Scoring Categories

[Canada8999]

Two things, however, a team with two first basemen playing at CI will have an edge due to defense statistics.  We would have to pass a rule that only RP's can be placed at RP regardless of eligibility, otherwise an SP with RP eligibility would provide a big edge. Let me know what you guys think.

Could you please post a pre-2007 version of the xls?

[mjmezzetti]

Pre-2007 Excel version

[Canada8999]

Looks like great work.

 :iatp:

[Canada8999]

Two things, however, a team with two first basemen playing at CI will have an edge due to defense statistics.

Weighting A more than PO could help narrow the gap

We would have to pass a rule that only RP's can be placed at RP regardless of eligibility, otherwise an SP with RP eligibility would provide a big edge. Let me know what you guys think.

I agree that it would be a concern, but adjusting our eligibility settings would probably do the trick.

Position Eligibility

    * Games needed for a player to qualify at a position from previous season: 20
    * Games needed for a player to qualify at a position from current season: 5

Changing this to 20/10, or maybe even 20/20?

[Canada8999]

Another thing to note, ace pitchers seem to gain more points than star hitters:

Top 5 Hitters:
12417
11527
10697
10454
10433

Top 5 Pitchers:
17000
15790
15690
15210
15120

While I wouldn't necessarily object to this, wanted to point it out since I was expecting a split similar to the H/F/P breakdown of 48/17/36 (although I see you've done it based on the sum for starters, and this is a result of the higher variation among pitchers).

[mjmezzetti]

I weighted it by top 270 hitters average points and top 150 sp + 180 rp average points.

9 hitters * 30 teams

5 starting pitchers * 30 teams

6 relief pitchers * 30 teams

[Canada8999]

I weighted it by top 270 hitters average points and top 150 sp + 180 rp average points.

9 hitters * 30 teams

5 starting pitchers * 30 teams

6 relief pitchers * 30 teams

I see that, and it looks fine, it's just that the results were not what I expected.  What are your thoughts on valuing A more than PO for fielding?  I was also wondering why we'd want to include both GB and HR, since HR is essentially the result of not getting the GB.  I would say either we use FB/10 to estimate expected number of HR's, or just use HR directly.  Thoughts?

I'd pass the system as is, these are just minor questions.

[Colby]

I like the stats M.J. and I trust in you to have some good settings for 2010 and beyond.  I think I may add in some zero stats for display purposes only in Fantrax such as R, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, OBP, SLUG, RC, FLD% and W, L, SV, HLD, K/9, BB/9, K, K/BB, ERA, WHIP, FIP, etc...

[mjmezzetti]

As far as zero stats for display purposes, I'd like to see range factor, either FIP or xERA, and RC.
I'm going to change the defense weightings so that assists are more valuable than putouts, and perhaps weighting defense overall slightly less since the metrics are slightly flawed.  I will try to post an updated spreadsheet tonight.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll wait for more feedback vis a vis the GB and HRA, Brewers GM poses a good question.
Changing the game requirements won't totally alleviate the potential issue starting an RP-eligible pitcher that's currently starting.  For instance, even though Feliz satisfies requirements at RP next season, if he's slated to start he should not be eligible at RP...

[Colby]

Changing the game requirements won't totally alleviate the potential issue starting an RP-eligible pitcher that's currently starting.  For instance, even though Feliz satisfies requirements at RP next season, if he's slated to start he should not be eligible at RP...

I am afraid there is not much we can do there unless there is a setting on Fantrax that says that a position cannot accumulate more than X IP/AB on a day or it is disqualified and the same for reaching a certain level to qualify.  If there was a setting like that, I wouldn't want to impose it on position players, but I can see the reasoning for pitchers.