As Reece brought to our attention on the league message board, we need to do something about the scoring. Right now it's 8x6. If nothing else, drop doubles and triples so it's a 6x6.
Mark, eliminating doubles and triples as their own categories was a conscious decision. I think we mostly agree that they are unnecessary. Extra base hits are going to pay off in multiple other stat categories.
My biggest recommendation would be to drop hits and average, for OBP and SLG% instead. Hits is redundant as its own stat; when guys get hits, it'll pay off in multiple categories over time. OBP and SLG work great in my experience. OBP is batting average plus gives credit for things like walks and hit-by-pitches. And slugging credits not just hits, but the value of those hits, as in singles, doubles, triples, HRs. It's great for giving credit to guys who hit lots of doubles and triples but aren't necessarily HR guys.
Someone mentioned OPS (which is OBP+SLG) as opposed to OBP and SLG as separate categories. OBP and SLG separately work better in fantasy scoring IMO. OPS tends to undervalue walks, and it's just a goofy stat that tries to combine two very different measures of hitters. Some of the great early batting order OBP guys tend to get swallowed up by OPS.
We have a couple weeks to sort out what changes we want to make, and I don't think we should change anything too major at this point, since we've already drafted. Lets get everyone to chime in and see what the consensus is.
I don't think hits should be a stat. Whoever wins hits will win average 95% of the time; it's just not a good category. As for OBP and SLG, I'd be down for both of those categories, but not at the sake of average. Average is a crucial stat that cannot be discarded.
Additionally, I was the one that mentioned OPS. Because it is a combination of the OBP and SLG it is the single most telling statistic as far how good a player is all-around at the plate. You say that early batting order guys get swallowed up by it, but they also tend to get swallowed up by the OBP and SLG separately, as well. Out of the top 40 players in OBP last year, there were 12 that hit less than 15 homers including names such as Denard Span, Luis Castillo, Felipe Lopez, Chris Coghlan, Nick Johnson, and Milton Bradley... I just don't think guys like this belong on the top 40 of a category we should be using. OPS is a much better indicator of the players' overall ability at the plate. How do you figure that OPS undervalues walks, Ehren? OBP is directly added into OPS. I'm assuming you mean because good slugging percentages are generally higher than OPS, but there's an easy way to solve that: Add OPS and walks to the offensive categories, and get rid of hits.
I love the addition of quality starts for the pitchers. That is a great statistic, but I don't like losses as a category. That being said, there HAS to be something that goes against pitchers or it wouldn't be fair to have K's as a hitting category. I don't remember a lot of the pitching categories from when I was commish, so I can't really comment on which ones I think we should use. Maybe K/9, but that's all (not referring to a category that goes against pitchers, just in general to make the categories even).
Having walks as its own category seems flawed for the same reason as having hits as its own category.
I think OBP & SLG is ideal, but whether we do OPS, or OBP & SLG, or whatever, isn't a big deal to me. The differences between those setups aren't going to change things drastically so I don't think it'll really matter. Why do you find AVG to be so crucial Reece?
I have a hunch you and I are going to be the only ones really involved in this discussion.
i'm down with last years format... I see the point if you are trying to improve and that's cool, but I don't recall any complaints with the settings at all last year... I really didn't notice the changes and drafted my team to fit last years format... I now see what B-Rad meant with M. Reynolds and the "Good luck with the K's" comment during the draft. lol
I enjoyed the hel1 out of last years league.. And don't get me twisted, even with these settings , I like my team.. With such small rosters adding certain Pitching catagories are not really possible due to the absence of middle relievers on our teams... There are so many available options as far as catagories and some are redundant, but I think last years settings are the way to go in this situation. My $.02
I think K's and Hits are dumb stats because they both show up in average, but walks really don't. They don't even count as a plate appearance. I know you're going to say if someone goes 1-3 with a walk that gives you a .333 average instead of going 1/4, but on a large scale you can see walks does not really lend to high averages. It helps, sure, but it doesn't show up as much as hits our K's. If you strikeout a ton, your average is generally lower. Anyway, average is crucial to me because it represents how consistently the player hits. Not to mention, I just don't think any of the standard 5x5 stats should be removed. I think:
Hitting: R, HR, RBI, SB, AVG, OPS, TB, BB
Pitching: W, SV, K, ERA, WHIP, QS, K/9, BB/9
Or, honestly, I think we should just do a Head to Head - Points league. That would allow us to assign points to every stat category possible, but I say we go with the standard categories for the first season using it. Points FTW.
I definitely expressed some desire for changes (aka complained if you choose to look at it that way ) last season. Also, if you look down the OT list there's a thread I started like a month ago called something like "fantasy baseball is fast approaching". I should've made sure that everyone involved knew about the thread though, that's my bad.
I'm sure Brad was kidding with you on the Reynolds comment. Reynolds was ranked where he was even with Ks being a very standard setting. He's a flat out beast regardless, how many guys will hit 40+ homers, 100+ rbis AND steal 20+ bases? That's insane.
Ultimately I don't care what we do. There's no money involved, and I think we're all just in this league for fun, or in Snow's case because he has a crush on John and he's using this to get closer to him.
I'm not crazy about the old setup, but hey, with the RIDICULOUS speed on my team I think it'd be much to my advantage to have doubles and triples as their own stats, so if that's the majority decision, cool.
I think we should just do a Head to Head - Points league. That would allow us to assign points to every stat category possible, but I say we go with the standard categories for the first season using it. Points FTW.
Head to Head for sure for this league. As far as points, I haven't done a points league for baseball before, I'd be up for it. My initial thought though is we couldn't tinker with the standard point settings much, if at all, since we've already drafted. That's assuming that there are default point values.
I don't know anything about the points league and would rather stay with the regular H2H. If yall are interested in a H2H points, i'm in and would love to try it out..... BUT. Start an additional league and leave this one the way it is since we already drafted....
I'm not really sure if it is John or Reece that Snow has the crush on, but I'm sure he'd get more play fromYanks... Anyone who is in LOVE with The NY Yanks but lives in Va. probably likes some man-gina.
This seems pretty balanced to me.. R,RBI,HR,SB,AVG.,OPS,SO (optional -CS) W,L,S,WHIP,ERA,K,QS (optional -k/bb ratio)
if we cant come to an agreement, then just refer to last years format. .
I just got off the phone with Bud Selig and he informed me that I was correct.... Yanks does like man-gina...i mean.. in a dispute such as this, refer to previous years format.
Did I mention that: A I drafted according to last years categories B. Bud Selig agreed with me C. Yanks would probably like Snows Man-gina D. I'm higher than ostirich azz at the moment?
I drafted according to last years format. Hence the request to put em back.
Like I said, I'm sorry not everyone was aware that changes were being made/considered. But ultimately, they weren't a secret. All changes to settings are automatically posted in the league's home page, and it's up to the managers to make sure they're familiar with the settings come draft time. And everyone who was, drafted according to THOSE settings.
Points is just like football. You get points per stat instead of a simple tally. I believe it's a much fairer way to play for everyone. Here's my rationale:
Every stat counts, making more players more valuable. I also feel like it would make everyone's team more consistent. It just sucks to have a absolutely dominant week in a couple of the categories only to lose the week because your a couple of pitchers blew up and a couple of guys didn't play well. For instance, say you had 50 runs, 4 homers, 49 RBIs, 20 steals, and a .350 average and you opponent has 52 runs, 12 homers, 50 RBIs, 3 steals, and a .290 average. You lose 3 of 5 categories in our current format, and those extra 17 steals and .60 points in average don't mean sh1t (except for your season totals, which don't matter in H2H). In a points system, however, you would be rewarded for dominating those categories.
I'm not necessarily saying we SHOULD do this, because I like the H2H, I'm simply weighing options/opening discussion to see what you all think. There are definitely cons to the points-only route, though, and here's some I've thought about: 1) We would have to spend a lot of time deciphering a fair points system to limit abuse of single categories (we couldn't make homers worth 10 and steals worth 3--that's why I suggest using the defaults); 2) There wouldn't be near as great of a chance for upsets, because the best team should really shine in a points system, and fluky weeks by weaker opponents (Mark last year, lmao, just playing man) could be more easily overcome by the stronger squads; and 3) Picking up pitchers everyday is not only a viable, but better option in this system.
There are many, many pros though, including what I wrote above as well as: 1) The playing field between pitchers and hitters would be much more even, because stats like Wins would merit more points than homers, steals, runs, rbis...(given the frequency of them); 2) Teams are generally more consistent; 3) There are more useful players on the FA market; and 4) Maybe the people that like football better would stay more active if the scoring system was the same (this one is far fetched).
I'm sure there are more for both categories, but I've already spent too much time writing this out and thinking about it, lmao. Once again, I'm not necessarily saying we should do it; I'm just saying its something to think about.
P.S. I'm fugging pumped. I'm bringing home the ship this year, fuggers.
I'd be interested to try a points league but it might be too late to set all that up. Roto definitely solves the wasted stats problem with H2H, but in a casual league, the less gung ho managers are vulnerable to losing interest without the weekly head to head matchups.
Leaving things as is, other than slight changes to the scoring, is probably the best way to go at this point.
Roto is the better format for a Live Draft League... It Pays to get a well balanced team Where as H2H Punishes a well balanced team in one way or another.. I can aloborate furthur if needed but If you know FB and the difference in the 2 types then no further explanation is needed.
Pit-- what do you think about my last list. same as yours but added a couple of interesting stats. I didn't realize how similar it was to your list until now. If not then i'm with Reece and Bud Selig. Refer to last year or keep it the way it is. With the FA pool as stacked as it is and the unknown preformance of who we have. this league has many ways to transform (in terms of roster changes) to keep most teams very competitave.
just for fun. My observations with our teams.
Team moon boots. great hitting. needs better Pitching. 6.5/10 Snow- solid on both ends with a couple of maybes in a few hitting spots.7.5/10 V.J.--- Sick pitching with some great batting. week in a few positions but with his lineup to make up some of the weaknesses, he might not notice too much.. Gonna be tough to beat. should make it in top 3-- 8.75/10 TCIH-Sick hitting could improve Pitching (closers) 8/10 Yanks FanSolid Team both ways exept closers. he will be tough to beat. Well balanced.8.25/10 MCM- Great Pitching. top half of league in pitching staff. A few weeknesses in hitting catagories with some players but those players have their strenths to counter act. great tean overall. Not in my top 3 in this league but best chance to be a sleeper and win it again like last year. 7.75/10 SNMP- Autopick did him well. If some ofthe lesser known players on his team preform as well as last year. He will be tough.(scutaro probably wont due to relocation of batting order with new team.. was money last year for a FA) Don't forsee him doing as well as last year but he should be competetive.There are a lot better pitching staffs in this league but still a great lineup.7.25/10
Me- If Hill and Tut can do the same as last year Then My hitting will be tough to beat. My Pitching is sick in both SP and closers. 8.5/10 Overall with small rosters and stellar FA pool. ANYone can be competitave if you take some chances and STAY ACTIVE ALL YEAR!!!
My top 3 , VJ,Me, Yanks Fan sleeper- MCM Best chance to totally fu<k my top 3 with good trades and managing- SNMP, Snow,TMB, TCIH
Hope yall get some laughs from this and would like to see anyone elses observations. I'm Fu<kin ready to kick some eCoustics AZZ!!!! Good Luck and Fu<k off at the same time
It's solid. I would say it works better for roto than H2H. For H2H I would choose between OPS and AVG, and get rid of Losses. In my experience, 6x6 or 5x5 is the way to go in head to head leagues. In head2head, with 7x7 or more you end up not even having much separation between the teams by the end of the season. It's more of crapshoot. I've been in a number of 7x7 H2H leagues where the season ends and teams in 10th or 11th place aren't even 10 games back of first place.
I really don't see a problem with keeping a close season or a crapshoot as you called it. Being that we have a dispute with the draft. So the oportunity to keep it close kinda makes up for the fact that some of us have drafted for a different format. ;) or we can revert to same as last year which I obviously prefer. We had a blast and kept it interesting. With the exception of snow who wussed out towards the end.
Honestly, the only thing I really hate is the addition of K's without the addition of Walks. Like I said before, K's shows up in average. If you strike out a lot, your average will suffer. That's not the case in terms of walks, and walks are just as good as a base hit, so... BBs should be added to hitters if not OPS or OBP and SLG. And K/BB ratio would be a good stat for pitchers to even it up.
I don't understand your rationale for getting rid of average, though, Ehren. Average is not really factored into OPS. You can have a terrible batting average and a good OBP. Also, if you like OBP so much, I don't understand why you don't like the implementation of walks... Walks and HBP are factored into OBP, but K's aren't. Now, if you are for OBP INSTEAD of walks, then that's one thing, but to be opposed to BBs without adding OBP is ridiculous, I'm sorry. I said before I would be down with the addition of OBP and SLG, but since it doesn't look like that is going to happen, BBs should be added.
Oh yeah, Mark, I'm gonna beat your azz like a drum, lol.
If you strike out a lot, your average will suffer.
I don't see the relevance of that connection here. You could make dozens of correlations like that between different stats.
quote:
BBs should be added to hitters if not OPS or OBP and SLG.
You're preaching to the choir man. I just said I didn't care for walks as its own category. On last years message board I said we needed to account for walks somehow, and every setup I've recommended has a stat that takes them into account.
quote:
I don't understand your rationale for getting rid of average
I said I would choose between OPS and AVG in that particular setup, because I felt it had too many stats. I would choose OPS. Average is a really one dimensional stat that people obsess over because it's a classic traditionalist stat. OBP, SLG, OPS... they're all better statistical measures of hitters than AVG.
quote:
Average is not really factored into OPS.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean. Average is just hits. When a guy gets a hit, it goes into his OBP. When a guy gets a hit, it goes into his SLG. OPS is SLG+OBP.
Just not really sure why they weren't added to begin with. We could have found another pitching stat (coughK/BBper9cough). I really don't like the way it's setup right now, though. I'd prefer the standard 5x5 to this. Adding K's just tailors the hame in a different direction, punishing power hitters. While adding more stats (SLG,OBP,OPS,BB) would make it more even across the board, it would also, as Ehren said, it clutters things up. That's why I think we should do points. It's still Head to Head, but it's scored like football. I'm glad we're on the same page, Ehren.
To each his own. I love Ks on both sides. People would think it was nuts to not have Ks on the pitching side because it's such a telling stat about a pitcher's dominance. It's just as telling on the other side of the ball in regards to a hitters ability to make contact, see pitches, work counts etc.
Brad you following this thread? Lol I can just picture Brad reading this thread like "someone pass me some f@#$ing aspirin". We all need to just compromise and come up with the option that MOSTLY pleases everyone.
Looking back, Mark's might be a pretty good compromise:
Yeah, because everyone would agree Prince Fielder, Jayson Werth, Matt Kemp, Justin and BJ Upton, David Wright, Curtis Granderson, Jason Bay, Carlos Pena, Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, and Mark Reynolds, Shin Soo-Choo, Alfonso Soriano, Kevin Youkilis, Ryan Braun, Ryan Zimmerman, Raul Ibanez, Nelson Crus, Kendry Morales, Andre Ethier, and Evan Longoria are not good at "mak[ing] contact, see[ing] pitches, work[ing] counts..." All of these guys had 115+ strikeouts last year, but I'm pretty sure they can see pitches, make contact, and work counts decently... You're insinuating that the less someone strikes out the better they are at hitting. Well, do you think Nate McLouth is a better at "mak[ing] contact, see[ing] pitches, work[ing] counts" than Hanley Ramirez? I mean, he struck out less, so that's gotta be the case, right? What about Jorge Cantu, Russell Martin, Marco Scutaro, Chris Coghlan, Miguel Montero, Kurt Suzuki, Jose Lopez, Alexei Ramirez, Shane Victorino, Brandon Phillips, Jacoby Ellsbury, Placido Polanco, or Miguel Tejada? They're all better at "mak[ing] contact, see[ing] pitches, work[ing] counts" than Hanley Ramirez? Hell, Placido, Tejada, Suzuki, Cano, Yunel Escobar, and Carlos Lee (not to mention various others) struck out less than Pujols did last year. Does that mean they have a better eye at the plate or that they're better hitters? See my point? K's don't necessarily translate how you're saying they do and they don't tell near as much about a hitter's eye as BBs...
I compromised by just agreeing to have K's, which I think is dumb. It discriminates against power hitters like you said OPS discriminates against contact hitters. I stand firm saying that walks should be added to the stats as long as K's are there. I'd be down with Mark's setup IF walks are added, and I say we add K/BB to pitchers.
By the way, I never said K's shouldn't be a pitching stat. Of course it should be.
Also, Pujols just struck out looking on what he thought was a bad call. Guess he isn't seeing the ball well this spring. Umps ALWAYS get the calls right, no?
Reece, you certainly fabricated my opinion with your response. Let me try to clarify for you.
quote:
You're insinuating that the less someone strikes out the better they are at hitting.
I'll state it as a general fact too. Striking out is a bad thing, the more you do it, the worse you are. Similarly, getting hits is a good thing, the more you get hits, the better you are. If two players have identical stats across the board, except for a significant difference in strikeouts, I think it's perfectly fair to say that the one with fewer strikeouts was probably performing better at the plate. He would have a higher number of ground outs and fly outs, meaning he was doing a better job of making contact and putting the ball in play.
With that said, strikeouts, like any single statistic, are only one piece to a much more complicated puzzle. Myself, as well as the vast majority of fantasy baseball managers I know and play with, believe strikeouts are an important piece to that puzzle. Striking out in itself doesn't necessarily make you a bad player, but striking out is still a bad thing.
Guys who strike out a lot generally come to the plate with a different mindset than guys who strike out less often, and they reap the rewards of swinging so aggressively as they generally hit for a lot of power and drive in lots of runs. Fair enough, but they also deserve to pay for the downside of that approach, which is striking out more frequently. I can't comprehend how you think that's more unfair to them, than the exclusion of ANY other stat in fantasy baseball is to a player who excels in that stat. For example strikeouts as a pitching stat are a bit unfair to pitchers who specialize in getting guys to ground out. But the general consensus is that pitchers who strike guys out a lot are more dominant than pitchers who don't. Conversely, the general consensus is that hitters who strike out a lot are getting dominated a lot. Doesn't mean they can't put up great numbers in other aspects of the game, but the strikeouts are still relevant.
quote:
See my point?
To try to tear apart the things I say in an effort to make me look foolish? lol.
Glad that's settled. And Ehren, you must have not read what I asked. I asked if they could those players are bad at seeing pitches, making contact, and working counts. I also asked, using your logic, if you would consider certain players who struck out less than Hanley, which you said means they could "see pitches, make contact, and work counts" better, to be better hitters than him.
I read your post. None of your statistics were new or informative for me (lol @ snow and mark hopping on the reece train), they were more like common knowledge. For the past couple decades the guys who put up big strikeout numbers like that, are also most, but not all, of the leading power hitters. That's not a revolutionary discovery in the stats, that's modern-era baseball. Which makes guys like Pujols that much more impressive. Is Pujols better at seeing pitches and working counts than those other guys? F@#$ yeah he is. And the strikeouts are one of the best indications of that. Otherwise, there are guys who put up similar power numbers, and guys who put up similar or even better average, but they aren't on his level.
To answer your questions, yes, of course those guys are GREAT at seeing pitches and working counts, otherwise they'd be playing in their local softball league instead of the majors.
And no, if a hitter strikes out less than Hanley, it doesn't necessarily mean he's better.
The point is, strikeouts, like a number of other stats, are a valuable tool for assessing hitters. It's one piece of the puzzle, and a significant one. I think you know that that is and was my point, but you seem focused on picking at the particular way I worded it.
I certainly never claimed that strikeouts are a perfect stat or that they tell the whole story of a hitter.
If I may also ask a question, serious, but unrelated to baseball, do you have a personal grudge with me? I feel as though you do.
In Fact, When I whip Reeces azz this year, I'll be a whole lot happier than when I beat you ;)
I wasn't even agreeing with him.. I was recognizing that the post he posted with all the names had to have taken some research to do... And he explaind why he felt the way he does about that subject.. There was no way you couldn't understand what he was trying to say,..
As for him having a personal grudge with you... Well That I couldn't know.. But to me it looks like a good ol fashion "Di<k measurin' contest" . Who knows more about BB.. I could give 2 chits who is more knowedgable in baseball. B lol
I personaly think that both of you were missing each others points and felt the need to explain in furthur detail./..
But to me it looks like a good ol fashion "Di<k measurin' contest" . Who knows more about BB.. I could give 2 chits who is more knowedgable in baseball. B lol
I don't care either. I'm not participating in this "di<k measuring contest". I haven't tried to call him out or attack him or what he's said. I've only defended/clarified my point of view, which I probably shouldn't have had to do.
Honestly, I feel like you have a grudge against me, as I hadn't been on E for like a year until I commented on the NFL Draft thread, only to be put on blast for displaying what you considered "awkward comma usage" after I made a (what I considered harmless) joke about Michael Vick. I didn't feel like I personally attacked you by mentioning the dude in a completely outlandish statement, but if you were offended, I'm sorry. Anyway, I'm not trying to sound butthurt about it, because it's not really a big deal to me; however, considering our disagreeable past, that is what made me feel like you had some long lasting grudge against me.
If you are talking about this thread, and the fact that I have directly responded to most of your posts, that's because you are one of the only people providing a detailed opinion in the debate over stat categories. I wasn't trying to call you out or argue with you, I was simply inquiring as to why you felt the way you did about certain stats. I don't have any sort of vendetta against you and I'm certainly not trying to engage in a "d1ck measuring contest." That would be ridiculous. Hell, the mere notion of a "d1ck measuring contest" is ridiculous.
Honestly, I figured this was yet another subject we hold vastly different opinions about...Shockingly, lol. I really hadn't taken any offense to anything in this thread, though, and I never intended to offend anyone else either. It just began with my novel about wanting to discard hits and add walks; then your opinion that walks was just as flawed as hits; then, it just turned into each one of us trying to prove our point and sway the preferences of our fellow league members. Everything is settled now. No hard feelings from me.
I just got off the phone with Joe Rogan..... He said that he feels that Pit's standup would overwhelm Reece's G-n-P. Not trying to stir up anything,.... Just repeating what Joe Rogan said...
lol I guess yall know that I'm just dickin' around. In Reece's defense and at the risk of sounding like I'm "hopping on the Reece train", Lately Reece has been sounding A LOT less prickish than usual.
On a side note... Has anyone seen the ESPN Fantasy Baseball commercial? I LOL'ed the 1st few times I saw it!... If not then youtube it. trust me.
I looked all over to link the commercial that I was talking about to no avail... Ran across the Carlos Pena or Raul Ibenez commercial which is funny. I think the commercial I am refering to in the "Fantasy over Family" commercial. Has Old man bringing up all he did for his son while growing up. I'l leave it at that to not spoil the funny part. Then he starts talking to his "favorite grandson" .. will also leave it at that.. Comes on ESPN regularly.
I carry no grudge or dislike towards you. Honestly. As far as the NFL draft thread goes, I was trying the whole time to be blatantly ridiculous and sarcastic in ribbing you back, so that there would be no way it could turn into a real argument. You KNOW I don't care about your comma usage lmao.
quote:
that's because you are one of the only people providing a detailed opinion in the debate over stat categories.
Cool, I hoped that was the reason.
quote:
I figured this was yet another subject we hold vastly different opinions about
That's what it boils down to. I think we're both people who will debate things to no end, not in a hostile or rude way, but tone and attitude are obviously harder to interpret on a message board than they are in person, so things are open to misinterpretation.
