Need help understanding pitching scoring

[h4cheng]

We are not proposing whole sale changes. Just some minor adjustments. Using my proposed system, the dislocation is minimal.

[rcankosy]

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? 

[Dan Wood]

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.

[h4cheng]

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)

[Dan Wood]

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.

[rcankosy]

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?

[h4cheng]

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

[Dan Wood]

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.

[Dan Wood]

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.

[h4cheng]

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.