PDA

View Full Version : Pitching vs Hitting



Bozidar
05-02-03, 07:21 PM
I've taken a look at how the scoring has gone on so far, and i find this pretty facinating.

Among all the teams, the hitting generall accounts for around 65 - 67% of the offense for most teams. The low is 61.39% (Jr's Bashers), the highest being the 74.19% (Michigan Wolverines). By no means is this an indication of why bashers are 4-0 and wolves have struggled.. it's simply an observation. NY Bombers, the other 3-0 team has a 67% offensive rating, while the struggling Saxmania's Swingers have a 65% rating.

Among all the teams, the pitching has obviously provided the inverse of this number. The bashers have gotten the highest percentage out of their staff, while the Wolverines have gotten the least.

Now, i'm not sure what it all means, or what it was like last year, but this year for the entire league, 66.03% of the points are coming from offense, while 33.97% is coming from the pitching.

Anyone else think that the pitching, in real baseball, is about 33% of the reason that those teams win? I think this, even after only about 5 weeks, makes a strong case that pitching has been strongly devalued by the scoring system.

Comments? Thoughts?

Coney36
05-02-03, 07:42 PM
Funny, I just saw it as I have 0% hitting and 0% pitching, which makes for Detroit Tigeresque performances with a lineup reminescent of the Mets, except on paper my pitching staff is really better than theirs...(KW: ON PAPER)

But in general, that's why pitching is so highly valued by the Yanks.

Big_E
05-02-03, 09:15 PM
Well, I think the first thing everyone could agree on, is to eliminate the -5 penalty for losses next season.

patrick.o
05-02-03, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
Comments? Thoughts?
I've noticed the same thing, but thanks for doing the math. I'd like to see a points per player comparison, say the top 10 pitchers vs the top 10 batters, but I'm too lazy to do the math right now. One reason I'm not fond of our league host is because I'm used to sportsline, where it tracks not only stats but also points scored based on our scoring system. So putting quarterbacks or running backs or whatever in order by fantasy points scored is simply a click away.

Anyway, I think it's obvious that our scoring system needs to be tweaked next season. I think the batting numbers are fine, but the pitching needs to increase in value. Perhaps bumping IPs up to 3 points? And of course, you know I'm going to lobby to get rid of the loss penalty (I like the blown save penalty, though). For my own team those two things would make my offense/pitching split about 900/700, which would be more accurate considering my offense heavy (or pitching weak) team.

Just thinking out loud. We have quite a few months to throw things out and hammer out a new CBA. :)

Big_E
05-02-03, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o
Perhaps bumping IPs up to 3 points?
I like the blown save penalty, though.

Agreed on both counts

Bozidar
05-02-03, 11:07 PM
Btw, the fact that i get the largest percentage of points from my staff, by comparison to the rest of the league, is what's making me feel like i'm going to beat Pete next week. I've got 10 starts scheduled..

It's no sure thing, but i'm pretty optimistic for the first time :)

Patrick : IP were 3 points last year. That, and removing the loss penalty, are enough to move pitching up to about an average of 46% of the score, rather than the 33% it's at now.

Making K's worth a point, which IMO a K for a pitcher is huge, moves the percentage right up to 49.8969%

SanFrANSKY
05-03-03, 03:04 AM
All's I know is Ohka got smacked around without even pitching a full inning, Mesa blew a save, and just for good measure J.C. Romero gave up a pair of runs on three hits and a walk without retiring a batter.

And Giambi still isn't hitting. &po'd&

OK. I'll get to work on the Top 10 in each category and submit a report after the weekend.

/breathe

Saxmania
05-03-03, 03:58 AM
If I did it over again, I would have the same scoring system as last year, except with a few modifications:

Hitters:

1 point per total base (including walks and HBPs)
1 point per run and RBI
1 point per SB, -1 per CS
-1 point per GIDP

Pitchers:

10 points per win
5 points per save, -5 per blown save
2 points per hold
-1 point per hit/walk/HBP/balk/wild pitch
-2 points per ER
3 points per IP
10 points per CG
1 point per K

Opinions?

However, you should bear in mind that even if pitching accouts for less than hitting in terms of points, the fact that bad pitching can lose you points is also important. In other word, good hitting can be undone by bad pitching. That won't be reflected in any percentile measure, so I don't think the situation is actually as drastic as 66-33%. Perhaps more like 58-42%.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

Saxmania
05-03-03, 04:12 AM
A quick off-the-top-of-my-head calculation suggests to me that Mike Mussina and Alfonso Soriano may be the two leaders in terms of points, with Mussina at 145 points, and Soriano at 98. (Not exactly, but hopefully within around 5 points). I'm not trying to prove that pitching is fairly balanced with hitting; just throwing a number out there.

It might be that good pitching is more valuable than good hitting, but mediocre hitting is more valuable than mediocre pitching, by the way, so a top 10 might or might not be indicative of a wider trend. Just food for thought.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

Big_E
05-03-03, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
It might be that good pitching is more valuable than good hitting, but mediocre hitting is more valuable than mediocre pitching, by the way, so a top 10 might or might not be indicative of a wider trend. Just food for thought.

Exactly...a .250 hitter is probably more valuable than a 14-12 pitcher, because of the negative for losses.

Big_E
05-03-03, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
A quick off-the-top-of-my-head calculation suggests to me that Mike Mussina and Alfonso Soriano may be the two leaders in terms of points, with Mussina at 145 points, and Soriano at 98. (Not exactly, but hopefully within around 5 points). I'm not trying to prove that pitching is fairly balanced with hitting; just throwing a number out there.

I had the formulas already saved in Excel. Some quick copying and pasting:

Soriano: 159 points
Delgado: 145
Helton: 145
A-Rod: 139

Not that these are necessarily the Top 5, but I can't imagine anyone with more points.

Mussina has 146 points. Pitchers are harder to figure out who's in the top, but Mark Prior has 123.5, Esteban Loaiza has 112.4, and Kerry Wood 98

Saxmania
05-03-03, 08:28 AM
Really? Could you post Soriano's stats for me, because although I can see about 120 points from ESPN's site (I was crap the first time and left out runs) I can't see 150. I'm sure you're right, just can't remember what I'm missing.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

Big_E
05-03-03, 08:54 AM
Soriano:

R: 27
1B: 31
2B: 6
3B: 1
HR: 10
RBI: 26
SH: 0
SB: 6
CS: 1
BB: 12
HBP: 4
GIDP: 1

27+31+12+3+40+26+0+6 -1+12+4 -1=159

Saxmania
05-03-03, 09:04 AM
Ahh, ESPN wasn't listing his singles. My bad.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

SanFrANSKY
05-03-03, 09:06 AM
I confirm Degado's point total (145) through 5/2. By far the top earning hitter on my squad.

Boomer: 129 points including his game against Oakland on 5/2.

Soriano, 159 points thru 5/2 (sorry, but it's early and I can't make the stat function work)


R 1B 2B 3B HR RBI SH SB CS BB HBP GIDP

27 31 6 1 10 26 0 6 1 12 4 1

Bozidar
05-03-03, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
However, you should bear in mind that even if pitching accouts for less than hitting in terms of points, the fact that bad pitching can lose you points is also important. In other word, good hitting can be undone by bad pitching. That won't be reflected in any percentile measure, so I don't think the situation is actually as drastic as 66-33%. Perhaps more like 58-42%.But that's just it.. it IS reflected in the percentiles. If everyone had good pitching, the percentile might jump up to 42%. In fact, from the teams who even HAVE the best pitching, the percentile doesn't drift far from 33%.

In this year's league, bad pitching can hurt good hitting, but it can't undo it the way it would if pitching were closer to 50% of the points scored. Because you've got to rely on your staff each week to get you half your points. And bad pitching won't..

Saxmania
05-03-03, 09:57 AM
Okay.

I'm going to suggest that someone create a sticky on this forum with suggestions for the 2004 League. Hopefully this will mean that the discussions about what's wrong with this year's doesn't range all over the place, and will be a handy reference for whoever is organising the 2004 competition, rather than having to pull together conversations from 15 different threads. Debates about point schemes, roster sizes, and so on, would probably fit better there. Objections?

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

Bozidar
05-03-03, 11:32 AM
That sounds good, Sax. Sorry to have brought this up again.

Honestly, i was just looking at how each team did with pitching vs hitting, to see how i'd do vs Pete next week :) It was when i saw the 77/33 thing that i thought it was REALLY interesting..

Saxmania
05-03-03, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Bozidar
That sounds good, Sax. Sorry to have brought this up again.

Honestly, i was just looking at how each team did with pitching vs hitting, to see how i'd do vs Pete next week :) It was when i saw the 77/33 thing that i thought it was REALLY interesting..

No, that's okay. I don't want it to be something that rankles - I think good teams are beating bad teams, and I don't think the league is falling apart. We seem to have far more traffic on this board than last year, which is good. But it's important that we consider how to make the league better for a 2004 season, and the points scheme is the most obvious thing that could stand improvement. I just don't want us to somehow invalidate this league, because I still think it's a good, competitive league. Just more than a little out of the ordinary.

You meant 66/33, right? ;)

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

#1PaFan
05-03-03, 11:50 AM
I'd like to see two leagues next year. As it stands now, the waiver wire is like a very small pond filled with dead fish. :)

Saxmania
05-03-03, 12:01 PM
I could see that working. 24 teams, six divisions of four. Three rounds of playoffs - essentially, a cut-down version of real life, but with two lots of players. We'd need some more interested players, though - we barely got 18 this time.

Hey, we could even have different rules for the two leagues to really mix things up.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

#1PaFan
05-03-03, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
I could see that working. 24 teams, six divisions of four. Three rounds of playoffs - essentially, a cut-down version of real life, but with two lots of players. We'd need some more interested players, though - we barely got 18 this time.

Hey, we could even have different rules for the two leagues to really mix things up.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

That would be AWESOME! That's the league sizes I even had in mind. Hey, if there are two leagues, some could maybe draft a team in each league until an owner could be found.

SanFrANSKY
05-05-03, 12:20 AM
(Through 5/3)

Soriano 159
Helton 151
Delgado 148
Rodriguez 143
Sheffield 141
Everett 137
Cruz 134
Williams 134
Sosa 132
Bonds 128
Boone 126.5
Wilson 123
Lee 122
Renteria 122
Lowell 122
Gonzalez 122
Mondesi 121
Kearns 121
Wells 120
Sexson 120

SanFrANSKY
05-05-03, 12:36 AM
(Through 5/3)


Mussina 146
Wells 129
Prior 123.5
Martinez 119.2
Mulder 113
Loaiza 112.4
Hernandez 105.4
Schmidt 102.9
Millwood 102.9
Vazquez 102.4
Lidle 99.5
Clemens 98.5
Wood 98
Zito 97
Williams 96.5
Day 94.4
Chacon 93.9
Redman 89.9
Padilla 88
Morris 86.9