Post by Cardinals GM (John C) on Oct 2, 2021 10:09:52 GMT -8
I labelled this thread "Long-Term" since I do not think this is the kind of thing we will implement for next year. If we update the scoring categories, owners need to know 1-2 seasons in advance so they can plan accordingly.
Still, I think it would be worthwhile to consider updating the scoring system. The nice thing about looking at it now is, we have a just-completed season almost in the books; that means, we can adjust this past season's scoring system and let it run through the season to se what the results would have been if that scoring system had been in place and then go back to our scoring system to restore this season's results. It is a pain-free way to evaluate scoring system changes.
Executive Summary: I propose that we update the 6x6 scoring format as follows, and I humbly request that you not judge my proposal until you have read my rationale below.
The new format would replace AVG and OPS with On-Base Percentage (OBP) and Slugging Percentage (SLG) in the hitting categories, and it would replace Wins, K's, SV, and HD with Quality Starts (QS), Strikeouts per Nine Innings (K/9), Innings Pitched (IP), and SV+HD.
Rationale: This is a really tough league ... which is a good thing! It challenges owners to think long term, and it mirrors real MLB baseball as much as possible. In light of those two statements, I think the time is now to seriously consider changing our scoring format to allow team owners to have multiple pathways open to them for building a winning team by making more MLB players fantasy-relevant.
Hitting: Batting average does not adequately capture a player's value to a team (ie, the Rays don't mind if Mike Zunino strikes out a lot as long as he exercises good plate discipline -- his BA is awful, but his OBP is close to league average and his SLG is well above league average). Instead, OBP and SLG do a better job. OBP rewards walks and SLG gives value to doubles and triples. Using BA and OPS rewards players with power and a good BA twice, and penalizes players with power or speed (but a low batting average) to the point where they are mostly unusable during a matchup. These changes are more of a subtle change that still rewards good players but expands the pool of players that are useful.
Pitching: This league encourages owners to adopt an "RP-heavy" strategy, which is not necessarily a bad thing. To force owners to also play starters, we have an IP minimum. Instead, we can eliminate the IP minimum while capturing the true value of starting pitchers and enhancing the value of non-closer RPs. To do this, we replace Wins, K's, SV, and HD with Quality Starts (QS), Strikeouts per Nine Innings (K/9), Innings Pitched (IP), and SV+HD.
The problem with the "wins" category is .... it is really a team stat, not a pitcher stat! A decent pitcher on a great team may win 14 games while a stud pitcher on a really bad team may only win 8. And, strikeouts give a huge advantage to any owner who stockpiles multiple high-K pitchers ... there aren't many of those guys in MLB, so that fact makes it very hard for bottom dwelling teams to improve substantially. More importantly -- what is a pitcher supposed to do? He is supposed to get batters out while limiting batters' ability to score runs! We already have ERA and WHIP to measure the limiting-run-scoring part. The new IP stat does two things (1) it is a measure of OUTS (3 outs per inning), and (2) it negates the potential of owners relying upon a reliever-heavy strategy while negating the need for a minimum IP limit. QS and K/9 are better indicators of pitching success ... QS rewards the pitcher rather than the team award of wins, and K/9 rewards high-strikeout SPs and RPs, thus adding value to elite RPs who do not get saves or holds [there are about 20 "good" closers who can be relied upon to get consistent saves in MLB and about 50 "good" holds pitchers who get 15+ holds in a season while there are 180+ good RPs whose contributions will be more highly valued in this format].
Conclusion: This proposed scoring system will not de-value players owners already have (except for those teams that have 2-3 elite closers, so we will need to phase this new scoring system in over a couple seasons) -- it will shift values some, but good players in the current system will still be good players in the new one. What my proposed scoring format will do is (1) better capture players' actual abilities, and (2) make it more realistic for teams lower in the standings to compete by making more players fantasy relevant.
Thoughts?
Still, I think it would be worthwhile to consider updating the scoring system. The nice thing about looking at it now is, we have a just-completed season almost in the books; that means, we can adjust this past season's scoring system and let it run through the season to se what the results would have been if that scoring system had been in place and then go back to our scoring system to restore this season's results. It is a pain-free way to evaluate scoring system changes.
Executive Summary: I propose that we update the 6x6 scoring format as follows, and I humbly request that you not judge my proposal until you have read my rationale below.
| Hitting | Pitching |
| OBP | QS |
| SLG | SV+HD |
| HR | IP |
| RBI | ERA |
| SB | WHIP |
| R | K/9 |
The new format would replace AVG and OPS with On-Base Percentage (OBP) and Slugging Percentage (SLG) in the hitting categories, and it would replace Wins, K's, SV, and HD with Quality Starts (QS), Strikeouts per Nine Innings (K/9), Innings Pitched (IP), and SV+HD.
Rationale: This is a really tough league ... which is a good thing! It challenges owners to think long term, and it mirrors real MLB baseball as much as possible. In light of those two statements, I think the time is now to seriously consider changing our scoring format to allow team owners to have multiple pathways open to them for building a winning team by making more MLB players fantasy-relevant.
Hitting: Batting average does not adequately capture a player's value to a team (ie, the Rays don't mind if Mike Zunino strikes out a lot as long as he exercises good plate discipline -- his BA is awful, but his OBP is close to league average and his SLG is well above league average). Instead, OBP and SLG do a better job. OBP rewards walks and SLG gives value to doubles and triples. Using BA and OPS rewards players with power and a good BA twice, and penalizes players with power or speed (but a low batting average) to the point where they are mostly unusable during a matchup. These changes are more of a subtle change that still rewards good players but expands the pool of players that are useful.
Pitching: This league encourages owners to adopt an "RP-heavy" strategy, which is not necessarily a bad thing. To force owners to also play starters, we have an IP minimum. Instead, we can eliminate the IP minimum while capturing the true value of starting pitchers and enhancing the value of non-closer RPs. To do this, we replace Wins, K's, SV, and HD with Quality Starts (QS), Strikeouts per Nine Innings (K/9), Innings Pitched (IP), and SV+HD.
The problem with the "wins" category is .... it is really a team stat, not a pitcher stat! A decent pitcher on a great team may win 14 games while a stud pitcher on a really bad team may only win 8. And, strikeouts give a huge advantage to any owner who stockpiles multiple high-K pitchers ... there aren't many of those guys in MLB, so that fact makes it very hard for bottom dwelling teams to improve substantially. More importantly -- what is a pitcher supposed to do? He is supposed to get batters out while limiting batters' ability to score runs! We already have ERA and WHIP to measure the limiting-run-scoring part. The new IP stat does two things (1) it is a measure of OUTS (3 outs per inning), and (2) it negates the potential of owners relying upon a reliever-heavy strategy while negating the need for a minimum IP limit. QS and K/9 are better indicators of pitching success ... QS rewards the pitcher rather than the team award of wins, and K/9 rewards high-strikeout SPs and RPs, thus adding value to elite RPs who do not get saves or holds [there are about 20 "good" closers who can be relied upon to get consistent saves in MLB and about 50 "good" holds pitchers who get 15+ holds in a season while there are 180+ good RPs whose contributions will be more highly valued in this format].
Conclusion: This proposed scoring system will not de-value players owners already have (except for those teams that have 2-3 elite closers, so we will need to phase this new scoring system in over a couple seasons) -- it will shift values some, but good players in the current system will still be good players in the new one. What my proposed scoring format will do is (1) better capture players' actual abilities, and (2) make it more realistic for teams lower in the standings to compete by making more players fantasy relevant.
Thoughts?
