasy value then Dunn's value is almost certainly double Pujols, maybe triple?
It is by fantasy lineup. I tested Pujols out at OF instead of 1B and look what happens to his defensive points...
CI = 802
OF = 3296
That is four times as much and is more than he gets for batting. MJ, I agree this needs to be adjusted somehow...
-
I believe it would be by fantasy lineup... I'll look into actual team, but I doubt Fantrax can handle that. I tested Pujols out at OF instead of 1B and look what happens to his defensive points...
CI = 802
OF = 3296
That is four times as much and is more than gets for batting. MJ, I agree this needs to be adjusted somehow...
I don't mean to be a pain in the ass and, unfortunately, I don't have a resolution to propose at the moment. Sooner, rather than later, this would likely be the cause of some disdain. I think D.Murphy would've been a top 10 player for last season and I think Morales/Dunn would've been the top two.
-
I don't mean to be a pain in the ass and, unfortunately, I don't have a resolution to propose at the moment. Sooner, rather than later, this would likely be the cause of some disdain. I think D.Murphy would've been a top 10 player for last season and I think Morales/Dunn would've been the top two.
If fantrax could use the actual team position on a game by game basis then there's no problem. Otherwise, maybe flag a particular player that fits into this envelope? You could continue playing Dunn at OF but he'd accrue defensive stats as a 1b (if that's where he's playing)?
-
If fantrax could use the actual team position on a game by game basis then there's no problem. Otherwise, maybe flag a particular player that fits into this envelope? You could continue playing Dunn at OF but he'd accrue defensive stats as a 1b (if that's where he's playing)?
I am open to your latter suggestion since we can't do much about the first. It is too tough to administer a flag on a daily basis. The problem is that outfielders pretty much only get putouts, and if you have Dunn playing like he did in 2008 then he is going to score a lot of points. I guess we would have to flag CI/OF as only allowed to play in CI unless they are OF in real life.
-
We could always score OF like a 1B. This severely reduces the defensive scoring for actual OF, which would be a few hundred points over the year. However, it eliminates the inflated numbers that plugging a OF-eligible 1B in the outfield would cause. BTW, Utility defense is going to be scored like CI.
-
Since I'm guessing our defensive stats are probably not accurate predictors of their MLB defensive value (I don't think an OF's Range Factor closely correlates with their UZR), I agree with Colby's potential solution - we might as well lump them in with CI and essentially say OF's will not have much impact defensively.
I'm not sure there is a good system for valuing defense with the categories Fantrax currently has, and we should pick something that doesn't overly skew our rankings and go with it - if Fantrax ever makes better stats available we'll look into changing our system.
-
Sorry, we won't be able to obtain the old rankings.
Patrick
The Fantrax Team
I suggest we change over to the new scoring system as soon as possible for contract extensions.
-
I suggest we change over to the new scoring system as soon as possible for contract extensions.
Agreed. No one anticipated this, so any gain/loss from this is completely by chance and should be considered part of the game (not like market conditions don't change in MLB). No special clause to help owners that might need to pay more now, no money back for those who would have saved if they waited.
-
Agreed. No one anticipated this, so any gain/loss from this is completely by chance and should be considered part of the game (not like market conditions don't change in MLB). No special clause to help owners that might need to pay more now, no money back for those who would have saved if they waited.
I completely agree except that the people with the pending extensions will receive the better choice since they fell in limbo.
Now, with OF defensive statistics... I say we just assign a constant amount for each inning they play on defense (if that is available) or game played and then add for assists and subtract for errors.
Utility will have no defense. I'll have to test this out on my select group which includes players such as Albert Pujols (awesome hitter, great defense), Raul Ibanez (good hitter, poor defense) and Pedro Feliz (poor hitter, solid defense).
-
I updated the scoring system, and I ended up tweaking the defensive settings and multiplying all of the batting stats by 150%, so everything on the hitters side stayed in Bill James fashion with the pitchers. I believe if you view all hitters, you will see just their batting stats as field stats apply on a per-position basis. One thing I had to do was make the catcher fielding stats as dry as the outfield thanks to the likes of Victor Martinez (1B), Pablo Sandoval (3B), and Kurt Suzuku (DH).
I am still doing some slight tweaks as we speak. You'll see Mauer and A-Rod lower than expected, but keep in mind that this is points-based, so their time on the DL means they earned 0 points in such periods. A useful sorting stat is the Fantasy Points per Game. I would like everyone on the RC look for oddities and outliers and give comments on how this looks. We may always be tweaking this year-to-year, but I am not worried about that now so much as egregious differences in points.
-
I looked at the top-50 batters per fantasy points per game, and everything looks pretty reasonable except for Joe Mauer. You'll see Runs Created Per Game in parenthesis. He is the only batter outside of Pujols that has over 0.9 RC/G. Why isn't he in the top three? Mauer hit mostly singles, but it has to be something more than this. Is it the defensive points that he is losing out on?
Top 50 Batters
25.9 - Pujols, Albert - STL (0.943)
24.9 - Fielder, Prince - MIL (0.859)
24.2 - Teixeira, Mark - NYY (0.816)
24 - Braun, Ryan - MIL (0.836)
23.8 - Lee, Derrek - CHC (0.818)
23.8 - Youkilis, Kevin - BOS (0.804)
23.7 - Utley, Chase - PHI (0.787)
23.6 - Ramirez, Hanley - FLA (0.823)
23.4 - Jones, Garrett - PIT (0.784)
23.3 - Jeter, Derek - NYY (0.778)
23.3 - Howard, Ryan - PHI (0.771)
23.3 - Votto, Joey - CIN (0.802)
23.2 - Beltran, Carlos - NYM (0.774)
23.1 - Rodriguez, Alex - NYY (0.759)
23.1 - Suzuki, Ichiro - SEA (0.778)
22.9 - Choo, Shin-Soo - CLE (0.745)
22.9 - Gonzalez, Adrian - SD (0.733)
22.8 - McCutchen, Andrew - PIT (0.725)
22.8 - Ramirez, Manny - LAD (0.732)
22.7 - Dunn, Adam - WAS (0.721)
22.7 - Lind, Adam - TOR (0.758)
22.7 - Bay, Jason - BOS (0.73)
22.6 - Mauer, Joe - MIN (0.916)
22.6 - Cabrera, Miguel - DET (0.756)
22.4 - Holliday, Matt - STL (0.733)
22.4 - Delgado, Carlos - NYM (0.723)
22.3 - Sandoval, Pablo - SF (0.752)
22.3 - Helton, Todd - COL (0.724)
22.3 - Span, Denard - MIN (0.683)
22.3 - Reynolds, Mark - ARI (0.701)
22.2 - Upton, Justin - ARI (0.727)
22.2 - Pena, Carlos - TB (0.673)
22.2 - Sizemore, Grady - CLE (0.643)
22.2 - Young, Michael - TEX (0.728)
22.1 - Coghlan, Chris - FLA (0.709)
22.1 - Morneau, Justin - MIN (0.69)
22.1 - Branyan, Russell - SEA (0.676)
22.1 - Zimmerman, Ryan - WAS (0.7)
22.1 - Werth, Jayson - PHI (0.692)
22.1 - Scutaro, Marco - TOR (0.654)
22.1 - Damon, Johnny - NYY (0.697)
22 - Figgins, Chone - LAA (0.659)
22 - Zobrist, Ben - TB (0.725)
21.9 - Weeks, Rickie - MIL (0.681)
21.9 - Hill, Aaron - TOR (0.68)
21.9 - Ruiz, Randy - TOR (0.742)
21.9 - Pedroia, Dustin - BOS (0.668)
21.8 - Roberts, Brian - BAL (0.67)
21.8 - Berkman, Lance - HOU (0.676)
21.8 - Tulowitzki, Troy - COL (0.703)
-
If you post the latest spreadsheet I'll take a look to see if anything jumps out at me. You mentioned you upped the hitting stats 150%, I imagine this depreciates pitching statistics/values?
-
If you post the latest spreadsheet I'll take a look to see if anything jumps out at me. You mentioned you upped the hitting stats 150%, I imagine this depreciates pitching statistics/values?
I didn't even base it off of the spreadsheet anymore except that the original spreadsheet was reflecting heavy defensive points because of the 1B bias (1000+ points for Pujols on DEF), so to keep everything in line with Bill James' ratios, I increased the hitting. This actually kept everything much more balanced between Batting, Fielding, and Pitching no matter which range of players you look at. You'll be able to view all of the updated scoring on Fantrax.
-
As you may know, you should be reviewing the scoring system on Fantrax. Now ended up being a good time to do it because Fantrax ranking algorithm changed.
The problem that I personally face is a contract extension that I have to give to Aubrey Huff. According to the old rankings, I was going to give him $6m. I traded for this RFA from Baltimore knowing this. The new rankings say he was the 9th best CI in 2008 (he had a good season) and is due some $14.5m. I fall into the pending contract extension phase that a few others do, but my situation is a bit unique as I traded for an RFA. Under the rules, I am forced to sign Huff, but now his value doubled.
We seem to all agree on the pending extensions that they will receive the lower value from each system. I think I should be allowed to sign Huff to a 1-year $6m deal per the old rankings, but I want to have the scoring finalized first.
As we discussed over PM, Fantrax has already stated there is no way to go back or even view the old rankings. Options will have to be given to GMs who are involved in pending extensions.
-
you are definatly right! I think you should be grandfather in. So you should have the right with the old ranking. But we need to see if anyone else is under this problem.
-
you are definatly right! I think you should be grandfather in. So you should have the right with the old ranking. But we need to see if anyone else is under this problem.
I am the only one with an RFA that has to be signed. I am sure there are some GMs who were waiting to sign players at their prices until after some trade talks, but there is nothing that we can do for them. Chad, what did you think of the scoring system?
-
That scoring system is way out of my league. I believe how you did it is the closest to what we are looking for. And if it was up to me, I dont know a person like you colby that finds info. and researches the info any better then you. So what I read on this Rules Committee Page is the best around for Fantasy Baseball!! And thats another reason, I really enjoy this league! :thumbsup:
-
That scoring system is way out of my league. I believe how you did it is the closest to what we are looking for. And if it was up to me, I dont know a person like you colby that finds info. and researches the info any better then you. So what I read on this Rules Committee Page is the best around for Fantasy Baseball!! And thats another reason, I really enjoy this league! :thumbsup:
Thanks Chad. I am looking to hear from M.J., Ben, and Jake. I am going to try and get Roy here for the action too.
-
My issue may not be with defense for catchers after all. I figured out why Mauer is less than Sandoval and Inge and V-Mart are rated the same. There is no deduction for outs of any kind, or any measurement of how often a player gets a hit. Just take a look at the AVG and OBP alongside the RC and PTS and you will see that OBP has little correlation.
-
My issue may not be with defense for catchers after all. I figured out why Mauer is less than Sandoval and Inge and V-Mart are rated the same. There is no deduction for outs of any kind, or any measurement of how often a player gets a hit. Just take a look at the AVG and OBP alongside the RC and PTS and you will see that OBP has little correlation.
Our stats are going to be comparable total RC rather than a ratio like RC/27 that would include how many outs a player makes. If you look at Mauer's Points/Game in our system, he's rightfully the top catcher last season.
With that said, there will undoubtedly be some discrepancies between the resulting rankings and what might have been expected - this is why I think it's really important we make a decision as soon as possible on passing the scoring system (something I tried to stress a while back).
-
Our stats are going to be comparable total RC rather than a ratio like RC/27 that would include how many outs a player makes. If you look at Mauer's Points/Game in our system, he's rightfully the top catcher last season.
With that said, there will undoubtedly be some discrepancies between the resulting rankings and what might have been expected - this is why I think it's really important we make a decision as soon as possible on passing the scoring system (something I tried to stress a while back).
I would like to pass a scoring system by tomorrow if at all possible. I am going to tweak it and see how the negative weighted inclusion of OUTS, STRIKEOUTS, and/or AB affects it.
-
If you're going to include one of those 3 as a negative, I'd suggest outs.
-
If you're going to include one of those 3 as a negative, I'd suggest outs.
Outs wasn't available, but I could substitute it by applying X * (H - AB). BTW, I went through the stats, did just that, increased the other stats by 8.33% (testing Jamesian ratios now) and I noticed Games Played was given a weight of 5 points. This would explain some discrepancies!
-
Okay, check out the latest on Fantrax. I still have to scale it Bill James style with the pitching points and then double check fielding points, but the Who's Who of the List is much more representative of the quality players we are looking for.
-
I can't argue with last seasons CI rankings 8)
-
Okay, I did my final tweak to get it in line with Bill James' ratios. I attached the spreadsheet that I used for this. There are three worksheets for Batter's Stats, Pitcher's Stats, and the Analysis of them. There are extra rows and columns in the Batter's Stats page to figure out the defensive points. On an individual level, the Bill James ratios will be flawed because of the high variance of any player's offensive talent compared to their defensive talent. On a macro basis though, the ratios come out excellent when looking at any of the ranges in the top 100. If you look at the select top 10 or 25, you will notice that the fielding points lose some of their statistical power (still over 10%), but that is because the hitting stats are the majority, and those players are just really good hitters. I am happy with this scoring system, and I want everyone to check it out in the spreadsheet and/or Fantrax. I would like to have it approved as soon as possible. Many thanks goes out to the RC, especially MJ on this one as he started the entire idea of using a H2H points-based system.
-
Chad was asking me how he could find out the points for each stat on Fantrax. It is available under Other -> League Rules Summary (http://www.fantrax.com/fantasy/leagueRulesSummary.go?leagueId=waskuxlefw9i8r23) and is near the bottom of the page.
-
Looks good, gentlemen. As you can see by my lack of posting on this thread, numbers definitely aren't my forte, so I'm glad you guys took the reigns on a quality scoring system.
-
Chad and Jake appear to have approved what we are doing. I am obviously in support with the scoring system. In normal circumstances, we would need just four votes, but Ben and M.J. put a lot of work into this one, so as Commissioner, I say both of their approvals are needed as well. Let's get this one passed today gentlemen! :toth:
-
Great work COLBY :winner:
-
For official purposes, I'll approve. Wasn't exactly stated in my prior post.
-
:iatp:
-
I don't have a vote but it looks excellent! Is this thing passed or not?
-
Job well done fellas. Please let me know when I am able use the rankings on Fantrax to identify the RFA extensions for the Pending A's/Twins trade.
Thanks
-
I received the following PM from M.J.
I haven't had time to look at the scoring, don't wait for my approval. You can go forward with it. I'm sure it's pretty close at this point and we'll likely tweak it for 2011.
The new scoring system, and a standard for MLFB, has been approved (5-0) for 2010. Whatever changes happen to this standardized scoring system in the future will also take place in Franchise GM, but such changes only happen once in the off-season and are announced. Congratulations to everyone on all of the work that they did! :toast: :judge: :toth:
-
The new scoring system, and a standard for MLFB, has been approved (5-0) for 2010. Whatever changes happen to this standardized scoring system in the future will also take place in Franchise GM, but such changes only happen once in the off-season and are announced.
I agree with the concept of standard formats, but I think any changes to the standard should still be approved by the Franchise GM RC before being accepted.
-
I agree with the concept of standard formats, but I think any changes to the standard should still be approved by the Franchise GM RC before being accepted.
Good point Ben. For example, if the RC wanted to delay the onset of a new scoring system from 2011 to 2012 then the approval process gives them the ability to do so.
-
Good point Ben. For example, if the RC wanted to delay the onset of a new scoring system from 2011 to 2012 then the approval process gives them the ability to do so.
I was thinking more along the lines of, if the format is changed outside of Franchise GM, the current FGM RC may not want to adopt those changes. The FGM RC has approved the format in its current form, but has made no vote to adopt a format specified by a board-wide Scoring Committee, independent of this league, and any changes it may undergo.