ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: VolsRaysBucs on April 30, 2011, 11:39:24 AM
-
I hope I don't come across as complaining, but I honestly need help understanding our pitching scoring (to better help evaluate pitchers). Please tell me if I'm missing something here by comparing two SP lines for this week:
Jeff Neimann- 7.0 IP/ 2 H/ 1 R/ 1 ER/ 1 BB/ 2 K/ 0 HR/ 9 GB/ 40 fantasy points
David Price- 4.1 IP/ 12 H/ 5 R/ 5 ER/ 1 BB/ 4 K/ 1 HR/ 10 GB/ 46 fantasy points
I'm reading this as 2 extra K's and 1 more GB are enough to make up for 2 2/3 less IP, 10 more hits given up, 4 more ER given up and 1 more HR given up. To the tune of 6 more points being scored for the FAR worse line. I understand our vision as a league, but can't for the life of me understand how this scoring "better" evaluates pitcher performance. I happened to watch both games, and their performances were as night-and-day as their lines. There have been numerous other examples of this that I've personally witnessed this season alone (for other teams' players). Even looking at this sabermetrically, I can't get it to make sense to me.....Help me to understand this fellas! :toth:
-
To supplement Mike's frustration, points are also given for ground balls that DO NOT result in an out, also. So it doesn't matter if its a dribbler to the pitcher , or a groundball to the outfield for a double, its points for the pitcher. If it's a GB, its points, whether the hitter is out or not.
-
I agree the pitcher scoring is out of wack. Every week, a member of my pitching staff will get hammered and score a lot of points while another goes 8 innings and scores less points. I think the problem is that we don't penalize pitchers for line drives allowed (which often leads to hits) and we don't reward pitchers for popups allowed (which often leads to outs). Unforunately, neither is available on fantrax right now. A good interim solution might be to reward pitchers for outs recorded.
-
Jeff Neimann- 7.0 IP/ 2 H/ 1 R/ 1 ER/ 1 BB/ 2 K/ 0 HR/ 9 GB/ 40 fantasy points
David Price- 4.1 IP/ 12 H/ 5 R/ 5 ER/ 1 BB/ 4 K/ 1 HR/ 10 GB/ 46 fantasy points
Neimann had 9 GB, 2 K, 1 BB in 7 IP
Price had 10 GB, 4 K, 1 HR, 1 BB in 4.1 IP
Two more K's and one more GB shouldn't make up for 2.2 less IP and allowing a HR. We all understand the point of the scoring system, but perhaps we need an upwards adjustment for IP.
-
If we had a good review of pitching by the end of this season, I think we could find a good formula that would bump pitchers (good ones, anyway) a bit for next season.
As much as I'd like to see changes now, next season should be where changes can be made. If we were to find a good formula by, say, June 1, all teams would have 2 months before the trade deadline to prepare for next season changes.
In my opinion, the most glaring weakness in our system is the allowance of GB hits counting as points.
-
In my opinion, the most glaring weakness in our system is the allowance of GB hits counting as points.
Hits are an issue of the defense behind a pitcher... so it's not quite independent.
-
Hits are an issue of the defense behind a pitcher... so it's not quite independent.
I can agree with you only up to a point....I mean, are GB hits allowed in any other league that you play in? And if so, is the scoring, in your opinion, fairly representative?
-
I agree that this is a broken system. We seeing value's of pitchers fluctuate based on our system and not real life performance. This leads to contracts values being skewed, so we need to fix this ASAP, so we don't have average pitchers being paid more than the above average pitchers.
~MTK
-
In my perfect world, we'd be able to tweak the system so that real-life performance more closely correlates with points scored. Using the before referenced lines for comparison, using the eyeball test, one would assume that Price scored in the negative and Neimann would have posted significantly higher points. We have RP scoring higher points than starters while pitching to 4 batters compared to going 7 strong innings.
I am torn between Jake's idea of waiting until the offseason and Aubrey's of doing something ASAP. I can find merit and fault in both schools of thought. I've not yet given enough thought to possible solutions, perhaps I should have before starting this topic. It does appear there are enough people who agree that something is amiss and with the minds we have in this league, I'm confident the brainstorming will strengthen an already great league.
Mike B (Rays)
-
In my perfect world, we'd be able to tweak the system so that real-life performance more closely correlates with points scored. Using the before referenced lines for comparison, using the eyeball test, one would assume that Price scored in the negative and Neimann would have posted significantly higher points. We have RP scoring higher points than starters while pitching to 4 batters compared to going 7 strong innings.
I am torn between Jake's idea of waiting until the offseason and Aubrey's of doing something ASAP. I can find merit and fault in both schools of thought. I've not yet given enough thought to possible solutions, perhaps I should have before starting this topic. It does appear there are enough people who agree that something is amiss and with the minds we have in this league, I'm confident the brainstorming will strengthen an already great league.
Mike B (Rays)
I believe Colby was onto something about somehow giving points for outs (all outs), or points for pitching full innings, etc. Are those allowable stats on fantrax?
-
Any changes to the scoring system should be considered a MAJOR change, and should absolutely not be made mid-season. If there's a strong push to review the scoring, I would definitely push to have it only take effect in 2012 or even later.
Saying our system is broken is a bit of an exaggeration, I think the league is in pretty good health.
-
I really don't think the system is broken. Can is use a few tweaks, maybe, and it is an argument I have made in the past. But we are going into our (a good majority of the GMs) second year, we should all have some concept of value by now. Ks and GBs good, HR and BB bad. I do agree that line drives should maybe play a role in our scoring, as should FB. But, that being said, the formula that we use in this league is FIP, and it does not use any of those stats to calculate. GB hits are definitely reliant on defense. I'm sure Yankee pitchers give up more hits to the left side than Texas does. Also, as Ben and I discussed last year, it has been proven that LD% is not a tell tale sign of pitching performance. Even more still if we wanted to break down HRs, then we have to start getting into park factors, weather, if Jose Canseco is your right fielder, etc. I think it is best we leave it the way it is, as I said earlier, value has already been established, which I think is key going forward. The sooner that we all know the value of what every player brings to the table, then the salaries will follow suit. Again just my opinion.
I also think that maybe the stats we have been using to evaluate pitchers prior to this should be what needs to be tweaked.
-
The other thing I dont like about our scoring system is that the pitching scoring is completed inconsistent from the batting.
For example, if a pitcher allows a GB, and it goes through for a single, both the pitcher and batter are awarded points.
-
There will be exceptions to any system put in place, but if you take a look at the top 20 the list of names in our league (this year, 2010, 2009, etc.) is pretty similar to what you might 'expect'.
I personally don't think our innings limit is realistic (MLB teams throw about 1440 IP over 24-25 weeks ~= 55-60IP/week, compared to our limit of 85), which devalues the good SP's since you don't need to optimize your rotation you just throw out anyone that nets positive points (a team with Halladay/Oswalt/Hamels/Lee in their rotation would be no better than a team with 10 scrub SPs). I also don't like how an SP with RP eligibility has so much value, for the same reason as above. That said, in my opinion the scoring itself is just fine.
-
I personally don't think our innings limit is realistic (MLB teams throw about 1440 IP over 24-25 weeks ~= 55-60IP/week, compared to our limit of 85), which devalues the good SP's since you don't need to optimize your rotation you just throw out anyone that nets positive points (a team with Halladay/Oswalt/Hamels/Lee in their rotation would be no better than a team with 10 scrub SPs). I also don't like how an SP with RP eligibility has so much value, for the same reason as above.
:iatp:
-
There will be exceptions to any system put in place, but if you take a look at the top 20 the list of names in our league (this year, 2010, 2009, etc.) is pretty similar to what you might 'expect'.
I personally don't think our innings limit is realistic (MLB teams throw about 1440 IP over 24-25 weeks ~= 55-60IP/week, compared to our limit of 85), which devalues the good SP's since you don't need to optimize your rotation you just throw out anyone that nets positive points (a team with Halladay/Oswalt/Hamels/Lee in their rotation would be no better than a team with 10 scrub SPs). I also don't like how an SP with RP eligibility has so much value, for the same reason as above. That said, in my opinion the scoring itself is just fine.
If I'm not mistaken that aspect was voted on this winter and teams built their staffs on that rule. I hope there isn't any consideration for changing.
As far as tweaking points for Outs,GBs,Ks, etc., I'll leave that to the mathematicians to figure out. Pitching in this league is underemphasized but that really doesn't bother me, I prefer a scoring system that favors offense.
-
If I'm not mistaken that aspect was voted on this winter and teams built their staffs on that rule. I hope there isn't any consideration for changing.
As far as tweaking points for Outs,GBs,Ks, etc., I'll leave that to the mathematicians to figure out. Pitching in this league is underemphasized but that really doesn't bother me, I prefer a scoring system that favors offense.
I understand your point, but I think it goes both ways - if you can't change the IP limit, you certainly can't change the scoring...
-
There is no doubt the scoring needs to be adjusted. Pitchers are getting points because a batter hit a hard ground ball down the line for a double.
Mike comparison of Nieman and Price is a perfect example, that our system (which is not bad) just needs a minor tweak.
-
There is no doubt the scoring needs to be adjusted. Pitchers are getting points because a batter hit a hard ground ball down the line for a double.
This is consistent with the premise of how Colby defined the league, in that scoring will only reflect what an individual player can control. A pitcher has some effect on whether the ball is his in the air or on the ground, but after that he has no control with what the defense does. Hitters do have control, and thus whether it becomes a hit or an out does matter for their scoring. There are some studies out there on hard hit balls using things like PitchF/X, but we obviously don't have access to use that with Fantrax.
I guess I'm missing why this is such a huge issue, even if it were an inconsistency (as opposed to intentional, which it is).
-
Mike comparison of Nieman and Price is a perfect example, that our system (which is not bad) just needs a minor tweak.
His comparison is an example of one pitcher who got lucky with poor peripheral stats and one who got unlucky with better peripherals ... this is a pretty common argument against things like FIP, tERA, xFIP, etc., but there's just so much data out there on luck and pitching that you can't ignore it. Again, this is part of the premise of the league...
-
This is consistent with the premise of how Colby defined the league, in that scoring will only reflect what an individual player can control. A pitcher has some effect on whether the ball is his in the air or on the ground, but after that he has no control with what the defense does. Hitters do have control, and thus whether it becomes a hit or an out does matter for their scoring. There are some studies out there on hard hit balls using things like PitchF/X, but we obviously don't have access to use that with Fantrax.
I guess I'm missing why this is such a huge issue, even if it were an inconsistency (as opposed to intentional, which it is).
To an extent I agree here, but how does a pitcher control what happens after it's pitched any more than a batter control after it's hit? Under your argument, aren't both contingent upon the quality of the defense? My hope was to have it better emulate real life performance a bit better. Lazy cans of corn and 250 ft fly balls are much better than frozen rope ground balls into the corner or base hits up the middle with runners on base, no metrics can dispute that I don't think. If nothing else, I'd like to see possibly a comprehensive analysis of the pitching outcomes at season's end and compare them to our scoring to see if anything can/should be done. I'd volunteer to crunch numbers.
-
Hitters do have control, and thus whether it becomes a hit or an out does matter for their scoring.
Hitters do not have control over whether they get a hit or not, unless it's a homerun.
-
Guys,
I have to respectfully say that I think we've taken some good statistical tools and over-applied them. Yes, a great defense can help out a pitcher. Yes, a pitcher sometimes has no control over some cheap hits or some great defensive plays. But, to say that all flyball hits other than HRs are beyond a pitcher's control sounds a bit silly to me. So a pitcher has control over a HR, but not over a hard hit double against the wall or a triple in the corner? Price was not unlucky that day. He got rocked. Neimann was not lucky. It was one of his best pitched games of the year. Personally, I don't care whether we change the scoring system or not, but to quote Michael Corleone from the Godfather: "Don't insult my intelligence to claim that this scoring system is accurate."
-
If we are to believe Howie's comment, the only difference between all hitters other than the amount of home runs they hit is just luck. Does anybody here really believe that? Tell that to Pete Rose, Wade Boogs, Rod Carew, and Tony Gwynn. God, they were damn lucky ball players!
-
If we are to believe Howie's comment, the only difference between all hitters other than the amount of home runs they hit is just luck. Does anybody here really believe that? Tell that to Pete Rose, Wade Boogs, Rod Carew, and Tony Gwynn. God, they were damn lucky ball players!
That's not what I meant.
Hitters do not control whether they can get a hit or not unless they hit a home run. Otherwise, there is always a chance that someone can make a diving catch/nice defensive play. Hitters have no control over whether they get a hit or not; they do have control over how many groundballs/line drives/fly balls/pop ups they hit. The more line drives that are hit, the greater the chance the hitter will end up with more hits.
My point is that if we are going to pitchers using defense independent statistics then the same should apply to the hitters.
My other point is that if we are going to award pitchers got allowing GB, then they should be penalized for allowing line drives.
-
It is a fact that hitters have control on BABIP and pitchers do not (with the small exception of knuckle-ballers). Hitters have control over HR/FB and pitchers do not. These are counterintuitive to what was a long-standing perception in baseball and is still held by those not familiar with the research, but its research that has been out for a while now and has become widely accepted, including by MLB executives.
-
Hitters do not control whether they can get a hit or not unless they hit a home run. Otherwise, there is always a chance that someone can make a diving catch/nice defensive play. Hitters have no control over whether they get a hit or not; they do have control over how many groundballs/line drives/fly balls/pop ups they hit. The more line drives that are hit, the greater the chance the hitter will end up with more hits.
This is not true, hitters have control over how hard a ball is hit, while pitchers do not.
-
This is not true, hitters have control over how hard a ball is hit, while pitchers do not.
Batters have control in terms of LD/GB%, they can't control whether they get a hit in a given AB. Once the ball leaves the bat, the hitter is powerless, much like pitchers.
All I am saying is, if a batter is award for hitting a grounder between 2nd and 3rd and goes through to the outfield , then a pitcher should not be awarded for allowing that ground ball.
I realize that LB can't be tracked. That's why I proposed we include either outs or hits allowed in the pitchers scoring system to act as proxy for LB (in the case of hits) or as proxyfor prevention of LB (in the case of outs).
Is the system broken? No. Can it be tweaked so it's more realistic/fair? Yes.
-
Batters have control in terms of LD/GB%, they can't control whether they get a hit in a given AB. Once the ball leaves the bat, the hitter is powerless, much like pitchers.
The 2nd statement is partially true, but the first is not. The key distinction is what I wrote, research shows hitters can control how hard the ball is hit while pitchers cannot, and this gives hitters influence on whether a GB/LD/FB is a hit or not. Once it leaves their bat they have less effect (but they've already influenced more than a pitter by controlling how hard it was hit), but they still have some control such as speedsters have better BABIP on GB than slow guys do.
-
His comparison is an example of one pitcher who got lucky with poor peripheral stats and one who got unlucky with better peripherals ... this is a pretty common argument against things like FIP, tERA, xFIP, etc., but there's just so much data out there on luck and pitching that you can't ignore it. Again, this is part of the premise of the league...
no not lucky. So example, just because Jeff Nieman doesnt strike guys out he had an ineffictive start? There is nothing lucky about getting guys to pop up or hit weak ground balls. There needs to be somethiyng added.... Ben i agree it should not happen till the end of the year, no change should be effective during a season. I have pitchers on my team who get rocked but put up good points. And I honestly think its not right.
-
Ben,
The research that you're so fond of is being misapplied. The research simplies implies that there are some pitchers over the course of a season that may have had some bad luck in terms of hits and/or earned runs allowed. To extrapolate that over the entire piching universe and saying that all flyballs should be outs is patently wrong. MLB executives have access to information such as exactly how many hits were allowed by bad pitching as opposed to great defense. Applying the research the way we have and to only factor in K, BB, and HR is just plain wrong. The truth is that the vast majority of hits on flyballs or groundballs had NOTHING to do with defense. We have taken the simple concept of how defense and bad luck can affect a FEW hits over the course of a game or season and bastardized it by removing all hits and earned runs out of the equation altogether. That is NOT how MLB executives look at it. They look at these stats IN ADDITION to the traditional ones, not IN PLACE OF. We are tailoring a scoring system around the least common denominator which is great defense and/or luck rather than the most common which is the fact that a hit was a result of a bad pitch.
Lastly, I could just as easily argue that a K or BB is the result of the umpire as it was the pitcher. Should we remove them from the scoring as well, because they are not "independent"? Come on guys. Let's use some common sense here and not be fooled by people using certain statistics that are being morphed into saying something that they don't prove at all.
-
It is a widely accepted fact that K, BB, and GB/FB are the best indicator of a pitchers true skill/performance. Because of that, these are the categories we use to measure scoring, in line with Colby's intentions for this league.
Agree to disagree I guess. I dug up related articles last year when we had the same debate, I'm not really inclined to do so again every the argument comes up by someone who hasn't read them. If you have read research that counters it, please post links and we can all review / discuss, but adding your opinions without statistical research is not sufficient.
-
Deja Vu all over again...
Please read it...
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=6413.msg29445#msg29445
-
In my opinion its gona be brought every year. Having a scoring where pitchers get blown up but still put in good points is just flat out crazy.
-
I can read the previous discussions and related research until I'm blue in the face. It still does not convince me that there is not something flawed with the current scoring system. There is absolutely no way Price should EVER score more points than Neimann, and there are countless examples on a daily basis around the league. Again, I understand the metrics involved as well as anyone, but someone brought up a perfect point earlier. These categories are being bastardized. My suggestion, to state again, was to find a way that we can have the scoring metrics and "eye-ball testing" being more closely aligned. This is what they do in MLB. They have their spreadsheets, sure, but any scout whose spreadsheet and eyeballing of the Neimann and Price performance who said Price had the better outing would be looking for a new line of work. Any GM who looked at that line, peripherals included, and concluded that Price was the more effective pitcher would be in the same boat.
-
I completely agree with Corey, Mike, and Roy. We have first made the mistake of "putting all of eggs in one basket" by relying overwhelmingly on these sabermetrics. We are being narrow-minded to continue to tweak/fix this system after countless accounts like "Niemann vs. Price."
~MTK
-
His comparison is an example of one pitcher who got lucky with poor peripheral stats and one who got unlucky with better peripherals ... this is a pretty common argument against things like FIP, tERA, xFIP, etc., but there's just so much data out there on luck and pitching that you can't ignore it. Again, this is part of the premise of the league...
:iatp:
I think the difference in the stats needs to be adjusted by solely looking at our countable stats. Look at the IP! Perhaps we need to bump up those points slightly.
I also feel that the IP limit should be lowered. A handful of GMs were against the limit, but perhaps now that we have adjusted then maybe we can move to a more realistic limit such as 75 or 80 IP. Keep in mind that the minimum IP for 7 away games in a week would be 63 IP. Make it 8 games (which is our fantasy schedule) and you have 70 IP.
-
Colby,
The jury has heard the evidence from both sides ad nauseum. I could be wrong here, but it seem as if you and Ben are the leading voices in favor of the current system. I suggest that we put this to a vote and move on. I want a system that takes hits allowed and earned runs into account.
Roy
-
Colby,
The jury has heard the evidence from both sides ad nauseum. I could be wrong here, but it seem as if you and Ben are the leading voices in favor of the current system. I suggest that we put this to a vote and move on. I want a system that takes hits allowed and earned runs into account.
Roy
Just for completeness, mjmezzetti is also a big voice since if memory serves me he either designed or helped Colby design the current system (although his posting has dropped off).
-
:iatp:
I think the difference in the stats needs to be adjusted by solely looking at our countable stats. Look at the IP! Perhaps we need to bump up those points slightly.
I also feel that the IP limit should be lowered. A handful of GMs were against the limit, but perhaps now that we have adjusted then maybe we can move to a more realistic limit such as 75 or 80 IP. Keep in mind that the minimum IP for 7 away games in a week would be 63 IP. Make it 8 games (which is our fantasy schedule) and you have 70 IP.
I would argue that dropping the IP threshold would have enough of an effect that we don't need to explicitly reward for IP (you'll need to optimize the IP you have), but we could hash that out.
-
I would argue that dropping the IP threshold would have enough of an effect that we don't need to explicitly reward for IP (you'll need to optimize the IP you have), but we could hash that out.
We could factor in hits on a low-point basis, but I am more focused on the innings.
-
Part of the argument for 85 IP was that some GMs had 6, even seven starters and it wouldn't be fair to them.
With this in mind,I'm against arbitrarily lowering IP during this season.
I haven't had the time to read all the posts but I'm confident you guys will find a solution that will make the league better.
The only request I would have is that we don't implement any major changes this season. Give everyone an off-season to adjust
-
Part of the argument for 85 IP was that some GMs had 6, even seven starters and it wouldn't be fair to them.
With this in mind,I'm against arbitrarily lowering IP during this season.
I haven't had the time to read all the posts but I'm confident you guys will find a solution that will make the league better.
The only request I would have is that we don't implement any major changes this season. Give everyone an off-season to adjust
There was no talk of changing anything mid-season... just wanted to clear that up.
-
I think the argument stems from the Niemann/ David Price differential. To the best of my knowledge Niemann is a fly ball pitcher. What if we just made fly balls 3 points or something, since GB are 6. Make home runs and walks more detrimental. That should even everything out.
I don't know if what I am about to suggest is feasible, but it might be worth it, just to start up a league on Fantrax and play around with the scoring settings until we achieve what the majority considers correct. Give it a dry run before we implement it. I think if we had hard numbers, it would be easier to make a case for scoring one way as opposed to another.
-
GB are currently 3, change it to 4. Maybe just give 2 points for recording a fly ball out. And get rid of ground ball base hits being 3 points as well.
i dont think any one member in the league has a bigger voice than any other. We almost all agree that a small simple change is needed. Hec, the Nieman and Price example is only one. But you could easily find many many more examples on a daily basis.
I agree with Roy that earned runs should be included.
-
i dont think any one member in the league has a bigger voice than any other. We almost all agree that a small simple change is needed. Hec, the Nieman and Price example is only one. But you could easily find many many more examples on a daily basis.
On a game-to-game basis you will find aberrations with any scoring system, thats why performance in baseball is all about sample size. If we want to gauge any given scoring system, it should be looking at the scoring ranks over a longer time period (at least a month or two).
Again, please take a look at the top 20 (either through April, or any of the past few seasons) and point out how many names don't belong - there are not many (if any) which means we heave a pretty good way of using stats to match the 'eye test'.
-
I agree with Roy that earned runs should be included.
Please review the links in the post Dan linked that dispute the value of ERA to accurately measure a pitcher's skill and provide links to counter articles that argue in favor of ER. If the articles I've cited are wrong and there is info out there to disprove them, then we should certainly discuss that, but I have not read them.
-
Please review the links in the post Dan linked that dispute the value of ERA to accurately measure a pitcher's skill and provide links to counter articles that argue in favor of ER. If the articles I've cited are wrong and there is info out there to disprove them, then we should certainly discuss that, but I have not read them.
No way should ER be included.
-
Lowering the innings limit may make teams pick and choose which starters to throw each week a bit more strategically, but I don't think that will necessarily solve the 'Niemann vs. Price' dilemma, since they will still be scoring the same.
Just an idea, but what if Baserunners Allowed was brought into the picture as a negative stat? This is simply Hits + Walks + Hit Batters, but this might correct the Niemann vs. Price issue, as Price's score would have went down heavily due to this.
-
Keep in mind DICE (Defense Independent ERA) is a scoring option. This projects a pitcher's ERA without the effects of defense or luck, which as been discussed often so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense-Independent_ERA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense-Independent_ERA)
-
"One reason that people often suspect there should be a difference is that ground balls in play are more likely to be hits than fly balls in play. Although about 24 percent of ground balls are hits, just 14 percent of fly balls and pop-ups are hits (and 16 percent of non-home run outfield fly balls, specifically). Since pitchers are certainly prone to either be of the ground-ball or fly-ball variety�GB/FB ratio has as much persistence as walk and strikeout rates�people expect that there should be some difference between pitchers in this regard. The reason that this is such a small difference in aggregate is that the batted-ball type that really falls for hits more than the others is line drives, which drop about 73 percent of the time. Thus, the most important question in asking whether pitchers control their hit rates on balls in play is whether they control their line-drive rate on balls in play.
The answer to that question is no. Although we are perfectly aware that game charters are biased in evaluating what constitutes a line drive�Colin Wyers showed that very well a few months ago�when you look at a pitcher's line drive rate, net of his team�s pitching staff's line drive rate, the intra-class correlation Eric and I found was 0.007. In other words, pitchers who give up a lot of line drives on balls in play one year are no more or less likely to allow a lot of line drives on balls in play the next year. Line drives are not a pitcher skill, but they are the primary determinant in BABIP. That is why researchers have continually found that pitchers do not have significant control over BABIP."
This article from BP goes on to say that a pitcher can control whether a hitter hits a fly ball or a ground ball, so I'm thinking maybe adding fly balls to the equation - as stated above. If anyone (Mike I think you volunteered to do some research) would care to do the following for the two starts (Davis - Price) - 2 points for fly balls - outs or otherwise, 4 points for GBs, outs or otherwise, keeping the rest of our scoring the same. Just curious what the difference would be.
-
This article from BP goes on to say that a pitcher can control whether a hitter hits a fly ball or a ground ball, so I'm thinking maybe adding fly balls to the equation - as stated above. If anyone (Mike I think you volunteered to do some research) would care to do the following for the two starts (Davis - Price) - 2 points for fly balls - outs or otherwise, 4 points for GBs, outs or otherwise, keeping the rest of our scoring the same. Just curious what the difference would be.
I guess the question is why would we reward pitchers for every GB and FB? There is an argument for GB, in that every GB is certainly not a HR, but FB's are often seen as a negative for pitchers (since ~10% leave the park).
-
Lowering the innings limit may make teams pick and choose which starters to throw each week a bit more strategically, but I don't think that will necessarily solve the 'Niemann vs. Price' dilemma, since they will still be scoring the same.
Just an idea, but what if Baserunners Allowed was brought into the picture as a negative stat? This is simply Hits + Walks + Hit Batters, but this might correct the Niemann vs. Price issue, as Price's score would have went down heavily due to this.
I like this. Either penalize hits allowed or awarding outs recorded would work. It's a matter of coming up with the correct weights so that GB & K are still important parts of the scoring system
-
I like this. Either penalize hits allowed or awarding outs recorded would work. It's a matter of coming up with the correct weights so that GB & K are still important parts of the scoring system
Awarding outs (ie: IP) is something I am undecided on - I'm honestly not sure what the research says about IP. One would think a pitcher has significant control over their durability, and there is definitely a perception that teams sign specific pitchers for their 'rubber arms' to 'save the bullpen'. However, there are metrics out there such as xIP, because if a pitcher gets knocked out early on bad luck they miss out on innings they might 'deserve', or if a pitcher gets really lucky through say 8 innings, when they 'should' have been knocked out after say 5.
-
Awarding outs (ie: IP) is something I am undecided on - I'm honestly not sure what the research says about IP. One would think a pitcher has significant control over their durability, and there is definitely a perception that teams sign specific pitchers for their 'rubber arms' to 'save the bullpen'. However, there are metrics out there such as xIP, because if a pitcher gets knocked out early on bad luck they miss out on innings they might 'deserve', or if a pitcher gets really lucky through say 8 innings, when they 'should' have been knocked out after say 5.
Like I said, there's gotta be some trial and error process to find the optimal weights for GB/K/IP. There is always an element of luck with any scoring system. The addition of IP simply bridges the gap between the theoreitcal pitcher's performance and the actual pitcher's performance.
-
Pitchers absolutely have control over their ability to toss a lot of innings. It's called command and low pitch counts. It is no secret teams pay pitchers who find ways to "eat innings." SP are more valuable than RP, as evidenced by contrasting contracts in real life and teams attempting to get their best arms in their rotations. Generally speaking, a SP's innings are far more valuable than a RP's innings, not taking into account leverage and things of that nature. A pitcher going 6 strong giving up 2 runs should be valued higher than a LOOGY getting two lefties to ground out, regardless of how few K's or GB's he had. It seems our scoring system throws the baby out with the bathwater by eliminating good scoring cats to try to neutralize an already neutralized phenomenon known as luck.
As an aside, I'll watch Tue and Wed Rays games (Davis-Neimann) and add the points for GB and FB.
-
An example of a bit of wackiness in our current system:
Tim Hudson was the 24th rated pitcher in 2010. He induced 443 ground balls, which was 1st among pitchers and 60 ground balls ahead of 2nd place. However, 189 of those ground balls were hits, and all of those hits counted as points towards Hudson's final score. Tim Hudson scored better than Mat Latos, David Price, C.J. Wilson, Jonathan Sanchez, among a couple more top pitchers in 2010 based on most league's scoring formats.
Other notable pitchers in the top 50 in 2010 that can be argued should not be there, since they weren't on any other league's top 50 that I have seen:
27. Edwin Jackson - 1.39, 4.47 ERA
33. Gavin Floyd - 1.37 WHIP, 4.08 ERA
35. James Shields - 1.46 WHIP, 5.18 ERA
37. John Lackey - 1.419 WHIP, 4.40 ERA
39. Justin Masterson - 1.50 WHIP, 4.70 ERA
49. Randy Wells - 1.40 WHIP, 4.26 ERA
50. Jason Hammel - 1.39 WHIP, 4.81 ERA
All of these pitchers were either better than or roughly equal to David Price, Max Scherzer, John Danks, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, C.J. Wilson, and Wandy Rodriguez last season. Do we really want these kinds of pitchers in the top 50, simply because they issued ground balls?
-
This is exactly what I have been saying. This will lead to these guys being paid more than commonly accepted "better" pitchers, which in no way can be good for the league.
~MTK
-
An example of a bit of wackiness in our current system:
Tim Hudson was the 24th rated pitcher in 2010. He induced 443 ground balls, which was 1st among pitchers and 60 ground balls ahead of 2nd place. However, 189 of those ground balls were hits, and all of those hits counted as points towards Hudson's final score. Tim Hudson scored better than Mat Latos, David Price, C.J. Wilson, Jonathan Sanchez, among a couple more top pitchers in 2010 based on most league's scoring formats.
Other notable pitchers in the top 50 in 2010 that can be argued should not be there, since they weren't on any other league's top 50 that I have seen:
27. Edwin Jackson - 1.39, 4.47 ERA
33. Gavin Floyd - 1.37 WHIP, 4.08 ERA
35. James Shields - 1.46 WHIP, 5.18 ERA
37. John Lackey - 1.419 WHIP, 4.40 ERA
39. Justin Masterson - 1.50 WHIP, 4.70 ERA
49. Randy Wells - 1.40 WHIP, 4.26 ERA
50. Jason Hammel - 1.39 WHIP, 4.81 ERA
All of these pitchers were either better than or roughly equal to David Price, Max Scherzer, John Danks, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, C.J. Wilson, and Wandy Rodriguez last season. Do we really want these kinds of pitchers in the top 50, simply because they issued ground balls?
:winner: :iatp:
-
An example of a bit of wackiness in our current system:
Tim Hudson was the 24th rated pitcher in 2010. He induced 443 ground balls, which was 1st among pitchers and 60 ground balls ahead of 2nd place. However, 189 of those ground balls were hits, and all of those hits counted as points towards Hudson's final score. Tim Hudson scored better than Mat Latos, David Price, C.J. Wilson, Jonathan Sanchez, among a couple more top pitchers in 2010 based on most league's scoring formats.
Other notable pitchers in the top 50 in 2010 that can be argued should not be there, since they weren't on any other league's top 50 that I have seen:
27. Edwin Jackson - 1.39, 4.47 ERA
33. Gavin Floyd - 1.37 WHIP, 4.08 ERA
35. James Shields - 1.46 WHIP, 5.18 ERA
37. John Lackey - 1.419 WHIP, 4.40 ERA
39. Justin Masterson - 1.50 WHIP, 4.70 ERA
49. Randy Wells - 1.40 WHIP, 4.26 ERA
50. Jason Hammel - 1.39 WHIP, 4.81 ERA
All of these pitchers were either better than or roughly equal to David Price, Max Scherzer, John Danks, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, C.J. Wilson, and Wandy Rodriguez last season. Do we really want these kinds of pitchers in the top 50, simply because they issued ground balls?
I think part of what you see in this list is they were unlucky (Shields had a big discrepency between his ERA and FIP or xERA). The other is as you note, perhaps an overweight on GB.
When the current system was put in place, the use of both HR and GB was raised as a potential concern, since they essentially both measure the pitchers effect on preventing HR's, and there is certainly skew towards GB heavy pitchers in our league. While inducing GB's is certainly an important skill, it's importance on FIP is included in the HR weighting.
-
If we are looking at revamping the scoring system, here is another variation of the defensive & luck independent research: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/tera/ (http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/tera/)
-
Liriano + No hitter = 15 points, ouch!
-
No, no. It was his defense that deserves all the points. :rofl:
Seriously, this is just another a example. Yes, I know he had 7 BB's, but c'mon the man pitched a no hitter and only got 15 points. If this doesn't do it, then I do not know what will.
~MTK
-
No, no. It was his defense that deserves all the points. :rofl:
Seriously, this is just another a example. Yes, I know he had 7 BB's, but c'mon the man pitched a no hitter and only got 15 points. If this doesn't do it, then I do not know what will.
~MTK
Meanwhile, Jesse Crain goes 1.1 innings and scores 30. Did the Sox hit a ball hard all night? Honest question, didn't see the game.
-
I don't care how many hits he gave up, he hardly struck anyone out, walked the ball park, and was wild as a rabid dog. His no-hitter is purely luck. He had a similar start last week, but he gave up something like 20 hits. Even Mark Beurhle's perfect game was luck driven, he shouldn't have even had a shut-out. Jon Lester had a far superior start last night.
-
"he walked six and struck out just two. Truth be told, he wasn't really dominating, like you envision for a no-hitter. Of the 21 nine-inning no-hitters since 2000 (including Roy Halladay's postseason no-no), Liriano's was the least impressive. Using the Bill James Game Score method, he scored an 83, lower than the 85 that Edwin Jackson scored last year (when he walked eight and fanned six) and A.J. Burnett's 85 in 2001 (nine walks, seven strikeouts). The last pitcher to throw a nine-inning no-hitter with just two strikeouts was the Dodgers' Jerry Reuss, in 1980. The last pitcher to throw a nine-inning no-hitter with a Game Score of 83 was Cliff "Lefty" Chambers, of the 1951 Pirates (he walked eight and struck out four). "
http://espn.go.com/blog/SweetSpot/post/_/id/10066/it-wasnt-pretty-but-liriano-throws-a-no-no
-
"he walked six and struck out just two. Truth be told, he wasn't really dominating, like you envision for a no-hitter. Of the 21 nine-inning no-hitters since 2000 (including Roy Halladay's postseason no-no), Liriano's was the least impressive. Using the Bill James Game Score method, he scored an 83, lower than the 85 that Edwin Jackson scored last year (when he walked eight and fanned six) and A.J. Burnett's 85 in 2001 (nine walks, seven strikeouts). The last pitcher to throw a nine-inning no-hitter with just two strikeouts was the Dodgers' Jerry Reuss, in 1980. The last pitcher to throw a nine-inning no-hitter with a Game Score of 83 was Cliff "Lefty" Chambers, of the 1951 Pirates (he walked eight and struck out four). "
http://espn.go.com/blog/SweetSpot/post/_/id/10066/it-wasnt-pretty-but-liriano-throws-a-no-no
Good sign is that his fastball was back and missing low, but his score is reflective of the system we use. I have no problem with it. No hits, but 6 walks can easily lose a game as much as win it.
I really believe that the conversations about rules, scoring, etc. need to be brought up during the offseason, they are only distractions at this point. Quite frankly, we will still have to start at the beginning of this subject when discussed in the offseason.
-
I still play baseball, and I have the question; "what isn't luck driven?" I go out there and give it all I got and let the pieces fall where they may. What causes the pieces to fall where they may? My answer is "luck." Things could easily go other ways, but they DIDN'T. I don't care how "lucky" you want to call Liri's no-no, because in my book everything has a "luck" factor. The man went out there and competed against a Major-League caliber lineup who has proven hitters. I think it was a little more than just "luck." He kept his fastball low all night (unlike the rest of the season) and when he missed, he missed down and away, textbook. We need to start giving some points to what ACTUALLY happened instead of all of these different scenarios of what could have happened and because of who. The fact of the matter is, this man went out for 9 IP and didn't allow a hit to a lineup that was considered one of the tops in baseball at the beginning of the season. If it what THAT easy to do, then there would be more than just 21 no-no's since 2001.
MY RANT,
~MTK
-
I still play baseball, and I have the question; "what isn't luck driven?" I go out there and give it all I got and let the pieces fall where they may. What causes the pieces to fall where they may? My answer is "luck." Things could easily go other ways, but they DIDN'T. I don't care how "lucky" you want to call Liri's no-no, because in my book everything has a "luck" factor. The man went out there and competed against a Major-League caliber lineup who has proven hitters. I think it was a little more than just "luck." He kept his fastball low all night (unlike the rest of the season) and when he missed, he missed down and away, textbook. We need to start giving some points to what ACTUALLY happened instead of all of these different scenarios of what could have happened and because of who. The fact of the matter is, this man went out for 9 IP and didn't allow a hit to a lineup that was considered one of the tops in baseball at the beginning of the season. If it what THAT easy to do, then there would be more than just 21 no-no's since 2001.
MY RANT,
~MTK
So this is a field study that you conducted on your own then, and we can use this as actual research as to why we should change the scoring system? Has it been peer reviewed yet, or published anywhere?
-
No, it was correctly labeled as a rant. However, as I stated before, I will assist in research and in finding a solution on how to tweak the current system.
I have heard explanations such as "pitchers don't have control over the play after the ball leaves their hand." Erroneous. A decision is made along with release point (talent) that determines the location of a pitch that comes after the ball is released, but is determined when the ball is released. So, to say the pitcher no longer has control over the situation is not completely true. If this was the case, then there would be no such thing a FB and GB pitchers who get higher than average ratios of FB's and GB's respectively due to location and pitch selection. The location of the pitch affects everything from contact (and how hard) along with where and how the ball is hit.
I think sometimes "less is more" and I believe that we have gone too far in the direction of trying to "isolate" the pitcher which has resulted in some qwerky scoring. I think if we "open up" the scoring a little bit more, then we will see the points self-align themselves in what we would consider a "normal" trend based on proven talent.
~MTK
-
Another example of this is defensive shifts. Shifts are widely thought of to be as a result of the batter's tendencies and this is true. However, they can also be implemented for pitchers depending on the different situations. A pitcher can hit the outside of the plate forcing the batter to go "oppo" or more than likely hit a lazy fly ball/dribbler.
~MTK
-
I was looking into the subject and found this:
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/18924/game-score-one-for-the-pitchers
It looks to be something like we are looking for. Under this scoring system, Liriano's no-no scored an 83 which is tied for the 13th best performance by a pitcher this year (this would correlate to more than 15 points in our system which is what he got). This seems reasonable when you take into account his BB's and K's.
~MTK
-
While the intentions of the scoring system were no doubt sound, the application is flawed. While attempting to "eliminate" luck as much as possible, we've essentially neutered the pitching market. Long term, this will effect the league as one half of our roster will be valued significantly lower than the other half (position players). Our system rewards medicority. More so than any other sport, baseball is dissected via numbers. To have 35 yr old journeymen spot starters valued above the Liriano's and Price's of the world is wrong. To have middle relievers pitching to 4 batters and scoring higher than a complete game no hitter is wrong. In real life, NOTHING is valued more than pitching. Nothing. If we wanted to get WAY in depth, hitters are bound by luck as well. Pujols does not see a strike to hit if he is not protected. What about teams that play on a "fast track?" What about hitters playing in Petco as opposed to Coors? What type of weather that day or week? Is the player in a fight with his significant other? What if he is facing the OF of the Twins, who haven't a decent fielding OF on their roster. The point is, there are an infinite number of factors that can not be accounted for. A no-no should never be valued less than the work of a middle reliever. Ever. I don't care if the guy killed two kids in the stands with his lack of command. Luck can never be manually neutralized. It does it on its own, over time. The best pitchers are those who give up the least amount of hits and runs. I've not done the numbers yet, but I'd bet that team-average UZR and other defensive ratings are pretty closely lumped together across all 30 teams. I'd venture to guess that the variance in defensive profenciency league-wide is not as great as the variance in scoring in our league.
Forgive my diatribe, LONG day at work with unruly children :beer:
-
I agree with you 100%. There appears to be a small minority of owners here who are relying on one badly flawed article by someone in Baseball Prospectus to create a scoring system that the vast majority thinks is silly at best and horrible at worst. The foremost statistician of our generation, Bill James, uses a much simpler and logical system called "game score" (the one used by ESPN and other well-known sites) which these guys would dismiss, because it contains such "dependent" stats as hits allowed and earned runs. LOL. There are some among us who prefer to analyze pitching performances on the basis on WHAT was achieved rather than HOW it was achieved. The primary focus of a pitcher is to prevent his opponent from scoring runs. Period. How he achieves that is his business. Defense and luck is pretty evenly spread out throughout baseball, so trying to eliminate it as some people are trying to do is a worthless endeavor imo.
-
I posted this in the off-season, but perhaps this time we will get a more favorable response.
I propose that we adopt Bill James' formula of "Game Score" for pitching. Game Score is calculated as follows
Start with 50 points.
Add 1 point for each out recorded, so 3 points for every complete inning pitched.
Add 2 points for each inning completed after the 4th.
Add 1 point for each strikeout.
Subtract 2 points for each hit allowed.
Subtract 4 points for each earned run allowed.
Subtract 2 points for each unearned run allowed.
Subtract 1 point for each walk.
James' formulas are accurate and easy to follow. They accurately reflect what really happened on the field without trying to eliminate what some folks here consider luck.
-
Roy,
I posted this a couple posts up. I complete agree and I am on-board with this formula.
~MTK
-
I really believe that the conversations about rules, scoring, etc. need to be brought up during the offseason, they are only distractions at this point. Quite frankly, we will still have to start at the beginning of this subject when discussed in the offseason.
:iatp:
Considering we have to go through it every few months again anyway... this is a bit ridiculous...
-
To have 35 yr old journeymen spot starters valued above the Liriano's and Price's of the world is wrong. To have middle relievers pitching to 4 batters and scoring higher than a complete game no hitter is wrong.
Look at the top ranked players based on the current system and tell me that this is really the case...
-
I posted this in the off-season, but perhaps this time we will get a more favorable response.
I propose that we adopt Bill James' formula of "Game Score" for pitching. Game Score is calculated as follows
Start with 50 points.
Add 1 point for each out recorded, so 3 points for every complete inning pitched.
Add 2 points for each inning completed after the 4th.
Add 1 point for each strikeout.
Subtract 2 points for each hit allowed.
Subtract 4 points for each earned run allowed.
Subtract 2 points for each unearned run allowed.
Subtract 1 point for each walk.
James' formulas are accurate and easy to follow. They accurately reflect what really happened on the field without trying to eliminate what some folks here consider luck.
And it was rejected when you brought it up because it is notoriously flawed, and ESPN is the only one who tracks it...
-
:iatp:
Considering we have to go through it every few months again anyway... this is a bit ridiculous...
Why not start the discussion now? Gives us more time to iron out all the wrinkles.
-
Personally, I am not advocating whole sale changes to the current system, but some tweaks (like what Jake has suggested) would make the scoring model more robust.
-
Why not start the discussion now? Gives us more time to iron out all the wrinkles.
:iatp:
Perhaps all we need to do for next year is some small adjustments.
-
Why not start the discussion now? Gives us more time to iron out all the wrinkles.
:iatp:
~MTK
-
Personally, I am not advocating whole sale changes to the current system, but some tweaks (like what Jake has suggested) would make the scoring model more robust.
I am in favor of reviewing (not necessarily changing) the current system for minor changes, such as removing either HR or GB since they are currently somewhat redundant. I am not fond of the numerous posts aimed at slamming the current system, nor ignorance towards the proven facts on which the purpose of this great league was derived.
-
I am in favor of reviewing (not necessarily changing) the current system for minor changes, such as removing either HR or GB since they are currently somewhat redundant. I am not fond of the numerous posts aimed at slamming the current system, nor ignorance towards the proven facts on which the purpose of this great league was derived.
I am in favor of putting this to a vote as I have repeatedly asked for on numerous occasions in the past. Are we that afraid of what the outcome of that vote would be that we would prefer to argue about it endlessly? I am not fond of the ignorance and intolerance shown by certain owners who refuse to believe that they could be wrong on this topic. I am not fond of people who give more credit to random articles on Baseball Prospectus than guys like Bill James, Keith Law, and the Baseball Writers of America who actually have some respect for stats like ERA and WHIP.
-
I am in favor of reviewing (not necessarily changing) the current system for minor changes, such as removing either HR or GB since they are currently somewhat redundant. I am not fond of the numerous posts aimed at slamming the current system, nor ignorance towards the proven facts on which the purpose of this great league was derived.
To call dissenting opinion towards disputable data "ignorance" is a bit elitist, no? Sorry you are not fond of the strong jockeying of opinion, but I for one think it is very healthy and telling of a great league. People care. You are entitled to your OPINION, everyone else is entitled to theirs. To pass something that is widely disputed off as "fact" is egregious. Again, people understand the scoring premise. If the goal is in fact to as closely mirror real life as possible, then the most "valued" players in fantasy should, generally speaking, be the most valued in real life. That is not the case in our league. Whether or not one agrees with that school of thought, the school of thought exists. I for one am not bashing anything, just expressing my opinion that the scoring should better value real life results, not processes.
-
Klaw
(1:11 PM)
Because a pitcher doesn't control whether a ball he allows into the field of play becomes a hit or an out, WHIP includes a component (the H) that includes noise from defense and luck. There are several other stats that try to get around that issue, like FIP, which estimates a luck- and defense-neutral ERA based on a pitcher's strikeout, walk, HBP, and home run rates.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/32103/mlb-insider-keith-law
Buster_ESPN Buster Olney
Looks like by the end of the night,Trevor Cahill will be 14-5, with the second-best ERA in the AL, No. 2 in WHIP -and No. 2 or No. 1 for CY?
25 Aug
in reply to @Buster_ESPN ↑
keithlaw
@keithlaw keithlaw
@
@Buster_ESPN Fangraphs has Cahill 31st among AL starters in WAR with a 4.07 FIP.
http://twitter.com/#!/keithlaw/status/22132994250
-
To call dissenting opinion towards disputable data "ignorance" is a bit elitist, no? Sorry you are not fond of the strong jockeying of opinion, but I for one think it is very healthy and telling of a great league. People care. You are entitled to your OPINION, everyone else is entitled to theirs. To pass something that is widely disputed off as "fact" is egregious. Again, people understand the scoring premise. If the goal is in fact to as closely mirror real life as possible, then the most "valued" players in fantasy should, generally speaking, be the most valued in real life. That is not the case in our league. Whether or not one agrees with that school of thought, the school of thought exists. I for one am not bashing anything, just expressing my opinion that the scoring should better value real life results, not processes.
I apologize for coming off as elitist, I'm just frustrated that we have to keep going over this. In general, healthy discussion is absolutely a good thing, but in my opinion we are re-inventing the wheel or trying to take steps backwards.
I will again dig up a number of sites that support my argument, and again invite anyone who disagrees to provide links to articles with counter arguments. Please respect the fact that myself and those who are agreeing with me are working from published research, and provide more than just your opinions as counter arguments.
-
I would be happy to put this discussion to a vote. I side with VolsRaysBucs. The first post that started this discussion speaks clear to why something, even minor, needs to be changed. This is my first yr being active in this league and I feel a change might be needed.
:judge:
-
A high-level description and some history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_independent_pitching_statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_independent_pitching_statistics)
The original article:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878)
A great overview, with some quotes I'll put at the bottom:
http://sabr.org/drupal/node/3072 (http://sabr.org/drupal/node/3072)
Fangraphs and Hardball Times are big into these:
http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/fip/ (http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/fip/)
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/batted-balls-and-dips/ (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/batted-balls-and-dips/)
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/another-look-at-dips1/ (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/another-look-at-dips1/)
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/another-look-at-batted-balls-and-dips/ (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/another-look-at-batted-balls-and-dips/)
Ron Schandler (founder of Baseball HQ) is pretty famous for his work, here is one article that is in the public domain:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/fantasy/shandler/2008-09-16-safety-in-numbers_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/fantasy/shandler/2008-09-16-safety-in-numbers_N.htm)
Generic article from ESPN discussing sabermetrics:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=5050780 (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=5050780)
From the SABR link:
McCracken posted his query on this subject to the Usenet group in 1999 and fourteen months later, in January 2001, found a receptive audience for his article “Pitchers and Defense: How Much Control Do Hurlers Have?” which was posted online at Baseball Prospectus.15 Shortly thereafter, Rob Neyer of ESPN briefly discussed it.16 According to McCracken, “All hell broke loose,” as he received 1,700 e-mails in two days,17 from sabermetricians who took varying degrees of exception to McCracken’s assertion that “there is little if any difference among major league pitchers in their ability to prevent hits on balls in play.”18 Craig R. Wright and Bill James wrote in to Neyer with reservations about McCracken’s theory,19 beginning the long and ongoing discussion within the sabermetric community over whether pitchers have control over hits on balls in play and, if they do, how much. James changed his mind after further research.
From the 2001 edition of The New Bill James Historical Abstract:
1. Like most things, McCracken’s argument can be taken too literally. A pitcher does have some input into the hits/innings ratio behind him, other than that which is reflected in the home run and strikeout column.
2. With that qualification, I am quite certain that McCracken is correct.
3. This knowledge is significant, very useful.
4. I feel stupid for not having realized it 30 years ago.20
I think that should be a good start ...
-
I can only speak for myself, but again, those links provide me nothing I did not already know. The point remains, our system of scoring does not accurately reflect VALUE. I am not worried about compilation of stats, I am worried about how those stats are "rewarded." Outs are not properly valued and hits are not properly punished. The reason one won't be able to find published articles to fit "this side" of the argument is that the argument pertains to league scoring system. Unless someone from ESPN, ect is familiar with our league, I doubt anything has been published. Does that make sense to anyone but me. Again, WE GET THE SCORING from a "real life" standpoint, everyone should understand FIP by now. What I am saying is that we don't assign "point values" to the metrics used as accurately as we could. In real life, outs earned are more valued than walk allowed are shunned. Would a manager prefer Liriano's performance the other night over a pitcher who goes 5 1/3 with a couple K's, a handful of hits and 3 ER? Of course not. Yet, in our league, the second line is the premium scoring line. You could spend your next 1,000 posts offering more examples of the metrics we use and their merits, but the fact remains that those metrics, and more importantly how we assign points to those metrics, is severely flawed.
To summarize, no one is debating the metrics that go into figuring out FIP. However, FIP gives you a single, clean number at the end. We are not assigning points to that number, we are assigning points to the EVENTS that lead to that single, clean number. Therein lies the problem, IMO.
-
The purpose of those links is to clearly define which metrics a pitcher has control over, and which they do not, since part of the premise of the league is that our scoring will only reflect categories that a player can control. These categories are K, BB, and GB/FB or HR. I've posted earlier in this thread that I agree IP could also be a good category.
The issue is that there is not clarity on which categories should be used since many here have scoffed at the thought of hits and runs being primarily made up of the above categories, defense and luck. Once we've established which categories make sense we can focus in and discuss weighting, which I think at this point we have all agreed will be a worth while discussion. But we can't then go back and defend the decision for the categories every few months, which seems to happen unless people agree with the principles of FIP, etc.
-
Klaw
(1:11 PM)
Because a pitcher doesn't control whether a ball he allows into the field of play becomes a hit or an out, WHIP includes a component (the H) that includes noise from defense and luck. There are several other stats that try to get around that issue, like FIP, which estimates a luck- and defense-neutral ERA based on a pitcher's strikeout, walk, HBP, and home run rates.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/32103/mlb-insider-keith-law
Buster_ESPN Buster Olney
Looks like by the end of the night,Trevor Cahill will be 14-5, with the second-best ERA in the AL, No. 2 in WHIP -and No. 2 or No. 1 for CY?
25 Aug
in reply to @Buster_ESPN ↑
keithlaw
@keithlaw keithlaw
@
@Buster_ESPN Fangraphs has Cahill 31st among AL starters in WAR with a 4.07 FIP.
http://twitter.com/#!/keithlaw/status/22132994250
Not sure how we can use FIP in a points system. I do think a certain percentage of hits should count against pitchers.
-
Good point Ben... let's aim at the stat categories that we should use...
HR
K
BB (perhaps slightly less weight)
HBP (is this part of BB?)
XBH (subtract out HR points, consider that a high percentage of 2B and 3B are due to bad pitches)
GB (perhaps slightly less weight)
FB
IP (perhaps we need more weight here)
We should post our total points scored for position players and pitchers to make sure our ratios are in line. Some teams will be off due to an abundance of a certain position. Ideally, the pitching staff should be 38% of the points.
Pirates' Pos. Players = 3183 -> 62.5%
Pirates' Pitching Staff = 1907 -> 37.5%
I just want to make clear that the ratios we use are solid. I suppose we could consider the counting of hitting and defense statistics for pitchers, but all of the empty AB will hurt pitchers and their glove is not used that much.
-
Instead of XBH, which could be considered bad luck or poor defense, we could give LD a go. I know that for the most part LD ratios will all even out. But in a bad start it should be reflected in the amount of line drives a pitcher gives up. LD has been requested several times in the past. But I really think, regardless of what we decide to do, we need to run a beta test on Fantrax to see what the scores would look like. Because even if we update the scoring, we could have the same problem that we are having now. The scoring needs to be put through the motions in order to know what the end numbers will look like. That is in my opinion. I don't think we should deviate too much from what the original idea for pitching scoring. Personally I don't think we should change anything, we all know what the values currently are in this system, and should adapt to it. We have all had a year to observe and react to what is good and what is bad. The types of pitchers that have value and the types of pitchers that don't.
-
Xbh is a good category. If were saying xbh is luck then xbh should not be an offensive category. For example i have zack grienke. In watching his game last nite i saw my yankees get 6 points because of back to back doubles.
All this talk about makes me sick. Walks should be eliminated. Each umpire is different and there are blown calls sometimes resulting in a walk. Thats not the pitchers fault. I think all hitters playing in texas should get less points hrs. And all red soxs shud get lesa points for doubles. A homer at SD should be worth 20. Do we like these ideas? Of course not.
Why dont we all stop over analyzing, stop being stubborn, stop looking at what is best for our team. And instead think about the game of baseball. What are important stats. Hits are important, but when a pitcher gives up a hit we get points. Something is wrong there.
-
The purpose of those links is to clearly define which metrics a pitcher has control over, and which they do not, since part of the premise of the league is that our scoring will only reflect categories that a player can control. These categories are K, BB, and GB/FB or HR. I've posted earlier in this thread that I agree IP could also be a good category.
The issue is that there is not clarity on which categories should be used since many here have scoffed at the thought of hits and runs being primarily made up of the above categories, defense and luck. Once we've established which categories make sense we can focus in and discuss weighting, which I think at this point we have all agreed will be a worth while discussion. But we can't then go back and defend the decision for the categories every few months, which seems to happen unless people agree with the principles of FIP, etc.
:iatp:
-
So lets start a few seperate threads for categories and discuss them individually.
-
I think we all need to take a step back and start at the beginning. WHY are we trying to eliminate luck in the first place? Luck as it was defined by the links posted is as much a fabric of baseball as a home run. Trying to eliminate luck is akin to changing history. Can we declare the Yanks the champs in 2001, because the D-Backs had a lucky blooper in the 9th inning due to the Yanks playing the infield in? Luck is part of the game folks. The best players don't always succeed, and the best teams don't always win. Billy Beane once said that the playoffs themselves are one big crap-shoot due to the limited sample size of the data. Baseball didn't eliminate the post-season and declare a winner based on that argument even though 162 games is a more valid sample size than a max 17-game post-season. I truly appreciate all the attempts here to make this as realistic as possible, but I don't believe that we are capturing the WHOLE essence of the simulation if we pick and choose which stats to use. Hits allowed and heaven forbid earned runs may not be within the total control of the pitcher, but they are counted in the record books. I'm sorry, but I could never support their removal no matter how much empirical data is provided to show that pitching is not an exercise in fairness. I support the Game Score not because I think that the pitcher had 100% control over each of its underlying stat components, but rather because I believe that it's the most accurate way to capture the events of what truly occurred that day and weighs them in a meaningful way without removing any elements of the game due to luck or defense. Luck and defense are as much a part of the game as the 7th inning stretch.
-
The above was well stated. The analogy I take from the post is that while a pitcher may finish the season with an ERA around 4, that does not mean each of his starts he yeilded 4 runs and 9 innings of work. This whole thing about "luck" and "factors beyong the players control" is bastardizing a sound philisophy. Unless one is playing an individual sport, there are an infinite number of factors a player can not control. Results are the name of the game. Teams don't care if a guy walks 10, did we win the game and did those baserunners come in to score. To take it further, should a GB double play have more value if executed by the MI of, say the Twins (Hardy and Cuddyer) than one from the Yankees (Jeter, Cano). Jeter and Cano are better fielders, combined, so their pitchers have a built in advantage. So the walks of the Yankees pitchers may not be as "negative" as walks from a pitcher whose team are not glove wizards. We can filter this all the way down to bogus proportions if we really want to. I agree with the idea of beta testing a system. It appears the majority, if not consesus, says this needs to be seriously looked at.
-
Let's get rid of scoring altogether and we can just argue and posture for 162 games.
-
Let's get rid of scoring altogether and we can just argue and posture for 162 games.
Hahahaha.... Alright let's go back to my post and consider reasonable adjustments.
-
Let's get rid of scoring altogether and we can just argue and posture for 162 games.
I'd go along with this as well, except it appears the majority would rather adjust a system they are not happy with. Regardelss of whether or not we make the changes I'd personally like to see, I will not be taking my ball and going home. Constructive criticism and constantly analyzing a system with so many moving parts is not "bashing or *itching," it is due dilligence on the part of league participants. Does MLB look at division alignment, wildcards, DH, ect on a "constant" basis. Yep. Does the NFL visit revenue sharing, 18 games schedules, shorter preseasons, larger active rosters, ect on a "constant" basis. Again, yep. If one is looking for a league where their thoughts and ideas are paramount, one could create a 4-8 team league where everyone thinks exactly alike. If one is trying to field a 30 team league, one had better be prepared to have debate and dissenting voices aimed at their positions. This is a free league. If 1,000 Bill James' said that our scoring system was terrific, it still would not change the fact that a majority of GM's do not favor it. There are no algorithms to dispute this. I am a saber myself, but realize that data, if viewed through only one prism, can and will be skewed. Dress it as you will, but the scoring system does not reflect real life VALUE. Again, if my team walks 20 batters and wins 1-0, the pitcher did his job. He recorded 27 outs without giving up a run. To me, the offense was LUCKY to get the walks and the pitcher was SKILLED in working around them. Viewed either way, how can one side say the other is wrong? Does it not come down to preference?
-
Mike for President, 2012! :iatp:
-
Taking Dan's idea, I tried to some testing using the current year data. Here are some preliminary results (I did this in 15 minutes) using the following scoring system:
IP 5
BB -4
K 7.5
HR -10
XBHA -8
GB 1.5
I tried to balance it so the the overall value for pitchers do not increase (at least for the top 100 starters).
I think this is better balance between the sabermetric statistics and the conventional statistics. We can play around with the weights. This is a just a first draft, but at least now we have a tangible alternative.
-
Just did about 30 seconds of research and came across this ...
32,705 hits in the MLB this year (last year I assume)
10,394 have been on ground balls (31.8%)
7,773 have been on fly balls (23.8%)
14,108 have been on line drives (43.2%)
430 have been on bunts (1.3%)
If line drives have more of a chance to be hits, ground balls really only end up as singles unless they go down the line, at most they are doubles. I still think it should be a negative when a pitcher gives a LD then.
IP +
GB+
FB+
K+
BB-
HR-
LD-
whatever the ratio of the scoring should be is beyond me, but in my opinion I think this may be the way to go. We can also do batters faced instead of IP.
-
Taking Dan's idea, I tried to some testing using the current year data. Here are some preliminary results (I did this in 15 minutes) using the following scoring system:
IP 5
BB -4
K 7.5
HR -10
XBHA -8
GB 1.5
I tried to balance it so the the overall value for pitchers do not increase (at least for the top 100 starters).
I think this is better balance between the sabermetric statistics and the conventional statistics. We can play around with the weights. This is a just a first draft, but at least now we have a tangible alternative.
i looked it over. I really like it Howe.... I would be in favor of this
-
I think Howe's post and Dan's post are both very solid. I like the stats that Dan posted. This is why I feel that FB should be added. However, a higher percentage of fly ball hits end up as XBH, but if we included XHBA in the scoring system then it would make up for that. We have solid ratios right now between position player points (62%) and pitchers (38%) based on Bill James (with defense receiving 16%). Of course, if we went defense-neutral then it would end up being 54% - 46%. However, defense was stated as a big part of this league, so we really only need to focus on these adjustments and make sure the overall points stay the same.
-
I like the xbh over fb for sure. I like lowering some of the other categories such as HR, K, and GB but awarding the IP. Looking over Howe's spreadsheet, it makes it more realistic with guys like Jake Westbrook and Ryan Dempster. It moves them to where they belong.
-
I like both Howe and Dan's posts as well. The beautiful thing about it is that we have time to beta test and allow everyone to weigh in. I like how Howe (haha) described his as "blending saber and conventional" or something to that effect. Based on what I saw from the spreadsheet, that looks to be a very solid starting point, at the very least. This appears to make "bumps" rather than "jumps" in the changes, which is a good thing. I think this would help reduce the frequency that we have "Price vs Neimann" scenarios going forward, which also is a good thing. Great work/ideas so far fellas!
-
Mike for President, 2012! :iatp:
You've got dibs on your choice of VP, Sec of State or Chief of Staff! :toast:
Who are we kidding, there's no place in politics for a social moderate/ fiscal conservative :rofl:
-
I'd go along with this as well, except it appears the majority would rather adjust a system they are not happy with. Regardelss of whether or not we make the changes I'd personally like to see, I will not be taking my ball and going home. Constructive criticism and constantly analyzing a system with so many moving parts is not "bashing or *itching," it is due dilligence on the part of league participants. Does MLB look at division alignment, wildcards, DH, ect on a "constant" basis. Yep. Does the NFL visit revenue sharing, 18 games schedules, shorter preseasons, larger active rosters, ect on a "constant" basis. Again, yep. If one is looking for a league where their thoughts and ideas are paramount, one could create a 4-8 team league where everyone thinks exactly alike. If one is trying to field a 30 team league, one had better be prepared to have debate and dissenting voices aimed at their positions. This is a free league. If 1,000 Bill James' said that our scoring system was terrific, it still would not change the fact that a majority of GM's do not favor it. There are no algorithms to dispute this. I am a saber myself, but realize that data, if viewed through only one prism, can and will be skewed. Dress it as you will, but the scoring system does not reflect real life VALUE. Again, if my team walks 20 batters and wins 1-0, the pitcher did his job. He recorded 27 outs without giving up a run. To me, the offense was LUCKY to get the walks and the pitcher was SKILLED in working around them. Viewed either way, how can one side say the other is wrong? Does it not come down to preference?
I do want to point out that before the current system was put into place there was a league wide vote on which categories would be used, working from a list of categories nominated by any league member. At the time it was deemed a firm scoring system was required and it should not be revised, since all future moves would be based on that player evaluation.
I agree with many of your points, and I think we're all working towards getting on the same page here to reach a system most can agree with. If the turnover in this league has been sufficient enough that we need to revise the system to keep everyone happy then so be it, but I will argue again that once we put a new system in place it needs to locked down - we cannot revamp the scoring every few seasons. More so than any other section of the rules, too many decisions depend on a stable scoring system.
-
Taking Dan's idea, I tried to some testing using the current year data. Here are some preliminary results (I did this in 15 minutes) using the following scoring system:
IP 5
BB -4
K 7.5
HR -10
XBHA -8
GB 1.5
I tried to balance it so the the overall value for pitchers do not increase (at least for the top 100 starters).
I think this is better balance between the sabermetric statistics and the conventional statistics. We can play around with the weights. This is a just a first draft, but at least now we have a tangible alternative.
I think these are good categories to work with.
We would want XBHA to not include HR since HR is a separate category, making it 2B+3B. Now I don't think doubles and triples are within the pitchers control, but its not a huge stretch and is a good compromise.
If we are including these and HR, GB will be inherent and we do not need to include them explicitly (pitchers who induce more GB will naturally allow fewer XBH/H as most GB go for singles, occasionally doubles)
Instead of IP, we could consider Outs - K, so we don't double count K's.
With respect to weighing, I agree with Colby that we need to stay within the current % distribution of Hitting/Fielding/Pitching, which is defined in the rules as 47% / 17% / 36%. However, before we jump into assigning specific weights, I believe we should formally agree on what categories are to be used.
-
I do want to point out that before the current system was put into place there was a league wide vote on which categories would be used, working from a list of categories nominated by any league member. At the time it was deemed a firm scoring system was required and it should not be revised, since all future moves would be based on that player evaluation.
I agree with many of your points, and I think we're all working towards getting on the same page here to reach a system most can agree with. If the turnover in this league has been sufficient enough that we need to revise the system to keep everyone happy then so be it, but I will argue again that once we put a new system in place it needs to locked down - we cannot revamp the scoring every few seasons. More so than any other section of the rules, too many decisions depend on a stable scoring system.
Ben, I appreciate and understand your concern. It sucks to plan ahead only to have the scoring system change. The good news is with my initial proposal, 68% of the top 100 SPs would see their total points change by less than +/- 10%.
-
:bump:
-
Maybe the first course of action would be to set up a poll with one simple question: Do we need to change the official scoring system in FGM, yes or no? I'd recommend if we have a 2/3 majority, we go from there. We have only heard from probably 10 members regarding this, a poll might get the other members to voice their opinions.
-
While I do agree that there is something wrong with our pitching scoring system, particularly when I see that Joe Francis with his 5.04 era is averaging 10 more points per start than Josh Tomlin with his 2.70 era, I have to say that any changes made should be done for the year 2013, as to minimize the future damage for those who have built their squads based on the current scoring system. The proposed changes diminish greatly the value of control pitchers and groundball pitchers which have been the targets of many GMs in the league.
-
While I do agree that there is something wrong with our pitching scoring system, particularly when I see that Joe Francis with his 5.04 era is averaging 10 more points per start than Josh Tomlin with his 2.70 era, I have to say that any changes made should be done for the year 2013, as to minimize the future damage for those who have built their squads based on the current scoring system. The proposed changes diminish greatly the value of control pitchers and groundball pitchers which have been the targets of many GMs in the league.
OR we phase them in... the changes will be slight adjustments to GB, BB, and IP and perhaps an inclusion of FB and XBHA (with HR already included)
-
While I do agree that there is something wrong with our pitching scoring system, particularly when I see that Joe Francis with his 5.04 era is averaging 10 more points per start than Josh Tomlin with his 2.70 era, I have to say that any changes made should be done for the year 2013, as to minimize the future damage for those who have built their squads based on the current scoring system. The proposed changes diminish greatly the value of control pitchers and groundball pitchers which have been the targets of many GMs in the league.
OR we phase them in... the changes will be slight adjustments to GB, BB, and IP and perhaps an inclusion of FB and XBHA (with HR already included)
I think we are aware of the risks/concerns of changing the scoring system, and should take care to make sure any changes are implemented in a timeline that will have an 'acceptable' impact on owners who built their teams for the current system. I think we've got a few steps to go through before we decide on how to implement though, as it will depend on how significant the changes end up being (if they're pretty minor, we may decide to start for 2012, if they're more significant we may want to wait longer).
One step at a time though, and I agree with Jake that the first step should be a league wide vote on whether or not we should make any changes, and it needs 2/3 "Yes" votes to be approved (20 total votes, not just 66% of participants). I think the next step is solidifying which categories, then weights, then when we implement. If we want to re-visit the IP limit (which has been discussed some), it should be in a separate thread.
My two cents...
-
Maybe the first course of action would be to set up a poll with one simple question: Do we need to change the official scoring system in FGM, yes or no? I'd recommend if we have a 2/3 majority, we go from there. We have only heard from probably 10 members regarding this, a poll might get the other members to voice their opinions.
:iatp:
... although I would narrow the scope of the poll to "Do we need to change the official scoring system for pitchers in FCM, yes or no?"
20 Yes votes we move forward with picking categories and assigning weights
else, the discussion is closed (at least until the offseason, when I'm sure it will be brought up and we can have the vote again).
-
Why 2/3? Hasn't a simple majority been the standard in the past?
-
That is what I was thinking....
~MTK
-
I went with 2/3 because that's what Jake proposed, but I personally agree with it. Any changes to the scoring system should be considered major changes, and if there really is a significant push from the league to make such a change then most of the league should support it.
-
But hasn't everything that required a poll been a major change?
~MTK
-
Besides pitcher scoring, another thing that might be good to look at is GIDP. Is that even a repeatable skill?
-
Besides pitcher scoring, another thing that might be good to look at is GIDP. Is that even a repeatable skill?
I assume you mean for hitters? I'm not sure if it is or not - I would expect the perception that really fast guys are much tougher to double up is indeed true, but it may be pure luck for the rest of them.
-
:iatp:
I assume you mean for hitters? I'm not sure if it is or not - I would expect the perception that really fast guys are much tougher to double up is indeed true, but it may be pure luck for the rest of them.
-
No, no. It was his defense that deserves all the points. :rofl:
Seriously, this is just another a example. Yes, I know he had 7 BB's, but c'mon the man pitched a no hitter and only got 15 points. If this doesn't do it, then I do not know what will.
~MTK
Bringing this back up again because it was a point of contention. How could a guy throw a no hitter and have such a poor score. Well he almost did it again last night, and failed, but scored 111 points. I argue the system is fine, leave it alone. We all know what it is, we have all for the most part been here long enough. This is like joining an OBP league and then complaining because Michael Young has less value than you are used to. Adapt and move on. We all know groundballers and strike out guys will score higher in this league, so if that is case don't pay a lot of money for a guy who averages 5/k's per 9, and gives up a ton of fly balls. It is using the information that is in front of you. We have 3 years of info, now. We change the scoring categories, you know what we have next year, bupkis... we all learn a new system again :bacon:. And then I am sure people will say how it isn't fair, or it is skewed. No scoring system is perfect, and we have played with this one since the beginning of 2010 - some of us longer than that. If you don't know how it works, then you haven't been paying attention.
-
We can't leave it the way it is for 1 simple reason. The league voted over-whelmingly in favor of change. I respect the concept of continuity, but I also believe that certain things can and should be changed for the better, and this is one of them. The RC has nearly completed a very trying process of clarifying and revising rules affecting extensions for the same purpose of making an already great league even better.
-
I argue the system is fine, leave it alone. We all know what it is, we have all for the most part been here long enough. This is like joining an OBP league and then complaining because Michael Young has less value than you are used to. Adapt and move on.
Very well said.
:iatp:
-
We are not proposing whole sale changes. Just some minor adjustments. Using my proposed system, the dislocation is minimal.
-
Only 7 (9.3%) members of the league voted to not adjust scoring settings. Shouldn't the RC respect the will of the over-whelming majority?
-
We are not proposing whole sale changes. Just some minor adjustments. Using my proposed system, the dislocation is minimal.
My suggestion then is to figure out what we want to use, and run several different fantrax leagues for half the season... the most reliable scoring is the one we adopt. I think we need to do that before deciding on the new scoring format. We have the opportunity to see it play out before we make the changes.
-
My suggestion then is to figure out what we want to use, and run several different fantrax leagues for half the season... the most reliable scoring is the one we adopt. I think we need to do that before deciding on the new scoring format. We have the opportunity to see it play out before we make the changes.
I did run a simluated league, results are here: http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=20377.msg102241#msg102241
Need more feedback on the proposed system. I am also open to modifying it to further punish bad performances (and thus discourage streaming bad pitchers)
-
Only 7 (9.3%) members of the league voted to not adjust scoring settings. Shouldn't the RC respect the will of the over-whelming majority?
I agree, we should suss it out, but I have had the argument from the very beginning that this is the league that we signed up for. To take on some of the suggested scoring changes makes it an entirely different league. I am not whole heartedly against it. If a suggested scoring format is brought forth that I think is more realistic, and still in the same vein of this league, then I will vote for it. But I am not for changing a scoring system because of luck.
In defense of not changing...
1 - the scoring has been in place since the inception. I am not in favor of changing something because Jeff Niemann didn't suck for one evening, yet still scored poorly (because he is not a pitcher this format supports).
2 - Value has already been established for players. Hence imaginary money has already been handed out, and budgets have been affected.
3 - the RC didn't exist at the time, it was league wide RC which for lack of a better word is anarchy.
4 - The suggestions are all over the map... a 1/3 want this, a 1/4 want that, 5 people want this. We are not going to satisfy everyone. It's a fools errand to think we can.
-
I have to disagree. I could make your same arguments against dropping the IP limits which were voted on by the league LESS THAN SIX MONTHS AGO. I'm quite sure that plenty of teams traded for pitching under the assumption that those limits would not change. How is it fair to them now that some owners suddenly had a change of heart?
-
I assume you mean for hitters? I'm not sure if it is or not - I would expect the perception that really fast guys are much tougher to double up is indeed true, but it may be pure luck for the rest of them.
Yes, for batters.
I need to do more research, but here are some interested stats
- Career leader in GIDP: Hank Aaron (NL) and Cal Ripken (AL)
- GIDP leaders for 2010 & 2011: only repeats are Hunter, Pujols and Young (do they have anything in common)?
2011
Torri Hunter
Albert Pujols
Alexi Ramirez
Martin Prado
Yadier Molina
Adrian Gonzalez
Brandon Phillips
Russel Martin
Michael Young
Alex Rios
AJ Pierzynski
Yunel Escobar
Elvis Andrus
2010
Billy Butler
Pablo Sandoval
Michael Cuddyer
Ivan Rodriguez
Adrian Beltre
Ty Wigginton
Albert Pujols
Derek Lee
Kurt Suzuki
Derek Jeter
Torri Hunter
Alberto Callaspo
Michael Young
-
I can't argue with your point. I think the RC should have been around all along and not broken up for several months. That could have been brought to the RC and then discussed an voted on as well as changing the scoring. In a league this size you need representatives. It would be different if it was a shallow league and everyone could argue their point in a chat room, but you see how long discussions go on here, with just 3 people participating. Imagine 30.
That being said the values of said pitchers wouldn't have changed with or without an inning limit. Jake Westbrook would have still scored the same amount of points, Jon Lester would have scored exactly the same. And yes that was a strategy, and still is, that is being used (exploited in my opinion) on a weekly basis.
-
Plus has anyone done any research on what got us here?
Were Jeff Niemann's and Francisco Liriano's starts actually good, or were both lucky. Has anyone watched the games? Has anyone bothered to search for some statistical analysis on them? All we have are the box scores. It is possible that they were both flukey and this is what we are basing the entire movement of "our scoring is not realistic" on.
-
Plus has anyone done any research on what got us here?
Were Jeff Niemann's and Francisco Liriano's starts actually good, or were both lucky. Has anyone watched the games? Has anyone bothered to search for some statistical analysis on them? All we have are the box scores. It is possible that they were both flukey and this is what we are basing the entire movement of "our scoring is not realistic" on.
I think the main question is whether the scoring system should reflect the actual outcome of a baseball game (e.g., a bloop double allowed) or reflect the predictive elements of a baseball game (e.g., a strike out).
I lean towards a weighted average of the two elements.
-
Howe would you mind re-running your simulation to include today's games?
-
I can't argue with your point. I think the RC should have been around all along and not broken up for several months. That could have been brought to the RC and then discussed an voted on as well as changing the scoring. In a league this size you need representatives. It would be different if it was a shallow league and everyone could argue their point in a chat room, but you see how long discussions go on here, with just 3 people participating. Imagine 30.
:iatp:
-
I did run a simluated league, results are here: http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=20377.msg102241#msg102241
Need more feedback on the proposed system. I am also open to modifying it to further punish bad performances (and thus discourage streaming bad pitchers)
The proposed change is to add IP and XBH as categories and then modify the weighting?
-
The proposed change is to add IP and XBH as categories and then modify the weighting?
Correct.
-
Here is the updated File. I have included both the current scoring system and v2.
I have also added V3 scoring system. This version penalizes bad pitchers a lot more while reward good pitcher. I think this system
could be used to deter bad pitcher streaming:
IP: 6.5
BB: -4
K: 10.5
HR: -10
XBA: -24
GB: 2
With this system, the impact overall points scored for the top 250 pitchers is 0%. However, certain pitchers will see jumps in
points scored (E.g., Halladay from 1355 to 1635) while bad pitchers will see pretty big decreases (e.g., from 522 to 164).
I realize the impact is pretty big on some players, we can always play around with the weights to minimize dislocation (insurance
term for the distribution of impact)
-
May I ask one thing? Is it possible to value HRs differently when they are solo shots from grand slams? I think one of the chinks in the scoring system has the same negative effect as a grand slam. Also, is the XBH worth minus 2.4 or minus 24 like you posted?
On a separate note, if IPs are going to be included they should be Outs minus K, like someone proposed early, to avoid counting twice the same out. Just chipping in my 2 cents.
-
May I ask one thing? Is it possible to value HRs differently when they are solo shots from grand slams? I think one of the chinks in the scoring system has the same negative effect as a grand slam. Also, is the XBH worth minus 2.4 or minus 24 like you posted?
On a separate note, if IPs are going to be included they should be Outs minus K, like someone proposed early, to avoid counting twice the same out. Just chipping in my 2 cents.
Not sure if the HR thingy that you mentioned can be tracked. And, no it's not a typo on the HR, it's -24.
-
Shouldn't HR be more detrimental than XBH?
-
It is. If a pitcher gives up a HR, then it's an XBHA as well.
Double allowed = -24
HR allowed = -24 + -10 = -34
I just realized that walk penalty is pretty low. This is V4 of the proposal:
IP: 6.5
BB: - 8 (it was -4 preivously)
K: 11 (it was 10.5 previously)
HR -10
XBNA -20 (it was -24 previously)
GB 2
-
Can we produce a version of the stats that excludes GB and takes Outs into account, since that seems to be the direction we are moving with GB no longer available? I think that mediocre to bad pitchers with high GB rates was the leading distortion to our stats.