ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Archives => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits => Topic started by: Colby on May 14, 2011, 07:56:10 PM
-
You can change your vote whenever you like.
-
While I agree with the general questions you've posted, I think we should start with a single general question of whether we should even open the books, and we should do this before we get more generic... if we keep it generic to start we won't have concrete data to work from.
-
I kind of agree, right now it looks like 5 "No's" and 7 "Yes's"
~MTK
-
I kind of agree, right now it looks like 5 "No's" and 7 "Yes's"
~MTK
That is definitely the case. This poll answers two in one very effectively. We have three GMs who have replied and nine others who simply voted. Out of all 12, five of them said keep the scoring the same. At this rate, there will be more than 10 GMs against a scoring change.
-
I did misunderstand 3 of the questions. One I voted, however I don't agree with. That is the "LD" question. The other 2 I didn't vote for because I read them and thought the opposite. They were "K's should be more" and "GB's should be less." Although, I don't think the "LD" one is going to matter.
~MTK
-
I did misunderstand 3 of the questions. One I voted, however I don't agree with. That is the "LD" question. The other 2 I didn't vote for because I read them and thought the opposite. They were "K's should be more" and "GB's should be less." Although, I don't think the "LD" one is going to matter.
~MTK
You can change your vote.
-
6 people think the scoring is fine....REALLY?!?
Yet another example last night with the lines of Mike Pelphrey and Joaquin Benoit. Benny gets 12 points for allowing 4 hits, 3 ER in an IP but hey, they were all GB...meanwhile, Pelphrey goes 7, 2 BB and a solo HR, 1 ER and earns 11 pts. I truly hope pride is not a factor when looking at what is best for the league. Our pitching scoring is seriously flawed/skewed. Period.
-
Agreed. On the bright side, there are more than double the votes for "yes" than there are "no."
~MTK
-
We need 10 more GMs to chime in here.
-
17-6 thus far
-
17-6 thus far
I believe that we agreed to change the scoring if 2/3 were in favor. The current % in favor of change is 74%.
-
I believe that we agreed to change the scoring if 2/3 were in favor. The current % in favor of change is 74%.
Correct. It is now 18-6 which is 75%. Worst case scenario is 60%.
-
I think we need to lower it. Some teams have had 8 starts already this week and they are 20 innings from the cap. I think it is a wee bit too high.
-
:iatp:
-
I am sure we can discuss this for next season.
-
I am sure we can discuss this for next season.
This will be part of the RC's next update for tweaking the scoring system.
-
What is the limit?
-
Currently it's 85...70 (or 65) sounds like a pretty reasonable number
-
Currently it's 85...70 (or 65) sounds like a pretty reasonable number
-
I think limiting the number of innings too much is equally harmful. This is fantasy baseball after all and some odd scenarios are possible. What happens if a team has its 5 rotation starters pitching twice in the same week? That team would be screwed because the following two weeks they would have only 5 starts a piece and won't even be able to capitalize the one week were they would have the advantage.
65 is probably way too small. 75 or 80 sound more reasonable. 8 starts at 7 innings a pop is 56. Plus some 20 innings in relief leads to 76 IP.
-
MLB teams play 162 games per year, across what I think is a 27 week season (please edit the numbers if this one is wrong). They average just under 9 IP / game, since the bottom of the 9th is often skipped (outweighs extra innings by a lot I guess), but let's use 9 for now.
162 games * 9 IP / game / 27 weeks = 54 IP / week
60 IP would already give our teams about one extra start per week over their MLB counterparts.
-
I think limiting the number of innings too much is equally harmful. This is fantasy baseball after all and some odd scenarios are possible. What happens if a team has its 5 rotation starters pitching twice in the same week? That team would be screwed because the following two weeks they would have only 5 starts a piece and won't even be able to capitalize the one week were they would have the advantage.
65 is probably way too small. 75 or 80 sound more reasonable. 8 starts at 7 innings a pop is 56. Plus some 20 innings in relief leads to 76 IP.
Only having 5 starts in one week is a realistic number, so as long as the limit is low enough not having the extra starts won't hurt. FGM managers will have the benefit of picking and choosing their matchups if they know they have 10 starts to pick from.
-
This is why I think 70 IP is a happy medium.
-
What I mean to say is that with such a low innings limit, we will have weeks when we do not meet the maximum and we won't be able to compensate with the weeks in which more innings are pitched. 5 starts in one week is not enough if each SP throws only 5 innings and your RPs have a lazy week in which they throw only 5-10IP. That means you have a 35 to 40 IP week. Or what happens when you have a pair of weeks in which three or four of your starters are injured - as often happens? In the long run you may end up pitching less than the actual MLB average of IP per week. I think it is better to have an ample amount of IP. Another option would be to limit the amount of IPs for the whole season instead of on a weekly basis. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is pitcher streaming by those teams who have 10, 12 starters every week. It is much better to limit the amount of pitchers used every week than to limit the amount of innings per week to such a small number.
-
What I mean to say is that with such a low innings limit, we will have weeks when we do not meet the maximum and we won't be able to compensate with the weeks in which more innings are pitched. 5 starts in one week is not enough if each SP throws only 5 innings and your RPs have a lazy week in which they throw only 5-10IP. That means you have a 35 to 40 IP week. Or what happens when you have a pair of weeks in which three or four of your starters are injured - as often happens? In the long run you may end up pitching less than the actual MLB average of IP per week. I think it is better to have an ample amount of IP. Another option would be to limit the amount of IPs for the whole season instead of on a weekly basis. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is pitcher streaming by those teams who have 10, 12 starters every week. It is much better to limit the amount of pitchers used every week than to limit the amount of innings per week to such a small number.
very well said Daniel
-
What I mean to say is that with such a low innings limit, we will have weeks when we do not meet the maximum and we won't be able to compensate with the weeks in which more innings are pitched. 5 starts in one week is not enough if each SP throws only 5 innings and your RPs have a lazy week in which they throw only 5-10IP. That means you have a 35 to 40 IP week. Or what happens when you have a pair of weeks in which three or four of your starters are injured - as often happens? In the long run you may end up pitching less than the actual MLB average of IP per week. I think it is better to have an ample amount of IP. Another option would be to limit the amount of IPs for the whole season instead of on a weekly basis. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is pitcher streaming by those teams who have 10, 12 starters every week. It is much better to limit the amount of pitchers used every week than to limit the amount of innings per week to such a small number.
This is a very good explanation. If we move the cap too low, it begins to affect the league in other ways.
-
What I mean to say is that with such a low innings limit, we will have weeks when we do not meet the maximum and we won't be able to compensate with the weeks in which more innings are pitched. 5 starts in one week is not enough if each SP throws only 5 innings and your RPs have a lazy week in which they throw only 5-10IP. That means you have a 35 to 40 IP week. Or what happens when you have a pair of weeks in which three or four of your starters are injured - as often happens? In the long run you may end up pitching less than the actual MLB average of IP per week. I think it is better to have an ample amount of IP. Another option would be to limit the amount of IPs for the whole season instead of on a weekly basis. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is pitcher streaming by those teams who have 10, 12 starters every week. It is much better to limit the amount of pitchers used every week than to limit the amount of innings per week to such a small number.
:iatp:
-
This is why I think 70 IP is a happy medium.
%100 agreed
-
I agree with you Daniel - can we have a GS limit instead of an IP limit?
-
The reason for an IP limit is to keep teams from streaming 8 to 10 mediocre or even bad SP's that will dominate a team with a solid 5 man rotation. Another way to combat this is with our revised pitching scoring system...
Currently, it's pretty rare to have a negative start from an SP (while it's common place for batters). However, if GM's had to be concerned for an SP getting blown up and putting up a big negative score, the streaming might stop naturally as you'd be forced to be selective with your starts.
-
I like the idea of punishing bad starts more. With that, there is no need to limit inning counts. If you have 10 Roy Halladay's, then you should be able to leverage that to your advantage.
-
I like the idea of punishing bad starts more. With that, there is no need to limit inning counts. If you have 10 Roy Halladay's, then you should be able to leverage that to your advantage.
I wouldn't go as far as no need, but if we do it right the natural pressures should reduce the need.
If you have 10 Roy Halladay's, you can still only start one per game ... you'd have 5 of them coming out of the pen and not seeing any action since the starter is always going deep.
-
Will the RC be responsible for modifying the scoring? If so, I would like to start the discussions now, so we can reach a consensus in a timely manner.
-
Yep. We will be in charge. We have 80% voting with 75% of them supporting an adjustment. The timing of the scoring change should be 2012 with perhaps a slight change next year. Also, let's discuss a reduction in the innings limit to 70 or 75.
-
i would love to give my opinion but i dont really have one im still working on figuring out the scoring as is lol. there is one thing i dont like, i dont like that the value off top notch pitchers is so low. if u r whiling to pay a top notch guy like king felix like i will in the offseason you should be rewarded. so if this change seperates the average pitcher from the top guys then im all for it
-
Sorry, I just saw this poll and I am like Daniel in still trying to figure out the scoring.
-
BTW, GB and FB may not be available for the ProFSL scoring system come 2012, so that is something we may want to consider for adjustments.
-
BTW, GB and FB may not be available for the ProFSL scoring system come 2012, so that is something we may want to consider for adjustments.
?
-
ProFSL is launching its own scoring service this fall for NFL and NHL. It will be more than ready for MLB and NBA in 2012 with the potential for UEFA, NCAAF, and NCAAB next year. The stats provider does not have GB as a stat.
-
Good. I hated using GB. That to me was the biggest problem with our scoring.
-
What stats are available for baseball? If GB is not available, then we have to adjust our current scoring system.
-
Why don't we just do outs? Make K's more valuable, BBs and HRs more detrimental
-
What stats are available for baseball? If GB is not available, then we have to adjust our current scoring system.
Pretty much everything Fantrax has except for GB/FB. We could base the system around the following.
IP, BB, K, 2B, 3B, HR
Pitchers who have good K/BB ratios, don't allow the long ball, and generally hold off XBH should do well for any style of pitcher.
Re: Dan - IP = Outs
-
understood I just hate having IP as a category. If we increase K value and increase the harm that HR and BB do, then RPs will have value. In a system with IP as a plus, and no saves or hlds, and a really high IP cap, RPs have little to no value. I think that is something we should consider going forward.
-
How about including ER somewhere instead of increasing further the value of HRs? We already have a big scoring glitch when we can have these two lines score the same amount of points:
7IP 12H 2BB 7K 8ER 2HR
7IP 3H 2BB 7K 2ER 2HR
First line is horrible, second one is good enough. I read something about the possibility of including QS as a stat, but that some believe 3R in 6IP is mediocre (I agree). Is there any way to invent a new QS in which a pitcher would have to post minimum a 7IP 3ER or 6IP 2ER instead of the regular QS? Just throwing ideas out there.
-
I don't agree with any type of limits, but if it is a needed thing, Why don't we just lower the number of SP starters.
-
I don't agree with any type of limits, but if it is a needed thing, Why don't we just lower the number of SP starters.
That would not change anything. Ideally, we would have one starting SP per day, but alas this is a fantasy league and we can't control the actual starts. A starts limit was in discussion for a while, but most were opposed to that and favored an IP limit.
-
I just dont like limits, I don't know if everybody have enough starters to have this really do any thing in this league. this will affect only a minority here. but I will favor them if every body agrees to them. :toast:
-
Something needs to be done to fix this. I don't know how a team can roll out 9 SP's in a week. I think when we voted we didn't know how it would effect the league. With this many teams its hard for some to compete with payrolls and not enough decent pitchers to go around. I think 70 innings a week is more than enough.
-
No way to really invent a new QS as it is a conditional stat rather than a countable combination. The following two lines...
7IP 12H 2BB 7K 8ER 2HR
7IP 3H 2BB 7K 2ER 2HR
May be separated by the introduction of XBH. There is certainly the potential for the one pitcher to allow 10 singles. We could always negate points for singles, but at a much lower rate than XBH and HR.
-
No way to really invent a new QS as it is a conditional stat rather than a countable combination. The following two lines...
7IP 12H 2BB 7K 8ER 2HR
7IP 3H 2BB 7K 2ER 2HR
May be separated by the introduction of XBH. There is certainly the potential for the one pitcher to allow 10 singles. We could always negate points for singles, but at a much lower rate than XBH and HR.
If by "negate" you mean subtract, I am in full agreement.
-
If by "negate" you mean subtract, I am in full agreement.
Correct.
-
How about earned runs? In the end it is the most important stat pitchers have. The goal of a pitcher is after all to allow the least possible amount of runs. It still troubles me that a triple with the bases empty will substract the same amount of points as a triple with the bases loaded. The inclusion of both singles and xbh will help with that, but it will also do a similar damage to the pitcher who loads the bases and then gets out of the jam without receiving a run.
-
I know we're all tired of arguing, but this issue has been hanging out there for a very long time with no resolution in sight. May I suggest that we table it to the post-season if we don't want to deal with it now? Most people's mind are probably on trades before the deadline, so this topic may be better suited for another time. I do think it needs to be addressed at some point in the off-season, because the league over-overwhelmingly voted for change.
-
:bump:
Let's figure this out before the trade deadline. Howe has the fake league setup, and we have a new RC member on board. Ben is on vacation till Tuesday, so let's try and develop something to vote upon. The poll results are fairly clear as to what is wanted. We need to introduce hits and tailor existing stats without adding faulty stats such as ER to the mix.
-
Isn't this something that could be resolved in the off-season? I don't see it getting solved by the trade deadline given the widely differing views on the topic.
-
I just noticed the fine print with this inning limit in Fantrax:
All hitters or pitchers, depending on the scoring category exceeded, will stop accumulating stats for the rest of the scoring period. If the max has not been met or exceeded at the beginning of a day, stats will accumulate throughout that entire day, even if the max is exceeded.
This means the 85 IP is actually a "soft cap". Surprisingly, Fantrax doesn't have the option of stopping the scoring as soon as the 85 IP is hit. Does this mean we have to start manually adjust team's scoring?
-
I stayed out for as long as possible; but IP limits is for people complaining because they cant win. It's a strategy, and since we can't really emulate the SP scenario of the MLB, why work so hard to hamper it? If I would rather invest in rolling out starters, as opposed to stacking my lineup, why shouldn't I be able to do that? This league is becoming ONE DIMENSIONAL...bats bats bats. Haven't you noticed, there are even less bats to go around..than there are SP. If you want to decrease parody in the league, tighten the leash on pitchers even more. Scoring is already skewed to decrease the effectiveness of a pitcher on a week's outcome, I am strongly opposed to having a cap on IP or Starts...but the compromise has to be that you cannot widdle it down to nothing.
-
I stayed out for as long as possible; but IP limits is for people complaining because they cant win. It's a strategy, and since we can't really emulate the SP scenario of the MLB, why work so hard to hamper it? If I would rather invest in rolling out starters, as opposed to stacking my lineup, why shouldn't I be able to do that? This league is becoming ONE DIMENSIONAL...bats bats bats. Haven't you noticed, there are even less bats to go around..than there are SP. If you want to decrease parody in the league, tighten the leash on pitchers even more. Scoring is already skewed to decrease the effectiveness of a pitcher on a week's outcome, I am strongly opposed to having a cap on IP or Starts...but the compromise has to be that you cannot widdle it down to nothing.
:iatp:
i also feel as though we should somehow make pitchers more valuable, i mean an ace should have a higher value then they do.
-
The inning limit arguement will probably go on for a while longer. Can we at least make sure the IP currnet in place is actually enforced? The league agreed on a 85 IP per week, 2 teams last week went over the limit and got credit with extra points.
-
Is there an actual tally of the way it goes down?
Against any limit: Joeshmoe, Mollinator, ltd.
For As is:
Stricter:
-
Which teams went over 85 IP? I may have to go back and make a series of adjustments to the standings. Strike two on Fantrax this year.
-
Fantrax allows you to go over the innings limit. Example if you have 86 innings after saturday your 86th inning will count. But say you 84 innings after saturday. As long as you start sunday with less that 85 you can pitch as many as you want on sunday. Thats how fantrax does the innings.
-
Which teams went over 85 IP? I may have to go back and make a series of adjustments to the standings. Strike two on Fantrax this year.
Both NYY and STL went over the limit this past week. NYY was over by about 20 IP and STL was 3IP over.
-
Both NYY and STL went over the limit this past week. NYY was over by about 20 IP and STL was 3IP over.
hey LAD suck it up!!!!! not my fault i beat u hahaha
:soapbox:
-
Both NYY and STL went over the limit this past week. NYY was over by about 20 IP and STL was 3IP over.
The Brewers were also 5IP over. There were probably others if you want to go to the trouble of enforcing it.
-
Breaking news flash, this was asked and answered on 4/28. Why is it suddenly an issue?
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=20316.0
-
I propose that we eliminate the contract distinction between SP and RP. I suggest that we make 1 contract scale for all pitcher extensions. We don't use saves, so it doesn't make sense to have RP making $10m per year when it's unlikely that they will ever be extended for that kind of money. Please remember that unknown RP like Burke Badenhop had more fantasy points last year than the great Mariano Rivera.
-
I propose that we eliminate the contract distinction between SP and RP. I suggest that we make 1 contract scale for all pitcher extensions. We don't use saves, so it doesn't make sense to have RP making $10m per year when it's unlikely that they will ever be extended for that kind of money. Please remember that unknown RP like Burke Badenhop had more fantasy points last year than the great Mariano Rivera.
:iatp:
a good change really...heath bell is another example. Any reason it is so high?
-
Bell was extended using our RP values I believe. It is a good thought by Roy, but I want to see the market work itself out where those high salaries drop out of the list every year as we won't be signing relievers to those deals.
-
Bell was extended using our RP values I believe. It is a good thought by Roy, but I want to see the market work itself out where those high salaries drop out of the list every year as we won't be signing relievers to those deals.
:iatp:
-
Bell was extended using our RP values I believe. It is a good thought by Roy, but I want to see the market work itself out where those high salaries drop out of the list every year as we won't be signing relievers to those deals.
Understood, but the RP extension values are artificially inflating the cost to re-sign certain SP/RP that are starters this year. For example, Matt Harrison is the 93rd ranked SP in 2011, but the 9th best RP, because he was an RP last year. He has not come in relief one game this year.
-
Kyle McClellan is another who was a RP last year and a SP this year. He is ranked # 117 in 2011 as a SP at $0.5m. He is ranked # 14 as a RP at $5m and will probably be a RP again next year which means he will not be extended.
-
We could kill two birds with one stone and just eliminate SP/RP eligibility. Once a guy starts X amount of games, drop the RP. It might also help out in the IP limit area.
-
I will say this, and this is just my opinion. Building a team of 9,000 starting pitchers is not a strategy, it is an accumulation. Aces still score higher than mediocre pitchers and by a lot. If teams didn't sell off their pitchers with the opinion that they are useless (which they aren't) then teams wouldn't be heading towards the IP cap, and other teams wouldn't have 2-3 SPs going every week. It is all a matter of perspective. A really good pitcher>mediocre pitcher>doody pitcher. Plus chances are pitchers will always score in the positive whereas hitters could have a bad week and score in the negative.
I honestly think the limit needs to be lowered and have said so on many an occasion, but I think the longer the league is in existence the less we will see teams selling off players(pitchers especially) whole sale to build a farm system, because eventually those teams will end up competing with their accumulating minor league talent, and will need those MLB players to continue to do so. (longest run-on sentence ever)
However that being said, 85 is too high of a number. It is ridiculous to see your opponent having a small army of starters going in one week. My argument has always been if an inning limit is realistic then certain teams will remain competitive instead of becoming cannon fodder by May 15. By allowing teams to use an excess amount of pitchers we are devaluing pitchers even further. If every team only had X amount of innings to play with then their 4 or 5 excess pitchers cannot be used. As it stands now, they can just be thrown out there, good bad or indifferent since it takes a pretty craptastic showing to score negative numbers (see Scott Kazmir).
And yes pitchers score less than hitters, but they still score more than other pitchers.
-
I know I proposed that we save the topic of adjusting the pitching scoring system until the off-season, but I just had to share this example with you guys. Try to get which pitcher below averaged more fantasy points per game in 2011. Stats are to date.
Pitcher A 103.2 IP 96 H 37 BB 66 K 3.04 ERA 10 HR 143 GB
Pitcher B 45.2 IP 59 H 26 BB 36 K 6.50 ERA 2 HR 66 GB
Answer. Pitcher A scored 40.47 points/game and Pitcher B scored 40.22 points per game. The names are not important, but keep in mind that Pitcher B was cut by his team 2 weeks ago. I guess his team did not realize that he was just plain unlucky.
-
I know I proposed that we save the topic of adjusting the pitching scoring system until the off-season, but I just had to share this example with you guys. Try to get which pitcher below averaged more fantasy points per game in 2011. Stats are to date.
Pitcher A 103.2 IP 96 H 37 BB 66 K 3.04 ERA 10 HR 143 GB
Pitcher B 45.2 IP 59 H 26 BB 36 K 6.50 ERA 2 HR 66 GB
Answer. Pitcher A scored 40.47 points/game and Pitcher B scored 40.22 points per game. The names are not important, but keep in mind that Pitcher B was cut by his team 2 weeks ago. I guess his team did not realize that he was just plain unlucky.
rofl. Good example Roy. I just got done working out, you should have done this sooner, my abs wouldnt hurt so bad. That last sentence was priceless
-
Pitcher A 103.2 IP 96 H 37 BB 66 K 3.04 ERA 10 HR 143 GB
Pitcher B 45.2 IP 59 H 26 BB 36 K 6.50 ERA 2 HR 66 GB
This is a valid argument to penalize walks more than we do currently, since Pitcher A has pretty good control and Pitcher B is awful. FIP weights walks as -3 and strikeouts as +2, but we have walks as -5 and strikeouts as +9.
With a decent K/IP rate, I'm guessing Pitcher B has mediocre stuff and his H/9 is largely affected by his BABIP - without knowing the player's name, can you post his BABIP?
-
This is a valid argument to penalize walks more than we do currently, since Pitcher A has pretty good control and Pitcher B is awful. FIP weights walks as -3 and strikeouts as +2, but we have walks as -5 and strikeouts as +9.
With a decent K/IP rate, I'm guessing Pitcher B has mediocre stuff and his H/9 is largely affected by his BABIP - without knowing the player's name, can you post his BABIP?
.361
-
You can't have your cake and eat it too - if a guy has RP eligibility but is currently and SP he has tremendous value (as noted by their elite rankings as an RP), and you should expect to pay for that
If you only want to re-sign the guy as an SP and never play him at an RP slot, then maybe we can allow requests to forfeit RP eligibility as soon as the player gains SP, but would have to think through the implications of that.
-
Understood, but the RP extension values are artificially inflating the cost to re-sign certain SP/RP that are starters this year. For example, Matt Harrison is the 93rd ranked SP in 2011, but the 9th best RP, because he was an RP last year. He has not come in relief one game this year.
But if you play him at RP, he has the 9th highest points total for all players in the league eligible at that position.
-
I agree completely with Dan. I also think having the scoring system award negative points for sub-par starts (very rare with current system) will help discourage pitcher streaming since there will be built in consequences.
-
.361
While it may or may not be enough to make the guy a decent pitcher, that is some pretty horrible luck. I would guess that if he improved his BB/IP to be decent (no small feat), maintained his K/IP and GB/IP at their current levels and had average luck (0.300 to 0.310 BABIP) then he'd have a pretty decent ERA.
-
While it may or may not be enough to make the guy a decent pitcher, that is some pretty horrible luck. I would guess that if he improved his BB/IP to be decent (no small feat), maintained his K/IP and GB/IP at their current levels and had average luck (0.300 to 0.310 BABIP) then he'd have a pretty decent ERA.
And if the Queen had balls, she'd be King. The loser's name is Doug Davis.
-
I agree completely with Dan. I also think having the scoring system award negative points for sub-par starts (very rare with current system) will help discourage pitcher streaming since there will be built in consequences.
A scoring system which associates negative points for pitching would not eliminate the streaming of starters. It would eliminate it for teams which couldn't afford to do so. Other teams would that could afford it would continue to do so.
Furthermore, it would make pitching even less important in this league, centralizing more power on the hitters. I can't believe how much this league is for handicapping hitting. Really guys, if you don't have a big bat you just might as well consider rebuilding. It would be ridiculous.
Parody in this league is achieved when there are multiple ways to compete. Why do we want to eliminate different formula's for success?
Can somebody please explain to me the reason for favoring hitters so much? Maybe that would help me understand these discussions better.
-
And if the Queen had balls, she'd be King. The loser's name is Doug Davis.
Certainly a valuable loser in this format... :rofl:
Nice thread Roy!
-
I agree with both of Dan and Ben.
A strategy that others and myself would currently use is to look for any free agent pitchers that is schedule to start (example: Kyle Davies), pick them off FA and start them without ever looking at the opponent, pitcher's ability and track record. Is that really what we want? To have a race and see who can pick up crappy pitcher faster?
Picking up on what Dan said, having excess pitchers really put some market teams at a disadvantage. Chris imagine you are competing against me, we both have the batters and 5 SPs of the same quality, but because I am big market team, I can afford to stash away another 4 crappy SPs and you can't. You are not going to be able to compete with me and weekly basis because of it.
I dont think you can really stream batters in this league. It wouldnt really work for batters because if a scrub goes 0-4, that's -40 points. I dont see how "A scoring system which associates negative points for pitching would not eliminate the streaming of starters. It would eliminate it for teams which couldn't afford to do so." Maybe you could elaborate?
-
Also to dispell this notion that a team can win without pitching. Check out the top 20 SPs in the league
and who they play for:
NYY: Sabathia, Hernandez, Verlander
PHI: Halladay, Hamels, Lee
MIL: SHields, Haren, Masterson
ATL: Weaver, Garcia
LAD: Kershaw
SF: Lincecum
CHW: Hudson
BOS: Sanchez
SF: Cain
TEX: Wilson
TOR: Stauffer
Out of these 20 players, 2 of them plays for team under .500 The top 2 team of the league
combine for more than a quarter of the top 20 SPs.
-
I agree with both of Dan and Ben.
A strategy that others and myself would currently use is to look for any free agent pitchers that is schedule to start (example: Kyle Davies), pick them off FA and start them without ever looking at the opponent, pitcher's ability and track record. Is that really what we want? To have a race and see who can pick up crappy pitcher faster?
Picking up on what Dan said, having excess pitchers really put some market teams at a disadvantage. Chris imagine you are competing against me, we both have the batters and 5 SPs of the same quality, but because I am big market team, I can afford to stash away another 4 crappy SPs and you can't. You are not going to be able to compete with me and weekly basis because of it.
It isn't a free swap to do that though. By choosing to employ that strategy you have forgone 4 spots for other guys. It's an opportunity cost. I think a laisse-faire market would regulate itself in this scenario. You aren't free to just add a guy either, like if it were a league with no contracts. You incur penalties to release a player, and the odds of somebody entering a bidding war are pretty good. These factors are all, in my mind, enough to level the playing field.
I dont think you can really stream batters in this league. It wouldnt really work for batters because if a scrub goes 0-4, that's -40 points. I dont see how "A scoring system which associates negative points for pitching would not eliminate the streaming of starters. It would eliminate it for teams which couldn't afford to do so." Maybe you could elaborate?
You could certainly stream batters. Most teams do this, by playing bench players during a starters day off. Just because you're streaming a batter doesn't mean they're going to be a scrub who goes 0-4. That may be one instance but there are many more examples where a team could stream a slew of quality batters. Should we close this as well?
Elaboration on my quoted sentences. If you're a large market team, such as the Yankees and have 200m, you could afford to put 8 quality SPs out there during the week, so you wouldn't have to worry about negative points. Negative points wouldn't stop pitcher streaming by itself, it still would require a innings limit, otherwise the rich would exploit the system. Further, the teams at the bottom would continue to stay there because they dont dare put a SP out because he may have a bad start, which would eliminate starting prospects and pitchers which at least score 10-15 points.
Lastly, and back to the overall issue; is there a way to lock the lineup for SPs through fantrax, but not the hitters? Weekly lineups for starters would solve the issue and would allow leniency for those times when a team has a SP with multiple starts in one week of scoring. Not that I am for solving the "issue".
-
Also to dispell this notion that a team can win without pitching. Check out the top 20 SPs in the league
and who they play for:
NYY: Sabathia, Hernandez, Verlander
PHI: Halladay, Hamels, Lee
MIL: SHields, Haren, Masterson
ATL: Weaver, Garcia
LAD: Kershaw
SF: Lincecum
CHW: Hudson
BOS: Sanchez
SF: Cain
TEX: Wilson
TOR: Stauffer
Out of these 20 players, 2 of them plays for team under .500 The top 2 team of the league
combine for more than a quarter of the top 20 SPs.
I started to do research to point out a major flaw in your approach to this post. Look at the bats for those teams...
NYY have three top pitchers, but two of their bats (Beltran and Miguel Cabrera) have just as many points. That's only two of their position players. Where as three of the top pitchers combined barely equal their fantasy points for the season. That is one example.
The Phillies, who you put up there, had more points from their lineup, by-far, than did their pitching staff, and Paul Malholm went off for 150 points during that period! They still scored 1400 points!
How about the Pirates, they compete because they can roll out a bunch of decent-good-really good guys...it allows small market teams to compete. But Colby isn't littering the add/drop threads by picking up and dropping free agents.
It just doesn't add up is all.
-
Chris, the scoring system is based on Bill James' ratios of 17% defense (which is position players), 46% offense, and 37% pitching. Really, the ratio between the bat and the pitching arm is about 1.25. It looks more than that due to the defensive adjustments. A small market team that looks for defensive stars can find some silver lining. Add some good pitchers and some okay bats and you have a team that can compete. This style of play can be observed with several teams in the league.
Howe, I like the idea of incorporating some negative stats. I am going to combine all of these discussions into one RC post focused on the scoring system...
-
Something needs to be done to fix this. I don't know how a team can roll out 9 SP's in a week. I think when we voted we didn't know how it would effect the league. With this many teams its hard for some to compete with payrolls and not enough decent pitchers to go around. I think 70 innings a week is more than enough.
Agree with Papp's comments.
-
:bump:
Howe, let's work with Ben's suggestion and really get this moving...
-
:bump:
Howe, let's work with Ben's suggestion and really get this moving...
I did...check out the league scoring system...
-
I checked the scoring and the pitching and batting stats are near equal. I did a check on total points for position players and pitchers for all 16 NL teams and it appears to be a 50-50 split which isn't what we want.
Team, Position Players, Pitchers
:ARZ: 11444 / 8332
:ATL: 8477 / 11291
:CHC: 7014 / 4832
:CIN: 6276 / 6715
:COL: 12672 / 8456
:FL: 6967 / 9808
:HOU: 10473 / 8290
:LAD: 16499 / 14819
:MIL: 14021 / 12448
:NYM: 5777 / 4863
:PHI: 15370 / 12391
:PIT: 14678 / 15836
:SD: 7860 / 7123
:SF: 5720 / 8120
:STL: 14060 / 16236
:WAS: 3790 / 4144
TOTAL = 149654 / 145372 = 51%/49%
-
Good job Colby I agree this is the ideal situation. When are we going to have a decision on this topic.
-
If only because I think I saw the horse twitch...
Dillon Gee's line (7/19/11)
VS
Chris Capuano's line (7/18/11)
-
Good job Colby I agree this is the ideal situation. When are we going to have a decision on this topic.
Jake is busy... waiting to hear from Ben. Mike and Roy wants to see something on it. Howe, I feel like the scoring system in your test league needs to be further adjusted to reflect the Bill James' ratios. We can then compare lines of pitchers to see how hits affects their points.
-
My take is I think we should only work from the following categories: IP, K, BB, HR, GB, and possibly XBH. IP should only be included if we have a natural deterrent for SP steaming (such as weekly SP rosters, negative points for bad starts, a low IP limit, etc). I think our weights should be reflective of those for FIP, with some tweaks if we add variables FIP or xFIP don't use.
I understand I may be in the minority, but this is where my vote will end up.
-
Could not agree more Ben... :iatp:
-
I did another audit on the test league. Pitching totals 42% of points, defense is 20%, and offense is 38%. We need offense to be 46%, pitching to be 38%, and defense to be 16%. One more tweak is needed to pitching.
-
I did another audit on the test league. Pitching totals 42% of points, defense is 20%, and offense is 38%. We need offense to be 46%, pitching to be 38%, and defense to be 16%. One more tweak is needed to pitching.
The test looks good. offense + defense = 58%. So position players are 58% of the scoring. Pitching 42. if we 46 and 16 Then we just keep making position players so much more valuable.
The only way to have good FA class, not as many inflated contracts or overpaying, is to make it so pitchers have value.
Im not on RC, I know that, but I still think other opinions should be heard.
-
This is going to be my focus now that trading is over, i will come up with some tweaks in the next couple of weeks.
-
I haven't been paying attention to this thread for awhile now since it seemed we were chasing out tales. My main sticking point is IP. Both as a scoring category and our inflated limit. I will argue this until the end of time, and it seems like more and more GMs are starting to agree, but the IP limit is too high. By making each start more worthwhile you will increase the value of good starters since IP will have to be something that is conserved, and not spent recklessly on the 6th starter wonders of the world. I also think rewarding IP as a category is kind of rewarding the pitchers line-up, or the fact that that pitcher isn't on a pitch count, or is Felix Hernandez who throws 200 pitches an outing. Just my two cents.
-
There are two issues here, one is the scoring system itself (I think many owners were not happy that a SP that threw a no hitter got outscored by some scrub) and the other issue the inning limit.
The scoring system involves a lot of testing, the IP issue does not. Not sure which one should be looked at first though.
-
I think the IP limit is easiest. we have all seen what happened this year, and that our current IP limit is much too high.
-
I think the IP limit is easiest. we have all seen what happened this year, and that our current IP limit is much too high.
and Fantrax has a soft cap rather than a hard one.
-
Espn does as well...load up on pitchers who pitch on sunday
-
I just thought this was an interesting piece that kind of tied into our old conversation. Not even sure if this a metric that can be "scored" or not, but if it can, it appears it would better reward those pitchers who are "effective" (FIP) at what they do.
http://www.espn1040.com/includes/blog/index.php?action=blog&blog_id=12&post_id=3161
-
I just thought this was an interesting piece that kind of tied into our old conversation. Not even sure if this a metric that can be "scored" or not, but if it can, it appears it would better reward those pitchers who are "effective" (FIP) at what they do.
http://www.espn1040.com/includes/blog/index.php?action=blog&blog_id=12&post_id=3161
Need to be an Insider to read.
-
Not sure why it wouldn't let you read it...in any case, here's what it said:
Jeremy Hellickson has lived in rarified air this season; quite literally. The American League Rookie of the Year contender has done most of his work above ground. Despite Sunday’s complete game in which he induced 17 groundball outs, Hellickson’s 33.7% groundball rate is the lowest among Tampa Bay Rays starters.
Going back to the 2000 season, only two pitchers in team history have thrown at least 150 innings in a season with a lower groundball rate: Scott Kazmir in 2008 (30.8%) and the late Geremi Gonzalez in 2003 (33.1%). Among qualified starters in the American League this season, Hellickson’s GB% is the third lowest behind Colby Lewis and Jered Weaver.
Looking at peripheral statistics, Hellickson has been fortunate this season. His batting average on balls in play is .230. That is the lowest BABIP in the majors and 60 points better than the league’s average (.291). It is also 30 points ahead of the next starter on his team (James Shields .265) despite playing in front of the same defense and in the same ballparks. As a results of a low BABIP, he is tied for the league lead in percentage of runners left on base.Thus far, he has stranded 82% of his baserunners; almost 10% higher than the league average Both marks have helped keep his ERA around 3.00 for most of the season.
Normally, such rates would suggest steep regression ahead. Hellickson may experience some setback here, but because of a rare skill it may not be drastic. Similar to Jered Weaver, who was mentioned above, Hellickson gets infield flies in bunches.
This season, Weaver leads the league with an infield fly rate (IFFB) of 16.5%. Hellickson is right behind him at 16.4%. In certain cases, flyball pitchers show the ability to induce infield flies on a consistent basis. Weaver – with a career 13.7% IFFB – is one of those pitchers. In his first 200 innings, Hellickson and his 14.8% appear to be on the same path.
Strikeouts are a pitcher’s best friend. They are outs generated without relying on the ability of his defenders. But right behind the strikeout, is the often overlooked infield fly. Although anything can happen once the ball is put in play, no type of ball in converted in to an out more than the infield fly. Considering the rate of swinging strikes he generates, Hellickson will strikeout more batters at some point. Until that happens,he will need to keep those pop outs coming.