61 replies to this topic

[fromthemitten]

I agree w/ Luke. Quality starts > wins. You're punishing pitchers for playing on bad teams.

[Luke]

So what if we drop losses altogether and compensate for it by slightly increasing the penalty for runs allowed. Frankly, if the only defense for keeping losses is that Fleaflicker uses them, then they need to go.

And then, how about we set Wins, Quality Starts, and Holds equal in value. Keeping wins can help the relievers, so I suppose we should hang on to them, but there is no way they should be more valuable than Quality Starts. Raising Holds to that same level may not make sense from real baseball standpoint, but if we are going make relievers worth rostering we've got to pump them up somewhere.

[SirCub]

I think that the points of hitters relative to pitchers is pretty good right now. For those of you who think it is unbalanced, my team has the highest scoring pitching in the league, and something like the 12th ranked offense (points from position players). Despite that, I'm number one in points overall. So yea, pitchers get plenty of points.

Also, I'll officially plant myself in the "special bonus stats are bull shit" camp. There is nothing more frustrating than seeing that your pitcher has the same or better line than a pitcher in your opponent's lineup, but they get blown out because of bonus stats for CG, shut out, W, no-hitter, etc. I mean, a slight difference, maybe. But those stats can be the difference between a 40 and a 100 point game. That's just insane.

Obviously that's the most extreme example (although it has happened twice already this year), but it's just as annoying when it makes a 15 point difference, which is very common (two pitchers with the exact same stat line, one gets a win, one a loss). I feel the same way about hitters. Cycles are dumb. So are grand slams (one play, 39 points).

And, not to intentionally contradict everything Caleb said (because I think it's awesome that you started this thread, and you argued your points really well), but I'm generally in favor of less stats. Stats I wouldn't mind seeing gone or greatly diminished:

RBI, R, Single, Double, Triple, GIDP, W, L, and all bonus stats


I know George Washington warned against it in his Farewell Address, but should we form parties?

[fromthemitten]

just so you know where my allegiance stands

[Rick Vaughn 99]

I agree w/ Luke. Quality starts > wins. You're punishing pitchers for playing on bad teams.

Absolutely agree.

[Rick Vaughn 99]

I think we should have started with the hitters. If I recall previous conversations correctly, we were all kind of on board with doing away with total bases. Because they were already getting points for the single, double, triple, homer, and then getting double the points for total bases. That's going to decrease the value of hitters dramatically. If we plan on doing something like that, then we need to look at decreasing the value of pitchers.

I know it's not popular, but a category system would pretty much make this problem go away. We could make all the pitching changes we want, without having to worry about how it'll effect the value of hitters.

I personally would like to just get back to default scoring and then make minor adjustments from that.

As far as special things, I like extra points for no-hitters and perfect games. I think those are things that should be rewarded, even though they can be flukes. The one that kills me is hitting for the cycle. I've never understood the fascination with that. I'll take a HR/3b/2b/2b combo over a HR/3b/2b/1b everyday of the week and twice on sundays. Just makes no sense why you would reward the lesser statline.

[Spencer]

Okay, I really think we need to keep the basic stats that are apart of fantasy baseball, otherwise it's not even like the real game. Those include (to me): R, H, RBI, SB, W, L, SV, H, K

[Luke]

I would agree with Spencer, except I am still going to push to drop L. I'd rather raise the point deductions from the pitcher for R and H and cut the L.

[Spencer]

I'm not at all opposed to adjusting points for any of those categories, and it would probably be better to close the gap between W/L. Right now its 15 points (10 for the win and -5 for the loss is how I'm considering it). If we could get that gap to like 7-10 I think that's reasonable.

[Luke]

How about 7 for a win and -1 for a loss. If we have to keep that worthless stat (losses), let's make it so that it will hardly ever affect anything.

[SirCub]

I think it would be cool if the offensive points reflected their actual run value. I would title this method of scoring offensive statistics: The wOBA Method. If we scrapped everything except what the hitter has control over (1B, 2B, 3B, HR, BB, SB and CS), we could scale the ratio between them pretty easily to reflect their true run value. The coefficients used to calculate wOBA (which comes from historical data that actually determines the run value of each play) can be found at Fangraphs.



Now we can take those coefficients and scale them to come up with some nice round numbers that mesh well with our current scale of scoring. Here's one choice that seems to work fairly well:

BB = 4
1B = 5
2B = 7
3B = 9
HR = 11
SB = 1.5
CS = -3

I think that would help balance our league much more. Taking away some of the (over)value of power hitters, and giving it to players with higher OBP's. Much more reflective of run value. Overall these point totals seem to add a bit (maybe 20%) to the scoring of hitters overall, so we could scale it back if need be. I've included some examples, using 2012 season totals, and just to make it comparable, I subtracted 150 from each wOBA score:

Miguel Cabrera
Current scoring method: 898.75
wOBA method: 936
Difference: +37.25

Josh Hamilton
Current: 812
wOBA: 747
Difference: -55

David Wright
Current: 788.5
wOBA: 933
Difference: +144.5

Mike Trout
Current: 813.25
wOBA: 815.4
Difference: +2.25

Joey Votto
Current: 650.5
wOBA: 778.5
Difference: +128

Cabrera's score increases marginally, because he has both a high OBP and a high SLG. Hamilton is "punished" with a decrease in points because he derives all of his value from his power, and hardly ever takes walks. Votto and Wright get huge bumps due to their high OBP's. Trout stays the same, because his high OBP is offset by the value he derives from SB's (which are less valuable in wOBA than in the current method). Obviously, other stats (ie- R, RBI, etc.) are discarded, which I think is favorable, and will keep rando guys with huge RBI totals from becoming fantasy world beaters. The points distribution would need a bit of tinkering, but that is the basic concept. I'd also like to see something similar with pitchers and FIP, but it would be less straight forward to set up.

Any thoughts?

[T C]

SirCub,

FUCK YES.

Early in the year I wanted to propose point values based around wOBA and FIP values, since they're pretty easy to convert to runs produced/runs saved, and then just easily convert to points from there. I would fucking love to see something like this happen, and I think it could be really, really easy to figure out.

[Rick Vaughn 99]

SirCub,

FUCK YES.

Early in the year I wanted to propose point values based around wOBA and FIP values, since they're pretty easy to convert to runs produced/runs saved, and then just easily convert to points from there. I would fucking love to see something like this happen, and I think it could be really, really easy to figure out.

I'm so hard right now. Someone needs to get this figured out.

[T C]

SirCub,

FUCK YES.

Early in the year I wanted to propose point values based around wOBA and FIP values, since they're pretty easy to convert to runs produced/runs saved, and then just easily convert to points from there. I would fucking love to see something like this happen, and I think it could be really, really easy to figure out.

I'm so hard right now. Someone needs to get this figured out.

I have nothing to do tonight! I'll try and throw something reasonable together

[Spencer]

This is cool. As long as the pitching gets a bump too I'm down.