61 replies to this topic

[T C]

I'm going to tinker with some point values here to try to even things out, will post the results sometime tonight/tomorrow

[Rick Vaughn 99]

Fuckin' A this is sweet. Thanks Tommyboy

[T C]

Fuckin' A this is sweet. Thanks Tommyboy

Hey man, you offered to name a child after me, I had to at least put some effort into it

[SirCub]

Looks to me like the disparity between pitching and hitting in the first wOBA method was substantially less than the other two. And adding in the QS (maybe ~1 point?) should help to make up that gap. And to mute the performance of relievers, maybe chop the points for saves and holds in half?

[Rick Vaughn 99]

This is going to have a big effect on who I decide to keep.

[Luke]

This is going to have a big effect on who I decide to keep.

No kidding. I may shut down the trades until this is hammered out.

[T C]

Philosohical question:

Should pitchers and hitters even have equal value?

We have 10 spots for position players and 6 for pitchers. Should pitchers be worth even more then? Or hitters, being involved in more games, should their contributions be held in higher regard?

I had one system where the middling players were all really close, but at the high end, Ace pitchers were 20% more valuable than the best hitters. Is that desirable? It would also mean that someone like Verlander would basically guarantee auto-victories in weeks where he had two starts, which I'm not a huge fan of.

Let me know what you all think

[SirCub]

Philosohical question:

Should pitchers and hitters even have equal value?

That's a really good question. My answer: on average, yes. Since what we're essentially going for here is quantifying the production of each player adjusted to league average, then both the average production of each should be the same, IMO. But if there happens to be a top tier of pitchers that are way above average, and the top hitters are a little less extreme, then I think that should be reflected in the points. Because a pitcher that is way better than league average is more helpful to a team than a hitter who is in the top tier of hitters, but not producing at a significantly higher level than the next tier.

Also, just cause you get two starts from Verlander would not guarantee a win. But two vintage, dominant Verlander starts in one week would. And I'm ok with that.

[T C]

One more point of discussion-

If we want to boost the value of relief pitchers without messing with start values too much, would anyone else be in favor of two different scoring systems, one for starters and one for relievers? We currently have 7 pitcher spots, we could convert one or two of the P spots into SP (since like every team I've checked has those filled with starters anyway), and have different point value systems for SP and RP. SP points could heavily favor IP, QS, lack of BB, lack of ER, etc, and RP points could heavily favor SV, HLD, K, lack of L, lack of BS, etc.

[T C]

Philosohical question:

Should pitchers and hitters even have equal value?

That's a really good question. My answer: on average, yes. Since what we're essentially going for here is quantifying the production of each player adjusted to league average, then both the average production of each should be the same, IMO. But if there happens to be a top tier of pitchers that are way above average, and the top hitters are a little less extreme, then I think that should be reflected in the points. Because a pitcher that is way better than league average is more helpful to a team than a hitter who is in the top tier of hitters, but not producing at a significantly higher level than the next tier.

Also, just cause you get two starts from Verlander would not guarantee a win. But two vintage, dominant Verlander starts in one week would. And I'm ok with that.

Ok, i can agree with most of that. What it comes down to, for me, is the middle of the graph. Is the 120th position player (with 8.5 positions on the field, that's basically the 14th player at any position) as valuable as the 120th pitcher (the worst "4th starter" in the league, or thereabouts)? I would think an average position player is much more valuable than the 120th best pitcher in the league, but would also say a top, top pitcher is the same value as a top, top postional player

[Caleb]

All good stuff, gents. Nice work.

As was pointed out in here, pitchers are already valuable--even though it seems like they score less overall points. And two starts by an ace should NOT make a guaranteed win. Does a 7 "start" week for Pujols or Trout guarantee a win every week? But Pujols' contract sure shows that he's pretty effing valuable.

And I love advance stats as much as the next guy (and the next guy is not Doc Wimsey, of course), but as was pointed out; this is still fantasy. Nobody should watch their player do a bunch of good things but then not score very many points, with some nerd in glasses and a pocket protector telling them "well, actually, you see his weighted coefficient of his WOBA minus his FIP times his average production of OPS times his recent IBS and his K/K/B/L percentage as applied to his ASS means that he didn't get any points." I think any fun, non-nerds in our league would say, "Um, okay. I'm out."

And "regular" stats that everyone understands should still matter: RBIs, runs, etc.

Note that, under my original system (not saying it's perfect or desirable in entirety) pitchers were already getting a bump. Take away the penalty for losses (a slight point change, actually), bump up QS even further (I'm on board with that) and that would go up yet further. And remember- yes, there are 7 pitcher slots, but you usually get around 9 starts (or more).

Love you guys.

[King Jeff]

I don't know if I'm in the minority, or even that I'm the only one that feels this way, but I don't want to see a complete overhaul of the scoring system. I think in making a few small moves, we can see how they play out, and adjust as we go. I'd like to see holds and saves get a boost, K's pitched de-valued, and possibly raise scores for innings pitched or add a bonus for quality starts. I like the offensive stats how they are.

[SirCub]

I don't know if I'm in the minority, or even that I'm the only one that feels this way, but I don't want to see a complete overhaul of the scoring system. I think in making a few small moves, we can see how they play out, and adjust as we go. I'd like to see holds and saves get a boost, K's pitched de-valued, and possibly raise scores for innings pitched or add a bonus for quality starts. I like the offensive stats how they are.

I'm okay with minimal changes. But I think offensive stats need to be changed from 1, 2, 5, 7, 11 (BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR) to something that looks more like the ratios from wOBA. To me, that would be the bare minimum.

[T C]

Alright, I'm gonna invite SirCub, Luke, Caleb, and RickVaughn into my dummy league tonight, and you as well, Jeff, if you want me to

EDIT: And Spencer, too, sorry. Check your fleaflicker pm inboxes for info

[Luke]

Awesome. I'm about to go on vacation, but when I get back (or maybe a little bit during) I'll start exploring what all we can do.