|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 14, 2011 11:32:05 GMT -5
This will be the location to discuss all scoring category changes. There was a number of possible changes - both additions and subtractions to categories.
I do want to keep the batting and pitching categories even and I do not want to go over seven categories as we then start to dilute the game.
Some suggested categories included:
QS K9 Negative pitching categories (Losses or BBs) Eliminating W's Only one ratio category (ERA or WHIP - not both) Eliminating Holds Changing Saves and Holds to Saves + Holds - Blown Saves. (Both closers and middle relievers can get blown saves)
Current categories are: 6X6 (R, HR, RBI, AVG, SB, TotB) (W, S, ERA, WHIP, K, Holds)
Please start discussing the changes here.
|
|
|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 14, 2011 12:13:35 GMT -5
Here are the pitching categories Yahoo had in 2010:
APP -- Pitching Appearances; GS -- Games Started; ERA -- Earned Run Average (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); WHIP -- WHIP Ratio (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); K/9 -- Strikeouts per Nine Innings (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); K/BB -- Strikeout to Walk Ratio (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); W -- Wins; L -- Losses; CG -- Complete Games; SHO -- Shutouts; SV -- Saves; OUT -- Outs; H -- Hits; TBF -- Total Batters Faced; R -- Runs; ER -- Earned Runs; HR -- Home Runs; BB -- Walks; IBB -- Intentional Walks; HBP -- Hit Batters; K -- Strikeouts; WP -- Wild Pitches; BLK -- Balks; SB -- Stolen Bases Allowed; GIDP -- Batters Grounded Into Double Plays; SVOP -- Save Chances; HLD -- Holds; TB -- Total Bases Allowed; IP -- Innings Pitched; PC -- Pitch Count; 1BA -- Singles Allowed; 2BA -- Doubles Allowed; 3BA -- Triples Allowed; RW -- Relief Wins; RL -- Relief Losses; PICK -- Pickoffs; RAPP -- Relief Appearances; OBPA -- On-base Percentage Against (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); WIN% -- Winning Percentage (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); H/9 -- Hits Per Nine Innings (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); BB/9 -- Walks Per Nine Innings (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); NH -- No Hitters; PG -- Perfect Games; SV% -- Save Percentage (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); IRA -- Inherited Runners Allowed; QS -- Quality Starts; BSV -- Blown Saves; NSV -- Net Saves
|
|
|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 14, 2011 12:14:16 GMT -5
Here are the batting categories:
GP -- Games Played; GS -- Games Started; AVG -- Batting Average (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); SLG -- Slugging Percentage (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); OBP -- On-Base Percentage (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); OPS -- On-base + Slugging Percentage (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); FPCT -- Fielding Percentage (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); AB -- At Bats; R -- Runs Scored; H -- Hits; 1B -- Singles; 2B -- Doubles; 3B -- Triples; HR -- Home Runs; RBI -- Runs Batted In; SH -- Sacrifice Hits; SF -- Sacrifice Flys; SB -- Stolen Bases; CS -- Caught Stealing; BB -- Walks; IBB -- Intentional Walks; K -- Strikeouts; GIDP -- Ground Into Double Play; TB -- Total Bases; PO -- Putouts; A -- Assists; E -- Errors; XBH -- Extra Base Hits; NSB -- Net Stolen Bases; SB% -- Stolen Base Percentage (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only); CYC -- Hitting for the Cycle; PA -- Plate Appearances; SLAM -- Grand Slam Home Runs; OFA -- Outfield Assists; DPT -- Double Plays Turned; CI -- Catcher Interference
|
|
|
Post by d**nedifino on Jan 15, 2011 8:52:13 GMT -5
I like our 6 batting categories and would vote to leave them alone. I think there should also be 6 pitching categories, but I dislike the "Holds" category. I don't understand the category and can't predict it. I know vaguely how a pitcher gets a "Hold" but I couldn't define the rule. Accordingly, I view it as a luck category. For our 6th pitching category I would rather have something I can measure and predict. Clearly, "BB" stats are predictable and reflect a pitcher's skill. I would vote to drop "Holds" and add "BB". The team with the fewest each week wins the category.
I know that this change puts more emphasis on SP and detracts from RP. I also realize that we already incorporate "BB" in the game with the "WHIP" category. I just think "Holds" is a bogus category.
|
|
|
Post by d**nedifino on Jan 15, 2011 9:18:49 GMT -5
King Felix won the 2010 Cy Young with just 13 Wins. The voters realized that "Wins" don't measure skill. "Wins" are another luck category that we should change to Quality Starts "QS". A "QS" is defined as a game in which the pitcher completes six innings and allows no more than three earned runs.
I realize that the worst case is a 6 inning 3 run outing that yields a very mediocre 4.50 ERA for that game. However, if you Goggle the term "QS" you will see that Bill James measured a large sample of "QS" and determined that the average ERA for such games was less than 2.00. The worst case example is rare.
Unlike the "W" category this change would also allow an owner to get points from two SP pitchers in the same game. The category is a replacement for "W" not an addition to "W. The two are too close, like BA and OBP.
|
|
|
Post by eulogy7 on Jan 15, 2011 14:02:15 GMT -5
My vote is to leave the categories as they are.
I think that the holds category worked out fairly well last season and that it will do so in the future provided that we increase the number of RP spots by 2.
I agree that QS is probably a better overall predictor of a starting pitcher's performance but I just don't care for the logistics that would go along with dropping wins for QS. The vast majority of major publications and ranking systems factor in wins rather than QS for rankings pitchers. When you look at a boxscore, the first thing you see is wins. It's just woven into the fabric of fantasy baseball. It's easy to calculate, easy to lookup, and easy to measure.
|
|
|
Post by 25alive on Jan 15, 2011 22:51:22 GMT -5
Several thoughts on the topic........first I do NOT like the "Holds" category as a stand alone category. History shows that if you are going to win "Holds" then you are probably "punting" Saves and vice versa. It is very difficult to plan to win both categories with any consistency. I was hoping Yahoo would offer Holds + Saves - BS but it does not appear they do so I am at a loss for which category to replace holds with.
I also think "Wins" should remain a category, you play to win the game. The QB who throws for 300 yd w/3td and No INT does not get the victory. Ultimately under all circumstances I think Wins should remain one of our categories. Even though I am a fan of the QS stat and would probably prefer it to Holds.
I would also strongly consider K/9 over Holds this would allow middle relievers with quality "stuff" to continue to be part of our game and have some value while allowing all owners to compete in all categories.
Another thought if we did went with K/9 vs. Holds would be change Saves to Net Saves or Save% making elite closers more valuable.
Lastly but not lastly I would like to see us consider going with OBP instead of AVG. This would incorporate more of a batters skill set.
|
|
|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 16, 2011 16:30:30 GMT -5
It seems as this topic may be the hardest to work through any changes as there are so many ideas. Here are my thoughts.
I do not think we should get rid of holds. This is the major category the non-closing relief pitchers contribute to. Out of the 25 man roster there are more relief pitchers on Major League teams than any other specific position. By knocking out holds we effectively eliminate their usefulness. Outside of the pressure of the ninth inning their job is the same as the closer.
If they do not do their job they can receive a blown-save just as a closer. Therefore I would suggest changing Saves to Net Saves (Saves - Blown Saves). This would make effect closers and middle relief pitchers more valuable as even the middle relief pitcher can blow saves.
I would not mind adding K/9 as a stat as the top middle relief pitchers, closers and a few top starters can contribute in this category. If we wish to stick to a 6x6 league, I would not mind replacing one of ERA/WHIP categories with K9.
Although I do not have strong feelings on these:
On the offensive side I would like to see AVG switched to OBP because it would benefit players that have a good batting eye. And I wouldn't mind changing W's to QS, but, not real strong either way.
|
|
|
Post by harashil on Jan 16, 2011 17:07:22 GMT -5
I agree with Hoyas on everything except I think holds is the weakest catagory. I would rather see on base percentage against (OBPA). There all pitchers can contribute to this catagory.
|
|
|
Post by 25alive on Jan 16, 2011 21:09:27 GMT -5
I suggest we separate each scoring category in question into a separate topic here on the forum. It may bring more clarity to the subject as currently there are many ideas being bantered about but nothing concrete.
|
|
|
Post by oozed on Jan 17, 2011 10:06:45 GMT -5
I say get rid of holds, and add K/9. It is more of a reliever dominated category, and makes more sense than Holds.
|
|
|
Post by fresht19 on Jan 17, 2011 13:18:29 GMT -5
i like the holds catagory as it adds a whole new bunch of players that are otherwise undraftable
|
|
|
Post by fresht19 on Jan 17, 2011 13:22:34 GMT -5
also the two batting cats (avg and total bases) are basically OPS so we could combine the two and add say doubles
so (avg and total bases) become OPS and doubles
just to confuse the situation a little more
|
|
|
Post by elrodogg on Jan 17, 2011 22:59:35 GMT -5
I would like to change total bases to OPS and would like to change holds to losses. I really really dislike the holds category.
|
|
|
Post by chows on Jan 18, 2011 8:26:56 GMT -5
holds is a weak catagory but I agree with bong hits that it opens up rosters to 50+ players that otherwise would have nearly zero value in our league. I don't think K/9 makes these players that much more usable. This also goes to another discussion of the pitching designations... if we set the roster for some number of RP's then you are forced to use them... holds is a way to use them.
I'd prefer OBP to AVG.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2011 13:18:57 GMT -5
MY main concern is we keep holds--so many RPs become unusable w/out the hold--as for the other scoring categories we can discuss it for weeks and we'll still have some that want one thing and some that want another, so I'd be happy if it just stayed as it has been since inception
|
|