Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 11, 2013 21:28:28 GMT -5
The league has voted and it has been determined that PA's will be added to the Yahoo stat categories. Now the question is, which stat should be replaced? Or alternatively, should we go to 7 hitting stats and either add a pitching stat (specify in your comment below - HOLDS IS NOT AN OPTION and it would almost certainly have to be a counting stat, not a rate stat) or just have one more hitting stat than pitching stat?
Also, it turns out I was wrong about vote retraction. You can retract a vote by simply unchecking your original vote and then checking your new one.
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2013 21:39:29 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 11, 2013 21:37:38 GMT -5
I strongly believe OPS should be the stat that gets replaced. We really only added OPS in the first place in order to keep the number of pitching stats and hitting stats the same (back when we split k/bb into Ks and BB/9), and when we added it we did so despite recognizing that all of its components were already well represented in the other stats (AVG and BB cover OBP while HR and XBH cover SLG). Given that all of the stats in OPS already exist, it's pretty redundant and there's really no reason to have it. Furthermore, I think the more counting stats (and the fewer rate stats) that we have, the better, since counting stats reward people who field full lineups while rate stats tend to reward people for benching weaker players and leaving spots empty.
I'm very opposed to the idea of having 7 hitting stats and 6 pitching stats. I like that one team can sweep the pitching categories and the other team can sweep the hitting categories and the result would be a tie. If we add another hitting stat while leaving the pitching stats alone, we lose that balance. As for adding another pitching stat, I'm fine with the idea if a suitable pitching stat can be proposed, but I really don't think there is one and I really don't think it's necessary since keeping OPS around is unnecessary.
Please do the right thing and vote for OPS! I'd hate to see any of our other categories go.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 11, 2013 21:46:05 GMT -5
Chris - we've had the holds discussion before, and we've chosen not to use them because
a) they are highly team dependent and rarely reflect the skill of the pitcher b) they aren't particularly predictable from year to year, so finding a pitcher with lots of holds rarely reflects the skill of the GM c) adding holds would make closers basically useless, as holds would then have the same value as saves, which would be a problem because d) teams have paid significant prices for closers, so adding holds would create a significant shift in strategy which would affect certain teams unfairly e) they are silly
The only argument for adding holds that I think makes any sense is that saves are overvalued, which is a fair point. However, I think adding holds so that we have both holds and saves just makes relievers in general way overvalued, and we'd be better off just getting rid of both of them. But then we'd have to get rid of another hitting stat.
Dan - IPs is already a pitching category (IP, SV, K, ERA, BB/9, QS)
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2013 21:50:34 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
So I'm not fussed about holds either particularly but it does mean that middle relievers are roughly worthless except for exceptional exceptions and virtually all of your argument could also apply to saves ...
So I'm not fussed about holds either particularly but it does mean that middle relievers are roughly worthless except for exceptional exceptions and virtually all of your argument could also apply to saves ...
Completely agree that "a) they are highly team dependent and rarely reflect the skill of the pitcher" definitely applies to saves as well, as does "e) they are silly," but unlike holds, saves are more consistent from year to year, so finding a closer at least takes some effort and skill on the part of the GM. Furthermore, having saves in the stats allows for the debate on the importance of closers to manifest itself in our league as well - lots of people punt saves in fantasy baseball and do just fine anyway, while others insist on carrying multiple closers and spending large chunks of their budgets to compete in the saves category. So by having saves, our league echoes the real life dichotomy between the two schools of thoughts on closers, and teams are allowed to make the choice for themselves. Personally, I don't strongly believe in the closer role in real life - when I play baseball video games (particularly simulators), I put my worst reliever as the closer, because he's the one who always gets the fewest innings. But I know that this strategy wouldn't work in real life, because my fans would be calling for my head by May first. As such, if I were a real GM I'd probably have to make some compromises, and while I'd still make my best reliever a "relief ace" of sorts, pitching when I need him most regardless of the inning, I'd probably make my second or third best reliever my closer. When it comes to fantasy baseball I'm somewhere in the middle as well - I look for bargain closers, guys who will get some saves here and there without costing an arm and a leg. My current closer, Steve Cishek, is a perfect example. Closers are luxuries though - if I can afford a good one and I've already filled all my other holes, of course I'm gonna try to get one (which is why I had Craig Kimbrel last year). Having saves also rewards teams for scouting out and scooping up good young relievers early on in their careers, as some of these relievers will eventually be promoted into the closer role. Scout well and you get rewarded. Holds, on the other hand, are just sort of this thing that happens. They're not really predictable, nor are they even that obvious when they happen. You watch a game on TV and you don't really even know who, if anyone, got awarded a hold until it shows up in the box score the next day. They also don't necessarily go to the best relievers (like saves do, for better or worse), so the GMs who get lots of them are pretty much just lucky.
As for middle relievers having pretty much no value - a good middle reliever can easily provide 60 innings and 60 strikeouts with low ERA and low BB/9. Three good middle relievers pretty much add up to an ace pitcher in four out of five categories (no quality starts). Plus, if you scout well, those middle relievers might be future closers, which you can then either reap the benefits of yourself or trade to another team as a premium commodity. That sounds like more than enough fantasy value for guys that don't really provide all that much value in real life, either.
Pay no attention to the idiot running the Marlins...
Haha well the good news is you can retract and change your vote, and it's really easy to do so, despite what the idiot running the Rays originally thought.
Or you can keep it as is, but please specify what other pitching category you'd add.
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2013 22:17:23 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 11, 2013 22:33:14 GMT -5
My reasons for keeping the other stats (and thus getting rid of OPS)
HR - What's a fantasy league without HRs? Do we perhaps overrate them in real life? Sure. But a HR is still worth more than a 2B, so letting XBH speak for 2Bs, 3Bs, and HRs as equals isn't right. I suppose we could take out HRs and switch XBH to total bases, but that just seems sad. Fantasy baseball doesn't have to be that dry. Plus, putting total bases into the mix makes OPS even more redundant, since total bases define SLG. SB - Since this one isn't represented in any other category, it'd be hard to get rid of. They may not be the most important statistic, but they're another one of those fantasy baseball mainstays, and getting rid of them would pretty much mean the only hitters with any value are the big bats. BB - Seems obvious. They say a walk is as good as a hit. It's not entirely true, since a walk is never an extra base hit and only drives in runs when the bases are loaded, but they're certainly important enough to deserve their own category. AVG - I'm not really an AVG guy in real life (OBP, obviously), but we've broken OBP up into AVG and BB, since it gives us more categories. Plus, Jean Segura and Nick Swisher are very different hitters - even though both have OBPs in the .340s, they get there very different ways (Segura by batting .310 and walking occasionally, Swisher by batting .240 and walking a ton) and should be treated as such. Obviously we'd all prefer the guy who hits for a high average AND walks a ton, but that guy's gonna cost a fortune, so instead we all do the best we can and prioritize the categories we want to prioritize - that's what makes fantasy baseball interesting. XBH - A double isn't a single. A double is more valuable, and should be treated as such.
Which leaves OPS. Remember what I said about AVG, about Nick Swisher and Jean Segura being completely different players? Well, Howie Kendrick and Pedro Alvarez are very different players as well, but Kendrick's OPS of .778 is nearly identical to Alvarez's .774. They get there in completely different ways though. Our stats should reflect that. If we wanted to blend all of our stats into one stat, we'd get rid of everything and just use WAR. Not to say that that wouldn't result in a good league, but it would certainly be an extremely one-dimensional league, without much room for differences of opinion and strategy.
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2013 22:40:45 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
So I'm not fussed about holds either particularly but it does mean that middle relievers are roughly worthless except for exceptional exceptions and virtually all of your argument could also apply to saves ...
Completely agree that "a) they are highly team dependent and rarely reflect the skill of the pitcher" definitely applies to saves as well, as does "e) they are silly," but unlike holds, saves are more consistent from year to year, so finding a closer at least takes some effort and skill on the part of the GM. Furthermore, having saves in the stats allows for the debate on the importance of closers to manifest itself in our league as well - lots of people punt saves in fantasy baseball and do just fine anyway, while others insist on carrying multiple closers and spending large chunks of their budgets to compete in the saves category. So by having saves, our league echoes the real life dichotomy between the two schools of thoughts on closers, and teams are allowed to make the choice for themselves. Personally, I don't strongly believe in the closer role in real life - when I play baseball video games (particularly simulators), I put my worst reliever as the closer, because he's the one who always gets the fewest innings. But I know that this strategy wouldn't work in real life, because my fans would be calling for my head by May first. As such, if I were a real GM I'd probably have to make some compromises, and while I'd still make my best reliever a "relief ace" of sorts, pitching when I need him most regardless of the inning, I'd probably make my second or third best reliever my closer. When it comes to fantasy baseball I'm somewhere in the middle as well - I look for bargain closers, guys who will get some saves here and there without costing an arm and a leg. My current closer, Steve Cishek, is a perfect example. Closers are luxuries though - if I can afford a good one and I've already filled all my other holes, of course I'm gonna try to get one (which is why I had Craig Kimbrel last year). Having saves also rewards teams for scouting out and scooping up good young relievers early on in their careers, as some of these relievers will eventually be promoted into the closer role. Scout well and you get rewarded. Holds, on the other hand, are just sort of this thing that happens. They're not really predictable, nor are they even that obvious when they happen. You watch a game on TV and you don't really even know who, if anyone, got awarded a hold until it shows up in the box score the next day. They also don't necessarily go to the best relievers (like saves do, for better or worse), so the GMs who get lots of them are pretty much just lucky.
As for middle relievers having pretty much no value - a good middle reliever can easily provide 60 innings and 60 strikeouts with low ERA and low BB/9. Three good middle relievers pretty much add up to an ace pitcher in four out of five categories (no quality starts). Plus, if you scout well, those middle relievers might be future closers, which you can then either reap the benefits of yourself or trade to another team as a premium commodity. That sounds like more than enough fantasy value for guys that don't really provide all that much value in real life, either.
Clearly I'm not going to try change your mind as I said I'm not fussed but I would say a middle reliever often provides more real life value to a team than a closer.
Clearly I'm not going to try change your mind as I said I'm not fussed but I would say a middle reliever often provides more real life value to a team than a closer.
Actually, I completely agree with you. But holds aren't the way to reflect that. Saves are there - whether you choose to chase them yourself or not is up to you. If you don't, you can build an equally competitive team by filling your RP spots with high K, low BB, low ERA middle relievers at a cheaper price than the closers would be.
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2013 22:43:47 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Aug 11, 2013 23:16:11 GMT -5
Any thought to having 7 hitting and only 6 pitching. It may mean less ties and we all know there are no ties in real life so it may make it more realistic if this forces someone to win (I know ties could still happen but this does reduce it).
Any thought to having 7 hitting and only 6 pitching. It may mean less ties and we all know there are no ties in real life so it may make it more realistic if this forces someone to win (I know ties could still happen but this does reduce it).
True, but it would reduce ties in only one direction - in favor of offense. Do we really want to favor offense even more heavily than fantasy baseball already does (if you buy into the fantasy baseball wisdom that offense wins championships)? Also, I'm somewhat concerned with how it would look to new GMs if we have an unequal number of hitting and pitching categories. To me it looks kind of sloppy, like the league hasn't made a real effort or given it enough thought. It's also unfair to the teams that have built their teams around pitching (this coming from the more offense-heavy and less pitching-oriented of the two AL East contenders)
That said, after OPS, 7x6 is probably my second choice. But I don't see why we shouldn't just get rid of OPS. We just don't need it, all the components of OPS already exist elsewhere. Going to 7x6 to save a redundant category doesn't seem worthwhile.
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2013 23:37:26 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Aug 12, 2013 8:00:30 GMT -5
I favor a 6x6 format as opposed to a 7x6 or 7x7. Can't really find another decent pitching stat to balance things off...ties don't bother me that much and we really don't get that many over the course of a 22 week season.
Post by Smitty (Mets GM) on Aug 12, 2013 14:04:12 GMT -5
I think the key element is that OPS is represented in other stats. And while I was initially a proponent of 7x6, I think that extra stat is more of a crunch. Attentive owners will still get rewarded more by adding PA and eliminating OPS (a duplicitous rate stat). I like Holds in other leagues, but I think IP and BB/9 give a fair representation of holding strong relievers, not just closers.
