Question for the entire league

[ChrisRo]

Pss there should be no tie games..I would rather flip a coin

This.

[BrianNYYanks]

This.

of course I will be flipping at my house..call it!!

[ruthianblast]

I'd also like to see a change wherein although we currently require 2/3 of the league to make a new rule, I'd like to see it also OR 4/5 of the owners that voted. I'm on this board nearly every day, even if only to check in, it takes about 5 minutes to check into the FBBL and see if any important is going on.
If an owner can't check in over the course of a 1 week voting period to make a decision that affects the entire league they've lost their priviledge to be involved in said decision.

[Big_E]

I'd also like to see a change wherein although we currently require 2/3 of the league to make a new rule, I'd like to see it also OR 4/5 of the owners that voted. I'm on this board nearly every day, even if only to check in, it takes about 5 minutes to check into the FBBL and see if any important is going on.
If an owner can't check in over the course of a 1 week voting period to make a decision that affects the entire league they've lost their priviledge to be involved in said decision.

I understand your frustration, but if we say 4/5 of the owners who voted, we still need a minimum number of votes, such as 10. Otherwise, five people could vote yes, and change the rules.

[ruthianblast]

I understand your frustration, but if we say 4/5 of the owners who voted, we still need a minimum number of votes, such as 10. Otherwise, five people could vote yes, and change the rules.

I'm good with that.

[Saxmania]

My feeling is that reducing the K bonus to 0.5 probably does most of the re-balancing we want. Reducing wins to 3 and QS to 3 could also work; of the two, I rather like QS, as I think it pretty much rewards what we want to reward in a starting pitcher. One other benefit; it would increase the value of relievers relative to starters - I think closers are probably a little undervalued in the league right now.

I don't think there is a Shutout bonus, but there is a +10 for a complete game; I can certainly see removing that entirely, since if you've pitched 8 or 9 innings, you've racked up a lot of points already in the IP column. Or reducing it quite a bit.

I'm opposed to significantly changing the SB bonus; it would bring us more in line with Roto valuations, which significantly overvalue speed, but I'm not sure that's a huge positive.

I'm not opposed to adding more defensive stats; I just don't know what they would be. 0.25 points per assist? 0.1 point per putout? It starts to get pretty messy, and although I'd be okay with it, I'm not sure how to sell the rest of the league on it.

For reference, Mark Teixeira has 40 assists and 578 put-outs so far this year; Curtis Granderson has 150 putouts and 2 assists. I can't really see how to balance those categories fairly; Granderson had to work far harder (cover more ground) for his 150 putouts than Teixeira did . . .

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[ChrisRo]

I don't think there is a Shutout bonus, but there is a +10 for a complete game;

+5 for SO and +5 for CG. I'm okay with both - but wouldn't mind reducing them to +3. This, and +3 for W and QS, should be enough to balance things out a bit, in my opinion.

[Big_E]

We are at about the mid-point of the season (46% complete):

Only 11 pitchers have more than 1 complete game this year.
Only 4 have more than 1 shut out.

Reducing those bonuses will not do much.
*********************************
31 pitchers already have 10 or more QS.
25 already have 8 or more Wins.
40 already have 80 or more K's.

Reducing those three categories will have a large effect on Pitcher scoring

[ruthianblast]

We're seeing a good bit of support for the QS and W reductions; I still think we should K's down to .5 for pitchers.

[Big_E]

We're seeing a good bit of support for the QS and W reductions; I still think we should K's down to .5 for pitchers.

My name is Big_E and I support this message.

[Yankee Tripper]

For example this season, there were 28 pitchers ranked above the first hitter in our league. Pitchers including Marcum, Garza, Fister, Latos.... then Miguel Cabrera. After that we have Vogelsong, Wilson and Stauffer ranked above Jose Bautista. Wandy Rogriguez and Collmenter ranked above Pujols.

As an outsider, I would have to say something is wrong with your scoring if the top 28 point totals are all pitchers.

[Stupid Flanders]

Player A walks, steals second. 3 pts
Player B hits a triple. 3 pts.

Something is wrong with that.

I'm OK with reducing/removing some scoring categories.
What about:
QS - 0.
Win - +5
Loss - -5 (we have no loss penalty, so why a win reward?)


Things I'd like to see:
CS by catcher +1 (why should the pitcher get all the credit? Plus catchers are undervalued). On the flipside:
Passed Ball by Catcher: -1

[Big_E]

Loss - -5 (we have no loss penalty, so why a win reward?)

NO, NO, NO. 1000x NO.

This league started with a loss penalty, took two or three years to get rid of it. No way is it coming back. Loss penalties are awful, and many losses get credited to pitchers who do not deserve it. Until baseball changes who is blamed for a loss there is no way we should penalize pitchers for losses.

Things I'd like to see:
CS by catcher +1 (why should the pitcher get all the credit? Plus catchers are undervalued). On the flipside:
Passed Ball by Catcher: -1

Ummm, we already have both of those stats, at both of those values.

[ruthianblast]

NO, NO, NO. 1000x NO.

This league started with a loss penalty, took two or three years to get rid of it. No way is it coming back. Loss penalties are awful, and many losses get credited to pitchers who do not deserve it. Until baseball changes who is blamed for a loss there is no way we should penalize pitchers for losses.



Ummm, we already have both of those stats, at both of those values.

Loss = -5; perhaps not, but Loss = -1 at least warrants some discussion.

It shouldn't be dismissed if we're trying to nerf pitching. Make it a SP only stat; relievers don't get hit with it?

[Big_E]

Loss = -5; perhaps not, but Loss = -1 at least warrants some discussion.

It shouldn't be dismissed if we're trying to nerf pitching. Make it a SP only stat; relievers don't get hit with it?

A loss penalty of -1 would not do anything to adjust the pitching disparity.

Relievers deserve losses, SP often to not. A RP who is "credited" with a loss, often is the one who gave up the losing run. A SP who is "credited" with a loss, sometimes does not. Which is a big reason why I do not like the loss penalty.

[Saxmania]

We could add Losses for relievers only, but I'm not convinced that relievers are undervalued . . .

I think Ks to 0.5 and both Wins and Quality Starts to 3 would probably do it. Let me run some numbers and I'll get back to you.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Stupid Flanders]

NO, NO, NO. 1000x NO.

This league started with a loss penalty, took two or three years to get rid of it. No way is it coming back. Loss penalties are awful, and many losses get credited to pitchers who do not deserve it. Until baseball changes who is blamed for a loss there is no way we should penalize pitchers for losses.

Many pitchers also get credit for wins they don't deserve. It just doesn't make sense to me to reward for a win but not penalize for a loss. If we aren't going to penalize for a loss, I'd rather keep QS and get rid of W all together.

Also I read the scoring wrong, you're right we do include those two stats.

[Big_E]

Many pitchers also get credit for wins they don't deserve. It just doesn't make sense to me to reward for a win but not penalize for a loss. If we aren't going to penalize for a loss, I'd rather keep QS and get rid of W all together.

Also I read the scoring wrong, you're right we do include those two stats.

For a SP to get a win, he has to go 5 IP, leave with the lead, and his team never relinquishes the lead. He can pitch poorly and get a win.

A RP can get a win by blowing a save, and his team comes back to take the lead. That would be undeserved.

But for losses: A pitcher can of course get a loss, losing a 1-0 game. Hard to say he pitched poorly. Or, a pitcher can leave a game training 5-4 after 6 innings. Reliever comes in and gives up 4 runs in the 7th, to make it a 9-4 deficit. The other team comes back, but falls short, losing 9-8. SP gets the loss...OR...a pitcher can leave a game training 5-4 after 6 innings. First reliever holds the game in the 7th, then his team comes back to take an 8-5 lead. Then he blows it in the 8th, giving up 4 runs and the team loses, 9-8. Relief pitcher gets the loss.

In both cases, the SP went 6 IP and gave up 5 runs. But in the first scenario, he gets the loss because his team never tied or took the lead, even though someone else gave up the deciding runs. In the second scenario, the SP went 6 IP and gave up 5 runs but did not get the loss because the RP gave up the lead. That has always bothered me. I think the person who gives up the deciding runs, period, should get the loss. But baseball doesn't do that, I know...

[Stupid Flanders]

What I'm saying then is that if we're discounting negative points on a loss, a QS is more indicative of a pitcher's performance than a Win, by your same logic.

[Saxmania]

OK. Some actual numbers to argue about. Somewhere, George is mocking me for my Excel skills:

Scenario 1: As now.
Scenario 2: Reduce Strikeouts to 0.5 from 1
Scenario 3: Reduce Strikeouts to 0.5 from 1, and Wins and Quality starts to 3 from 5
Scenario 4: Reduce Strikeouts to 0.5 from 1, and Complete Games and Shutouts to 0 from 5
Scenario 5: Reduce Strikeouts to 0.5 from 1, Wins and Quality starts to 3 from 5, and Complete Games and Shutouts to 0 from 5

I took the top 200 pitchers, so 10 per team, which is pretty much 7 starters and 3 relievers on most teams, including bench. Note that the top 200 scoring pitchers under the current scheme might not be the top 200 under a different scheme, but it should be pretty close.

For reference, our top 200 hitters:

Max points: 279
Min points: 107
Average points: 171

Under Scenario 1's top 200 pitchers:

Max pitcher score: 414
Min pitcher score: 95
Average pitcher score: 178
Number of RPs in top 200: 50

Scenario 2:

Max pitcher score: 361
Min pitcher score: 64
Average pitcher score: 148

Scenario 3:

Max pitcher score: 315
Min pitcher score: 57
Average pitcher score: 130

Scenario 3:

Max pitcher score: 361
Min pitcher score: 64
Average pitcher score: 148

Scenario 4:

Max pitcher score: 336
Min pitcher score: 64
Average pitcher score: 146

Scenario 5:

Max pitcher score: 290
Min pitcher score: 52
Average pitcher score: 128

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Saxmania]

What immediately jumps out at me is that the best starters are much better than the best hitters - but that the replacement-level hitters score more points than replacement-level pitchers. Also, all of the scenarios (except our current scheme) would move the average top 200 pitcher score lower than the average top 200 hitter.

Just saying, perhaps the problem isn't that big. Your best 100 pitchers may be better than your best 100 hitters, but when you take your whole roster into account, it's . . . well, it's not even, but it is closer.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Saxmania]

Anyone wants me to run another scenario, let me know - but only modifying the stats we already use, please, not adding new categories!

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[ChrisRo]

Anyone wants me to run another scenario, let me know - but only modifying the stats we already use, please, not adding new categories!

How about Scenarios that don't already consider the K bonus reduced as if we already voted on it

[BrianNYYanks]

Address the ties issue

[Saxmania]

Heh. Knew that would make an appearance! OK:

Scenario 6: W and QS to 3

Max: 371
Min: 77
AVG: 158

Scenario 7: W and QS to 3, CG and SO to 0

Max: 346
Min: 75
AVG: 155

Finally, Scenario 8: W to 4, SO to 0, CG remains 5, QS remains 5:

Max: 400
Min: 79
AVG: 171

The reason I created Scenario 8? Average top 200 pitcher score equals average top 200 hitter score.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania