Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Jun 18, 2013 19:22:33 GMT -5
Folks,
Been thinking about some stuff for a while now; thought I'd toss them out on the table for the group.
1.) Add plate appearances (PA) as a Yahoo! scoring category that will replace our current OPS scoring category. PA is the closest scoring category for a custom Yahoo! league that approximates a minimum at bats (AB) requirement. A companion minimum batting requirement to go along with the minimum pitching requirement has long been discussed several times already. An AB Yahoo! minimum is not possible in a custom league so I propose we adopt the PA in 2014.
2.) Raise the minimum innings pitch (IP) to 30 innings. A team with just a single decent starter going twice in one week and a couple of relievers can achieve our current 20 IP requirement. Raising the bar to 30 IP forces GM to fill out their pitching staffs. This potentially means more trades, FA signings, drafting, etc--in other words more engaged and active GMs. The same can be said about replacing OPS with PA on the batting side of the rosters.
3.) Modify the red tag process. I propose GMs would now have until May 1st to designate players for the red tag. It would give us GMs a bit more time to react to "real life" early season roster changes, injuries, etc and perhaps our league would see more use of the red tag ( only about half of our the teams used it this season). A four week extension beyond the current April 1st deadline would have minimal impact on our 22 week regular season.
Like I said, just basically my two cents. I think all of the above is reasonably actionable. Looking forward to any feedback in this thread.
Post by Oren (Diamondbacks GM) on Jun 18, 2013 20:15:54 GMT -5
I like your ideas but i think 30 IP is a bit too high, 25 IP is better, but i DISAGREE completely with replacing OPS... and adding in ab makes no sense to me.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Jun 19, 2013 8:51:23 GMT -5
I'm all for 25 IP but 30 is ok too. We need PA though. Cost me a game this year. Someone only having a couple guys in his lineup took BA and OPS with half a lineup. Maybe we need to have a league vote on categories for next year. Though some are no brainers.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Jun 19, 2013 9:08:22 GMT -5
1) I like the idea of PA over OPS. The only reason for adding OPS was so that we could have an equal number of hitting and pitching categories. All of the different components of OPS are already present in AVG, BB, XBH, and HR; in fact, having OPS in addition to those four just makes power hitters that much more valuable while leadoff-type hitters' value goes down. PA actually improves the value of top-of-the-order types, as those are the players who get the most PAs. Having PA as a category rewards teams who have the most legitimate every day starters in their lineups.
2) I'm going to agree with 25. Keep in mind that if a team is only getting around 30 IPs, they're probably already losing QS and K anyway, not to mention IP, which is itself a category.
I like all of the suggested changes. As a manager who is not wholly concerned with the results of the 2013 season, I've won a few games I shouldn't have given the lineup I was fielding that week. I'll gladly take the W, but I had no right winning those weeks. I think any change that gives the advantage to managers fielding a complete lineup every week is a good thing for us.
I really don't think the IP requirement makes any sense. I'd like to see that actually disappear. I really did what I could to fill out my roster with what I had available, but just because I didn't reach the IP requirement, I take a loss in Saves (both teams had 0) and QS (even if both teams had had 0). When IP is a category, that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Not crazy about PA, but if we had to have it, I would rather get rid of HR than OPS. OPS is a pretty major category. XBH and HR are far more redundant. You can still have two ratio categories in batting just like there are 2 ratio categories in pitching (ERA and BB/9) and then 3 counting stat categories on each plus IP/PA
Post by Smitty (Mets GM) on Jun 21, 2013 12:58:17 GMT -5
1. Yes. All for PA as a 13th stat category. It accounts for the invariable, namely GM effort. It not only rewards having "legitimate starters", but also harvesting legitimate back-ups in case of injury. I've always said I'd rather start a guy like Trevor Crowe of Carlos Corporan than nobody (if I have to). And while they may only make-up 15 or so PA's in a week, your still rolling the dice on production- just like a real-life manager would day to day.
Post by Rob (Rockies GM) on Jun 21, 2013 13:49:50 GMT -5
I'm all for the redshirt idea.
25 IP works.
As for the categories, i am fine with any changes as long as there is still a balance between "counting" stats and "%" stats, to keep it fair. If we load up on counting stats, and one team is injury decimated (especially since it is a weekly change ONLY league), it seems unfair. If it were daily, and you had a Monday injury and could sub out, than it would make more sense.
I'm not advocating changing to daily, just expressing concern with the counting stats vs injuries in the weekly format.
Post by yellomellojello on Jun 22, 2013 10:32:58 GMT -5
I like using PA, but like Stephen, I'm more inclined to replace HR rather than OPS. XBH encompasses HR fully, and I think in a better way. So, you'd have PA, then proxies for speed (SB), plate discipline/OBP (BB + AVG), power (XBH), and then total offensive ability (OPS).
Ben knows I've been pushing for a higher IP limit for a long time - I think I originally wanted 35, but I know no one agrees on that
Post by Chris (Former Cubs GM) on Jun 22, 2013 12:47:55 GMT -5
I like the idea of adding PA. Would also love seeing IPs increase. Anything that makes GMs atleast try to field a full roster. There are GMs that are active and don't make an attempt to field a full roster. I get that the mid-season FA list is slim but realism is supposed to be the key and not fielding a roster when there are available FAs is defeating the purpose.
I understand the view of ditching HRs and just using xbh. I'm just not a fan of getting rid of the HR category. I don't have a long winded reason why, it just seems like HR has to be a part of the fantasy game.
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Jun 23, 2013 10:12:26 GMT -5
11 respondents so far....hoping for some more feedback..so far there seems to be a consensus forming re: raising the IPs perhaps to 25 and an extension of the redshirt tag process. PAs seem to be favored but not by all...like I said I'd like to hear from more GMs
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Jun 23, 2013 11:17:02 GMT -5
I'm quite opposed to removing HRs for a similar reason to Chris's. Yes, they're included in XBH, but a 2B and a HR aren't equal, and somehow a fantasy league without HRs doesn't seem complete. The support for the current stats has been very positive, even from people who initially thought they wouldn't like them, and it's important that we make sure not to make them too esoteric so that new GMs who join in the future don't feel alienated by them. As it is right now, the stats are quite justifiable through the point that they are similar to standard 5x5 stats, but minus team-dependent stats like RsBI, runs, and wins, which have been replaced by carefully chosen stats to promote individual success. I think without HRs, something vital would be lost. As for the point about having an equal number of rate stats for hitters and pitchers, keep in mind that standard 5x5 leagues only have one rate stat for hitters (AVG) and two for pitchers (ERA, WHIP) and seem to work just fine. Maybe part of the reason for this is the existence of the IP minimum but no PA minimum.
It sounds like the vast majority of people (with one exception?) are in favor of raising IP at least to 25 (and possibly to 30 - we'll put it to a vote) and extending the redshirt deadline to May 1 (this seems just about unanimous), so if you disagree (or even if you agree and haven't spoken yet) with either of these proposals I highly encourage you to speak up soon. As for the PA idea, there's a little more disagreement. Should this be put to a vote? One vote could be PA vs. no PA, and then a second vote could be about what to remove if PA gets added. Are we ready to vote, or should we talk it out more first?
On a tangentially-related but thus far un-broached subject, how do people feel about BB/9? We made the switch to it for 2012 but never really came back to discuss it further. Personally I like it, but would also be fine with changing it to WHIP, which is similar but also includes hits and might be less esoteric. I'm fully fine either way but just thought I'd spark some discussion.
Post by Rob (Rockies GM) on Jun 23, 2013 15:56:03 GMT -5
I'm in favor of WHIP vs just BB/9. No real reason other than BB/9 rewards control pitchers more than regular pitchers. WHIP is more a true measure of invidual ability to keep people off base by any means.
I'm in favor of WHIP vs just BB/9. No real reason other than BB/9 rewards control pitchers more than regular pitchers. WHIP is more a true measure of invidual ability to keep people off base by any means.
This coming from the guy whose idea it was to use BB/9 in the first place. But back then it was BB/9 vs just BB, and BB/9 was definitely the right choice and a good suggestion on Rob's part.
For me, it comes down to DIPS theory. DIPS theory has suggested (and at this point pretty much proven) that pitchers don't have a whole lot of control balls hit into play. A pitcher who gives up an unusually low number of hits on balls in play one year is no more likely to do it again the following year than a pitcher who gave up a ton of hits the first year would be. Since about 60-75% of WHIP is hits, it makes the BB aspect, something which pitchers have far more control over, to an afterthought.
On the other hand, fantasy baseball is about rewarding what happened this year, not about what might happen next year, and while it's true that a pitcher who does a great job limiting hits isn't necessarily going to do it again next year, that doesn't take anything away from the fact that he did it this year. It's a little more team and luck dependent, but so is baseball.
Again, I'm fine with either one. It's really just a debate between going with the more familiar (WHIP) or the more exotic (BB/9).
For me scoring categories should reflect this, i dont find the concept of PAs to be fun, if there was a way to have a minimum (and i understand there isnt) then that would be great, but to make it a scoring category sounds very far from fun to me.
I prefer WHIP over BB/9, but its not the end of the world one way or the other.
I agree with the 25 minimum IP just don't know about the PA. am in favor of WHIP over BB/9.
Additionally, I mentioned it last year but what do you guys think of adding an option year?
MAX contract remains 4 years so if you want to offer an option year, guaranteed will be 3 years, option year will be say, +10% of the annual salary, with a buy out of 10%? i believe Chris suggested that we should limit the the number of players that we could offer the option year to avoid bankrupcy which is good.
One more thing is, i know we can't trade cash but I personally think it will make the league more interesting if we could do so. so instead of moving our cash, can we consider of allowing a GM to cover the salary of a player who is not included on a trade.
For example.
Phillies trade/send Justin Smoak to Rays for Rays to cover 2 million of Erik Bedards salary, 2 million(2013), 3 million (2014).
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Jun 26, 2013 11:31:38 GMT -5
Contraction.
Again, how real is it that teams can't field full rosters. They wouldn't be allowed to compete. By having less teams, we can all have better depth and full squads and then things like ABs or IP won't really matter.
I disagree on contraction. With 30 teams in a league, people who do there research on utility guys and everything else get rewarded. It makes every player more valuable which is a reason I think this league is so good. (As well as the dedication of our great commissioners)
Post by Chris (Former Cubs GM) on Jun 26, 2013 12:08:30 GMT -5
I'm also against contraction. It's not "real" to play with incomplete rosters and it isn't real to play with 24 teams. There's players out there in FA getting ABs and getting IPs. Granted there not glamorous names but they are there. Every organization has the Draft Picks or prospects to make trades and field a team. Guess its just weather you want to compete now or watch a guy in the minors in hopes he plays ball someday.
Post by Chris (Former Cubs GM) on Jun 26, 2013 12:15:34 GMT -5
There is only 2 teams that should be replaced. Every other GM has checked in over the last 4 days. Technically sticcs checked in but is gone now. So really only orioles hasn't been on over the last week.
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Jun 27, 2013 21:00:14 GMT -5
I have no preference either way with WHIP vs BB/9. Not a fan of contraction in this league yet. Would prefer we get another couple of active GMs before going down that road.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Jun 27, 2013 22:06:24 GMT -5
I'll be putting some of these ideas to an official vote in the next few days.
I'm willing to keep the discussion open on contraction, but I will not be leading any such discussion, and I would call it highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.
I don't think a vote needs to be made for extending the redshirt rule. It seems all are in favor of this.
I'll make a vote for 20, 25, or 30 innings pitched, although at this point I'd be shocked if we don't end up at 25 for 2014.
I'll also make a vote for PAs as a stat category. If the league votes in favor of adding PAs, a follow-up vote will be created regarding what should be removed.
I'll make a poll for BB/9 vs WHIP as well. Doesn't sound like anybody (me included) has a strong opinion on the matter yet, but perhaps putting it to a vote will generate some more discussion.
Be on the lookout for these polls over the coming days. I'll probably be staggering them so as not to have too many at once.
