|
|
Post by srowland on Jul 13, 2016 0:41:22 GMT
I propose that we switch QS (10 points) and W (30 points) values. A win can be fairly random with who will get it. I've grabbed some points and stats from 2 scenarios: Quality Starts that resulted in a loss, and vultured wins from relief pitchers. One key note here is I wanted the most random of wins all of these wins from relief pitchers appearing in extra innings.  Obviously a starter who pitches a quality start should have a good chance at a win. A pitcher who comes in during extra innings and gets a win is fairly random. If we implemented this rule change, each of the RP wins in this chart would drop by 20 points, and each of the QS losses would increase by 20 points. It would increase the value of RPs that get holds and saves, and decrease the value of the other RPs, but RPs who don't get holds or saves shouldn't be worth more than starting pitchers who get quality starts. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Hartman on Jul 13, 2016 1:53:07 GMT
I'd want to look at how (if someone has the time) the value of the top 20-30 SP currently would change.
10 pts for a win is pretty low (my first inclination) when considering a loss is -20.
I suspect (again, just first impression without doing the analysis) that the top 20-30 SP would see a huge value shift.
Would be interesting to look at effect on top 50 using current system, using 25 for w and 15 for qs, then 20, 20, then 15,25, etc.
It probably would be easy to do as I've got a dummy copied league from this one (I use it for finding players not in our database when I am writing and looking for ownership levels).
I could simply change scoring and copy spreadsheet.
Then we could compare and look at which makes the most sense.
I am not disagreeing that a change isn't needed. I just (off the top of my head) think it may need to be more subtle than a direct switch between the two. I could be wrong, but I'd want to see the results of said change before considering it, especially when I'm inclined to think it's a little bit too much.
That's my two cents.
It's probably an issue that needs more work and a likely vote at seasons end. It's definitely a worthwhile proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by srowland on Jul 13, 2016 2:21:05 GMT
I've got a sheet that I can import the current season stats in to that would spit this out. I'll clean it up a bit and share.
|
|
|
|
Post by srowland on Jul 20, 2016 15:03:45 GMT
I've got a sheet that I can import the current season stats in to that would spit this out. I'll clean it up a bit and share. Finally got it updated it's here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lbhOy2jrRJiUH35xhavCIEmKoxckHOj3aCzaa0k5bqU/edit#gid=2127801796There's very little shift in value amongst starters, and most of that value shift come from pitchers who DO get QS but don't get run support (or other reasons) for W's (Julio Teheran, Marco Estrada, Jacob Degrom, Jose Quintana). Most of the negative comes from relief pitchers. Some made big drops in ranks, but didn't make large drops in points (mostly closers), some made big drops in points too (mostly middle relievers). I personally think it more accurately reflects how pitching should be valued in fantasy. There are 4 sheets: - First sheet "player compare" type a player under player name, it will show you their current points and "updated" points (updated points are just based off of updating the scoring sheet)
- Second sheet "Pitchers" this is a list of all pitchers-along with their current and "updated" points, along with changes to ranks, and points (you can't edit this)
- Third sheet-"Pitcher Stats" this was pulled from fantrax a few days ago (you can't edit this)
- Fourth sheet-"scoring"-this is where the scoring values are pulled from. There are 2 tables-one for current (hidden, don't adjust this) and one for updated (this one can be played with to determine any adjustments that you'd be interested in making
We do this with hitting and pitching values every year in another league I'm in. It's taken us about 7 years but we've gotten scoring down to be very well representative of how *we* think it should be. But the sheet helps to see how much or little of a difference changing one little thing can do. The sheet is open to anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by ammyron on Jul 20, 2016 18:51:31 GMT
In a different smaller league some of us are in we did this very change, and it has helped a ton. The best pitchers are still the best pitchers. It is also unfair to rate a pitchers performance entirely on 8 to 9 other guys who might be taking the day off at the plate. We should reward a pitcher for doing his job, which is putting 0's on the board. A Quality Start is the true way to gauge how good a pitcher is. It would be ludicrous to have a pitcher who goes 18-9 but has an ERA north of 5 have as much value or even a higher value than a pitcher who has only won 6 to 10 games but has an ERA of half of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Hartman on Jul 20, 2016 21:52:40 GMT
Thanks for doing this Scott
I'm in my car all day, so will wait to open when I get to my office later tonight.
I'll encourage others to look as well.
Really appreciate it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Germani on Jul 20, 2016 22:34:53 GMT
I would also be in favor, if we do this, to decrease the negative points for losses. If a win is worth less a loss should be too, at least to me.
I am in favor of the basis rule Scott proposed here. If we could also adjust losses I would approve that too
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Hartman on Jul 21, 2016 1:26:18 GMT
It looks like the biggest losers are the set up guys.
But, saying that... they had a ton of value before... maybe this puts that at a proper level
And... my concern of teams being hurt by a change like this (ie Yankees with Miller).. is somehow lessened because often these stud set up guys end up as closers anyway.
I'm fine with it.
Others?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucas Smyser TEX on Jul 21, 2016 2:17:43 GMT
I like the change
|
|
|
|
Post by mjuslivin on Jul 23, 2016 13:36:24 GMT
I think it would make a good change. I would beat the QS over W drum any day of the week.
|
|
Jesus
New Member
Posts: 3 
|
Post by Jesus on Jul 23, 2016 16:22:04 GMT
I'm good with it also
|
|
