ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: rcankosy on July 11, 2010, 05:34:52 PM
-
Guys,
We might want to consider revising the scoring for pitchers if we want this league to accurately reflect the pitcher's relative worths in real life. Having a system that doesn't seem to penalize earned runs or baserunners allowed seems to be counter to real life. For example, Justin Masterson is the 23rd ranked pitcher according in fantrax and here are his real life numbers:
ERA 5.31
WHIP 1.629
The only things he seems to do well is produce groundballs and prevent home runs. He is one example, but there are many others. I know people have traded based on the current system, but that should not prevent us from trying to revise it if we agree that it's not realistic.
Roy
-
Guys,
We might want to consider revising the scoring for pitchers if we want this league to accurately reflect the pitcher's relative worths in real life. Having a system that doesn't seem to penalize earned runs or baserunners allowed seems to be counter to real life. For example, Justin Masterson is the 23rd ranked pitcher according in fantrax and here are his real life numbers:
ERA 5.31
WHIP 1.629
The only things he seems to do well is produce groundballs and prevent home runs. He is one example, but there are many others. I know people have traded based on the current system, but that should not prevent us from trying to revise it if we agree that it's not realistic.
Roy
Yes, I also agree that the pitching scoring needs to be changed.
-
I strongly disagree
We have scoring for pitchers that is based on significant amounts of research for a pitcher's actual skill. Furthermore, we agreed that the scoring format should be discussed heavily (as it was) and then set once and fixed, with only minor tweaks in the future - this is because all player movements are based on the players value in our league / scoring format...
-
As for the Masterson reference, he has been terribly unlucky but his underlying skills have been strong - his tERA (which is a significantly more accurate reflection of a pitchers contribution than ERA is) is 3.82:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2038&position=P (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2038&position=P)
The problem with his ERA/WHIP is a 0.348 BABIP - the very kind of bad luck our scoring format is designed to prevent...
-
Maybe I'm missing something. We have 4 pitching categories:
GB
HR allowed
K
BB
How exactly are all those fancy stats such as BABIP and FIP taken into account that would measure a pitcher's true ability if we're not using basic ones such as ERA and WHIP? Absent that, perhaps someone who came up with this measure could explain how it's superior to the ones used in the major leagues in salary talks. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, but I've seen horrible games by pitchers who have allowed 10, 11 hits and 8-10 ER (such as recent games by Shields and Maholm) result in average pitching points because of the stats we're using. I'd like to hear from the rest of the RC on this issue.
-
Maybe I'm missing something. We have 4 pitching categories:
GB
HR allowed
K
BB
How exactly are all those fancy stats such as BABIP and FIP taken into account that would measure a pitcher's true ability if we're not using basic ones such as ERA and WHIP? Absent that, perhaps someone who came up with this measure could explain how it's superior to the ones used in the major leagues in salary talks. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, but I've seen horrible games by pitchers who have allowed 10, 11 hits and 8-10 ER (such as recent games by Shields and Maholm) result in average pitching points because of the stats we're using. I'd like to hear from the rest of the RC on this issue.
Scoring isn't really my strong point (math isn't my forte), so I will abstain from this discussion for the time being, as I know that Mike, Colby, Dan, and Ben have a much firmer grip on types of scoring than I do, and I know for a fact that Mike, Ben, and Colby were the lead innovators for the current format.
However I, for the time being, do not see a huge issue with the current system, as I know that a lot of time and effort was put into this scoring format, and it had to have been implemented for solid reasons.
-
Maybe I'm missing something. We have 4 pitching categories:
GB
HR allowed
K
BB
How exactly are all those fancy stats such as BABIP and FIP taken into account that would measure a pitcher's true ability if we're not using basic ones such as ERA and WHIP? Absent that, perhaps someone who came up with this measure could explain how it's superior to the ones used in the major leagues in salary talks. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, but I've seen horrible games by pitchers who have allowed 10, 11 hits and 8-10 ER (such as recent games by Shields and Maholm) result in average pitching points because of the stats we're using. I'd like to hear from the rest of the RC on this issue.
The short answer is these categories are those that the pitcher controls, and everything else is out of his hands - ERA and WHIP are products of these categories, but they also include a significant about of luck. For that reason, if you're going to pick statistical categories to rate your pitchers buy you might as well stick with the ones that they actually control and represent their true skills/performance (and for the record, this was one of Colby's founding principles for the league)
If you're interested in learning more about where all of this research comes from, I suggest researching things such as DIPS, BABIP, FIP, xFIP, tERA, etc.
Some sites that come up:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878)
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/batted-balls-and-dips/ (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/batted-balls-and-dips/)
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitcher-win-values-explained-part-two (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitcher-win-values-explained-part-two)
and not that ESPN has anything to do with generating these findings, but just to show that they are referenced by major sports sites:
http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?id=5260306 (http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?id=5260306)
-
Yes, I am familiar with all those stats you rattled off, and I've read articles on the topic. However, I don't buy the theory that hits allowed and earned runs are primarily defensive dependant stats. The good pitchers are hard to hit and they bear down with men on base to prevent runs from scoring.
Anyway, I think we can improve our scoring for pitchers by simply adding a few categories such as hits and earned runs allowed. The good pitchers will not be penalized, and the bad ones will fall in the rankings.
-
It is very tough to manage a team with moving target rules. However, I understand continuous improvement of a league.
The primary issue I have with this, is it would change the value of many of the transactions of this season. Managers have planned for this system in their transactions.
-
I fully support our scoring system. You'll also have some statistical outliers, but at the end of the day, the pitchers with the most strikeouts, least walks, and possibly more groundballs (generally will be outs where as flyballs will lead to hits) will have better ERA and WHIP.
-
I would like to chime in here. For starters I do think we need some change in the ways that pitchers are scored. Yes Masterson(I use him since he was brought up earlier) has been a bit unlucky this year. But what is his annual BABIP as a starter? If it is generally in the 330's then he isn't unlucky this year, it is his statistical norm. Plus he gets smoked by lefties, pretty much all the time. Groundballs tend to become hits more often than flyballs - see Aaron Hill, hitting more fly balls, very few grounders, and very few line drives, and is batting .189. Flyballs will just hurt you more if they leave the yard (Park Factors). I think it would be a good idea to institute either FIP, xFIP, etc to the scoring system come next year. Because really right now, we are valuing pitchers on their ability to not walk people and not give up home runs. James Shields, and Ricky Nolasco are both very valued pitchers in this league, but if you watch the games they pitch, the infielders should be wearing flack jackets. If we are only going to count GB, K, BB, HR, then we should also have LD or LD% to counteract. A double should be a negative impact on a players performance just as a home run is. Of course then we are getting into park factors, etc. A double at Metco, is a homer in Philly 7 times a week and twice on Sunday. This of course is IMHO.
-
:iatp:
I would like to see the cream of the crop in real life, be the same in this league. (Not saying that Shields and Nolasco aren't)
~MTK
-
I checked out the pitching rankings for this year, and feel pretty comfortable with it. Yeah, there might be a couple anomalies, such as Masterson, but the ability to induce ground balls is a very important statistic, and Masterson has induced at least 70 more ground balls than the likes of Josh Johnson, Tim Lincecum, and Jered Weaver. That seems pretty significant for a pitcher, regardless of his ERA or WHIP, and should warrant a higher ranking.
As it stands now, I'll side with keeping the scoring system as is.
-
I would go for a tweak to the scoring as Dan suggested by adding LD. The points setup took a lot of time and has proven itself to work well. The thing about the pitchers is that they have four countable stats contributing to their score whereas the batters have a couple dozen. :
The only viable categories that stick out to me are Doubles Allowed (not wild on this one because of park differences), Fly Balls Allowed, Pickoffs, Triples Allowed, and Wild Pitches. Triples can be due to defensive gaffs but for the most part these are balls in play that are definitely hits (2B turns into a 3B or flat out 3B).
-
I checked out the pitching rankings for this year, and feel pretty comfortable with it. Yeah, there might be a couple anomalies, such as Masterson, but the ability to induce ground balls is a very important statistic, and Masterson has induced at least 70 more ground balls than the likes of Josh Johnson, Tim Lincecum, and Jered Weaver. That seems pretty significant for a pitcher, regardless of his ERA or WHIP, and should warrant a higher ranking.
As it stands now, I'll side with keeping the scoring system as is.
I don't feel too strong one way or the other. If Masterson is having a good year, then he is having a good year. However I just don't want a average pitcher who does well in the categories that we do count to become a top pitcher in this league.
~MTK
-
I don't feel too strong one way or the other. If Masterson is having a good year, then he is having a good year. However I just don't want a average pitcher who does well in the categories that we do count to become a top pitcher in this league.
~MTK
To do well in our scoring system the pitcher is truly having a good year. The scoring points system takes luck and team defense out of the equation and focuses on the player's contribution to the team.
-
The current scoring setup was defined to correlate closely to FIP - I encourage you guys to both take a look at the original thread where we came up with the scoring as well as compare our rankings with a sorted FIP list (try www.fangraphs.com (http://www.fangraphs.com)).
For BABIP, it has been shown that very few pitchers have any effect and will normalize to ~0.300 over enough IP - even if Masterson had a historically high BABIP (his current career BABIP is 0.311), it is highly unlikely that will continue in the future. There are some cases where elite pitchers can have a slightly lower BABIP over their career, but this is the exception not the norm. For LD, again almost all pitchers regress to ~20% over enough IP and have very little control.
-
My point with LD is that the pitch is hit hard. We are taking fielding out of the equation, which I completely agree with, but adding LD, whether caught or not caught, would be a good barometer if a pitcher is getting hit hard or not. Again I want to reiterate that I do agree very much with the scoring, but on occasion Jamesian darlings have good peripherals yet are not good every year (Dave Bush comes to mind). Ricky Nolasco, James Shields, and the afore mentioned Justin Masterson are not having good years, but are having great years in this league. Now I am not trying to pick on anyone's players, I happen to like Masterson a lot. But just because a guy doesn't walk anyone, and K's a decent amount, that does not make him a good pitcher if he is giving up a lot of hard hit balls. They could be directly at someone though. Therefore I would like to further discuss adding LD to the scoring. It is like the opposite of a GB, which are generally hit weakly, meaning the pitcher is changing speeds very well. It isn't like there is a huge discrepancy in good and bad pitchers in this league by comparison to standard fantasy leagues, but there has to be a non defense involved way to measure if a pitcher is getting hit hard or not, outside of giving up home runs.
Plus I do realize that you guys spent a lot of time discussing the scoring, and I am not trying to take away from what you have accomplished, but this league is still transforming, and we are attempting to make all facets of it better and as life like as possible. A pitcher can have his ass handed to him and still not give up a home run or walk anyone. I should know, I watched Steve Trachsel pitch for several years.
-
And just FYI Randy Wells has the highest LD% according to Fangraphs, and James Sheilds is in the top 10, or bottom 10 I guess you could call it. Both are very similar pitchers, with poor 5 by 5 stats, but with good scores in this league. More to the point, I think something is there, and I think we should explore it further.
-
The short answer is these categories are those that the pitcher controls, and everything else is out of his hands - ERA and WHIP are products of these categories, but they also include a significant about of luck. For that reason, if you're going to pick statistical categories to rate your pitchers buy you might as well stick with the ones that they actually control and represent their true skills/performance (and for the record, this was one of Colby's founding principles for the league)
If you're interested in learning more about where all of this research comes from, I suggest researching things such as DIPS, BABIP, FIP, xFIP, tERA, etc.
Some sites that come up:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878)
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/batted-balls-and-dips/ (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/batted-balls-and-dips/)
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitcher-win-values-explained-part-two (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitcher-win-values-explained-part-two)
and not that ESPN has anything to do with generating these findings, but just to show that they are referenced by major sports sites:
http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?id=5260306 (http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?id=5260306)
I understand there is a strong correlation between GB and run prevention, but is producing GB (or preventing LD) a sustainable skill or is there an element of randomness? If it's sustainable skill, then I am all for using GB as a scoring category. If there is an element of randomness, then our scoring categories should try to compensate for this.
-
While it may seem intuitive that %LD is controlled by a pitcher, that is not what statistical research has concluded - instead, a pitchers %LD will vary only with 'noise'. The same is not true for %GB and %FB, which are influenced by the pitcher. Here is some research on a pitcher's control over the types of hits:
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/)
(1) Pitchers have great control over whether a ball becomes an outfield fly ball, infield fly ball, or ground ball, but show no consistency in the number of line drives they allow from one year to another; (2) Pitchers have pretty much no impact on whether a batted ball becomes a hit, and if it does, what kind of a hit it becomes; and (3) This includes home runs, which seem to be solely a function of the number of outfield flies and line drives a pitcher allows.
Since pitchers display no year-to-year consistency in the percentage of batted balls they allow that are line drives, we would then expect them to show little year-to-year consistency in BABIP, which is what happens.
-
Guys,
I have two main concerns about our pitching scoring system.
1. It seems as if our hitting and pitching scoring systems are contradictory. If we truly believe that a pitcher is not responsible for what happens once a ball is hit into the air, why don't we use the same hitting categories as pitching? Does anyone really believe that all of the non-HR hits are just a combination of defense and luck? Were Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, and Tony Gwynn just lucky all those years? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I want to hear from the guys that buy this defensive independent pitching theory.
2. What harm is there in using pitching categories such as ERA and WHIP even if some of us think they are largely products of defense and luck? Hitters have great years, and we don't penailze them for that. Why are we trying to "normalize" the pitchers and not the hitters? If a pitcher is not really good, he'll be bad the next year anyway. Good years are good years in my book, so we should reflect them.
Roy
-
Much of the hitters scoring is based on runs created formula which uses all hits. Perhaps we should have some type of runs prevented formula used for pitchers and use 1B, 2B, and 3B as well?
-
1. It seems as if our hitting and pitching scoring systems are contradictory. If we truly believe that a pitcher is not responsible for what happens once a ball is hit into the air, why don't we use the same hitting categories as pitching? Does anyone really believe that all of the non-HR hits are just a combination of defense and luck? Were Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, and Tony Gwynn just lucky all those years? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I want to hear from the guys that buy this defensive independent pitching theory.
Batters do have control, pitchers do not. I know you guys said you didn't want to re-invent the wheel, but most of these questions are about trying to do just that.
2. What harm is there in using pitching categories such as ERA and WHIP even if some of us think they are largely products of defense and luck? Hitters have great years, and we don't penailze them for that. Why are we trying to "normalize" the pitchers and not the hitters? If a pitcher is not really good, he'll be bad the next year anyway. Good years are good years in my book, so we should reflect them.
Because this was a founding principle of the league...
-
Much of the hitters scoring is based on runs created formula which uses all hits. Perhaps we should have some type of runs prevented formula used for pitchers and use 1B, 2B, and 3B as well?
This would be incorrect - batters have much more control over what happens, pitchers only have impact on whether its a K, BB or if in play FB vs GB.
-
OK guys, I was waiting for the perfect example of how the pitching scoring does NOT reflect reality and we had it last night. Texas beat Boston 7-2. Hunter went 7 solid innings, while Wakefield last just 2. Hunter allowed only 2 ER, while Wakefield got bombed for 6 and got knocked out of the game. Hunter did his job. Wakefield did NOT. And what do our stats show? Hunter got a whopping NEGATIVE 4 points for his fine effort, while Wakefield got 21 points! Don't tell me what Wakefield was just UNLUCKY. Wakefield got hit like a drunken ho from her pimp after a subpar night, while Hunter pitched a quality game against a good team. Something's wrong here folks. At the very least, we need to add ERA and innings to our formulas to properly reflect outings like the one I just described.
-
What could we add that is not an earned run equivalent statistic that goes in line with our scoring system? What was the comparison in line drives for these two pitchers?
-
Hunter allowed two bombs but both were solo shots. He becomes unlucky in our scoring system because the runs allowed were few. He had 14 fly balls, 9 ground balls and 1 line drive across 6.2 innings. He threw 67 strikes and 41 balls. He only had one strikeout and had two walks. However, despite those bad stats of 1 K, 2 BB, and 2 HR across nearly 7 innings, he only allowed five hits. He was lucky to only allow five hits considering the other stats.
Wakefield allowed one bomb and 6 ER in his 2 IP across 8 hits. He had 2 strikeouts to no walks which was nice in that short time frame. He allowed four fly balls, six ground balls, but three line drives. His ratios of K/BB and GB/FB were better than Hunter.
I do agree that something is missing in this example. The difference maker, as I pointed out to earlier, may be the line drives.
Here is some sample data from 2004 in a blog by Hard Ball Times:
NUMBER OUTS OUT%
Groundballs 9952 7208 72%
Flyballs 7845 6179 79%
Line Drives 4082 1050 26%
Total 21879 14437 66%
Source: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/groundballs-flyballs-and-line-drives/ (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/groundballs-flyballs-and-line-drives/)
Obviously, we already know it, but line drives are bad. Flyballs aren't recorded in our scoring system but it appears that they should be. Both Wakefield and Hunter had about 2 FB/IP. Hunter actually had a slightly higher ratio since he pitched 6.2 innings and not 7 full innings.
The reason we don't have flyballs in our scoring system is because of the likelihood for them to become home runs. Generally, it has been shown that 10% of flyballs become homers. That is something to work with if we incorporated FB into the system.
I guess I would be open to incorporating FB and LD (the bigger factor) into the scoring system. We would have to give more credence to K's and IP to keep the overall scoring on the Jamesian ratios.
-
I understand that 10% of fly balls end up being HR's but that also depends on park/weather and the hitter. Some batters just don't have HR power and hit a handful each yr, but they may fly out a lot. In baseball, I was always taught to hit line drives and ground balls b/c it is harder for the defensive to record the out on a ground ball than a fly ball. All a defender has to do is catch a fly ball, however inorder to record the out on the ground ball, the defender must field it, make a good exchange, a good throw and the basemen must catch the ball. So by simple addition that is 4 opportunities for something to go wrong on a ground ball compared to 1 for a fly ball.
~MTK
-
Colby,
I propose that we adopt Bill James' formulas of Runs Created for offense and 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.
-
I understand that 10% of fly balls end up being HR's but that also depends on park/weather and the hitter. Some batters just don't have HR power and hit a handful each yr, but they may fly out a lot. In baseball, I was always taught to hit line drives and ground balls b/c it is harder for the defensive to record the out on a ground ball than a fly ball. All a defender has to do is catch a fly ball, however inorder to record the out on the ground ball, the defender must field it, make a good exchange, a good throw and the basemen must catch the ball. So by simple addition that is 4 opportunities for something to go wrong on a ground ball compared to 1 for a fly ball.
~MTK
Groundballs also increase the chance for the fielders to get an out on another player other than the batter. This is why they are desirable for the pitcher and included in our scoring system.
-
Groundballs also increase the chance for the fielders to get an out on another player other than the batter. This is why they are desirable for the pitcher and included in our scoring system.
If someone else is on base...
~MTK
-
If someone else is on base...
~MTK
Which we don't assume one way or another in our scoring system.
-
Using Bill James' Game Score formula(see below) for pitching, Tommy Hunter would have compiled 53 points last night, while Tim Wakefield would have only earned 16 points. Please think about it guys.
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.
-
Well i know i am new to the league, so i dont have as much experience with this scoring system. But here's my outlook,
As a pitcher you want ground balls. It would be nice to have points for pitchers who work late into games as a bonus, but generally speaking, if they work late into games, then there not walking batters and there getting outs, most of the time ground balls or k's. not to many fly ball pitchers are successful at working deep into games.
But with all that being said, the fact of the matter is, it would be flat out wrong to change the system. if you do it, it shouldnt take effect for a couple years. teams have signed players and traded for players, that fit THIS scoring system. by changing it you would effectively be screwing those teams over.
Thats just my opinion
-
That is why if a change happened then I could only support a tweak that incorporates line drives.
-
Roy I hate to be blunt here, but you are arguing with commonly accepted facts. Pitchers control K, BB, FB/GB and that's it - period.
The current scoring system was put in place based on the proven facts of what a pitcher can and cannot control, and many transactions have been made since then based on the scoring system. There was a significantly long thread going back and forth before it was put in place to ensure that it was a good design, because it was understood that so much would depend on it moving forward. Minor tweaks could be made, but I would even disagree with adding line drives to the formula - line drives are not controlled by the pitcher, they are a hitter controlled stat.
-
Brewers,
Forgive me for being blunt, but I do not accept that it is proven that the pitching theories you have suggested are commonly held facts. Pitchers like Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver would scoff at those theories, because they held themselves accountable for everything that happened on the field whether it was cheap hits or errors. Bill James did not eliminate earned runs or hits out of his pitching formulas. Forgive me, but I trust James' formulas more than those proposed on the internet sites you sited.
I have read all those theories on pitching, and I respectfully disagree. Even if I bought all those theories as being true, I would not have proposed it as the basis for our scoring of pitching. Those theories twist the reality of what happened on the field into something other than what actually occurred. For example, it'd be nice if Ricky Nolasco did not continue to have bad innings and compile nearly a 5 ERA over the past 1.5 seasons, but after a while it is not just bad luck or bad defense. It's bad pitching!
-
Brewers,
Forgive me for being blunt, but I do not accept that it is proven that the pitching theories you have suggested are commonly held facts. Pitchers like Bob Gibson and Tom Seaver would scoff at those theories, because they held themselves accountable for everything that happened on the field whether it was cheap hits or errors. Bill James did not eliminate earned runs or hits out of his pitching formulas. Forgive me, but I trust James' formulas more than those proposed on the internet sites you sited.
Bob Gibson had a career FIP of 2.89... slightly below his ERA of 2.91 - are you sure he'd be upset?
-
Even if I bought all those theories as being true, I would not have proposed it as the basis for our scoring of pitching. Those theories twist the reality of what happened on the field into something other than what actually occurred
Ignorance is bliss my friend...
http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/article/2010-04-01/uzr-fip-babip-stats-give-baseball-new-language (http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/article/2010-04-01/uzr-fip-babip-stats-give-baseball-new-language)
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=FIP (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=FIP)
I could list countless websites that promote these facts, I encourage you to find one reputable source that disputes them...
-
But with all that being said, the fact of the matter is, it would be flat out wrong to change the system. if you do it, it shouldnt take effect for a couple years. teams have signed players and traded for players, that fit THIS scoring system. by changing it you would effectively be screwing those teams over.
:iatp:
-
I would be in favor of gradually tweaking the scoring if others felt that it was more realistic.
-
Ignorance is bliss my friend...
http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/article/2010-04-01/uzr-fip-babip-stats-give-baseball-new-language (http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/article/2010-04-01/uzr-fip-babip-stats-give-baseball-new-language)
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=FIP (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=FIP)
I could list countless websites that promote these facts, I encourage you to find one reputable source that disputes them...
Preferring James' formulas to yours is not ignorance my friend, it's intelligance! :rofl:
-
Using Bill James' Game Score formula(see below) for pitching, Tommy Hunter would have compiled 53 points last night, while Tim Wakefield would have only earned 16 points. Please think about it guys.
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.
There are several inherent issues with the Game Score
- It's designed for starting pitchers, and would not be directly re-applicable to our RP's
- It counts hits and earned runs, which are not within a pitchers control
- It does not include GB/FB, which a pitcher can control (will not capture as much actual skill as other metrics could)
This is in addition to being a major change, which is really a risky decision for scoring.
-
I have been away from this posting for a while and it seems to have gone out of control. First off, Roy will be gone for the next week, so he cannot respond to any further posts until he returns. I have a few suggestions and the first one I hate, buut I am going to present it anyway.
1. Add quality starts as a category - I loathe this idea, but it gives points to a pitcher for going 6+ innings. I watched the Wakefield start and he got whooped. Despite what the stats may show, he wasn't unlucky he was just bad. Tommy Hunter on the other hand, I feel is a fringe pitcher but he did pitch well enough despite two bombs. This could also go into luck because he was in trouble a lot of the game but got out of it. I personally feel he is due for a stat correction in the near future.
2. Somehow adding line drives. Ben I have done research on this after I had suggested it, since I didn't want to keep posting blindly. You are correct it is out of the pitchers control in a statistical manner of speaking. But if the guy isn't hitting his spots and he doesn't get hit hard, then it is the batters fault. As you said LD evens out, so if that is the case it should fluctuate from start to start. Maybe adding or subtracting from a guys weekly score.
But, and I am sure you guys have noticed it too, since I am sure you all watch a decent amount of baseball, is that some of these guys are getting hit hard on a regular basis. James Shields (going back to him again) has had his LD rate increase for the past several years, His BABIP however is a little out of line with his career norms. He also has a very good defense behind him. o my question is what does that make him? His career arc is that of a pitcher who is increasingly getting hit since his break out year of 2007. Maybe these are his new skills?
I do like the scoring the way it is, but I also feel it can be tweaked a little bit. To my knowledge there isn't a statistical measurement that is solely on the pitcher to measure if he is getting hit hard outside of home runs. Then again home runs could be a factor of weather - winds blowing in, out, park, time of year, humidity, etc. This isn't a perfect science, but I think we need something added to the pitchers scoring. I have given my suggestions, and welcome others. I agree with Roy in that aspect, but I don't think adding ERA or whip to the mix is the answer, since they are defense and bullpen dependent.
-
I would be in favor of gradually tweaking the scoring if others felt that it was more realistic.
I want to know what definition you give "realistic". Are we looking to isolate the value a pitcher brings to his ball club? (which could be done using the statistics we currently use and in my opinion a few other categories) Or are we looking to find the competition and the smarts needed in picking the right pitchers on the right teams who are going to put up better numbers than a less fortunate counterpart on a worse team?