Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays


Photo

BNFL Point Changes Thread


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#31 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:39 PM

I'm all over wOBA based scoring. I don't care if it gives the Fleaflicker server hamsters a collective heart attack, this needs to happen on a fantasy baseball wide basis ASAP.

And I would take the point totals exactly as you have laid them out. I suspect if we increase the value of an inning pitched, quality start, hold, and save, it might just balance.

Sure, we might wind up with higher total points per game, but we'll come as close as we realistically can to making the best team on the field and the best team in fantasy be more or less the same team.

Heck, imagine how easy this would make evaluating players for the draft. Just find their wOBA off any reputable site. Boom, player valued. No wacky adjustments for quadruple counting home runs in the month of April with bluebirds perched on the left field foul pole or whatever other nonsense we do now.

#32 SirCub

SirCub

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 908 posts
  • LocationCarrboro, NC

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:52 AM

I'm all over wOBA based scoring. I don't care if it gives the Fleaflicker server hamsters a collective heart attack, this needs to happen on a fantasy baseball wide basis ASAP.

And I would take the point totals exactly as you have laid them out. I suspect if we increase the value of an inning pitched, quality start, hold, and save, it might just balance.

Sure, we might wind up with higher total points per game, but we'll come as close as we realistically can to making the best team on the field and the best team in fantasy be more or less the same team.

Heck, imagine how easy this would make evaluating players for the draft. Just find their wOBA off any reputable site. Boom, player valued. No wacky adjustments for quadruple counting home runs in the month of April with bluebirds perched on the left field foul pole or whatever other nonsense we do now.


We can play with it very easily. I just took the wOBA coefficients, multipled by 5, and rounded to the nearest whole number. If we scaled it by 4 instead of 5, then the points would be about the same as they were before.

I think the biggest thing people will have a problem with is when their player goes 1/3 with 3 RBI, 2 R, off a 2-run single, sac fly, a fielder's choice, and a SB, and they see that their player got less points than a guy who went: 1/5 with a 2B, 3 K's, and no runs or RBIs. Might be a shock to the system.

#33 Spencer

Spencer

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,560 posts
  • LocationValparaiso, IN

Posted 07 August 2012 - 11:49 AM

I mean, I think we still need to award points for R and RBI. This wOBA stuff is neat, but at the core I think it still needs to be fantasy baseball.

#34 Spencer

Spencer

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,560 posts
  • LocationValparaiso, IN

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:01 PM

Did a quick Google search, and found a couple leagues that have scoring based on wOBA and FIP. This is what their scoring looks like:
Runs .13
Singles (1B) .9
Doubles (2B) 1.25
Triples (3B) 1.5
Home Runs (HR) 2
Runs Batted In (RBI) .17
Stolen Bases (SB) .25
Caught Stealing (CS) -.5
Walks (BB) .75
Hit By Pitch (HBP) .75
Plate Appearances (PA) -.25
Innings Pitched (IP) .805
Wins (W) 1.3
Saves (SV) 1.3
Hits (H) -.434
Home Runs (HR) -5.22
Walks (BB) -1.31
Intentional Walks (IBB) 1.31
Strikeouts (K) .87
Holds (HLD) 1.3

#35 Spencer

Spencer

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,560 posts
  • LocationValparaiso, IN

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:04 PM

And this is from a different one:


Singles .9
Doubles (2B) 1.24
Triples (3B) 1.56
Home Runs (HR) 2.1
Stolen Bases (SB) .25
Caught Stealing (CS) -.5
Walks (BB) .72
Hit By Pitch (HBP) .74
Plate Appearances (PA) -.1


Pitchers Stat Category Value
Innings Pitched (IP) 1.3
Saves (SV) .5
Hits (H) -.25
Earned Runs (ER) -1
Home Runs (HR) -3
Walks (BB) -.7
Hit Batters (HBP) -.7
Strikeouts (K) .75
Wild Pitches (WP) -.2
Balks (BLK) -.2
Blown Saves (BSV) -.5


#36 SirCub

SirCub

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 908 posts
  • LocationCarrboro, NC

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:29 PM

That looks pretty good to me (or something with the same ratio). I don't mind keeping RBI's and R's, because they are stats that we are apt to follow. As long as they are diminished in value, like the first list. I also really like the idea of a PA counting slightly against the batter.

As far as pitching, I don't like that K's are worth more than BB's on the second list. Other than that, looks pretty good. Not sure how much the IP should be worth.

#37 Spencer

Spencer

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,560 posts
  • LocationValparaiso, IN

Posted 07 August 2012 - 02:54 PM

Yeah I assumed that we could want to scale all the values up a little bit so the scores are at least a bit more in the range of what we are familiar with. I'm sure some tinkering would have to be done (for instance, to me, it looks like pitching might be a bit undervalued in the first list) but this could be a starting point.

#38 T C

T C

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Twitter:@tommyecook
  • LocationThe University of Illinois

Posted 07 August 2012 - 04:49 PM

Oh fuck yes. I'm gonna put together some graphs detailing how this would affect scoring here, should have something good on both of those scoring systems soon.

#39 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,370 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 07 August 2012 - 05:57 PM

I'm good with wOBA and FIP as well.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#40 Rick Vaughn 99

Rick Vaughn 99

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 256 posts
  • Facebook:kloyer5
  • LocationAnchorage, AK

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:40 PM

Oh fuck yes. I'm gonna put together some graphs detailing how this would affect scoring here, should have something good on both of those scoring systems soon.

I shall name my first born T C
- die hard fanclub member #001

#41 T C

T C

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Twitter:@tommyecook
  • LocationThe University of Illinois

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:59 PM

Hey guys, early returns on those lists: QS or something needs to be added, cause both methods *kill* bad pitching, and pitching in general

#42 Rick Vaughn 99

Rick Vaughn 99

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 256 posts
  • Facebook:kloyer5
  • LocationAnchorage, AK

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:49 PM

Hey guys, early returns on those lists: QS or something needs to be added, cause both methods *kill* bad pitching, and pitching in general

I'd prefer quality starts anyways.
- die hard fanclub member #001

#43 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,083 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:59 PM

If pitching is too low, even after quality starts, I would suggest adjusting Innings Pitched to balance. That rewards the good starters (who go deeper into games more consistently) and help pad the value of middle relievers (which was also a goal we had).

#44 Spencer

Spencer

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,560 posts
  • LocationValparaiso, IN

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:18 PM

QS definitely need to be worth more than losses, if we include losses at all. We could leave IP what it is now, 1 pt per 1/3, unless that really skews everything.

#45 T C

T C

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Twitter:@tommyecook
  • LocationThe University of Illinois

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:23 PM

Ok, I ran some quick numbers on what the point changes would look like compared to this year. The bar graph shows players grouped into groups of 24 (24 teams in league, so each team theoretically gets one in each group...it made sense at the time, and is pretty useful) based on their point rankings. The line graphs show the differences in individual player points, with player n=1 the best hitter/pitcher based on the line it is on. The shaded area in the middle is just to make the differences more obvious. Starters and relievers have been grouped together under pitchers.

Current Point System
The current point system isn't great. My biggest problem with it, which can be seen in Figure 2, is that players are just too even in value across the board. The best aren't really that much better than the next group, and its a pretty linear function between player rank and point value. Ideally, you'd want extremes with greatly higher/lower point values, and then the middle filled with guys with similar value. Also, of the 540 players sampled here, position players have been worth over 34,000 points more than the pitchers, or 28% more. That's a *lot*.

Posted Image

1st wOBA-Based Point System
This one was really bad. Pitchers way undervalued, but SP even more so. Aroldis Chapman was the most valuable pitcher, and there were 10 RP in the top 20 pitchers overall. No thanks. The individual player graph does have a much more appealing shape to it, though. Hitters still 18% more valuable than pitchers.

Posted Image

2nd wOBA-Based Point System
This one was worse. Ace pitchers were much more valuable, but the middle of the group was worse off than in the other two. Not much more to say here, really, other than it valued SP vs. RP much more realistically.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).