Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 5, 2011 22:24:03 GMT -5
Really I'm just thinking out loud here, and welcome any input.
I was thinking about the stat categories and, as much as I love the hitting categories and would be extremely reluctant to change them (AVG, BB, HR, XBH, SB), I find the pitching stats (ERA, IP, K/BB, QS, SV) leave something to be desired. Specifically, I'm starting to wish strikeouts were a stat on their own, just a typical Ks stat. But I also feel like it's important to keep BBs in there, since they are a key indicator of a pitcher's value (and because people have built their teams assuming that walks matter) - either as a counting stat (BBs) or as a rate stat (BB/9). The one stat I'd most like to replace is probably QS. So I was thinking the five pitching stats would be ERA, IP, K, SV, and either BB or BB/9. Of course, I don't want to change it (since it's worked well as it is so far) unless there's a lot of support for it. So... any input?
Please do not use this thread to suggest that we put Wins, RsBI, or Runs into the categories. It's been brought up before and each time it's been met with overwhelming opposition. It's not gonna happen. The stats chosen were chosen because they a) aren't overly team dependent, b) include most of the components that are used in determining a player's offensive or pitching value in real life, c) aren't redundant, d) balance counting stats with rate stats and e) are still relatively simple and concise. There is absolutely no way that Wins, RsBI, or Runs are going to be used in this league.
So what do you think? Should we take out K/BB and QS and put in Ks and BBs or Ks and BB/9?
Last Edit: Dec 5, 2011 22:56:55 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Dec 5, 2011 22:31:16 GMT -5
I like them as is. k/b is fine as high K pitchers are rewarded, as long as they dont walk and it helps the RP instead of holds.
QS could be gone but what about holds. I mean if one team has 2 closers that means one team does not and has no chance at sv. Holds at least would give them a chance to tie the sv catagory and may keep teams from trying to get multiple closers which if we had real teams we would not have two closers anyway or a chance to get multiple saves in a day.
But if changed - should have to be a year or two later. Teams have been built around these stats and to change right away would not be fair to others.
I think QS should actually be kept. Wouldn't opposed to adding either BB or BB/9. Probably think BB/9 and K/9 might be best or K and BB would be best so they are consistent but I don't know what stat should be added to hitting
Post by Alex (Nationals GM) on Dec 5, 2011 22:44:04 GMT -5
I'm in favor of keeping QS. wouldn't mind having holds either but don't really see how we can add it unless we also add a offensive category and make it a 6x6
If you're talking about O I think we should at least talk about obp and or slg, I know they are somewhat redundant (bb,xbh)
I think OBP and SLG would be very redundant. Yes, we could switch it and go with them instead, and take out AVG, but not sure what it would accomplish. The danger of having too many rate stats and not enough counting stats is that it rewards teams for leaving holes in their lineups, which we don't want to do.
I like the holds idea but thought QS was a solid category
Sounds like there's a lot of support for QS so far, so we'll keep them. As for Holds, I'm opposed because I think if we have both holds AND saves it makes relievers too valuable. Middle relievers already have plenty of value because they help out in ERA, IP, and K/BB. Adding a stat like holds makes a middle reliever just as valuable as a closer, but unlike saves, holds are a lot more random from one year to the next.
I think QS should actually be kept. Wouldn't opposed to adding either BB or BB/9. Probably think BB/9 and K/9 might be best or K and BB would be best so they are consistent but I don't know what stat should be added to hitting
Hmm, I actually kinda like the idea of going 6x6, but there would have to be a worthwhile hitting stat to put there. Maybe OPS actually would work in this case, since it basically just takes a little bit of all the other stats besides SB and combines them. It's redundant, yes, but instead of thinking of it like that we could think of it as supplementing certain stats.
So if we did this it would be:
AVG, BB, XBH, HR, SB, OPS ERA, IP, K, BB, QS, SV
Last Edit: Dec 5, 2011 22:46:33 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
But it would make closers less valuable and more on par with other RP as they (closers) are highly valuable right now - more valuable than RP. But it could be argued both ways. Again only my 2 cents. My main point is that it stops teams from trying to dominate the closer market which I tried to take advantage of myself.
I agree with Ben's point about holds. Not a huge fan of it, I like the idea that closers are valuable, it gives teams a lot of different ways of strategizing.
Post by Zack (Mariners GM) on Dec 6, 2011 2:30:31 GMT -5
im somewhat in favor of keeping it as is, but wouldnt be upset if we switch to that 6x6 system that ben proposed. whatever happens though, i dont think QS should be eliminated and i agree that holds should not be counted.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 6, 2011 8:24:52 GMT -5
QS are staying, as there's clearly a lot of support for them. I don't think we'll be adding holds, as opinion seems to be split, and it'd be a big change.
As for splitting K/BB into Ks and BBs, one reason to do that would be because a guy who walks only two batters per nine but strikes out just four batters per nine has very different value than a guy who strikes out ten batters per nine but walks five. I'd prefer not to lump them together. Plus, Ks are just such a familiar fantasy stat, and since we diverge from usual fantasy stats in other cases it might be nice to keep this one as is.
So what do other people think about the 6x6 system proposed? New stats in bold
AVG, BB, XBH, HR, SB, OPS ERA, IP, K, BB, QS, SV
Last Edit: Dec 6, 2011 8:25:15 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
What about instead of splitting the K and BB stats, we modify them to K and BB/9 to carry both counting and ratio properties?
K could be left alone. Important and familiar.
BB/9 could impact the ratio stats (of which there would only be ERA at this point).
I'm definitely fine with either of these options. One added bonus of BB/9 as opposed to BB is that it's not a negative stat, i.e. it doesn't reward people for having fewer players.
Please weigh in folks. Whether you're for this change or against it, you're only hurting yourself by not joining the discussion. I'd like to hear everyone's voice here if possible.
Last Edit: Dec 6, 2011 13:15:56 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Please weigh in folks. Whether you're for this change or against it, you're only hurting yourself by not joining the discussion. I'd like to hear everyone's voice here if possible.
I agree with the changes proposed for all the reasons stated above.
My preference would be to start this year but it'll depend partially on the responses. Based on the early returns it sounds like it's gonna happen at some point, but if people feel like we should wait until next year to do it I'm open to that. However, because we're not really adding anything that people didn't already value, and we're not taking away anything entirely (we're just splitting K/BB up), I don't think we necessarily need to wait - it shouldn't affect the way people build their teams.
