|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Apr 26, 2016 8:51:18 GMT -5
Hey guys, Here's the voting for two rules that got unanimous support in the thread I started a bit ago. Consequently, being they were simple, I thought we could put them up for a vote! One thing to discuss, do we want to implement things like quality starts and removing GIDP this season? I was thinking it would be best to save it for next year, as teams have constructed teams based upon the current rules we have... so that might not be fair. However, I think it'd be good to discuss. Things to vote for:300k 1st year for ArbitrationThings to discuss:When to implement removing GIDP and Quality StartsThe Point structure for Quality Starts (4 points, 4 for wins, -2 for losses, etc.? Discuss)Here's a link to the discussion we had earlier: baseknock.proboards.com/thread/6615/rule-updates-discussionThanks! - Alex
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Apr 28, 2016 8:22:51 GMT -5
Well... I'll get the ball rolling:
I think implementing the GIDP and Quality Start rule would likely be something we have to save for next season, being teams have already constructed rosters. Any objections to this?
I think that the previous suggestion we had of 4 points for a quality start, 4 points for a win, -2 points for a loss would work great as well.
|
|
|
Post by Yankees GM (Jerry) on Apr 28, 2016 8:31:39 GMT -5
Change like these should be implemented before a season starts.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Tim) on Apr 28, 2016 8:40:54 GMT -5
Agree after this season.
Also agree the QS/W/L approach works well too
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Apr 30, 2016 11:35:19 GMT -5
Alright. I think 19 votes is good enough! Thanks for your voting guys!
Rule change:
300k is now the value for Year 1 of arbitration contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Apr 30, 2016 11:41:14 GMT -5
So here's what I'm thinking for GIDP and Quality Starts:
- GIDP negative points will be removed (starting next season) - Quality Starts will be added to scoring (4 points), wins will have a reduction in points (from 8 points to 4 points), losses will have a reduction in negative points (from -4 to -2). This will also start next season.
Would love to get your thoughts so we can vote on this!
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on May 3, 2016 10:31:44 GMT -5
I think it's a good adjustment. Gives a bump to pitcher that pitched well despite what the rest of their team does.
|
|
|
Post by Austin (Former Twins GM) on May 3, 2016 10:36:48 GMT -5
I'm in favor of both changes, don't see a problem with them
|
|
|
Post by Matt (Former Padres GM) on May 3, 2016 12:53:46 GMT -5
I'm OK with this second rule change as well. I think we are way too reliant on wins and losses for pitchers
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on May 3, 2016 12:54:53 GMT -5
I did some math on the 2015 season to show what kind of effect this will have on the fantasy game. The big assumption that I made is that every point is recorded by a fantasy team. I've added links to B-Ref for citing the 2015 stats. GIDP = 0In 2015, hitters grounded into there were 3,739 GIDP, or 3739 points being added back into the pool. There are roughly 25 full weeks of baseball, our unit of scoring in this league, and 30 teams. We can average this result and see an increase in batting performance of 3739 / 25 weeks / 30 teams: = +4.98 points per week per teamQuality Starts = +4, Losses = -2, Wins = +4I will split this into two categories, one for starting pitching and one for relief pitching. In 2015, starting pitchers had 1673 Wins, 1703 Losses, and 2432 Quality Starts. Under the original rules where W = +8, L = -4, and QS = 0, starting pitchers accrued 1673 Wins * 8 - 1703 Losses * 4 + 2432 QS * 0 = 6564 points. Doing the same per week per team calculation (6546 / 25 weeks / 30 teams): = +8.75 points per week per team (2015, current W-L scoring for starting pitchers)
Under the proposed scoring, the result is 1673 Wins * 4 - 1703 Losses * 2 + 2432 QS * 4 = 13010 points. Per team per week calculation (13010 / 25 weeks / 30 teams): = +17.35 points per week per team (2015, proposed W-L-QS scoring for starting pitchers)
For 2015 relief pitchers (they went 756-724), current scoring gives them 756 Wins * 8 - 724 Losses * 4 = 8944 points, and then the per team per week calculation (8944 / 25 weeks / 30 teams) = +11.93 points per week per team (2015, current W-L scoring for relief pitchers)And under the proposed scoring: 756 Wins * 4 - 724 Losses * 2 = 1576 points. Per week per team: (1576 / 25 weeks / 30 teams): = +2.10 points per week per team (2015, proposed W-L-QS scoring for relief pitchers)
What does all this mean? Well, points = dollars. Here it is in a table: Starters and hitters are getting a boost (albeit a likely small one), and relievers are taking a hit in their value because their wins are not worth as much. What we are essentially doing is boosting the value of starters as a whole and diminishing the value of relievers as can easily be seen in the 11434 point difference in the new proposed scoring. By using arbitration costs as a means of valuing players ($.02M per hitting point, $.025M per pitching point), we see that relievers are losing a lot of value, and starters are gaining a lot of value, even relative to hitters. So why make this change? Let's grab some extreme examples and then compare it to a more standard type pitcher, let's compare Jake Arrieta (22-6 last year), Shelby Miller (6-17) and Edinson Volquez (13-9). Shelby Miller is supposed to be a player who benefits from this type of change because his horrendous W-L record did not match his actual talent level (21 QS). I calculated the change in arbitration salary of these players to show what kind of changes to expect. I also added some relievers for comparison. Yes, Shelby Miller gains 50 points on the likes of Edinson Volquez and Jake Arrieta. However all of the starters salaries are being inflated. Conversely, the better W-L record your RP has, the cheaper they will be under the new proposed scoring, though the difference is much less.
Okay, so now for my opinion. I think the rule change makes the game more interesting for starting pitchers while largely leaving hitters unaffected. However, this change could have substantial effects on starters arbitration salaries. All of them will receive some sort of boost as evidenced in the last chart where Shelby Miller's contract value increased by 25%! The corresponding change would be to adjust the arbitration compensation factors by a small amount - that is unless everyone is happy with the increased scoring environment and increased pitchers salaries.
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on May 6, 2016 11:16:30 GMT -5
Wow, great job Will! This is great.
So... this is a lot to take in, I'm assuming that's why there's no responses... but the one problem I potentially see is does this add too much value to the already highly valued starting pitchers?
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on May 6, 2016 11:49:41 GMT -5
Yeah, sorry about that. I was typing as I researched. I made a Google Doc to play with the values of W-L-QS if you want to see how it affects each player and how it affects the league scoring as a whole. The table of players has all 317 pitchers who started at least 1 game and a histogram to show the distribution in point change. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Rlc-rVeroXlhoVbkdAPeaSH2M0GdVaFzDmB9no0OrZs/edit?usp=sharing/I think the ideal solution is not to give pitchers more value, but rather to redistribute their value so that it isn't totally dependent on W-L record and to do that with the QS stat. Go in and adjust it yourself, but the W-L-QS factors that seem to be the easiest (i.e. whole numbers) that doesn't greatly affect the change in total points alloted would be W = +3, L = -3, QS = +3. Feel free to play score values for W-L-QS as you like and the sheet/chart will update for you.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Tim) on May 6, 2016 13:13:57 GMT -5
This is great Will. Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on May 11, 2016 18:48:21 GMT -5
I think after playing around with it, perhaps a 3-W, 3-L, 3-QS might be the best option? It will give pitchers a little more value, but it won't change our league too drastically. I think it will simply shift value away from players on good MLB teams.
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM (Jared) on May 11, 2016 21:12:22 GMT -5
I'm good with that
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Feb 9, 2017 13:41:36 GMT -5
Any official news on whether the Quality Start, Wins, and Losses point values are going to be adjusted?
|
|
|
Post by Marlins GM (Travis) on Feb 11, 2017 0:04:05 GMT -5
I'm probably the only one that feels this way, but the more we change points and rules, the more I find myself drifting away from this league. I entered this league and loved the way it was structured and rules as they were. But every year we're nit picking, trying to find things we can fix, when in my opinion they don't need fixing. Just leave it be and let's structure our teams based on rules we have. My opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Feb 13, 2017 20:00:41 GMT -5
I'm probably the only one that feels this way, but the more we change points and rules, the more I find myself drifting away from this league. I entered this league and loved the way it was structured and rules as they were. But every year we're nit picking, trying to find things we can fix, when in my opinion they don't need fixing. Just leave it be and let's structure our teams based on rules we have. My opinion. Makes sense, Travis. I think the goal here was just that pitchers who were on bad teams couldn't be as fairly valued as pitchers who played on MLB teams with great offenses. I think it just makes all the players more valuable in general to add in quality starts and just slightly adjust wins/losses. Shouldn't much, except that teams won't have to worry about wondering if their fantasy pitcher is on a good MLB team or not. Any objections here? I'm not sure we ever officially voted on this... did we? The prosposal is 3 points for a QS, 3 points for a W, and -3 for a L. Changed from 8 points for a W and -4 for a L.
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Feb 14, 2017 11:20:37 GMT -5
I couldn't find any voting. This was the last discussion I found so I brought it back up.
|
|