View Full Version : Ideas/Feedback for 2004
Saxmania
05-04-03, 09:51 AM
Okay. As per the Week 5 Newsletter, I wanted to create a thread for people to discuss, debate, and suggest what's gone wrong and what's gone right with this year's league. I know that a lot of people are unhappy with the points scheme, and some aren't convinced about the roster format. I'm going to kick a couple of ideas out there, and I hope people will join in the debate in an informed and polite manner. This year, a lot of owners didn't get a chance to feed back on the arrangements, because they didn't join the forum until after they'd signed up. If we start discussing ideas now, maybe we'll get more participation.
An idea for a points scheme:
Hitting:
1 point per single
2 points per double
3 points per triple
4 points per Home Run
1 point per run scored
1 point per Rrun Batted In
1 point per walk
1 point per Hit By Pitch
1 point per stolen base
-1 point per caught stealing
Pitching:
3 points per Inning Pitched
-2 points per Earned Run allowed
-1 point per walk allowed
-1 point per hit allowed
-1 point per Hit By Pitch
-1 point per Wild Pitch
-1 point per Balk
10 points per win
10 points per complete game
5 points per save
-5 points per blown save
2 points per hold
1 point per strikeout
I think most of this is self-explanatory. Penalising a blown save makes sense because a blown save ALWAYS reflects an error on the part of the pitcher, and can't be blamed on poor run support. The problem is that this points scheme will still result in relievers contributing not that much in terms of points (perhaps 20 points in a really good week), and I'd like to discuss ways of compensating for that. Apart from that, I think the above scheme is a good version of last year's, with a couple of additions from this year's that make sense. Reactions? Feedback? Hate mail?
A very good suggestions came in from #1PaFan, who proposed two leagues to increase the talent pool. The scheme he came up with:
2 leagues, 12 teams in each
3 divisions of four teams in each league
1 game per season against each team in each other division in same league
1 game per season against each team in one division in other league
2 games per season against each team in same division
= total of 18 regular season games for each team
3 rounds of playoffs: divisional series, league series, championship series
I don't know yet what website we'd use - can anyone recommend a good one? We'd need six more owners than this year (and that could be important; we struggled to get 18 this year). Would we have slightly different rules in each league? What would we call the divisions? The leagues?
Answers, questions, whatever. Please post. And Boz, could we stickify this? Cheers.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
While two leagues sounds good, I forsee several problems.
First, I assume that each league would be all-of-baseball, rather than an AL league and an NL league. During inter-league play, we could have Pedro Martinez pitching against...Pedro Martinez. Also, we would not be able to trade between the two leagues, or else someone could end up with two Barry Bonds' on the same team. Getting 24 teams could be tricky. However...if we had 20, we could set up 2 leagues of 10 teams each.
1 game vs each team in other division of same league (5)
1 game vs each team in other league (10)
2 games vs each team in same division (8)
Total = 23
Top 2 teams in each division make playoffs, or just division winners make playoffs.
Although talent is thin this year, esp w/pitching, I think eliminating the loss penalty increases the talent pool. Right now, a pitcher who goes 14-10 is more valuable than one who goes 14-17. However, with no loss penalty, people could take someone for wins, w/o any consideration for losses.
Hitman23
05-05-03, 08:51 AM
I don't have alot of input on the scoring excepot one....
It seems to me that pitchers are getting dinged a hell of alot more then hitters do. only one category for negatives for batters? Either we need to increase the negatives for hitters (such as K, GIDP) or you need to take some away from pitchers. (such as Balk or wild pitch). Because honeslty if that's the case I'd just assume not worry about drafting too many pitchers, and then benching them all the entire year.
As far as the two leagues, no I disagree. Part of the fun of this is having to deal with sifting through mediocre and ................ty players and trying to find a gem, or a sleeper, or something. I like the talent pool being diluted a little.
My suggestion for next year is one big one. I'd like to be able to change my roster on a daily basis. For instance, when I woke up on Sunday morning I saw that, ON SUNDAY MORNING, Mark Redman was put on the DL. Unfortunately, I have to sit with him doing nothing all week. He wasn't there Saturday afternoon when I checked my team, where I could have dropped him to the DL and picked up someone to take his place. It's just one scenerio, and I'll deal with it because I know everyone in the league has had their shares of injuries. But I just enjoy being able to switch stuff around daily.
Yankchic22
05-05-03, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
I'd like to be able to change my roster on a daily basis.
I have to agree with Steve here. What do you know, he does have a good idea every now and then!
Saxmania
05-05-03, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
It seems to me that pitchers are getting dinged a hell of alot more then hitters do. only one category for negatives for batters? Either we need to increase the negatives for hitters (such as K, GIDP) or you need to take some away from pitchers. (such as Balk or wild pitch).
The idea would be that pitchers rack up points through IPs and then lose them as they concede hits/runs, which worked fairly well last year except that mediocre pitchers who ate a lot of innings tended to still generate 20 points or so per week, whereas good hitters were only creating around 25 points per week.
One way to penalise hitters would be to charge for errors committed, although this would again tend to boost the value of outfielders over infielders, and encourage managers to look for qualification loopholes.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Originally posted by Saxmania
One way to penalise hitters would be to charge for errors committed, although this would again tend to boost the value of outfielders over infielders, and encourage managers to look for qualification loopholes.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
I agree that things could get sticky with errors, and would vote against including that category. One thing (and I don't know if Yahoo has it as a scoring category) that would reduce hitters' influence would be a Left on Base penalty. Even if it was just a -0.5 points per runner left on base, it would go a long way to balancing out the hitters/pitchers discrepancy. Also, I wonder if a Runners Stranded category would be possible for relievers. Esp since if inherited runners score when a pitcher comes in mid-inning, the runs show up on the previous guy's stats. It would also bolster the points for set-up men (in addition to the already included holds category) since they often come in mid-inning, versus closers who (typically) come in at the start of an inning.
Just thinking out loud...
Saxmania
05-05-03, 10:28 AM
Good ideas. Does anyone know of another fantasy baseball site that tracks this kind of stuff?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Yanksagain
05-08-03, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
Good ideas. Does anyone know of another fantasy baseball site that tracks this kind of stuff?
No. You can create your own fantasy baseball site through Yahoo or Sportsline. There is a fee and I'm not sure if it tracks "runners stranded".
I like the idea of being able to change your roster DAILY. Weekly rosters are all a mess with injuries, etc.
#1PaFan
05-09-03, 02:37 AM
If we were able to change rosters daily, then I'd strongly be in favor of a "maximum games" per position. For position players that would obviously be 162.
Saxmania
05-09-03, 06:08 AM
Absolutely - one of the main reasons I dislike daily roster changes is that it encourages screwing around with the roster just to squeeze in another game or two, which means that:
a) People with less than daily Internet access are totally screwed, and
b) It becomes next to impossible to track any individual player stats by season, because they're in and out of the lineup all the time.
Admittedly, the last one isn't particularly important for gameplay, but would be a nice added feature. Also, the fooling around with starting pitchers just does my head in. If you could alter hitters but not your rotation . . .
It's surprising that no fantasy baseball site has a feature to just spit out an Excel spreadsheet of daily scores - I remember CBS doing this in e-mail form a couple of years ago.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Originally posted by #1PaFan
If we were able to change rosters daily, then I'd strongly be in favor of a "maximum games" per position. For position players that would obviously be 162.
How would that work? Baseball is 181 days long. Does that mean if I have Derek and Nomar on my team, and switch them in and out when one has a day off and the other doesn't, that I could play the last 2 or 3 weeks w/o a SS? I wouldn't want that. ;)
Originally posted by Saxmania
Absolutely - one of the main reasons I dislike daily roster changes is that it encourages screwing around with the roster just to squeeze in another game or two...
And Sax is right...I have an empty roster spot in one of my leagues that I used to sign Carlos Guillen for yesterday's game since I had no active SS. He helped me in 3 categories: H, R, BB. Not bad for a one-day pick-up. :)
#1PaFan
05-09-03, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
How would that work? Baseball is 181 days long. Does that mean if I have Derek and Nomar on my team, and switch them in and out when one has a day off and the other doesn't, that I could play the last 2 or 3 weeks w/o a SS? I wouldn't want that. ;)
Schedules are 162 games long. It would mean exactly that. A LOT of leagues I've been in have that rule and I believe it to be necessary for daily leagues. A HELL of lot more strategy that way, too.
Hitman23
05-09-03, 01:19 PM
ok, I have a stupid question....
If you're able to change every day, I'm under the impression that one of the advantages is so you have a player fill in for your starter who may be off. Why the hell would you sit anyone for the last two weeks? Why would a minimum games played be necessary? Don't you want a guy in every day? :confused:
Not a minimum.
A maximum.
You have a maximum of 162 SS games played, 162 1B games played, 486 OF games played etc...but the season is 181 days long, so they say it adds strategy. Personally, I'm against such a rule. I'm in 2 leagues that have daily l/u changes, but do not have a maximum games played rule. So it's possible that you use up all 162 games for a position on Sept 14, and then would earn no more points from that spot the rest of the year. Which could be a problem when the fantasy playoffs are the last few weeks of the regular season...
Hitman23
05-09-03, 01:49 PM
OHHH!!! Duh..... :o :lol:
I see how that works now. I have the daily lineup change in another league as well. i might want to check to see if there is a max # of games. That would definately change my strategy. No more putting Spivey in when Soriano is off.
#1PaFan
05-09-03, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
Not a minimum.
A maximum.
So it's possible that you use up all 162 games for a position on Sept 14, and then would earn no more points from that spot the rest of the year. Which could be a problem when the fantasy playoffs are the last few weeks of the regular season...
That's exactly why it adds more strategy. Anybody can just throw bodies out there...You have to actually plan ahead and MANAGE your team.
You can "rest" players on certain days when they are facing a pitcher who in REAL life may own them. (It makes it easier if you are facing a weak Fantasy Opponent--Like my Linguists. :lol: And it makes it a much more difficult decision when facing a tough Fantasy Opponent--Like my Son. :) )
Also, everybody in the league is playing by the same rules. If you are in the playoffs and a position or two on your team doesn't count, but it counts for your opponent, well....I would say your opponent was a better fantasy manager. :) It affects everybody the same.
Maximums DEFINITELY add to the game. Otherwise, you just might as well play a video game....
Just my two cents...
Saxmania
05-09-03, 02:18 PM
The complicating factor is weeks when the whole league isn't playing. If there's a week off (e.g. for All-Star Break) or a playoff week, the 162-game maximum doesn't make sense any more. You'd have to adjust the figure, and that would be EXTREMELY complicated.
E.g.: Team A is 5-13 with five weeks to play. Two weeks are regular season, one week is an off-week, and two weeks are the playoffs. With this in mind, A's owner can easily blow as many games as he likes on his starters, because his team isn't going to be playing every week.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
#1PaFan
05-09-03, 02:30 PM
Yeah, bye weeks would surely throw everything off. Other leagues I was in never had them though.
But, it does take me back to my other point (in another thread). I prefer weekly rosters anyway in THIS league. This is, after all, a world-wide league. Time zones & ................ like dat. :) Weekly rosters ARE more feasible here.
However, I'd think about joining a league with daily rosters AND maximums next year. :gulp:
patrick.o
05-18-03, 08:28 PM
One thing I'm leaning towards is a reduction of the win points. 10 is just too much for what is more of a team stat than an individual stat.
Case in point. The other day Kurt Reuter pitched 6 innings of 1 run ball (5 hits, 3 Ks). His team's offense did their best impression of the Yanks and left him out to dry, and he got a no decision. Compare that to Mike DeJean, who came into a game down 1 run and pitched one scoreless inning (1 hit, 2 Ks). His team's offense came alive in the bottom of the inning and he got the win.
So, with the 10 point bonus 6 innings of 1 run ball equaled 10 points, while 1 inning of scorless ball equaled 12.5 points. Under the proposed scoring it would be 14-14. Congrats to Mike DeJean for doing his job (for once) but there's no way what he did could be considered a better or even equal performance of what Rueter did.
The outcome of the game has no effect on a batter's points. It doesn't matter if the batter is responsible for all of his team's runs in a win or strands runners in scoring position every at bat in a loss, he is judged solely for his individual performance. I think our pitching stats should more closely reflect the same thing. A pitcher should have points awarded or penalized based on what he actually does - IPs, ERs, Hs, Ks, that sort of thing. To award so many points on a stat that so intimately requires the aid of at least 8 other players seems inherently unfair.
So to make a long story short I think a win should only be 5 points.
The only problem with that is that it would further the disparity between pitching and hitting. Someone did a survey showing that the average points split per team was around 35% pitching, 65% hitting. (I can update that information tomorrow...)
I would be in favor of:
Increase IP to 3 points
Increasing K to 1 point.
Those two measures alone would almost completely balance out hitting and pitching to a 50/50 ratio. (Again, I can do a full analysis tomorrow.)
Interestingly, eliminating the loss penalty (which I think most people are in favor of) would not change the split all that much. But I still think that we should do that, given the unfairness in the method in which baseball awards a loss.
Saxmania
05-19-03, 06:12 AM
Yeah, I think last year's scoring system was surprisingly good, considering where we pulled it from. I do think Ks and IPs were a little overvalued, in that it became possible for mediocre pitchers to rack up points rather easily. But certainly losses seem very unpopular, although I do think blown saves merit a deduction, because that's pretty much always the fault of the pitcher, never the offense.
With regard to the hitter/pitcher disparity, I really do think it looks worse than it is. Because of the way that poor pitchers actively lose you points, pitching is really not guaranteed to get you ANY points at all if you run scrubs out there. Whereas even the Detroit offense will get you 50 points or so per week, because they will get a few runs, hits, and walks, and have no way of losing those points through ineptness.
In other words, of the 65% of points that are going to hitters, I would estimated that as much as 20% are "guaranteed", in that no matter who you place there, as long as you have a warm body there, you'll get a few points. Pitching, meanwhile, has no "guaranteed" points - you might even lose some. So in game terms, although the points are coming mostly from hitters, I would still argue that games are being decided at least as much by pitchers. Does this line of argument makes sense to people, because I think it does to me?
Doing the weekly round-up and looking at team scoresheets, I would honestly contend that you can win with good pitching and bad hitting in this league, but not vice-versa. And I am optimistic enough to believe that while the scoring system isn't perfect, it is at least rewarding balanced teams.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Some more statistics:
How teams are "balanced", ranked by total points
Team, % Hitting % Pitching
The Larrupin' Lous: 59.79% 40.21%
The Naked Truth: 68.34% 31.66%
The 4 Horsemen: 67.57% 32.43%
Evil Empire: 63.92% 36.08%
Ny Bombers: 65.30% 34.70%
New York Squeaks: 65.62% 34.38%
Junior's Bashers: 66.64% 33.36%
Mattingly's Hitmen: 65.82% 34.18%
Saxmania's Swingers: 67.16% 32.84%
9 Angry Playaz: 65.57% 34.43%
Fishing With Mendoza: 64.83% 35.17%
Dawgz From Easton: 62.41% 37.59%
Cunning Linguists: 65.34% 34.66%
Senators: 63.03% 36.97%
Lordz of Flatbush: 65.67% 34.33%
Italian Ice: 62.54% 37.46%
Michigan Wolverines: 70.56% 29.44%
Newburgh Naughties: 69.01% 30.99%
Highest % of points from pitching: The Larrupin' Lous (40.21%)
Lowest % of points from pitching: Michigan Wolverines (29.44%)
Average % of points from hitting: 65.46%
Average % of points from pitching: 34.54%
***********************************
Now...making IP worth 3 points and K's worth a full point (instead of a half) and eliminating the 5 point loss penalty, but keeping everything else the same:
Average % of points from hitting: 49.56%
Average % of points from pitching: 50.44%
Just something to think about....
Bozidar
05-19-03, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Big_E
Now...making IP worth 3 points and K's worth a full point (instead of a half) and eliminating the 5 point loss penalty, but keeping everything else the same:for my two cents, i'd like to say that these are perhaps the only changes i'd really like to see :)
Saxmania
05-19-03, 01:13 PM
My problem with that: is a K really twice as good for a pitcher as a hit or a walk is bad? In other words, are Ks really that valuable? I can see the IP thing (if nothing else, it gets rid of those annoying .33 point fractions), but I think Ks should be as good as hits or walks are bad. I think one point for each worked well last year, with -2 for ERs, and I'd quite like to go back to that.
Big_E, is it possible for you to re-calculate the splits using the points scheme I proposed in the first post?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Originally posted by Saxmania
Big_E, is it possible for you to re-calculate the splits using the points scheme I proposed in the first post?
No problem, will have that tomorrow (or tonight if my wife falls asleep early. ;))
Originally posted by Saxmania
Big_E, is it possible for you to re-calculate the splits using the points scheme I proposed in the first post?
PITCHING STATISTICS (Through games of Sunday, May 18)
TEAM Current Score "Saxmania" Score
The Larrupin' Lous 800.34 1030.00
Evil Empire 666.84 852.00
Dawgz From Easton 634.66 787.00
Ny Bombers 633.50 819.00
New York Squeaks 622.00 777.00
The Naked Truth 614.50 808.00
9 Angry Playaz 608.16 745.00
Mattingly's Hitmen 606.00 803.00
Senators 605.34 809.00
The 4 Horsemen 601.66 835.00
Italian Ice 600.00 734.00
Fishing With Mendoza 599.34 741.00
Junior's Bashers 593.34 702.00
Saxmania's Swingers 580.34 727.00
Cunning Linguists 575.84 750.00
Lordz of Flatbush 559.00 713.00
Newburgh Naughties 472.50 586.00
Michigan Wolverines 463.66 663.00
HITTING STATISTICS (Through games of Sunday, May 18)
Sax...I noticed you got rid of the categories for SH and GIDP. If you didn't mean to, let me know and I'll rerun the numbers again.
(Though those numbers are so small, as to be insignificant.)
TEAM Current Score "Saxmania" Score
The Naked Truth 1326.50 1354.00
The 4 Horsemen 1253.50 1286.00
Ny Bombers 1192.00 1222.00
The Larrupin' Lous 1190.00 1211.00
New York Squeaks 1187.00 1220.00
Saxmania's Swingers 1187.00 1217.00
Junior's Bashers 1185.50 1220.00
Evil Empire 1181.50 1213.00
Mattingly's Hitmen 1167.00 1189.00
9 Angry Playaz 1158.00 1180.00
Michigan Wolverines 1111.50 1137.00
Fishing With Mendoza 1105.00 1134.00
Cunning Linguists 1085.50 1118.00
Lordz of Flatbush 1069.50 1095.00
Dawgz From Easton 1053.50 1081.00
Newburgh Naughties 1052.00 1084.00
Senators 1032.00 1057.00
Italian Ice 1001.50 1026.00
As you can see, the hitting totals did not change all that much.
Using your new numbers:
Highest % from hitting: 64.91%
Lowest % from hitting: 54.04%
League % from hitting: 60.25%
League % from pitching: 39.75%
(Compared to the current 65/35 split)
Saxmania
05-20-03, 06:07 AM
Interesting, Big_E - thanks for posting. I did mean to include GIDP, but not SH, as SH seems to have very little impact anyway. It looks like pitching still need some help, then.
I do wish that there was some way to reward relievers for stranding inherited runners on base - that might make middle relief a LOT more valuable.
Here's a thought:
IP: 6 (!)
ER: -3
Hit: -1
Walk: -1
HBP: -1
Balk: -1
Strikeout: 1
Win: 10
Save: 10
Blown save: -5
Hold: 2 (I would like to boost this, perhaps even to 5, but I hear complaints . . .)
Would you mind running those numbers too, Big_E? Sorry to be such a pain, but you are performing an invaluable service here.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Originally posted by Saxmania
Here's a thought:
IP: 6 (!)
ER: -3
Hit: -1
Walk: -1
HBP: -1
Balk: -1
Strikeout: 1
Win: 10
Save: 10
Blown save: -5
Hold: 2 (I would like to boost this, perhaps even to 5, but I hear complaints . . .)
Would you mind running those numbers too, Big_E? Sorry to be such a pain, but you are performing an invaluable service here.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
No problem, man. One question though. You didn't mention Complete Games or Wild Pitches. Are we keeping CG at 10 and WP at -0.5 in this example? Or make WP -1, like Balks and HBP?
Saxmania
05-20-03, 12:59 PM
Let's try Complete Game = +10, Wild Pitch = -1. I'm trying to steer away from half-points, as they just seem awkward. Sorry, I'm just forgetful.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
OK...with those changes it becomes:
Team New Points Total
The Larrupin' Lous 1803.00
Fishing With Mendoza 1727.00
Ny Bombers 1688.00
Evil Empire 1640.00
The Naked Truth 1601.00
Saxmania's Swingers 1533.00
9 Angry Playaz 1533.00
Dawgz From Easton 1517.00
Italian Ice 1504.00
New York Squeaks 1486.00
Lordz of Flatbush 1478.00
Cunning Linguists 1460.00
Junior's Bashers 1451.00
The 4 Horsemen 1442.00
Mattingly's Hitmen 1398.00
Senators 1354.00
Newburgh Naughties 1345.00
Michigan Wolverines 1332.00
Which pushes the points scale over the edge into the pitchers category.
Highest % Hitting: 46.47%
Lowest % Hitting: 38.95%
Highest % Pitching: 61.05%
Lowest % Pitching: 53.53%
League average:
% of points from Pitching: 57.12%
% of points from Hitting: 42.88%
Hitman23
05-21-03, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
Hold: 2 (I would like to boost this, perhaps even to 5, but I hear complaints . . .)
You'll hear none from me.
Originally posted by Saxmania
Hold: 2 (I would like to boost this, perhaps even to 5, but I hear complaints . . .)
Originally posted by Hitman23
You'll hear none from me.
Says the man who ranks 3rd in holds this season.... ;)
Hold Rankings:
Larrupin' Lous: 14
9 Angry Playaz: 14
Evil Empire: 13
Hitman23
05-21-03, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Big_E
Says the man who ranks 3rd in holds this season.... ;)
Hold Rankings:
Larrupin' Lous: 14
9 Angry Playaz: 14
Evil Empire: 13
I don't have the luxery of an awesome closer! Not many do. Can you blame me? :D
Hitman23
05-21-03, 08:41 AM
ok, so maybe I'm 8th in saves. :lol: I didn't realise. :D
YanksRockMan
05-21-03, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
ok, so maybe I'm 8th in saves. :lol: I didn't realise. :D
man, your spelling is delirious today :lol: :lol:
terry14420
05-21-03, 09:02 AM
Moast uv the gize on hear cant fukkin spel
YanksRockMan
05-21-03, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by terry14420
Moast uv the gize on hear cant fukkin spel
:lol: :lol:
eye doonot now mester tarry ;)
Originally posted by Hitman23
ok, so maybe I'm 8th in saves. :lol: I didn't realise. :D
LOL.
And actually, since the league average is 14.67 saves (as of this morning) your 15 saves is right there. And your save pctg (93.75%) is well above the league avg of 76.77%
(Both averages being brought down league-wide by Fishing With Mendoza [0 saves, 2 chances] and Newburgh Naughties [0 saves, 4 chances].)
Hitman23
05-21-03, 09:17 AM
well, I have Smoltz in my other league, so I guess I'm a little spoiled there. I forgot how solid Guardado was, along with the rest of my pen so I haven't paid much attention to it. I should check my facts before I reply. :lol:
and for all youz spellin freeks, yooll haf to exoose me, I sufferin with a cold rite now. not thinkin strate since saterday.
YanksRockMan
05-21-03, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
well, I have Smoltz in my other league, so I guess I'm a little spoiled there. I forgot how solid Guardado was, along with the rest of my pen so I haven't paid much attention to it. I should check my facts before I reply. :lol:
damn, i shoulda traded jason johnson for your guardado when i had the chance ;)
Hitman23
05-21-03, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by YanksRockMan
damn, i shoulda traded jason johnson for your guardado when i had the chance ;)
I don't remember me considering that. You must be trippin on some good ................ boy. :bad-ass:
YanksRockMan
05-21-03, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
Pete...I'll give you Guardado for JUST johnson :)
see?
Bozidar
05-21-03, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by YanksRockMan
see? i've done handwriting analysis, and that's definately not Steve.
Hitman23
05-21-03, 09:33 AM
I can do that too, ya know.
Originally posted by YanksRockMan
I wear women's underwear.
YanksRockMan
05-21-03, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
I do not like women boobs but men with a nice juicy ass and boobs.
goddam steve :eek:
Hitman23
05-21-03, 04:15 PM
Brian, can you check the handwriting on that one?
Bozidar
05-21-03, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
Brian, can you check the handwriting on that one? Geez, that looks a lot like pete tried to forge it..
patrick.o
05-25-03, 04:13 PM
I'd like to change our schedule so that we play Monday to Sunday instead of Sunday to Saturday. That way we have Saturday and Sunday to spend checking the next week's schedule and plotting our lineup changes and stuff of that nature. Of course, the only reason I feel this way might be because this is the second time this season I wanted to make lineup changes but never found the time to do the necessary homework during the week. And here I am on Sunday with all the time in the world, but it's too late. This is a big matchup this week - it would have been nice to get Burnitz in and maybe get Sheets out.
Besides, Monday to Sunday is how the real schedule usually works, meaning that a team almost always plays a different team Monday than they did Sunday.
#1PaFan
05-25-03, 04:35 PM
Agreed, Patrick.
Saxmania
05-25-03, 05:06 PM
It's a good idea, but contains problems. Most obviously, the person writing the newsletter needs three to four hours (at least, the way I do it) to update the scoresheets, write the reports, and format the post. That time's much easier to come by on a Sunday morning/afternoon than a Monday, for obvious reasons. Of course, it's not necessarily a good idea to schedule the league around the newsletter, but it is a point worth bearing in mind. Most of us seem to be able to view the forum together on a Sunday afternoon, and chat about the game. Would that be possible on a Monday? I'm not sure.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Yankchic22
05-26-03, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
LOL.
And actually, since the league average is 14.67 saves (as of this morning) your 15 saves is right there. And your save pctg (93.75%) is well above the league avg of 76.77%
(Both averages being brought down league-wide by Fishing With Mendoza [0 saves, 2 chances] and Newburgh Naughties [0 saves, 4 chances].)
There are no closers left.
For the sake of the league average, anyone want to give me one?
SanFrANSKY
05-26-03, 11:21 PM
"Give?" No.
But make me an offer on either of mine. Maybe we can talk. :smokin:
Soriambi
06-21-03, 11:19 PM
How about for next year some kind of Home Field Advantage? THe Home team gets three points added to their weekly total or something? It wouldn't make that big of a difference, but it might swing one or two games a year to the home team. Also, maybe 5 points to the home team in the playoffs? Give the team with the best record a bit of a bonus. I just thought that might be neat. :)
Saxmania
06-22-03, 05:46 AM
We already have a slight home-field advantage, in that any ties go to the home team. Isn't much, but it did decide the outcome of a game last year. Anyone else think that it needs to be changed?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Ansky39
06-26-03, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
Agreed, Patrick.
ditto...
Ansky39
06-26-03, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Yankchic22
There are no closers left.
For the sake of the league average, anyone want to give me one?
i got 3... holla... ;)
but i'd like address "gentleman's agreements" some of you guys agreed to... i don't think it's actually working as perhpas intended.. in a league w/ 18 teams w/ 3 slots that, per your agreement should only be occupied by relievers, that would require a pool of at least 54 closers to create an even playing foeld... it creates a distorted playing field for teams w/ 3 closers vs teams w/ less than 3... and while it's extremeely risky to use a starter in one or two of those slots w/ the pitching penalty, it still may be more desireble than sticking a middle reliver in there who has almost no chance of putting up the same kind of numbers as a closer...
i don't know that increasing the points for a hold is the solution because that may distort the value of a mid reliever...
last seas we had no suuch gentleman's agreement although it was understood that the spirit of the league was to use closers in reliever slots and it was certainly more workable w/ less teams, for all teams to have closers in their reliever slots... but the fact is some teams blatantly ignored that understanding, and used like 8 starers w/ no pitching penalty and guess what, boz still lost... ;)
in short, i dunno what's the purpose of this agreement this seas especially in light of the fact that using sp's in reliever slots is certainly a huge risk w/ the potential for negative points and i don't think it's very equitable to expect a guy starting 1 closer and two mids to have a fair chance to compete w/ a guy lucky enough to have 3 closers in his reliever slots... i don't exactly have an answer, other than to just let teams use any combo of sp, mid relief or closer they desire...
http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies3/1050851815.gif
but perhaps this should be discussed in conjunction w/ overall discussion of pitcher scoring...
#1PaFan
06-26-03, 12:51 PM
The problem, as I mentioned before, is that the league is just too damn big. I like the roster sizes but the number of teams is too high. That's why I'd like to see TWO leagues next year with an extra week for a "World Series" between the champions. If each team has an identical player or two, so what...
Two twelve team leagues would be ideal. I wouldn't be for interleague play either. :) :gulp:
Ansky39
06-26-03, 12:53 PM
Thought i'd move this discussion over here before sax sends me another subtle hint...
Originally posted by Saxmania
we will be revisiting points scoring for pitching in the 2004 league, and you're welcome to join the conversation we've been having in the Ideas and Feedback for 2004 thread - which is why it's there.
:smokin:
Originally posted by Saxmania
Ansky, he really isn't. I know this points structure annoys you, but Millwood is worth a lot more than Rollins because of position scarcity and the possibility that starters can lose points rather than gain them It's two different points scales, and the end results is NOT that Millwood is worth less.
If you think he is, then I'll happily trade you Joe McEwing for Jarrod Washburn. Deal? No, because Washburn is worth a lot more (even with his poor 2003 performance).
Think of it this way - a hitter gets you between 10 and 35 points per week, assuming he's not a complete Tiger. A pitcher gets you between -10 and 30 points per week. Therefore, even though a hitter will on average score more points per week, pitchers are still mightily valuable because you can't have 17 hitters on your team, and those 20 or so points per week an ace pitcher give you are MUCH harder to come by than the 25 points a good hitter will give you. The difference between two teams will still often come down to the pitchers.
I'll say it again - Millwood isn't worth less than Rollins, or Polanco, or Todd Zeile. He just doesn't score points in the same way. Sorry if I get abrupt, but this seems like the fifth time I've explained this concept since the league began. Supply and demand are viable fantasy baseball tools as much as pure points generation.
(On the same line, you could argue that outfielders were overvalued compared to catchers in last year's fantasy league, because they scored more points on average. But because the best-hitting catchers are so rare, that IN ITSELF raises their value to be higher than an OF who hits the same value. Who's a more valuable player - Paul LoDuca or Ellis Burks? It's LoDuca, because of position scarcity. Same thing here.)
That being said, we will be revisiting points scoring for pitching in the 2004 league, and you're welcome to join the conversation we've been having in the Ideas and Feedback for 2004 thread - which is why it's there. Big_E and some others have come up with some very good analytical tools to evaluate points-scoring regimes, and we've got some good ideas already. That's the place for this discussion.
Disclaimer - this reply may be copied and pasted into future threads, because I can see this happening again . . .
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Originally posted by Ansky39
sax we clearly have a philosophical difference here... i appreciate and understand your take, i just cannot endorse it...
in baseball at every level pitching is more valuable than hitting w/o reference to the number of available pitchers vs hitters.. the yanks have proven the value of pitching when we won and when we lost, the dbacks have proven heck look at the dodgers, they're proving it and the rangers and arod are living proof...
however in our league a stud ace like millwood has accumulated less points thus contributed less to his team than a mediocre scrub like rollins..
in the majors there is a scarcity of quality arms also, but that is not the reason pitchers are more valuable like you suggest in this league.. they are more valuable because unlike position players they contrubute more to a team's production ie wins, by having the greatest impact on limiting the opposing team's offense... a position player is but 1/9th of the offense, whereas a pitcher is prolly something like 60-70% of the team's dee... a avg innings eating pitcher like appier in reality is more valuable than an above avg bat...
secondly the philosophy of baseball and fanatsy baseball by extension is the team w/ the most points wins... most stats quantify measures of production.. in our league we also detremine value based on measures of production... for batters anyway.. in this league, pitchers are the sole player that loses points based on extrinsic factors like whether they're teammates scored more than the opponenet... batters do not lose points for going 0-4 in a win or loss... but a pitcher that records 7 innings work limits his opponenet to 3 runs w/ 0 k's and a few walks can still end up losing points for his team... there is no correlative penalty for batters... it's like two diffferent scroing schemes one for pitchers where they are penalized and one for batters where they only accrue positive points for positive production... it's out of whack sax, honestly, that's my honest opinion..
now mind you i ain't bitching for this seas, what's done is done, everone's at the same disadvantage, but this ain't baseball where a rollins is contributing more to his teams produiction than a millwood... it don't matter that there are less millwoods available then rollins the point is rollins in his best year could not be as valauble as millwood to a real baseball team and although we call this thing "fantasy" baseball the goal should still be to try and replicate the real game as much as possible...
i'm presently in several leagues on several different softwares w/ different scoring scheme's one simulated the others fanatsy and this is the only league where pitchers are singled out for this kind of penalty...
alright i'm off my soap box... sorry for whining this early in the morning but right oir worng i had to speak my mind... no offense or disrepect to our prestigious loyal dedicated tirelessly hard working honorable commisioner intended sir..
peace and hair grease my brothers... http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies3/1050696721.gif
Yankchic22
06-26-03, 12:54 PM
All I know is that I score among the lowest in pitching, while having two of the top scoring pitchers in the league. I would love to be able to stick another starter there, as I never agreed to anything.
I fixed it because that's what everyone else was doing. But I'll be damned for the fifth week in a row, that there are teams with SP in RP slot. And those have been teams with closers!!!
i got 3... holla...
Showoff...:p
#1PaFan
06-26-03, 12:57 PM
Just for the record, I completely agree with A39. Pitching SHOULD count more 'cause it does in real life.
I understand Sax' point. I just don't agree with it.
#1PaFan
06-26-03, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Yankchic22
But I'll be damned for the fifth week in a row, that there are teams with SP in RP slot. And those have been teams with closers!!!
Those people have no Honor. No Code. They CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
:D :gulp:
Ansky39
06-26-03, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Yankchic22
All I know is that I score among the lowest in pitching, while having two of the top scoring pitchers in the league. I would love to be able to stick another starter there, as I never agreed to anything.
I fixed it because that's what everyone else was doing. But I'll be damned for the fifth week in a row, that there are teams with SP in RP slot. And those have been teams with closers!!!
Showoff...:p
i'll share... http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies3/1052922302.gif psyche... http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies3/1050848580.gif
seriously i've got a good mid reliver in santana so i can move a closer for the right offer... :smokin:
Ansky39
06-26-03, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
Just for the record, I completely agree with A39.
that makes 3 of us... http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/contrib/xerx/smileystooges.gif
SanFrANSKY
06-27-03, 03:45 AM
And for the record, I agree with Sax. The scarcity of good fantasy baseball pitching adds a special premium to the value of all pitchers. This premium is not easily quantifiable, which is why I think people may largely ignore it and instead argue the point that a half-decent utility guy can outscore a #2 starter.
If the pitching does get tweaked, let it be the middle-relievers. Only the top setup guys are worth having, IMO.
ETA: the old boys' gentlemen's agreement is based solely on the theory that using an SP in the reliever's spot gives an unfair advantage.
I used a starter in an RP spot for several games this season. This means of course that I was starting 6 pitchers instead of 5. I soon realized that a #6 starter on my team (which was built on hitting) was actually worse than a top setup guy.
Just thought I'd share that bit of hard-won knowledge with the fellas sitting around the wood-paneled room, smoking cigars, and farting.
:)
Saxmania
06-27-03, 06:28 AM
Thanks for moving the conversation, Ansky. I do think this is the right place for it.
Everyone, please read page 1 of this thread to get an idea of proposed points schemes for next year and the resultant balance in points scored that it would create for this year's teams. For the record, I really like the 2 leagues of 12 teams (3 divisions of 4?) that PAFan proposed, although inter-league play might be a necessity. My proposed points scheme for next year is similar to the 2002 scheme:
Hitters:
Single: 1 point
Double: 2 points
Triple: 3 points
Home run: 4 points
Walk: 1 point
Hit by pitch: 1 point
RBI: 1 point
Run scored: 1 point
Stolen base: 1 point
Caught stealing: -1 point
GIDP: -1 point
OPTIONAL hitting:
Error: -5 points
Double play turned: 1 point
Caught stealing by catcher: 1 point (i.e. thrown out by catcher)
CONTROVERSIAL hitting:
Left on base: -??? point
Pitchers:
Inning pitched: 3 points
Earned run allowed: -3 points
Hit allowed: -1 point
Walk allowed: -1 point
Balk: -1 point
Wild pitch: -1 point
Win: 10 points
Complete Game: 10 points
Save: 5 points
Blown Save: -5 points
Hold: 2 points
OPTIONAL pitching:
Inherited runners not allowed to score: 1 point each
Runner picked off: 1 point
I don't know how feasible the OPTIONAL points system would be to account for, but I do think it would help with balance, and should really reward relievers more. Also, I think we've got to clamp down on starters in the bullpen - San FrANSKY's got a good point, but I think the controversy is in a way more damaging than the event itself, if you see what I mean.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
The only things I would change in that point scheme are:
1) ER -3. I would keep it at -1.
Let's say a pitcher has the following start: 6 IP, 3 ER, 7 H, 5 K, 2 BB. By definition, a "quality start". The positive points are +23. (18 for IP, 5 for K). The negative points are -18. (-9 ER, -7 H, -2 BB). If he gets a ND, this "quality start" is worth only 5 points. Remember, we're trying to make Kevin Millwood worth MORE points than Jimmy Rollins. ;)
2) Error at -5.
I like an error penalty, but if WP is a -1, and a Balk is -1, why should an error be worth -5??? Plus, if you're going to penalize errors, then add a -1 for Passed Balls, too.
Saxmania
06-27-03, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Big_E
The only things I would change in that point scheme are:
1) ER -3. I would keep it at -1.
Let's say a pitcher has the following start: 6 IP, 3 ER, 7 H, 5 K, 2 BB. By definition, a "quality start". The positive points are +23. (18 for IP, 5 for K). The negative points are -18. (-9 ER, -7 H, -2 BB). If he gets a ND, this "quality start" is worth only 5 points. Remember, we're trying to make Kevin Millwood worth MORE points than Jimmy Rollins. ;)
Hmmm. I really don't think an earned run should be less than -2 in terms of penalty. It's definitely worse than giving up a hit or a walk. Let's say a reliever comes in and gives up a home run in one inning of work. That - to me - is a bad inning. His ERA for that inning is 9.00. But with ER=1, he'll actually gain one point. Perhaps -2?
I wanted -3 because I wanted to avoid heavily penalising pitchers with high WHIP who nevertheless get the job done - the Andy Pettittes and Kirk Reuters of this world, for instance, who typically allow a high number of baserunners whether or not they're pitching well. Making the majority of the penalty for actually giving up runs rather than allowing men on base might help that - but I'll settle for -2. -1, I think, isn't very game-logical (a HR would cost a pitcher -2 points - one for the hit, one for the run - but earn a hitter 6 points).
2) Error at -5.
I like an error penalty, but if WP is a -1, and a Balk is -1, why should an error be worth -5??? Plus, if you're going to penalize errors, then add a -1 for Passed Balls, too.
Yeah, you're right. I guess I wanted to balance hitting a little too dramatically with it. Error and passed ball both -1 would make better sense.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Ansky39
06-27-03, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Big_E
The only things I would change in that point scheme are:
1) ER -3. I would keep it at -1.
Let's say a pitcher has the following start: 6 IP, 3 ER, 7 H, 5 K, 2 BB. By definition, a "quality start". The positive points are +23. (18 for IP, 5 for K). The negative points are -18. (-9 ER, -7 H, -2 BB). If he gets a ND, this "quality start" is worth only 5 points. Remember, we're trying to make Kevin Millwood worth MORE points than Jimmy Rollins. ;)
2) Error at -5.
I like an error penalty, but if WP is a -1, and a Balk is -1, why should an error be worth -5??? Plus, if you're going to penalize errors, then add a -1 for Passed Balls, too.
ditto...
i will also add that i think the -5 for a blown save is a lil harsh...
save = 5 = win
blown save = -5 but does not necessarily = a loss...
seems the blown save is given = value as a save yet one guarntees a win the other merely blows the lead, rather than guaranteeing a loss..
just my .02 cents...
Saxmania
06-27-03, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Ansky39
ditto...
i will also add that i think the -5 for a blown save is a lil harsh...
save = 5 = win
blown save = -5 but does not necessarily = a loss...
seems the blown save is given = value as a save yet one guarntees a win the other merely blows the lead, rather than guaranteeing a loss..
just my .02 cents...
That's a good point, but I'm looking at it this way: A starter taking the mound hopes for a win, dependent on run support, the opposing starter, and his own performance. A great pitcher will win 2/3s of his starts. But when a closer takes the mound, he's expected to make the save - he should save at least 4/5 of his opportunities. In other words, a win isn't expected, a save is. The balance of probability is with the closer, not the starter, so the closer should get the blame for blowing the save - because he can't blame it on lack of run support or a great opposing starter. It's (almost) always his fault, and his alone.
Having said that, if a closer blows a save and then his team immediately rally to win, he'll get the 10 points for the win anyway. I'd rather that wasn't an unmodified 10. For example:
Armando Benitez enters the top of the nineth with a two-run lead, and blows the save, giving up three walks and a hit. The Mets then rally (!) in the next half-inning to score three and win. With a blown save penalty, Benitez gets 0 points (3 for IP, -4 for hits and walks, -4 for runs allowed, -5 for blown save, +10 for the win). Without it, he gets +5 points despite nearly throwing the game away and being lucky that his hitters bailed him out. His job was to save the game, and he failed - his outing was bad bordering on disastrous. How do you feel about that logic?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
I like the -5 for a BS. It's harsh, but you most likely cost your team a win. It's better than the -5 loss penalty, which is not always the starting pitcher's fault. A blown save is almost ALWAYS the reliever's fault.
Ansky39
06-27-03, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
That's a good point, but I'm looking at it this way: A starter taking the mound hopes for a win, dependent on run support, the opposing starter, and his own performance. A great pitcher will win 2/3s of his starts. But when a closer takes the mound, he's expected to make the save - he should save at least 4/5 of his opportunities. In other words, a win isn't expected, a save is. The balance of probability is with the closer, not the starter, so the closer should get the blame for blowing the save - because he can't blame it on lack of run support or a great opposing starter. It's (almost) always his fault, and his alone.
Having said that, if a closer blows a save and then his team immediately rally to win, he'll get the 10 points for the win anyway. I'd rather that wasn't an unmodified 10. For example:
Armando Benitez enters the top of the nineth with a two-run lead, and blows the save, giving up three walks and a hit. The Mets then rally (!) in the next half-inning to score three and win. With a blown save penalty, Benitez gets 0 points (3 for IP, -4 for hits and walks, -4 for runs allowed, -5 for blown save, +10 for the win). Without it, he gets +5 points despite nearly throwing the game away and being lucky that his hitters bailed him out. His job was to save the game, and he failed - his outing was bad bordering on disastrous. How do you feel about that logic?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
good points., makes sense, well said, and i'll defer to you here sir... http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies3/1044196301.gif
SanFrANSKY
06-27-03, 04:59 PM
Sax,
I notice that in your new pitching points proposal, the penalty for a Loss has been eliminated and IP has been returned to 3 pts. Won't that put us back where we were last year?
Also, no Strikeouts?
Saxmania
06-27-03, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by SanFrANSKY
Sax,
I notice that in your new pitching points proposal, the penalty for a Loss has been eliminated and IP has been returned to 3 pts. Won't that put us back where we were last year?
Also, no Strikeouts?
Sorry - strikeouts should get a +1 points bonus. I knew I'd forget something.
I think the consensus of opinion is that last year was much better than this year in terms of points scheme. I'm not entirely convinced of that in some aspects, but agree that IP should go back to 3 (if only to make points easier to track!). I do like penalising a blown save, and rewarding holds with 2 points, not to mention adding penalties for balks and wild pitches.
Big_E's been doing some simulations with this year's statistics, and the scheme above should result in pitching and hitting generating about the same proportion of points, which seems to be popular. We haven't worked in the error penalty and some of the other optional ideas, but that's the general span of things. Does anyone know if inherited runners not allowed to score is a points category on any fantasy site?
The penalty for a loss, in particular, is very unpopular. You may have noticed this. ;)
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
SanFrANSKY
06-29-03, 02:48 AM
Sax, thanks for your clarification and for your continuing efforts.
With regards to pitching points versus hitting points, I'd be interested in seeing the numbers that Big_E has generated. Is that possible?
I've noticed that Yahoo can track Intentional Walks among it's statistics. Since IBB's are usually called by the manager, what would people think about assigning a POSITIVE number to IBB? Either the same value as a Walk, so that it cancels out the negative walk points (just as we don't penalize for unearned runs) or half as much so that it's not so much of a penalty?
Just thinking out loud...
Saxmania
07-07-03, 09:57 AM
It really depends whether Yahoo counts an IBB as a walk as well as an IBB, if you see what I mean. If so, I would see no problem with creating a +1 to counter the -1 a walk generates (don't like fooling around with fractions if we can avoid it). But there's a school of thought that says that a pitcher should be penalised for not being able to get a hitter out, and an IBB is effectively an admission of that fact (in other words, putting another man on base deliberately is due to the pitcher's shortcomings to some extent). It's a difficult one, but luckily not a very decisive issue.
Other thouhts?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Bozidar
07-07-03, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Big_E
I've noticed that Yahoo can track Intentional Walks among it's statistics. Since IBB's are usually called by the manager, what would people think about assigning a POSITIVE number to IBB? Either the same value as a Walk, so that it cancels out the negative walk points (just as we don't penalize for unearned runs) or half as much so that it's not so much of a penalty?
Just thinking out loud... good thought.. but you're about 2 years too late for it ;) I don't know why we didn't do it this year, but we DID do that the first year..
Hitman23
07-08-03, 08:07 AM
Is trading guys for draft picks in next year's draft an option?
Saxmania
07-08-03, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
Is trading guys for draft picks in next year's draft an option?
No. There's no guarantee that either of you will be around next year, and you can't trade draft picks in baseball. However, you can trade big names for prime keeper material, which is nearly as good (e.g. Pedro Martinez for Rich Harden if he was called up).
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
patrick.o
07-08-03, 11:00 AM
One rule change I'd like to see is that undrafted players can't be "kept". Or maybe they can be kept, but as a much higher round player, like a 5th rounder. That way a relatively unknown guy who comes into his own can't be locked up for the next 10 years. I call this the Dontrelle Willis rule :)
Also, any player acquired via the draft who is on the DL at the time and doesn't see any game time before the All Star break can't be kept. That way an injured star doesn't get drafted in a late round and kept for next year. It'd would be one thing if the guy took up a bench spot, but it's relatively painless to put him in a DL slot for the year and then own him for the next 5 years. I call this the Trevor Hoffman rule :)
Maybe a better solution would just be to make it so that players can't be kept more than once consecutively by an owner? So you can keep whoever you want but then can't keep the same player the next year?
Saxmania
07-08-03, 11:04 AM
Good ideas. I might extend the maximum keeper rule to two years consecutively, which would encourage owners to value youth, but certainly some kind of cap would be worthwhile. The Hoffman rule is a good one, too. I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this one, because it's been bugging me quietly for a while.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Bozidar
07-08-03, 11:33 AM
i don't like either of those rules.
1) Give credit to those guys who find those young kids who're breaking out, and recognize it first. Why should they be punished for noticing someone having a good year first? That's what being a GM is all 'bout..
2) The Hoffman rule? If i use a draft spot, or even a roster spot all year, to plan for next year, you don't want to let me keep him?
Why don't we let the GM keep the guy, and call it the Lieber rule?
I agree with Boz. I am keeping Hoffman on my roster all year, in the DL spot because I can. But I risk having 4 other guys get hurt at once, and losing a roster spot b/c we can only have 4 players on the DL at once.
ESPN Keeper leagues allow you to keep players for 3 years maximum. I would be in favor of that. 2 years is not long enough. Also, it's not just that someone recognizes a player having a breakout year first. A lot of it can be because of Waiver Priority. I got Jose Reyes when he was added to the game, because I was #3 on the waiver list. There could have been 12 other people here who put in a claim on him. Is it fair that I could keep someone who is potentially the next Jeter for 10 or more years? In all honesty, no.
Plus, the original owner of Hoffman, I won't name names, DROPPED HIM. I picked him up as a waiver. But again, if I wanted to take a risk on him, I should be allowed to do so. Besides, originally, Hoffman was expected back in August, and not to be out all year. While Phil Nevin was expected to be out all year, then they said he might be back sometime. Managers who want to take that risk, should be allowed to do so. I would do it this way:
First year you have a player: YEAR ZERO (2003, for example)
Keep him in 2004: 1 YEAR
Keep him again in 2005: 2 YEARS
Keep him again in 2006: 3 YEARS
2007: Re-enters draft.
You get to "Keep" him for 3 years. Of course, any limitations on keeper rules would require a LOT of accounting, since if you trade someone you kept, would he re-set to YEAR ZERO, or would his keeper status transfer too? And who would keep track of people who were kept in 2004, 2005, 2006, etc?
Also, one thing to consider...I got Reyes this year. I will (most likely) keep him in 2004. But what if he suffers a spring-training injury and will miss all of 2004? Should I not have the opportunity to keep him for 2005? That's another problem with your "Hoffman" or "Leiber" rule.
Ansky39
07-10-03, 09:16 AM
i got a couple concerns, dand i don't know how we're gonna handle em...
a couple weeks ago there was a proposed deal involving a very productive player and a seemingly non productive player w/ no track record to speak of... the deal was objected to by myself and others before both parties to the deal explained the logic of their deal...
now we've gone round and round this ses on how to regulate trading to prevent collusion and hopefully maintain some semblance of competitive balance..
however in the real game teams tend to make deals for a variety of reasons, including a desire to shore up their farms or rebuild...
now as the seas approaches the second half some teams may determine that their team sucks and they got no shot at the post and may prefer to deal studs for younger keeper eligible players...
how can we discern when a team attemoting to go young w/ no playoff ambitions is soleyly trading for the future as opposed to helping out a pals team that may be in the playoff hunt?
what if i'm in the playoff hunt but still want to trade an aging superstud for a guy w/ the smae potentilal that may be keeper eligible?
appreciate any and all feedback...
i got another issue re: the setup of the pen, w/ boz and sax' gentleman's agreement, but i'll save that for another day... but as a heads up, i don't like the rule...
it's unenforceable, since some teams have relievers that at times are required to start and others have and continue to flaunt boz and sax's gentleman's agreement,
it's inequitable since there are not enough closers to allow each team to start 3 and mid relievers don't have the same point potential as closers,
and it's illogical since teams that opt to go w/ an extar starter as opposed to a reliver receive no real or perceived advantage, and in fact expose themselves to greater risk w/ the loss penalty... but like i said, i'll save this issue for another post... ;)
Saxmania
07-10-03, 09:30 AM
With regards the trade collusion thing, I think it's important that both owners involved give their reasons for agreeing to the trade. Then other owners are in a better position to understand the reasoning behind the trade, and appreciate the value of keepers, etc. Although I think the Biddle trade was probably a pretty fair one with the keeper rule in mind, it might have fared better had other owners understood the motivations involved.
The 'gentleman's agreement' would be nearly pointless if Yahoo would update pitchers' roles quickly rather than waiting three weeks. It's true that a starter can lose points as well as gain them, but if we change the points system for next year, I would expect a starter to on average earn more points than a reliever consistently (and rightly so), so the temptation to have one closer and seven starters might be high. And I hate to disagree with you ( ;) ), but I think I would rather play in a league with one closer, two set-up men, and five starters than one closer and seven starters. In other words, removing the loss penalty would probably make the problem worse in that more owners would have incentive to have a pen full of starters.
It is pretty much unenforceable, I agree, which is why it's a gentleman's agreement and not a hard and fast rule.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Ansky39
07-10-03, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
With regards the trade collusion thing, I think it's important that both owners involved give their reasons for agreeing to the trade. Then other owners are in a better position to understand the reasoning behind the trade, and appreciate the value of keepers, etc. Although I think the Biddle trade was probably a pretty fair one with the keeper rule in mind, it might have fared better had other owners understood the motivations involved.
sounds good...
Originally posted by Saxmania
The 'gentleman's agreement' would be nearly pointless if Yahoo would update pitchers' roles quickly rather than waiting three weeks. It's true that a starter can lose points as well as gain them, but if we change the points system for next year, I would expect a starter to on average earn more points than a reliever consistently (and rightly so), so the temptation to have one closer and seven starters might be high. And I hate to disagree with you ( ;) ), but I think I would rather play in a league with one closer, two set-up men, and five starters than one closer and seven starters. In other words, removing the loss penalty would probably make the problem worse in that more owners would have incentive to have a pen full of starters.
i dunno sax, last seas boz used like 10 starters in 8 slots and still lost... we should prolly spend some time on this issue...
i like sanfran's league set up where mid relievers are valued as much as closers, but i don';t think it's tenable in our league w/ the scoring system... there is no reqt to use a closer vs a mid reliever for the rp categories, and he also has i think 3 or 4 additional pitcher slots where you can use any type of pitcher you want from starter to mid relief to closer... you get a point for every hold or a point for every save... those are two of the like 10 scoring categories and if you beat your opponent in a particular catgeory, you receive the point for the category and then whoever wins the most categories wins the week.. in our league w/ our scoring, you would have to give equal points for holds and saves to follow sanfran's formual and that may not be very desirebale, distorting the vaklue of mod relievers in comparison to other players...
in my cbs league which mirrors our scoring model there also is no reqt to use closeers or mid relievers at all... there are currently like 3 closers avaialble on waivers and a team today just snagged mid relaiver donnelly... my team has one closer, but there is another team in that league that has like 5 closers starting... i think perhaps there scoring system may anticpate such different coaching strategies to mitigate any real advantage to a team that chooses to go w/ straight closers straight starres a coimbination or team w/ mid relievers...
Originally posted by Saxmania
It is pretty much unenforceable, I agree, which is why it's a gentleman's agreement and not a hard and fast rule.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
i think the fact that the "gentleman's agreement" was executed after the satrt of the season and was not unanimously endorsed and has not been proven to curtail any perceived advantage from not adhering to it, gives teams that use an extra starter or a reliever who at times starts a negtive perception like they're cheating when once again, there is no rral or perceived benefit, this ses w/ the loss penalty or last seas w/o the loss penalty...
i know, i know, i ramble too much, but honestly i see it as an issue since we know all teams do not or will not or perhaps can not use 3 closers, and as the stakes increase down the stretch i think i'd be more inclined if i'm in a 1 or 2 game race to risk the loss penalty rather than use mid reliever w/ limited point potential.. i see it as a stratgey choice rather than how it is being portrayed as some kind of moral litmus test, ya know...
Saxmania
07-10-03, 10:27 AM
I take the points you make, and certainly it's worth discussion. To be honest, I'd have no problem with a league where a player was compelled to have a closer, two set-up men, and five starters with no room for wiggling, but I can guess that wouldn't be very popular. Options as I see them:
1) Make middle relievers more valuable (boost holds? I like the idea of credit for inherited runners stranded a lot, but do any leagues track this?)
2) Accept that some teams will use starters in the bullpen
3) Leave things as they are
4) Forbid any team from using an SP in an RP slot no matter what.
I like some combination of 1) and 4), but it's certainly a difficult one. 1) is certainly an elegant solution, because it reflects the real-life value of relievers very well, but is also a difficult one to implement. I could see something along the lines of Hold = 4, Save = 6, with credit for stranded runners.
Of course, it's ultimately up to the league to decide for 2004, so I don't want to give the impression that my opinion counts more than any other. Still, I'd be a little less entertained by a league in which middle relievers just didn't feature at all.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Bozidar
07-10-03, 10:46 AM
For the record, it wasn't my rule.
It was the "Whiney Bitches Who Complained About The Bashers In 2002" rule. I did it all last year.. i took ................ for it all last year.. and decided that if people didn't want it done, we should put some sort of agreement in place. It wasn't my idea, i just didn't want to take ................ for it anymore :D
Ansky39
07-10-03, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
I take the points you make, and certainly it's worth discussion. To be honest, I'd have no problem with a league where a player was compelled to have a closer, two set-up men, and five starters with no room for wiggling, but I can guess that wouldn't be very popular
i would actually prefer that to the current system...
Originally posted by Saxmania
1) Make middle relievers more valuable (boost holds? I like the idea of credit for inherited runners stranded a lot, but do any leagues track this?)
i dunno, but i think maybe we could boost the value of holds as long as we don't make mid relaivers disproportionately more valuable than other players...
Originally posted by Saxmania
2) Accept that some teams will use starters in the bullpen
that's my cbs league... it works and makes for some interesting lineup strategies but in the end, i think it's more fantasy and less baseball..
Originally posted by Saxmania
3) Leave things as they are
i don't think this is a viable option since the current system imo has some false premises...
Originally posted by Saxmania
4) Forbid any team from using an SP in an RP slot no matter what.
not feasible on yahoo..
Originally posted by Saxmania
I like some combination of 1) and 4), but it's certainly a difficult one. 1) is certainly an elegant solution, because it reflects the real-life value of relievers very well, but is also a difficult one to implement. I could see something along the lines of Hold = 4, Save = 6, with credit for stranded runners.
i think this may strike the balance but once again we should ensure that relievers are not overvalued compared to other players...
Originally posted by Saxmania
Still, I'd be a little less entertained by a league in which middle relievers just didn't feature at all.
agreed 100%
Originally posted by Saxmania
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
later and thanks for the feedback sir... http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies3/1033813923.gif
Obviously, with a 30-team major leagues, and an 18-team NYYFans league, every team won't even have 2 bona-fide closers in their stable, let alone 3. So Middle-Relievers are important, as are then, holds. In real life, you could have the best closer in baseball, and if you don't have guys to pitch in the 7th and 8th innings, you're not going to need him much. As has been said before, I'd be in favor of an 8-man Pitching Staff, with one of the following set-ups:
5 Starters.
1 "P" spot, to incorporate people like Mendoza, Contreras and others who are mostly in the pen, but could be starters too.
2 relievers, who must be real relief pitchers.
or
4 Starters
1 "P" spot
3 relievers, who must be real relief pitchers.
Soriambi
07-10-03, 01:04 PM
I was thinking...this is a keeper league and the focus for keeper leagues should be on building a team over the long haul not on ensuring there are enough studs for an annual fantasy draft...I just don't think the amount of keepers we get is enough. I think it should be more like 5 or 6 for non-playoffs, 7 for playoffs, and 8 for the WC team. It really takes a lot of the strategy out and I think the league would have a lot more value with more keepers.
Ansky39
07-10-03, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Soriambi
I was thinking...this is a keeper league and the focus for keeper leagues should be on building a team over the long haul not on ensuring there are enough studs for an annual fantasy draft...I just don't think the amount of keepers we get is enough. I think it should be more like 5 or 6 for non-playoffs, 7 for playoffs, and 8 for the WC team. It really takes a lot of the strategy out and I think the league would have a lot more value with more keepers.
i agree 100% w/ ya on raising the number of keepers... i would have brought this up too, but i figure i've given sax enough work already and we haven't even gotten to the alstr break... ;)
but seriously, soriambi is dead right, the purpose of a keeper league is to build a team for the long haul not ensure a fully stocked annual fantasy draft... my seas may be over w/ one or two more losses (thanks italin ice) and i really have no incentive to stay into it beyond that if i only keep 3 guys on my team... however if i could keep say half my starting lineup, (i was thinking along the lines of 4 pos players and 4 pitchers) i'd have an incentive to look for promising young plyaers on other teams and try to at least stock my shelves for next seas...
in addition it would increase league wide activity as teams competing down the stretch shore up their teams w/ non keeper eligible players from non post competing teams, kinda like in mlb where playoff teams take on high end 1 year guys to get em thru the post...
anyways i just wanted to agree, i've given sax enough to think about and i don't know if he'd be inclined to make this change this far into the seas, but i would definitely think it should be a hot topic for the offseas if it is not implemented this seas...
btw, great job sax... ;)
But, as a comparison, ESPN has 25-player Keeper Leagues, and allow you to keep 5 players (regardless of playoffs or championship) meaning that 20 players per team are cut loose.
We have 21-player teams, and 3-4 keepers, meaning 18-19 players are cut loose. We actually have MORE roster consistency (looking at it that way) than ESPN leagues do.
Soriambi
07-10-03, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
But, as a comparison, ESPN has 25-player Keeper Leagues, and allow you to keep 5 players (regardless of playoffs or championship) meaning that 20 players per team are cut loose.
We have 21-player teams, and 3-4 keepers, meaning 18-19 players are cut loose. We actually have MORE roster consistency (looking at it that way) than ESPN leagues do.
Does that mean that ESPN does it right? Or that we do it right? No. I really think we'd be better off with more keepers.
Soriambi
07-10-03, 01:33 PM
Also, for the record, Ansky brought up a very good point with trading aging veterans for young up and coming stars if you're out of it. Say that he wanted to get a few top prospects for a Curt Schilling down the stretch, but he wants to keep Dontrelle Willis, Garret Anderson, and Brandon Webb. What motivation does he have to build his team for next year? Real teams do it, I think the league would be better off.
Ansky39
07-10-03, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
But, as a comparison, ESPN has 25-player Keeper Leagues, and allow you to keep 5 players (regardless of playoffs or championship) meaning that 20 players per team are cut loose.
We have 21-player teams, and 3-4 keepers, meaning 18-19 players are cut loose. We actually have MORE roster consistency (looking at it that way) than ESPN leagues do.
i tend to think espn is more focussed on the annual fantasy draft for commercial reasons that don't necessarily promote the true spirit of the game... uhh, imho.. ;)
i'm in a two other keeper leagues and i believe both allow you to keep half your team and i'm ina simulated baseball league where we keep our entire roster annually as well a farm...
Sheesh! Though I don't know if someone who goes 6-16 really WANTS to keep half their team....
(And I was just using ESPN as an example of how one company does it, since I'm new to keeper leagues, and we here are still trying to sort out the rules...)
Bozidar
07-10-03, 02:00 PM
I also like the idea of more keepers. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think we should start fresh next year, and make it a REAL keeper league. fantasy auctions. you keep a guy, you keep his price. Anyway, leave that aside for now..
If we kept, say 4 position players, and 3 pitchers. That leaves 14 cut loose.
Now, I know that with my team, it would probably keep the spirit of my team the same:
C Santiago, Benito_(C-SF)_
1B Mientkiewicz, Doug_(1B-Min)
2B Boone, Bret_(2B-Sea)_
3B Koskie, Corey_(3B-Min)
SS Guillen, Carlos_(SS-Sea)_
OF Sheffield, Gary_(RF-Atl)
OF Beltran, Carlos_(CF-KC)
OF Green, Shawn_(RF-LA)
Util Martinez, Edgar_(DH-Sea)_
Bench Hernandez, Jose_(SS-ChC)
Bench Nady, Xavier_(RF-SD)
Pitchers
SP Lowe, Derek_(SP-Bos)
SP Williams, Woody_(SP-StL)
SP Ortiz, Ramon_(SP-Ana)
SP Mays, Joe_(SP-Min)_
SP Wakefield, Tim_(RP, SP-Bos)
RP Worrell, Tim_(RP-SF)
RP Isringhausen, Jason_(RP-StL)
RP Speier, Justin_(RP-Col)
Bench Shields, Scot_(RP-Ana)
Bench Bradford, Chad_(RP-Oak)
DL Kennedy, Joe_(SP-TB)_
DL Fossum, CaseyDL_(RP, SP-Bos)_
DL Lieber, JonDL_(SP-NYY)_
DL Hernandez, OrlandoDL_(SP-Mon)
Now, i'm not saying those that i've bolded are the one's i'm going to keep.. but I think if i kept those guys my team would have the same "feel" as last year, and it would feel more like a keeper league to me.
However, i'd like to stress the idea of an auction. I've never done one, but it seems like a much more reasonable solution to keeper leagues than increasing draft rounds. If you get Pedro for $76, you've got to decide if you want to keep him at that price. If you want, keep him for up to 3 years, but then he has to go back in. (even if he's been traded)
IMO, this is the ultimate destination for any fantasy baseball system. it's very reflective of the actual game, and can be a TON of fun. Getting great rookies at $1 a pop is JUST like having a Nick Johnson on the payroll for the yanks, at 300,000 or whatever he makes.
Just think it over. We could do this as our "Senior League", and keep this other league open as the Junior league (no pun intended, but it WILL be my league by the end of the year ;))
thoughts?
Soriambi
07-10-03, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
I also like the idea of more keepers. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think we should start fresh next year, and make it a REAL keeper league. fantasy auctions. you keep a guy, you keep his price. Anyway, leave that aside for now..
If we kept, say 4 position players, and 3 pitchers. That leaves 14 cut loose.
Now, I know that with my team, it would probably keep the spirit of my team the same:
C Santiago, Benito_(C-SF)_
1B Mientkiewicz, Doug_(1B-Min)
2B Boone, Bret_(2B-Sea)_
3B Koskie, Corey_(3B-Min)
SS Guillen, Carlos_(SS-Sea)_
OF Sheffield, Gary_(RF-Atl)
OF Beltran, Carlos_(CF-KC)
OF Green, Shawn_(RF-LA)
Util Martinez, Edgar_(DH-Sea)_
Bench Hernandez, Jose_(SS-ChC)
Bench Nady, Xavier_(RF-SD)
Pitchers
SP Lowe, Derek_(SP-Bos)
SP Williams, Woody_(SP-StL)
SP Ortiz, Ramon_(SP-Ana)
SP Mays, Joe_(SP-Min)_
SP Wakefield, Tim_(RP, SP-Bos)
RP Worrell, Tim_(RP-SF)
RP Isringhausen, Jason_(RP-StL)
RP Speier, Justin_(RP-Col)
Bench Shields, Scot_(RP-Ana)
Bench Bradford, Chad_(RP-Oak)
DL Kennedy, Joe_(SP-TB)_
DL Fossum, CaseyDL_(RP, SP-Bos)_
DL Lieber, JonDL_(SP-NYY)_
DL Hernandez, OrlandoDL_(SP-Mon)
Now, i'm not saying those that i've bolded are the one's i'm going to keep.. but I think if i kept those guys my team would have the same "feel" as last year, and it would feel more like a keeper league to me.
However, i'd like to stress the idea of an auction. I've never done one, but it seems like a much more reasonable solution to keeper leagues than increasing draft rounds. If you get Pedro for $76, you've got to decide if you want to keep him at that price. If you want, keep him for up to 3 years, but then he has to go back in. (even if he's been traded)
IMO, this is the ultimate destination for any fantasy baseball system. it's very reflective of the actual game, and can be a TON of fun. Getting great rookies at $1 a pop is JUST like having a Nick Johnson on the payroll for the yanks, at 300,000 or whatever he makes.
Just think it over. We could do this as our "Senior League", and keep this other league open as the Junior league (no pun intended, but it WILL be my league by the end of the year ;))
thoughts?
I've never been in an auction either, but I think it might be too difficult to organize. I don't even think half of the teams were actually present at the draft, so it would be near impossible. 4 Posistion players and 3 pitchers sounds about right though, maybe 4 and 4 for PO teams and 5 and 4 for the champ? :)
Ansky39
07-10-03, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
Sheesh! Though I don't know if someone who goes 6-16 really WANTS to keep half their team....
battered manager syndrome... washburn's number 1 on my list of ................ed up keepers... ;)
Bozidar
07-10-03, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Soriambi
I've never been in an auction either, but I think it might be too difficult to organize. I don't even think half of the teams were actually present at the draft, so it would be near impossible. 4 Posistion players and 3 pitchers sounds about right though, maybe 4 and 4 for PO teams and 5 and 4 for the champ? :) Well, here's the thing. I, and maybe not everyone is like this, would rather do this thing live, and IN PERSON! IMO, it'd be like an early forum party, but only for the cool folks from fantasy baseball ;) :D :lol: Heck, maybe we could allow spectators (but no talking or advising).
For those that couldn't make it in person (sorry, commish), we could have a machine handy where they'd have to be in communication the whole time.
either way, i'm sure there's software out there that'll let you rank how much you want to pay for a player ahead of time, just like a draft order.
Maybe we keep the # of teams to 10, rather than 18 in the "senior" league. Those willing to put in the time and work. I think we could do it, i know it's worked for other people. You just have to want it :)
Soriambi
07-10-03, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
Well, here's the thing. I, and maybe not everyone is like this, would rather do this thing live, and IN PERSON! IMO, it'd be like an early forum party, but only for the cool folks from fantasy baseball ;) :D :lol: Heck, maybe we could allow spectators (but no talking or advising).
For those that couldn't make it in person (sorry, commish), we could have a machine handy where they'd have to be in communication the whole time.
either way, i'm sure there's software out there that'll let you rank how much you want to pay for a player ahead of time, just like a draft order.
Maybe we keep the # of teams to 10, rather than 18 in the "senior" league. Those willing to put in the time and work. I think we could do it, i know it's worked for other people. You just have to want it :)
Well, I'm willing to put in the time and work but I wouldn't be able to do a live draft in person, so I guess I would be out in that case...
Bozidar
07-10-03, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
For those that couldn't make it in person (sorry, commish), we could have a machine handy where they'd have to be in communication the whole time.did you miss this part?
Originally posted by Bozidar
For those that couldn't make it in person (sorry, commish), we could have a machine handy where they'd have to be in communication the whole time.
Like a phone? :lol:
Bozidar
07-10-03, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
Like a phone? :lol: Well, it depends on where we have the draft. If we get a hotel suite in manhattan, you guys could call into a conference call or something. If we do it at a KofC, we'd have to use cell phones proabably. If we did it at someone's house, maybe just on AIM chat room? it depends..
Soriambi
07-10-03, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
did you miss this part?
Sorry, skimming again. The AIM chat would most likely be best for me. :)
Yanksagain
07-10-03, 04:01 PM
I'm all for expanding the number of keepers to 5+.
I also like this idea of doing an auction. It would be more of a commitment from a lot of players. Everyone would have to be present for the draft (by making the league smaller this could happen). A lot more work goes into an auction (determining the budget for each team, etc.), but it sounds like a great idea.
Soriambi
07-10-03, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Yanksagain
I'm all for expanding the number of keepers to 5+.
I also like this idea of doing an auction. It would be more of a commitment from a lot of players. Everyone would have to be present for the draft (by making the league smaller this could happen). A lot more work goes into an auction (determining the budget for each team, etc.), but it sounds like a great idea.
Also, obviously this would be changing the rules mid-league, which I hate, but I think it's helping everyone, at least helping more than it's hurting. Most everyone, I'd think, has a few good young players, more than three, that they'd like to keep. :) I'm not a big fan of the auction, if only for logistical reasons. :o
Bozidar
07-10-03, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Soriambi
Also, obviously this would be changing the rules mid-league, which I hate, but I think it's helping everyone, at least helping more than it's hurting. Most everyone, I'd think, has a few good young players, more than three, that they'd like to keep. :) I'm not a big fan of the auction, if only for logistical reasons. :o Why don't you like the Auction? It could be tremendous for us..
With some help from Jim, we might actually be able to do it here, on this site (the auction) if he let's me. I'd have to learn how to code in PHP, but it can't be all that hard.. and i'm a pretty good programmer :)
Soriambi
07-10-03, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
Why don't you like the Auction? It could be tremendous for us..
With some help from Jim, we might actually be able to do it here, on this site (the auction) if he let's me. I'd have to learn how to code in PHP, but it can't be all that hard.. and i'm a pretty good programmer :)
Oh, if we do it on the site than it's great. I'm fine with it then. The problem is meeting with people or even calling someone on the phone or something like that. (I'm 18 with parents. :o ) However, if there's a way to do it on the site, I'm all for it. :)
SanFrANSKY
07-10-03, 05:57 PM
A hotel suite? If you get strippers too then I suppose I could make the trip.
patrick.o
07-10-03, 06:09 PM
I've always wanted to do an auction, but I've been led to believe that they're a mess unless everyone is in the same room together.
Saxmania
07-11-03, 06:25 AM
I have my reservations with regards an auction, mainly on the amount of money involved and the difficulties in logistical terms of creating bids that everyone must then stick to. That's not to say I'm implacably opposed, but may I suggest a slightly less ambitious alternative?
Let's say for the moment that we keep the same league structure as this year (which I think has been pretty good, but you may disagree) and allow teams to carry over players from this year. The draft might remain much as it is now, but with the following keeper arrangement:
1) Entrance fee for next year's fantasy league remains at $10.
1) All teams get 4 keeper picks, drafted two rounds higher than they were last year, or in Round 20 if they were not drafted.
2) A team that makes the postseason gets 6 slots, and a team that wins the championship gets 8.
3) Any team may buy more keeper slots at a cost of $20 each, up to a total team maximum of 10. So a team that did not make the postseason could spend up to $120 more to get an additional 6 keeper picks, while a team that won the whole thing could buy up to two more at a total cost of $40.
The big advantage, as I see it, to this system is that spending a lot of money to be competitive isn't necessary. If you had a bad year this time, or you're fairly new to fantasy baseball, or you just don't have a lot of money, you don't get frozen out of the draft, and you can still get a few big names in the first couple of rounds without being out-spent. You might just have to make do without a few of the hot young prospects. The big guns can still be yours. And, of course, all proceeds would go to NYYFans.com (after any League set-up costs such as registration on a decent Fantasy site).
At an estimate, I reckon the league could create around $500 for Jim's site, which would certainly be worth doing - but for new/young/less well-off players, the minimum fee would only be $10, and you'd still get a pretty good team because of the drafting rules.
Also, it would probably be easier to set up than an auction draft (because all money for picks would change hands before the draft, making it easier to handle) and we could keep an online format, which would be nice for those of us not near NY. I think it would also be more friendly to new members - we do seem to struggle with getting sign-ups each March.
Any thoughts? Criticism? Mockery? Can I just say that I'm delighted that we're having this conversation now (rather than it just being a couple of us trying to agree to something in February when no-one else is on this forum), and that just because I'm throwing out weird ideas doesn't mean that I don't think the other ones are bad. ;)
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Would an auction involve real money or an imaginary budget?
I don't like radically changing the rules as far as keepers. I think it would create a hugely unfair advantage for whoever wins this title over someone who just misses the playoffs. It was enough for me to spend $10 on FBL this year, but potentially "having" to spend $120 to keep up with someone who can spend $40 would drive me (and probably others) out of the league. Real sports give teams who didn't make the playoffs an advantage in drafting over the teams that did. This would do just the opposite, and would create a small market vs big market situation like we have in MLB.
I would leave this league basically alone, except for the scoring changes we've mentioned. If people want to join a big money league, then that should be separate from the one we have now. (NYYFans_2 or something). People could play in both, of course, and maybe even have a championship between the 2 leagues somehow. But I wouldn't mess with this league so radically.
Saxmania
07-11-03, 07:04 AM
Fair enough. I'm not certain that buying more keeper picks would force people to spend to keep up, but you might be right at that. I suppose it depends on how much people like to spend on fantasy baseball. I'm not a big spender myself, but then, I'd be pretty happy with four keeper picks next year even if some other owners had more.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Bozidar
07-11-03, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Big_E
Would an auction involve real money or an imaginary budget? Imaginary..
Originally posted by Big_E
but potentially "having" to spend $120 to keep up with someone who can spend $40 would drive me (and probably others) out of the league. Real sports give teams who didn't make the playoffs an advantage in drafting over the teams that did. This would do just the opposite, and would create a small market vs big market situation like we have in MLB.Think about it though.. small market vs big markets is exactly what the game is like :) it'd be even MORE like the real MLB :D And unlike the real MLB, the money would go to Jim F. and the site, and not some shadey businessman from Millewalkee.
Yanksagain
07-11-03, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
The draft might remain much as it is now, but with the following keeper arrangement:
1) Entrance fee for next year's fantasy league remains at $10.
2) All teams get 4 keeper picks, drafted two rounds higher than they were last year, or in Round 20 if they were not drafted.
3) A team that makes the postseason gets 6 slots, and a team that wins the championship gets 8.
4) Any team may buy more keeper slots at a cost of $20 each, up to a total team maximum of 10. So a team that did not make the postseason could spend up to $120 more to get an additional 6 keeper picks, while a team that won the whole thing could buy up to two more at a total cost of $40.
The big advantage, as I see it, to this system is that spending a lot of money to be competitive isn't necessary.
Some comments on the above:
I agree with #1 and #2. Keep the entrance fee at $10 and all teams keep 4 players.
I'm against #3 and #4. The competitiveness and balance in this league would get all out of wack with teams being able to "buy" keeper slots. No way. The rich get richer and the teams that just miss the playoffs get penalized. I understand that teams that don't make the playoffs probably don't want to keep more than 4 players (since the rest of the players are marginal), but at the same time the championship teams can keep up to 10 of their players that just won the championship. Sure its a crapshoot whether or not Dontrelle Willis will continue to dominate in 2004 or his arm will fall off due to all the extra innings he's pitching at a young age, but its an unfair advantage to have a team with an owner with deep pockets pay $100 to keep all his players just to find out if 2003 was a fluke or not.
Good thoughts Sax. I'm just opposed to allowing a different amount of keepers per team based on the amount of cash each owner is willing to spend.
Bozidar
07-11-03, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Yanksagain
Good thoughts Sax. I'm just opposed to allowing a different amount of keepers per team based on the amount of cash each owner is willing to spend. Friggin small market conspiracies.... literally
Soriambi
07-11-03, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Yanksagain
Some comments on the above:
IGood thoughts Sax. I'm just opposed to allowing a different amount of keepers per team based on the amount of cash each owner is willing to spend.
Personally, I probably wouldn't be able to afford any keepers, but if it helps the site I'm for it.
Ansky39
07-11-03, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Soriambi
Personally, I probably wouldn't be able to afford any keepers, but if it helps the site I'm for it.
i'm not too big on the money thing either, i'd be willing to pay $20 to register but paying to keep a player, i dunno...
anyways i'd like to motion to the comish that we put this to a vote as soon as possible... my team's sliding and if I know I have a vested interest in more than 3 keeprs I'll stay as active a sI can til the trading deadline anyways...
I think we should vote on the number of keeprs...
I proposed 8, 4 pos players and 4 pitchers and i'll add 1 extra for the WC
I believe sorimbi proposed 6 for all teams 7 for playoff temas and 8 for the wc
I believe Boz proposed 7, 4 pos players and 3 pitchers
or we can keep the staus quo...
I'll defer to the commish to post the poll when he deems appropriate...
Bozidar
07-11-03, 11:55 AM
IMO, 4 pitchers it too much. If someone assembled a really awesome staff, they'd be able to keep practically the whole thing. With pitching being more at a premium than anything, you're letting them keep a LOT of value..
Ansky39
07-11-03, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
IMO, 4 pitchers it too much. If someone assembled a really awesome staff, they'd be able to keep practically the whole thing. With pitching being more at a premium
ahh, lobying before the poll's up huh ;)
well here's my take:
the other leagues i'm in do not even specifiy pos players or pitchers... i think saving half your starting rotation and 45% of your lineup provides all teams a vested interest in their team over the long haul..
we currently have 8 slots for arms, 5 starters 3 closers...
i really don't think protecting 4 of them is too much..
the focus once again imho should be on building a team for the long haul, not on ensuring a fully stiocked annual fanatsy draft...
i would even suggest in the offseas that as teams gets older that we increase the umber of keeprs, by 1 like every 2 years or such...
Personally, I don't think we should be changing things more than 2/3 of the way* through the season. What about people who made trades already, with the assumption that they'd only be able to keep 3 or 4 players, and now you're saying they could keep 8?
It's one thing to change scoring for next year. But to change the fundamental rules of the league should be taken very slowly. I would say leave the rules as they are concerning keepers for the 2004 season, and then change them for 2005.
I know it's a long time, but once we've gone this far into the season, I don't think we should be changing things.
(*though MLB just passed it's mid-way point, we're 15 weeks into a 22 week schedule)
Ansky39
07-11-03, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
Personally, I don't think we should be changing things more than 2/3 of the way* through the season. What about people who made trades already, with the assumption that they'd only be able to keep 3 or 4 players, and now you're saying they could keep 8?
It's one thing to change scoring for next year. But to change the fundamental rules of the league should be taken very slowly. I would say leave the rules as they are concerning keepers for the 2004 season, and then change them for 2005.
I know it's a long time, but once we've gone this far into the season, I don't think we should be changing things.
(*though MLB just passed it's mid-way point, we're 15 weeks into a 22 week schedule)
i'd generally also be against making changes midway thru the seas, but in this case this change directly impacts next season, not this season...
i don't think it would impact anyone adversely since most everyone's focus should still be primarily on this season not acquiring keeper eligible players for next seas..
furthermore under the current format if someone was inclined to monitor their keeper status already for this seas, all the proposals mentione would only increase their options and would have no impact on the 3 players theyalready may have deemed keepers..
honestly you can keep the status quo, but speaking formyself, i already know the 3 schleps i'm keeping so once i'm mathematicallly eliminated for the post seas, that'll be pretty much it for me as far as remaining active, what would be the use...
at least if have an interest in my team knowing i'll be able to protect half of my starting roster it'll give me something to stay interested in even if i'm out which may happen this week if i continue to get my arse kicked in by the itialian ice truck guy...
but that's just my .02cents...
i say we save the lobbying for the poll, where one of the categeories i suggested was maintaining the status quo.. if people agre w/ your rationale, then the poll can only endorse it...
What I'm saying is that the rules for next year were set before this years draft. If we're going to change things -- and I'm not against change -- then I think it should be for 2005. When we signed up for 2003, we signed up for this:
Keeper League Rules
Before the draft commences for the following year’s fantasy season, each owner of a team that intends to take part in the season may submit players from their last season’s final rosters to be withheld from the draft process as ‘keepers’. These players will automatically be added to their respective owners for the new season. However, this process will require the use of a higher draft pick. The available players to be designated as ‘keepers’ are as follows:
All teams: Up to 3 players at a cost of a draft pick 2 rounds higher than the player’s draft level the previous year
Any playoff team: Up to 4 players at a cost of a draft pick 2 rounds higher than the player’s draft level the previous year
Championship holders: Up to 4 players at a cost of a draft pick 1 rounds higher than the player’s draft level the previous year
as the 2004 draft rules. My opinion is that any changes should be for 2005, unless approved UNANIMOUSLY for 2004.
Ansky39
07-11-03, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
What I'm saying is that the rules for next year were set before this years draft. If we're going to change things -- and I'm not against change -- then I think it should be for 2005. When we signed up for 2003, we signed up for this:
as the 2004 draft rules. My opinion is that any changes should be for 2005, unless approved UNANIMOUSLY for 2004.
ok i got ya now... i don't agree but i got ya...
the thing is, this was put togtehr this seass w/ tons of changes from last seas that were established this past off seas... i for one was not active this past offseas, and did not have the opportunity to even fully know, much less digest all the changes that had been made.. i joined up under the assumption that rules rolled over from last seas, but soon learned to my utter dismay just how much had changed from scoring to lineup rules to number of teams to everything... so much of the seas thanks to sax' good graces we have worked to kind of tweak things that some of us had concerns w/...
my only goal here is to try to make this thing as realistic as possible, not to get any advantage on anyone else./.. if half the teams are out in mid august what reason is ther for people to stay active...
i definitely don't think we should have to wait two full seasons to make chnages.. if we can get a vote w/ all 18 owners now present and active i really don't think it will be a crime to modify this particular rule now in time for next seas, but on=ce again that's just my take.. clearly by the number of people that have voiced concerns, i'm not the lone voice here... heck i didn't even bring up this issue to be honest, i merely support it for the benfit of the entire league.. ugh where's sax, if he'd just post the poll we can get thru this democratically and if you still feel as strongly as you do, perhaps you'll find others who share your concerns.. me i just want to try to make this league as realistic as we possibly can and saving 3 players from a 21 man team is not even remotely close to mirroring the real thing imho...
Soriambi
07-11-03, 01:27 PM
I agree with Ansky. Most people have a good number of keeper eligible players. It would be more like the real thing to be able to keep 6 or 7 or 8 than 3...
Saxmania
07-11-03, 06:36 PM
We could compromise. (Man, do I sound like a Politics student or what?)
Call it a year of transition. For the 2003/4 season, teams that do not make the postseason may keep up to four players. Teams that make the postseason may keep up to five. Teams that win the whole thing may keep up to six (or up to five with a 1-round discount; your pick). That's not a major stretch from this year.
For the 2004/5 season, the keepers go 6-7-8 (or 7 +1 round). We then keep it at that level. I believe we shouldn't assume that everyone will join this league with a five-year plan for their team - only around 8 teams from last year's 15 re-upped for this year. We're always going to have new franchises arriving and departing. More than a third of the roster remaining static seems to me to limit the draft opportunities for new players. I know Ansky wants a league with stability, and that's certainly worth considering.
I think we also have to think about league structure. With 18 teams, we're going to get some new entrants, and we don't want them to be scared off by not having access to lots of players (one of my reasons for keeping the number of keepers so low at the start). If we reduce the size of the league, what about player availability? (I think the current balance is really good.) What about schedule size?
I guess the buy-a-keeper thing won't fly. Fair enough; I'm trying to come up with more ways to raise money for Jim, and it seemed a natural fit. We also have to bear in mind that we might not want to use Yahoo next year, and that a different site might cost money. Again, I'll ask - can anyone recommend a good site?
The final option is to rip up this league and start again, perhaps with a "Senior Circuit" with a high keeper quotient, and a "Junior Circuit" with a high roster and franchise turnover. Teams that opt to keep their players from this year would go into the Senior Circuit, but I do have misgivings about this, and would welcome hearing other opinions.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Originally posted by Saxmania
I'm trying to come up with more ways to raise money for Jim
Well..I'd be up for a Fantasy Football League (non-keeper!) with a $10 entry fee, if anyone else is interested... :D
patrick.o
07-11-03, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
We also have to bear in mind that we might not want to use Yahoo next year, and that a different site might cost money. Again, I'll ask - can anyone recommend a good site?
I use Commisioner.com for my football and hockey leagues and and it's great, and I know quite a few people who use it for baseball and think it's great. It's a pay site, but by my experience well worth the money.
I'm not keen on greatly increasing the number of keepers, and I definitely don't think we should make a radical change that affects this years teams/owners. I for one am quite sure that I would have considered trade offers much differently had I known I would get 4 or 6 or 8 keepers. I just don't think we should be changing rules at this point of the season, especially now that some teams are finding themselves out of it or on the bubble.
To be honest I don't really like the idea of having lots of keepers anyway. I'm guessing that every year we are going to have some owners drop out and will need to attract new ones; who wants to join a keeper league where 75% of the best players are already taken? In any case, if we do vote to increase the number of keepers, I don't think the new rule should take effect until after our next draft.
One idea I've been kicking around, and I don't know how well this would work, is to stop playing a football type schedule, i.e. playing 1 game a week, and start playing a baseball type schedule, meaning we would play a game every day. Changing opponents every day would probably be a nightmare, but we could play a 7 game series every week. So this week instead of playing one game against Boz from Sunday to Saturday, Boz and I would play 1 game on Monday, 1 game on Tuesday, etc. The next week we would change opponents and play another 7 game series. Instead of playing for 22 weeks or however many we play for, we could play for 150 days or so. Then each round of the playoffs would be a 7 game series. The wrench in the works is obviously starters, but I think if we could change our lineups daily we could get a starter in more games of a series than not.
Anyway, I don't know how well it would work, but I've been mulling it over for a few days.
Originally posted by patrick.o
One idea I've been kicking around, and I don't know how well this would work, is to stop playing a football type schedule, i.e. playing 1 game a week, and start playing a baseball type schedule, meaning we would play a game every day. Changing opponents every day would probably be a nightmare, but we could play a 7 game series every week. So this week instead of playing one game against Boz from Sunday to Saturday, Boz and I would play 1 game on Monday, 1 game on Tuesday, etc. The next week we would change opponents and play another 7 game series. Instead of playing for 22 weeks or however many we play for, we could play for 150 days or so. Then each round of the playoffs would be a 7 game series. The wrench in the works is obviously starters, but I think if we could change our lineups daily we could get a starter in more games of a series than not.
Anyway, I don't know how well it would work, but I've been mulling it over for a few days.
I love the idea of every day being a game. Plus, 7 games * 22 weeks = 154 games, just like the old schedules. :) It sucks if you get blown out one day, and have no chance to come back the rest of the week.
It could still be done with weekly lineups, so people don't rotate starters in and out - I'm in two other leagues where I have 7 starters, and move them in and out depending on who's pitching that day. Other people who don't do that are not doing as well as those of us who do.
Soriambi
07-12-03, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
We could compromise. (Man, do I sound like a Politics student or what?)
Call it a year of transition. For the 2003/4 season, teams that do not make the postseason may keep up to four players. Teams that make the postseason may keep up to five. Teams that win the whole thing may keep up to six (or up to five with a 1-round discount; your pick). That's not a major stretch from this year.
For the 2004/5 season, the keepers go 6-7-8 (or 7 +1 round). We then keep it at that level. I believe we shouldn't assume that everyone will join this league with a five-year plan for their team - only around 8 teams from last year's 15 re-upped for this year. We're always going to have new franchises arriving and departing. More than a third of the roster remaining static seems to me to limit the draft opportunities for new players. I know Ansky wants a league with stability, and that's certainly worth considering.
I like that Sax. Also, I love Patrick's idea of a game a day. :)
Saxmania
07-12-03, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by Big_E
I love the idea of every day being a game. Plus, 7 games * 22 weeks = 154 games, just like the old schedules. :) It sucks if you get blown out one day, and have no chance to come back the rest of the week.
It could still be done with weekly lineups, so people don't rotate starters in and out - I'm in two other leagues where I have 7 starters, and move them in and out depending on who's pitching that day. Other people who don't do that are not doing as well as those of us who do.
I quite like this idea, and think that someone could probably put together an MLB-type schedule rather than a 7-dayer if other teams were interested (kind of a 3-game, 4-game series arrangement) for added interest. As long as we agreed the league structure several months in advance, you would only need to work out the schedule in the abstract, and I think I could do that quite happily.
But I think I would want the weekly lineup changes to remain, for the reason above. It really would be a little unfair if those players who change their rosters daily were to fiddle the starters so that they had the largest number of starts every day (owners would end up with their whole bench being starters so that they could get maximum benefit). Forcing players to pick a weekly lineup would mean more strategic choices in this regard.
I'll put up a vote on the keeper question in the next few days.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
patrick.o
07-12-03, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
I'll put up a vote on the keeper question in the next few days.
This is my formal protest against having vote that affects how many players we keep for the upcoming draft. My rationale is the same as when we considered changing the pitching rules. The rules were laid down before the season and those are the rules we used when drafting and while making acquisitions and considering acquisitions all year long. Unless a rule is severely detrimental to the league as a whole I don't think we should even consider making changes during the season, especially in a case like this where a rule change will be more beneficial to some owners than others, and where some moves that were made in the season might not have been made and others that weren't made might have been. For myself I can think of one trade I was offered for an extremely promising young 3rd baseman who is having a great breakout season that I would have considered much differently had I known that I would have been able to keep him without having to release one of the guys I have already earmarked as keepers.
To consider changing this rule mid season is not fair to any owner who will not be able to get back guys they wouldn't have traded away, not fair to owners who might have made trades that they declined, and would give a huge benefit to teams that are out of the running and already planning for next year. It would especially be unfair to anyone who votes against it and is over ruled by some sort of majority or plurality or whatever would be used to determine the outcome.
Patrick, you and I are of a like mind. Like I said, we joined this year and have played TWO THIRDS of the season under the keeper rules currently in place. Any changes for 2004 keeper rules should have to be UNANIMOUS, otherwise they should be for 2005, even if approved only by a plurality.
It's like when Congress votes themselves a raise. It doesn't take effect until the next Congress is seated. This is not like changing the scoring rules for next year, which we all agree need to be changed. We already accepted the keeper rules for 2004. To change them at such a late date is not right.
Originally posted by joltinjo
With the way they handled Terry14420's trade veto and these objections, the fun is gone and so am I. I will finish the season, but will not participate next year.
See Ya,
Joe
This brings up an interesting question. What happens if someone abandons (for lack of a better word) their team? Do all their players become eligible for the draft? Or if they are replaced by another owner (that is, we still have 18 teams for 2004) will the new owners simply take over their roster? So let's say joltinjo quits, as he said. And let's say Kathy (# 21 Forever) joins the league. Would she have the right to keep 3 or 4 players from Joe's roster as part of her starting roster, or would she be (in effect) at a disadvantage because she'd have to start fresh while everyone else has a head start with keepers?
Ansky39
07-15-03, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Big_E
This brings up an interesting question. What happens if someone abandons (for lack of a better word) their team? Do all their players become eligible for the draft? Or if they are replaced by another owner (that is, we still have 18 teams for 2004) will the new owners simply take over their roster? So let's say joltinjo quits, as he said. And let's say Kathy (# 21 Forever) joins the league. Would she have the right to keep 3 or 4 players from Joe's roster as part of her starting roster, or would she be (in effect) at a disadvantage because she'd have to start fresh while everyone else has a head start with keepers?
on my expereince w/ keeper leagues, the previous owner designates his keepers prior to bailing and new prospective owners acquire the team as is... however should the person quit before designating their keepers i guess it's up to the commish how to proceed..
but on the more important issue, i certainly hope we do not lose any owners especially a veteran owner like joe.. this trade thing is one of the less clear issues we have had this year, w/ a lack of clarity re: the purpose of the veto... i'll admit i also have been confused.. the only time i really didn't understand a move was back in the very begininning of the seas and suspected collusion... but in general, i doubt any of our owners have a vested interest in another team, and i seriously doubt any in here would collude to win.. so if that is not a concern for others, then what would be the purpose of the veto? i'm asking cause i'm genuinely concerned here.. i mean i got this trade veto thing in all my leagues except my simulated league, but i honestly don't know what other purpose it could serve except to preclude collusion...
early in the seas when i saw that lopsided deal w/ helton and hudson i was a lil more concerned (rightly) w/ the competitive balance aspect, but now i'm not so certain that is such a valid concern.. like what happenes when evil empire decides he wants to have a firesale to get prospects he can't keep (due to our limited keepers)... alotta questions but i'm ready to get started on working to get these issues resolved to enhance to expereicne for everyone..
i really hope we can work together to keep this league whole and not lose any owners.. rememeber this is supposed to be like a fantasay, uh, fun, ya know... win or lose..
Saxmania
07-15-03, 11:13 AM
Agreed, and I hope that we can convince Joe to remain with the League, because the Ice are an up-and-coming team, and it would be a real shame to lose an owner because he's not happy with the way the league is being administered.
With regards to the vetoing of trades, I think we're somewhat at the mercy of the restraint of the owners as a group, but here's my take: The only reasons for vetoing a trade should be:
1) The trade appears to be collusive, in that no real advantage at all is gained by one side while the other gains a huge advantage
2) The trade appears to be based on incorrect or outdated information (e.g trading for a player who's been sent down, is injury-struck, or has been moved to the bullpen).
I agree with Ansky in that teams should be allowed to trade stars for prospects (which is why I probably wouldn't have vetoed the Biddle-Redding trade) and that an unbalanced trade should only be prevented if it threatens to seriously weaken one team's ability to compete.
Can anyone think of a definitive way of creating a rule which will provide clarity and fairness in this regard?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
SanFrANSKY
07-15-03, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
Can anyone think of a definitive way of creating a rule which will provide clarity and fairness in this regard?
Saxmania
This was an thorny issue in my own league and led to many recriminations and backbiting. I'll spare you the details and just say that you can't make everyone happy. Either all trades go through, no trades go through, or we keep the system we have in place.
Originally posted by Saxmania
I hope that we can convince Joe to remain with the League, because the Ice are an up-and-coming team, and it would be a real shame to lose an owner because he's not happy with the way the league is being administered.
It would indeed, but it's really up to Joe to reconsider. You just can't satisfy all of the people all of the time.
I might not always agree with the Way Things Are Done, but I would NEVER discontinue my active participation in the league over a single issue.
patrick.o
07-20-03, 08:30 PM
Ok, I think I've figured out how to address our pitching scoring. We can take this year's system and change the following:
IP = 3
L = 0
SV = 8
SVOP = -3
H = 3
and add:
G = 1, where G = games played or appearances.
It's not perfect, but it rewards good pitching and doesn't kill you if you have mediocre or bad pitching. I know G is a lousy stat to give value to, but it serves the purpose of adding that extra little bit that evens everything out.
Right now the league totals for hitting and pitching points are 45,652 and 23,885. If we make the above changes the totals become 45,652 and 45,322 - almost dead even. (After checking out a few different teams I used 200 as an across the board number for G. I think it's slightly conservative but close enough to use)
Here's a few scenarios:
7 IP, 7H, 2ER, 2BB, 6K with a win = 28.5
7 IP, 7H, 2ER, 2BB, 6K without a win = 18.5
5 IP, 7H, 6ER, 4BB, 3K, 1HBP, no win, = 5.5
1 IP, 1H, 0ER, 0BB, 1K, with a save = 9
1 IP, 1H, 0ER, 0BB, 1K, with a hold = 7
1 IP, 1H, 0ER, 0BB, 1K, no hold, no save = 3
1 IP, 3H, 3ER, 1BB, 1K, blown save = -3.5
1 IP, 3H, 3ER, 1BB, 1K, no blown save = -.5
So this will adress a lot of pitching issues. It increases the value of pitchers across the board. It increases the value of good relievers. It gets rid of the dreaded loss penalty. And it brings the overall value of pitching almost dead even to the overall value of team hitting. I think it could be a win-win all around.
Saxmania
07-21-03, 02:49 AM
Patrick, I like the way you're thinking, but could you run those numbers with ER = -2, Hit/Walk/WP/Balk = -1, and K = 1? I'm trying to steer around fractions of points if possible (it makes everyone's lives harder). I might be tempted to boost Games Played to +2, as well. Can you think of any arrangement that would allow us to keep those stats?
Last year's points scheme was similar, and it seemed to go down pretty well (Win = 10, Save = 5, IP = 3, ER = -2, Hit/Walk = -1, K = 1, CG = 10, Hld = 1).
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Hitman23
07-21-03, 12:02 PM
I have a question....
What decides the order that teams get to draft after this season??
I would say, in reverse order of record, with total points being the tie breaker. So if two teams tie at 6-16, and one has 4400 points, and the other 4600 points, the one with 4400 would draft first. Draft spots 15 and 16 would go to the semi-final losers (with record or total points deciding who is 15 and who is 16), 17 goes to the runner up and 18 goes to the league WS champion.
Just my $0.02
Hitman23
07-21-03, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
I would say, in reverse order of record, with total points being the tie breaker.
That's what I was hoping for. If the top teams are getting more keepers then that is only fair.
Bozidar
07-21-03, 01:47 PM
I dunno.. i think that blows. I've built a winning team with the 15th round draft pick, and now i have to sit at the back of the draft another year, because i was good enough to build a good team the first time around?
That kinda blows. I guess if i've had a bad start to my year next year, i could just turn into the league punching bag (sorry steve), so that i'll get 1st round the following year..
At the end of this year, down the stretch, what's to stop a team from becoming a total stinker just to get a higher draft order number?
Yankchic22
07-21-03, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
I guess if i've had a bad start to my year next year, i could just turn into the league punching bag (sorry steve), so that i'll get 1st round the following year..
LMAO!
But seriously, this is gonna go by your record? What if you have a good record but score NO points *Raises hand*
The thing is, in an even-round draft, each draft position is exactly equal to each other position. And look at our draft this year:
#2 pick Vladimir Guerrero, injured since June 6
#4 Randy Johnson missed almost 3 months
#5 Sammy Sosa missed 3 weeks in may
#6 Curt Schilling missed 6 weeks
It's all a crap-shoot anyway. But IRL, it goes in reverse order of position, and we're trying to be as real as possible.... ;)
Hitman23
07-21-03, 02:21 PM
So Brian.... what you're saying is that a top team should get more keepers, and the top picks? How is that even remotely fair, and how does that give any competitiveness to the other teams?
Bozidar
07-21-03, 02:37 PM
btw, Steve, I wasn't suggesting that's what you were doing, just making a point. I'm sure you're trying very hard..
Bozidar
07-21-03, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
It's all a crap-shoot anyway. But IRL, it goes in reverse order of position, and we're trying to be as real as possible.... ;) but IRL, you're drafting minor leguers who have very little immediate impact on the game you play that year. You draft guys whom 1 out of 100 may make it to the majors and play every day, and of those, maybe 1 out of 10 are from your farm system.
Steve -- i think it should be random again. We're not drafting minor leaguers here, everyone, given the very limited number of keepers right now, has a chance to have a great team. Keep in mind that NONE of the players in the first two rounds are keepers, any year. We already pay a price for keeping a guy, why punish the teams with better results?
Eff that, make it random every year.
We could also add a 22nd round, because like I said, in even round drafts, draft position is meaningless. I have the chart at home for a 16-round draft, (which I figured out for football) where each column adds up exactly the same. If anyone is interested, let me know. I can e-mail it to you.
patrick.o
07-21-03, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
So Brian.... what you're saying is that a top team should get more keepers, and the top picks? How is that even remotely fair, and how does that give any competitiveness to the other teams?
Re: the top teams getting more keepers, think there's a pretty clear consensus on the other thread that for the most part no one wants the playoff teams to have extra keepers, so that's something that we won't have to deal with beyond this upcoming draft.
Re: draft order, since team record involves a lot of luck (ask Mattingly's Hitmen) I think the fairest thing is a random draft order.
Hitman23
07-21-03, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
btw, Steve, I wasn't suggesting that's what you were doing, just making a point. I'm sure you're trying very hard..
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure it happens and you have a great point.
What I'm saying is that if the top teams get to keep more players then the less successful teams, they already have an advantage going into the next year. If you give them top pick as well, then the #1 draft picks that go back into the pool are just going to be drafted again by the top teams. That is a huge advantage.
I know this isn't pro, but if I'm not mistaken the teams with the worst records get first draft choices in all the four professional sports. (basketball has a lottery I think, with the worst teams getting a better chance because they have more entries in the "hat" (for lack of a better word)
It just evens it out a bit. You're not punishing anyone for doing this, you're getting rewarded with your keepers. To me, that's more valuable.
Yanksagain
07-21-03, 02:59 PM
Even thought my team is the most unluckiest team in the league my vote is reverse order of standings for the draft order. I thought this league was trying to resemble the major leagues. Everyone knows that mlb does their draft in reverse order of standings. The teams at the bottom of this league are going to have a hard enough time finding 3 keepers and now they are going to have to possibly wait 15 picks or so in the first round? No way.
Bozidar
07-21-03, 03:03 PM
MLB does their MINOR LEAGUE DRAFT in reverse order. They DO NOT draft MLB players that way.
By all means, make this a total keeper league, let us dump only those we want to dump, and we'll reverse-order draft everyone's scrubs.
But this is not the MLB, and as much as we try to make it like it, it won't be. You can't draft Randy Johnson in MLB, you've got to go out and get him -- and when he's a free agent, trust me, the teams that win the most have a BETTER chance of getting the guys they want. So if you want to make this really resemble how MLB teams aquire their talent, then the best teams pick first. :P
IMO, the random draft is the only fair way.
Hitman23
07-21-03, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
So if you want to make this really resemble how MLB teams aquire their talent, then the best teams pick first. :P
If you really want to do that, then we should change it to a rotisserie league with no cap and we bid on each player with real money.
Jesus Christ Boz, listen to what you're saying. You have to give a little. Just because you win doesn't mean you get to dominate for a decade. The purpose of a fantasy league is to keep balance. If you're going to keep more keepers then me and get first pick, I have zero chance of catching you. There is no amount of research or drafting I can do with the scrubs that will be left that will give me or any of the bottom half teams a chance. There are only so many Dontrelle Willis's and Gil Meche's in the league. You have to see this.
I think you're just afraid of competition because of all the ................ talking you do. :P
Yankchic22
07-21-03, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Yanksagain
Even thought my team is the most unluckiest team in the league my vote is reverse order of standings for the draft order. I thought this league was trying to resemble the major leagues. Everyone knows that mlb does their draft in reverse order of standings. The teams at the bottom of this league are going to have a hard enough time finding 3 keepers and now they are going to have to possibly wait 15 picks or so in the first round? No way.
I have to agree here. If you give first picks to the better teams, you are ognna have three or four teams dominating for however many years.
Bozidar
07-21-03, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Hitman23
Jesus Christ Boz, listen to what you're saying. You have to give a little. Just because you win doesn't mean you get to dominate for a decade. The purpose of a fantasy league is to keep balance. If you're going to keep more keepers then me and get first pick, I have zero chance of catching you. There is no amount of research or drafting I can do with the scrubs that will be left that will give me or any of the bottom half teams a chance. There are only so many Dontrelle Willis's and Gil Meche's in the league. You have to see this. Jesus Christ Hitman, you keep ignoring the fact that there is no increased keeper scenario right now, and that the voting, as patrick stated, is looking like that will be the case.
It's not about increased keepers. If i got keepers for free, not having to increase where they are in the draft order, they it would be something. But i don't. How many keepers are really WORTH taking at +2, or +5 rounds or whatever, from what they were? No, the only keepers work keeping are the bargains, and those are the Dontrelle Willis', Gil Meche's, ect of the league. The majority of the big talents will be back in the draft, and the system you propose will punish the teams that do well by giving them a lower draft, and thus less access to big talent.
It's not about compitition, it's not about any of that crap. It's about seperating what it means to have a MLB draft, and a fantasy draft with 3-4 keepers. Every year you're eseentially re-creating a whole new team. W/O going to a full auction, there's no way to keep it "balanced" and fair the way you suggest. Drafts are, in the realm of fantasy baseball, intrisinctly unfair. They balance out somewhat, but generally those at the top of the draft make out best.
Don't hate on me because i'm winning. I just want the league to be fair. I'm not asking for a better chance to draft first, just the same chance as all the other owners in my league.
But the REALITY of the MLB, if you want to go that way, is that the winning markets attract FA's easier than the losing free markets. To put it simply, Dimitri Young might go play for the Empire next year, but I doubt Jason Giambi would...
Yanksagain
07-21-03, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
MLB does their MINOR LEAGUE DRAFT in reverse order. They DO NOT draft MLB players that way.
IMO, the random draft is the only fair way.
I meant MINOR league of course. The only draft in baseball.
Our opinions differ. IMO reverse standings order draft is the only fair way.
Bozidar
07-21-03, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Yankchic22
I have to agree here. If you give first picks to the better teams, you are ognna have three or four teams dominating for however many years. It was a false suggestion. I was just making a point. I don't REALLY think that the best teams should draft first, i'm just turning the "like MLB" tables on those that think the MLB draft is about ordering of the teams finish. it's not, there is no MLB draft.. it's a Minor League draft.
Hitman23
07-21-03, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
Jesus Christ Hitman, you keep ignoring the fact that there is no increased keeper scenario right now, and that the voting, as patrick stated, is looking like that will be the case.
as far as I know, the playoff teams get more keepers next year. This was how it was outlined when we started. At least I'm told. I thought we were voting for the year after. If I'm wrong then forget it.
Bozidar
07-21-03, 04:32 PM
even if you're right, what's the point in giving me more keepers if you're just going to stick my ass 18th (hopefully) in the draft? Keep the keepers, give me first pick! It's not really a bonus, or prize, if i get deeked in the draft. Ooohh.. great.. i get to keep my guys LAST this year (hopefully), rather than 15th.. terriffic..
patrick.o
07-21-03, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
Patrick, I like the way you're thinking, but could you run those numbers with ER = -2, Hit/Walk/WP/Balk = -1, and K = 1? I'm trying to steer around fractions of points if possible (it makes everyone's lives harder). I might be tempted to boost Games Played to +2, as well.
Sax, if you change ER to -2 and all the .5s to 1s the split is:
45,652 hitting
31,075 pitching
If you also change IP to 4 it's:
45,652 hitting
44,397 pitching
And if you also make Games Played 1 it's (again, I'm estimating 200 GPs per team):
45,652 hitting
47,997 pitching
So the overall changes look like this (now, (changed to)):
IP 2, (4)
W 10
L -5, (0)
CG 10
SV 6, (8)
H -.5, (-1)
ER -1, (-2)
BB -.5, (-1)
HBP -.5, (-1)
K .5, (1)
WP -.5, (-1)
BLK -.5, (-1)
SVOP -2, (-3)
HLD 2, (4)
GP 0, (1)
Again, that changes this year's hitting/pitching split from
45,652 hitting
23,885 pitching
to
45,652 hitting
44,397 pitching (no point for GP)
47,997 pitching (1 point for GP)
Bozidar
07-21-03, 07:50 PM
did you mean the L was -5?
No to IP worth 4. We're trying to get rid of the odd fractions we have this year, which is why most folks want to move from 2points per inning pitched to 3. Of course, we could end this debate by eliminating IP as a stat and track OUTS instead. Nobody would vote for outs to be worth 0.67 points, or 1.33 points. It would be 1 point per out. (And outs is a pitching statistic Yahoo will track).
patrick.o
07-21-03, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
did you mean the L was -5? yep, fixed it above
patrick.o
07-21-03, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
No to IP worth 4. We're trying to get rid of the odd fractions we have this year, which is why most folks want to move from 2points per inning pitched to 3. Of course, we could end this debate by eliminating IP as a stat and track OUTS instead. Nobody would vote for outs to be worth 0.67 points, or 1.33 points. It would be 1 point per out. (And outs is a pitching statistic Yahoo will track).
I agree that it would be nice to get rid of the fractions, but don't you think it's more important to balance the value of team pitching vs team hitting?
yes, of course. but i thought we came pretty close earlier when we simply removed the loss penalty and increase IP from 2 to 3. I'd have to check again...but we don't need to completely balance things out, just make it closer.
patrick.o
07-21-03, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
yes, of course. but i thought we came pretty close earlier when we simply removed the loss penalty and increase IP from 2 to 3. I'd have to check again...but we don't need to completely balance things out, just make it closer.
If we change IP to 3, eliminate the loss penalty, and keep everything else like this year it's:
45652 hitting
41026 pitching
if we also add GP as 1 point it's:
45652 hitting
44627 pitching
And going back to my first post about this, if we also make HLD = 3, SVOP = -3, and SV = 8, we get:
45,652 hitting
45,322 pitching
Any of those seem like good options. It doesn't address Sax's desire to eliminate the .5s, but I like each out being worth 1 point instead of 1.33 points or .67 points. And I think the last one increases the value of relievers in relation to starters, making a 3 man relief corps something that can help you if you focus on putting together a good one but not kill you if you focus on building other parts or your team instead.
Saxmania
07-22-03, 03:25 AM
Guys,
Is there any way to give relievers credit for stranding runners on base that you know of?
I have some issues with IP = 3 and ER = 1, because it means that a run per inning (assuming that there are no win/loss conditions attached) is profitable, and I'm not sure that an ERA of 9 should be rewarded. On the other hand, balancing pitching and hitting is certainly worthwhile. I certainly don't have a problem with Out = 1 (in fact, it would be easier to track on third-party software than converting IP, although harder to read within Yahoo).
Games Played is a good idea for balancing, but if we can live without it, I think we should, because it's not very "real-world". But I don't know how else to reward relievers if "runners stranded" can't be rewarded.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Originally posted by Saxmania
I have some issues with IP = 3 and ER = 1, because it means that a run per inning (assuming that there are no win/loss conditions attached) is profitable, and I'm not sure that an ERA of 9 should be rewarded.
Only if every run was a solo homer, and those were the only hits surrendered. And that being the case, we can also have a negative point value for home runs surrendered, say a -1.
Then: One inning pitched, one run allowed, on a solo home run:
IP=3
R=(-1)
H=(-1)
HR=(-1)
Total = 0
*****************************
Pitching Categories we can track at Yahoo:
Pitching Appearances
Games Started
Wins
Losses
Complete Games
Shutouts
Saves
Outs
Hits
Total Batters Faced
Runs
Earned Runs
Home Runs
Walks
Intentional Walks
Hit Batters
Strikeouts
Wild Pitches
Balks
Stolen Bases Allowed
Batters Grounded Into Double Plays
Save Chances
Holds
Total Bases Allowed
Innings Pitched
*****************************
Like I've said in the past, I'd like to add a positive point value to IBB, since those are usually called from the dugout and should not penalize the pitcher.
Shutouts would be a nice bonus too. Think of the points a W, CG, Sho would accumulate! :)
Hitman23
07-22-03, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Bozidar
even if you're right, what's the point in giving me more keepers if you're just going to stick my ass 18th (hopefully) in the draft? Keep the keepers, give me first pick! It's not really a bonus, or prize, if i get deeked in the draft. Ooohh.. great.. i get to keep my guys LAST this year (hopefully), rather than 15th.. terriffic..
That's fine. But my arguement is that it's one or the other. Not both.
For the record, if we are voting on a lottery, I'm fine with that as well.
Saxmania
07-22-03, 09:23 AM
Sorry, Mister E (get it? I kill me), I was under the impression that you were leaving hits and walks at -0.5 rather than -1. That makes more sense, although I do think that ER should be penalised more than baserunners allowed. (We don't penalise Runs, just Earned Runs at the moment.)
In other words, we could have:
ER = -1,
Hit/walk/other baserunner = -0.5 (a la this year)
OR
ER = -1,
Hit/walk/other baserunner = -1
OR
ER = -2,
Hit/walk/other baserunner = -1 (a la last year)
I quite like the third option, because I think it's fairest. Last year's points scheme seemed fairly balanced, yes? Out = 1 would seem like the best way to proceed, anyway.
I wouldn't have a problem with +10 for a Shutout, although I think that ace pitchers would become incredibly valuable. Mark Mulder alone would be worth an awful lot. Still, not saying that's a bad thing.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Originally posted by Saxmania
I wouldn't have a problem with +10 for a Shutout, although I think that ace pitchers would become incredibly valuable. Mark Mulder alone would be worth an awful lot.
Mulder's not worth that much more. Remember, it's CG Sho, not just allowing zero runs in an appearance as a starter. The current Shutout leaders are:
Rk Player, Team CG SHO
1 J. Schmidt, SF 5 3
2 C. Schilling, Ari 3 2
H. Nomo, LA 2 2
M. Morris, StL 4 2
K. Millwood, Phi 3 2
M. Mulder, Oak 7 2
D. Willis, Fla 2 2
8 D. Wells, NYY 3 1
R. Reed, Min 1 1
S. Trachsel, NYM 1 1
J. Suppan, Pit 2 1
D. Graves, Cin 1 1
K. Escobar, Tor 1 1
T. Hudson, Oak 1 1
R. Wolf, Phi 1 1
V. Padilla, Phi 1 1
B. Zito, Oak 2 1
W. Franklin, Mil 1 1
J. Pineiro, Sea 1 1
J. Kennedy, TB 1 1
K. Lohse, Min 2 1
M. Prior, ChC 1 1
B. Myers, Phi 1 1
B. Traber, Cle 1 1
J. Williams, SF 2 1
Z. Day, Mon 1 1
J. Lackey, Ana 1 1
B. Webb, Ari 1 1
That's it. No other pitcher has a shutout.
Just thinking out loud here...what if for next season, we give the 3 division leaders playoff berths, and the final playoff spot goes to the team with the highest points scored by a non-division winner. I mean the #1 points team this season has a losing record in head-to-head competition...at least this would reward a GM that put together a good team, but somehow got the short end in head-to-head.
patrick.o
08-03-03, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
Just thinking out loud here...what if for next season, we give the 3 division leaders playoff berths, and the final playoff spot goes to the team with the highest points scored by a non-division winner. I mean the #1 points team this season has a losing record in head-to-head competition...at least this would reward a GM that put together a good team, but somehow got the short end in head-to-head.
I like that idea a lot. My biggest gripe about fantasy sports has always been that you can't play defense - you can't do anything to stop the other team from scoring. So what can happen, as shown by this year, is you can end up with the 15th highest scoring team tied for a division lead with 5 weeks remaining, while the highest scoring team is 4 games back in their division and 2 games back in the wild card race.
I like this idea a lot.
Soriambi
08-03-03, 12:09 PM
I agree with the SHO Bonus. It's complete domination to have a CG SHO and I think you should get an extra bonus. Also, is there any way to give bonus points for every strikeout over 10 or something? Like, you get .5 for a K but 2 points for every K over 10? It would reward the really dominant 15-20 K days that come around every once in a blue moon if it's possible.
Ansky39
08-27-03, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by patrick.o
Sax, if you change ER to -2 and all the .5s to 1s the split is:
45,652 hitting
31,075 pitching
If you also change IP to 4 it's:
45,652 hitting
44,397 pitching
And if you also make Games Played 1 it's (again, I'm estimating 200 GPs per team):
45,652 hitting
47,997 pitching
So the overall changes look like this (now, (changed to)):
IP 2, (4)
W 10
L -5, (0)
CG 10
SV 6, (8)
H -.5, (-1)
ER -1, (-2)
BB -.5, (-1)
HBP -.5, (-1)
K .5, (1)
WP -.5, (-1)
BLK -.5, (-1)
SVOP -2, (-3)
HLD 2, (4)
GP 0, (1)
Again, that changes this year's hitting/pitching split from
45,652 hitting
23,885 pitching
to
45,652 hitting
44,397 pitching (no point for GP)
47,997 pitching (1 point for GP)
45,652 hitting
47,997 pitching (1 point for GP)
Looks good to me... the scoring sucked this eas and for the life of me i couldn't figure why my team of low era qs pitchers still couldn't keep me afloat... i just blamned it all on the loss penaklty, but in truth i don't have alot of big loss arms other than washed up burns , all my arms were top line arms yet my scores never budged unless i got some hrs... based on this model the rangers would be perennial world champs...
anyways, i like your thinking on this and hope we can adapt the changes to show the true vakue of pitching in relation to hiting in baseball... :smokin:
Ansky39
08-27-03, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Hitman23
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure it happens and you have a great point.
What I'm saying is that if the top teams get to keep more players then the less successful teams, they already have an advantage going into the next year. If you give them top pick as well, then the #1 draft picks that go back into the pool are just going to be drafted again by the top teams. That is a huge advantage.
I know this isn't pro, but if I'm not mistaken the teams with the worst records get first draft choices in all the four professional sports. (basketball has a lottery I think, with the worst teams getting a better chance because they have more entries in the "hat" (for lack of a better word)
It just evens it out a bit. You're not punishing anyone for doing this, you're getting rewarded with your keepers. To me, that's more valuable.
ditto steve, don't worry bout my bitch boz, he's jus still sore from the whippin i put on his ass for coming home $hort week 17... http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies3/1033830765.gif
Bozidar
08-27-03, 11:59 AM
And again.. you keep your keepers. Heck, take mine. I'll take first draft, please.
Ansky39
08-27-03, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
And again.. you keep your keepers. Heck, take mine. I'll take first draft, please.
your reward for making the post is an extra keeper at a higher round or something like that right... if you make the post you clearly have better players and thus better keeper options.. that is a reward, you have a stronger foundation than us non playiooff teams even though i kicked your playoff ass in wek 17... :smokin:
as for us non playoff teams we already suck and have weaker keepr options and fewer players we can keep.. if we hope to promote some semblance of the competitive balance you're currently championing in our football league we need some way for us weak teams to improve ourselves.. the alternative is a dynasty league where the playoff teams get more keepers and also can get the number one pick the following year...
i lobbied for extra keepers and got shot down which i still don't understand why anyone anywhere would call a league a keeper league where you only keep what 3 out of 21 players, (not even counting any dl'd players we may have), but gimme a break here, what do you want to be the steiny of our league... you get your extra keeper as per the rule, but it would really suck for us scrubs like me and steve http://www.smilies.org/basesmilies3/1043973227.gif wallowing in the gutter thru the end of this seas w/ not one god damn thing to do since we only keep 3 of, in my case 23 players, to see the world champ w/ an extra keeper an extra round or something like that and the #1 god damn pick for next seas... if we're seriously trying to make this league work i don't see how you can argue that already disadvantaged non playoff teams should get no advantage in the draft for next seas.. unless of course you don't care about keeping the league active and competitive...
i acquiesced to you guys all year from this distorted pitching to the loss penalty to the bull................ trades to even the miniscule number of keepers we're allowed to retain, but i certainly don't see any mutual movement on the other side of issues i've voiced an opinion on.. this is turning into some kinda of pissing contest, rather than a sincere effort to enahnce all of our expereinces.. i can tell you honestly from my view outside the playoffs, this ain't much fun, in fact it sucks the big one, but if that's what you want, keep your extra keeper and go for the #1 pick, then you'll have a leg and a half up on everyone else, and you can win again next seas and get the number one pick the year after that yada yada...
as usual whatever the majority decides, yada yada yada... :rolleyes:
Saxmania
08-27-03, 12:33 PM
Actually, I would think that weaker teams would have the better keeper prospects, because they'd trade away their top-round picks in August for young keeper prospects who aren't yet productive.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Ansky39
08-27-03, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
Actually, I would think that weaker teams would have the better keeper prospects, because they'd trade away their top-round picks in August for young keeper prospects who aren't yet productive.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
woah.. lemme get this str8, i get only 3 keepers and i should have a better foundation than someone who gets 4?
if i only get 3 keepers why would i even bother to make transactions in august sax.. this is the point, i only get to keep 3 players.. out of 23 i don't need to trade w/ anyone, there's no incentive for that as i explained weeks maybe months ago but got shot down.. now if i were keeping like 40-50% of my team i would have that incentive to trade non keepers for keepers, and then perhaps your strategy would work, but as it is, i have my e keeprs already, and since i've had them all year and my team is not .500 no they are not better keepers than someone who's players got them to the post this seas...
anyways i'll defer to you guys in here, whatever you deciede works for me, heck boz you need any more keepers i got like 6 but can only keep 3, lmk if i can help you poor playoff teams out... i'm startin to feel like i'm talkin russian in here... :smokin:
I've got at least 5 players I'd like to keep next year, but am limited to 3. Despite this, I think we should keep the keeper rules as they are for 2004, and change them for 2005.
Ansky39
08-27-03, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
I've got at least 5 players I'd like to keep next year, but am limited to 3. Despite this, I think we should keep the keeper rules as they are for 2004, and change them for 2005.
i thought this issue was decided already...
#1PaFan
08-27-03, 12:57 PM
Ditto A39, big time.
I've NEVER been involved in a Keeper League like this. It's going to be damn hard for the lower teams to make any improvements from year to year.
Saxmania
08-27-03, 01:34 PM
<Sigh> Look, guys, I've just read over the Blueprint. No-one objected to the way that keepers were organised when I proposed them, and we've already agreed that, in the offseason, we're going to vote on how keepers over the 2004/5 season, so that for this offseason we stick with the rules we signed up to, and then we decide new ones for the next. As for the points scheme: it's done, and we've already agreed to change them for next year. The league still works okay (I'm the biggest scorer, on the basis of Mussina-Halladay-L. Hernandez-Buehlre, and have a winning streak of 6 games during an offensive slump), and will be better next year. I'm working on a proposal for a points scheme next year, and will present it in the next few weeks.
Until then - please, we've bitched about this over and over, and always end up at the same point: agreeing to vote on new rules for next year. I'm as open to new ideas as the next guy, but what are we actually accomplishing here? Because I don't have an infinite amount of time, and re-hashing points we made two months ago isn't the best use of it.
Sorry if this came out too harsh, but we have more competitive balance than last year, more participation than last year, and more owners than last year. I remain unconvinced that 1 extra keeper suddenly makes a winning team into a dynasty. Can we please agree to leave all the arguments for the vote?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Ansky39
08-27-03, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
<Sigh> Look, guys, I've just read over the Blueprint. No-one objected to the way that keepers were organised when I proposed them, and we've already agreed that, in the offseason, we're going to vote on how keepers over the 2004/5 season, so that for this offseason we stick with the rules we signed up to, and then we decide new ones for the next. As for the points scheme: it's done, and we've already agreed to change them for next year. The league still works okay (I'm the biggest scorer, on the basis of Mussina-Halladay-L. Hernandez-Buehlre, and have a winning streak of 6 games during an offensive slump), and will be better next year. I'm working on a proposal for a points scheme next year, and will present it in the next few weeks.
Until then - please, we've bitched about this over and over, and always end up at the same point: agreeing to vote on new rules for next year. I'm as open to new ideas as the next guy, but what are we actually accomplishing here? Because I don't have an infinite amount of time, and re-hashing points we made two months ago isn't the best use of it.
Sorry if this came out too harsh, but we have more competitive balance than last year, more participation than last year, and more owners than last year. I remain unconvinced that 1 extra keeper suddenly makes a winning team into a dynasty. Can we please agree to leave all the arguments for the vote?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
sir i concede everything.. i conceded the keeper issue weeks ago, i conceded the lopsided trades i conceded the loss penalty i conceded the lopsided scoring and if you wany me to concede the draft order as well it's yours, i concede... go random draft lower keepers to 2 for non playoff teams deduct 20 points for loses.. funny we all seemd to be on the same page last seas when we started this, but this seas we got 2000 teams and 2000 opinions and outside of patrick very little rational support for the 2000 opinions other than i swear some in here just wait to see my take and jump on the other side.. whatever floats your boats... :rolleyes:
Saxmania
08-27-03, 01:56 PM
Huh? Ansky, we introduced a veto system for lopsided trades. We had a vote on keepers. The loss penalty is gone for next year, almost without question. The draft order is currently set to be random, but we haven't had a vote yet. This isn't some massive conspiracy against you - this is the way the league turned out. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's not like we can alter all the rules in the middle of a season just because we think of another way of doing things.
I'm all in favor of debate and discussion of the merits of relative positions, and perhaps if we'd had more last offseason then this league would be closer to the way you'd like it. On the other hand, maybe it'd be further away; that's the chance you take. I wanted daily scoring for playoff games rather than weekly scoring, but guess what? Other people didn't, so that's the way it is. No-one's stopping anyone from talking about any of the issues.
My point is that I don't see the foundation for things like:
i acquiesced to you guys all year from this distorted pitching to the loss penalty to the bull................ trades to even the miniscule number of keepers we're allowed to retain, but i certainly don't see any mutual movement on the other side of issues i've voiced an opinion on.. this is turning into some kinda of pissing contest, rather than a sincere effort to enahnce all of our expereinces
We (the league) tried to take on board all your points, but some weren't popular, and some couldn't be changed until next season. So you lost a few. We all have. I wanted more points for holds, compulsory no starters in the bullpen, etc., etc. But I'm not going to bitch about it any longer, because it's not my league - it's the forum's league, and that's it. And we're going to work to make it better next year. And we all want you to be part of that process, so there's no giant conspiracy against you. Perhaps some people often disagree with you because they have different visions of how the league should work.
And Ansky? You proposed IP=2; check the Blueprint.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
patrick.o
08-27-03, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Ansky39
if you make the post you clearly have better players and thus better keeper options.. I'm at work and haven't had time to really read very much so forgive me if this has already been addressed, but the above quote is completely false. If the playoffs were to start today the top 4 scoring teams would be on the outside looking in, and as it is two of those teams are already eliminated. Meanwhile, the 16th highest scoring team is leading their (our) division, and the 12th highest scoring team has a better chance of making the playoffs than the highest scoring team.
The only thing clear about an 18 team league is that being good isn't enough - you need a bit of luck, too.
Yanksagain
08-27-03, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o
The only thing clear about an 18 team league is that being good isn't enough - you need a bit of luck, too.
Tell me about it. I've been leading this league in points for most of the season and I'm already eliminated.
Sax, great post. We have voted on every issue and there will be more to come. This league is run by the members not by one individual.
Saxmania
08-27-03, 04:34 PM
Good point, patrick - this is why I like the idea of making our Wild Card the highest-scoring team that didn't make the postseason, not the best second-place team. Another change we can consider when this year is done.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Saxmania
08-28-03, 12:21 PM
Proposed points scheme for 2004:
Batting:
Run: 1 point
RBI: 1 point
Single: 1 point
Double: 2 points
Triple: 3 points
Home run: 4 points
Walk: 1 point
Stolen base: 1 point
Caught stealing: 1 point
Hit by pitch: 1 point
GIDP: 1 point
Pitching:
IP: 3 points
Win: 10 points
Complete Game: 10 points
Save: 6 points
Hold: 3 points
Earned run: -1 point
Hit allowed: -0.5 points
Walk allowed: -0.5 points
Strikeouts: 0.5 points
Balk: -0.5 points
Wild pitch: -0.5 points
OPTIONAL ADDITIONS (for discussion)
Batting
Error: -1 point
Passed ball: -0.5 points
LOB: -0.5 points
Pitching
Game Played: 2 points
Blown save: -3 points
This is the "traditional" scoring model I'm working on, which rewards things like wins and saves highly, so that ace starters are going to be immensely powerful. I think this will unbalance the league a little towards pitching, because of the rarity of good starting pitching compared to good hitting, but it's certainly going to be more popular, and probably more balanced than this year. I'm working on a "sabermetric" model that devalues wins and saves as per patrick's thoughts, but I can't imagine it being popular.
Is this the kind of thing you're looking for, Ansky?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
How about a 5 or 10 point bonus for a shutout? Since a complete game shutout is rare these days, that should be rewarded... :)
patrick.o
08-28-03, 12:35 PM
I would much rather have a complete game bonus than a win bonus. A CG means the pitcher pitched well, whereas the W doesn't mean anything other than that the pitcher's team scored more runs than the other team.
Saxmania
08-28-03, 01:17 PM
I have no problem with the Shutout bonus, although I think it may be a little OTT (you're already getting 20 points for win+CG, as well as 27 points for IP, so you're probably talking more than 50 points for a single outing). I just didn't have the Shutout stats for this year to hand.
Patrick, to some extent you're preaching to the choir with this wins idea, but I don't think you're going to be able to convince the rest of the league.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Ansky39
08-28-03, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o
I would much rather have a complete game bonus than a win bonus. A CG means the pitcher pitched well, whereas the W doesn't mean anything other than that the pitcher's team scored more runs than the other team.
i would like to agree here as long as the overall value of pitching is once again higher than hitting... i wasn't sure in your last thread about proposed scoring if you included the win bonus or not, but i liked the ratio of 45,652 hitting 47,997 pitching (1 point for GP)
Bozidar
08-28-03, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Ansky39
as for us non playoff teams we already suck and have weaker keepr options and fewer players we can keep.. I disagree. If we were doing something that let us keep our same guys, at the SAME round, it would be closer, but it's not. Any guy i drafted in the 1st two rounds is useless to me, i can't keep him. Any guy i drafted, or was drafted, in the 3rd round -- he'll become a first-round draft pick this year. How many guys go from a 3rd or worse round draft pick to two higher? Not a lot..
In fact, some of us have traded away our best keepers, like Sheff, in order to get us to the post-season.
So like i said.. you can keep your keepers. I don't want em.
Here's the OTHER monkey wrench in the whole thing -- we're changing the scoring system from this year to last. That means that certain teams that underperformed this year, such as yours, may actually be BETTER than most or all of the post-season teams because pitching will be much more of an influence. Look at patrick's team, for an example. He had, and still has a slim shot at the post-season, he could have made it. He's got ................ for pitching. Next year, if he kept his team the way it is right now, he'd be hanging out at the bottom middle of the pack.
No.. keep your keepers.. keep mine.. i'll take 1st draft pick, and scrap my team.
IMO, you should give everyone the same keepers, and make it a random draft order. The "prize" for winning, is as always WINNING. IMO, that's all you need, no reason to ................ with the way it was last year.
patrick.o
08-28-03, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
Patrick, to some extent you're preaching to the choir with this wins idea, but I don't think you're going to be able to convince the rest of the league.
That's ok, we can keep wins. I've got a new proposal anyway. I propose that any batter who gets the game winning RBI gets a 10 point bonus! I mean, it's only fair. If the pitcher who wins the game (all by himself, with no help from the rest of his team) gets a 10 point bonus, then shouldn't the batter who wins the game get one too? Fair's fair.:P
patrick.o
08-28-03, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
Look at patrick's team, for an example.....He's got ................ for pitching.
Hey! That ain't right! :lol: My staff isn't that bad! As of right now I'm 9th in pitching scoring with 1812.2 points, which is only 2 spots worse than Juniors Bashers, who are 7th with 1888.9. (And I'm one spot better than the Larrupin Lous "#1 rated pitching staff!" ;) ).
Here's the pitching totals as of right now if anyone's interested:
Saxmanias Swingers...2160.7
Mattinglys Hitmen.......2080.7
New York Squeaks......2074.2
THE 4 HORSEMEN.....1981
Ny Bombers...............1917.2
Lordz of Flatbush........1915.2
Juniors Bashers..........1888.9
Cunning Linguists........1846.9
The Naked Truth..........1812.2
The Larrupin Lous.......1795.7
Evil Empire.................1786.7
Senators....................1765.9
Michigan Wolverines...1760.2
Italian Ice...................1743.4
9 Angry Playaz...........1692.9
Newburgh Naughties...1576.5
Fishing with Mendoza .1503.9
Dawgs From Easton....1447.9
patrick.o
08-28-03, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
Pitching:
IP: 3 points
Win: 10 points
Complete Game: 10 points
Save: 6 points
Hold: 3 points
Earned run: -1 point
Hit allowed: -0.5 points
Walk allowed: -0.5 points
Strikeouts: 0.5 points
Balk: -0.5 points
Wild pitch: -0.5 points
OPTIONAL ADDITIONS (for discussion)
Pitching
Game Played: 2 points
Blown save: -3 pointsSax, while that does a good job evening out the overall value of pitching vs hitting, it still doesn't address the value of individual pitching vs individual pitching. We are still going to end up with
7IP, 2ER, 4H, 2BB, 6K = 29 points (win)
7IP, 2ER, 4H, 2BB, 6K = 19 points (no win)
At no other posistion can two guys have identical stats yet score different points. So one team's guy who plays for the Yanks or Braves or some other good team ends up being worth 50 or 60 points more over the course of the season than an equally talented guy who plays for a lousy team or who has lousy luck. Yet a guy who gets 175 hits and bangs 30 HRs is worth the same no matter who he plays for.
Look at Freedy Garcia today: 6.2 IP, 4 H, 2 BB, 1 ER, 4 K, no win = 10.4 points. I guarantee you a whole bunch of schmucks will pitch worse than that tonight, some of them much worse, yet score more points.
It just ain't right.
patrick.o
08-28-03, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
Patrick, to some extent you're preaching to the choir with this wins idea, but I don't think you're going to be able to convince the rest of the league.
Have faith, Sax! Sometimes it takes a while to come around to new ideas. And quite a few people have expressed openness to the idea already. Never underestimate the powers of a Jedi! :lol:
Originally posted by patrick.o
Hey! That ain't right! :lol: My staff isn't that bad! As of right now I'm 9th in pitching scoring with 1812.2 points, which is only 2 spots worse than Juniors Bashers, who are 7th with 1888.9. (And I'm one spot better than the Larrupin Lous "#1 rated pitching staff!" ;) ).
LOL....the Lou's haven't been #1 since Pedro got injured for 2-3 weeks and Morris had been on the DL for 5 weeks... :rolleyes:
A pitcher's job is to win games. I'm in favor of keeping the bonus. Yes, he could score 50 points in a night with a CG and ShO bonus, but usually he only pitches once a week, and a 50-point night would be extremely rare.
Also, I thought we were going to go up to +1 per K, and -1 per BB and H allowed. If I have Jose Reyes and John Smoltz, and Reyes gets a single off of Smoltz, I get +1 for the Reyes hit and -.5 for the hit allowed for a +.5? If a hit is worth +1 (min) for a hitter it should be worth -1 for a pitcher. Same thing with a walk.
#1PaFan
08-28-03, 08:14 PM
My son sold me on the idea. As a matter of fact, Rocket agrees with him too. If you saw him on Center Stage, you'll know what I'm talking about. :) :gulp:
A pitcher's job is NOT to win games. It is to prevent the other team from scoring and put their OFFENSE in a position to win the game.
But it's the pitcher who gets the credit. I'm sure Roger thought it was a big deal when he got #300. :)
#1PaFan
08-28-03, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
But it's the pitcher who gets the credit. I'm sure Roger thought it was a big deal when he got #300. :)
:lol: Hell yeah. He probably should have won #300 a few years ago though.
Again, I completely agree with Patrick's proposal. I had my cousin Kevin Brown this year. He had a five game winless streak where he surrendered something like a total of nine ER's. He just happens to play for a team with a ridiculously anemic offense. Often times, the W-L record is absolutely no indication of how a pitcher pitches.
On the flipside, if you see a closer with a number of decisions it probably means he sucked that year.
Wins & losses are a Team stat. I don't give a ................ what the writers say. I bet I watch a lot more Baseball than the majority of them do anyway. :)
You can take a Perfect Game into extra innings and not get a Win. Ask Harvey Haddix! Of course, you'd have to have a seance.... ;)
patrick.o
08-28-03, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
A pitcher's job is to win games.
It's not the pitcher's job to win games, it's the team's job. The pitcher's contribution to the team's goal is to stop the other team from scoring runs.
I'm in favor of keeping the bonus. Yes, he could score 50 points in a night with a CG and ShO bonus, but usually he only pitches once a week, and a 50-point night would be extremely rare.
Regarding that, what I said before re: rather having CG than wins, I misspoke. What I meant was I'd rather have a SO bonus than W. And I agree with the rareness of the SO, which is part of the reason I like it. The other part is that if a guy throws a shutout then it's impossible for the other team to win. A guy should get an extra bonus for that kind of performance.
Also, I thought we were going to go up to +1 per K, and -1 per BB and H allowed. If I have Jose Reyes and John Smoltz, and Reyes gets a single off of Smoltz, I get +1 for the Reyes hit and -.5 for the hit allowed for a +.5? If a hit is worth +1 (min) for a hitter it should be worth -1 for a pitcher. Same thing with a walk.
I'd prefer hits and such to be a (-1) also, but it's tough to work out a system which makes overall pitching and overall hitting worth about the same. A lot of the different formulas I've tried with no .5's end up no better than what we have now. I did figure out one system that I though was pretty good that uses only whole numbers - you can find it here (http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46340) ;)
patrick.o
08-28-03, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
A pitcher's job is to win games. I'm in favor of keeping the bonus.
Let me ask you this, Eric. Look at this:
Pitchers
7IP, 2ER, 4H, 2BB, 6K = 29 points (win)
7IP, 2ER, 4H, 2BB, 6K = 19 points (no win)
Batters
1 2B, 1 HR, 2 R, 2 RBI = 10 points (win)
1 2B, 1 HR, 2 R, 2 RBI = 10 points (no win)
Shouldn't two equal performances by pitchers equal the same amount of points, just like two equal performances by batters do? That's the fundamental point of my argument. The batter doesn't get graded by the outcome of the game, so why does the pitcher? It's especially ludicrus (to me) when you think about some of the ways a pitcher can go about getting a win, like blowing a save and then watching his offense rescue his bacon.
patrick.o
08-28-03, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
My son sold me on the idea.
See, Sax - I'm not alone! And a few others - the Playaz, the Lordz, yourself - have shown at least an interest in discussing it. Don't slam the door on me yet!
#1PaFan
08-28-03, 09:58 PM
Ditto again, Patrick.
We should be scoring Pitchers on THEIR performance, not on their Team's performance. We wouldn't even debate a "loss penalty" on a position player. Nor should we.
Heck, if we took away this W-L scoring, that just might make some pitchers from crappy teams more available. That is something we need in a league this big. Who is going to draft a pitcher from Detroit knowing the chances of a getting a "W" are difficult at best?
Pitchers should be judged on how THEY perform; not on how their TEAM performs. I'm not sure why anybody would object to it. My .02. :gulp:
Originally posted by patrick.o
Let me ask you this, Eric. Look at this:
Pitchers
7IP, 2ER, 4H, 2BB, 6K = 29 points (win)
7IP, 2ER, 4H, 2BB, 6K = 19 points (no win)
Batters
1 2B, 1 HR, 2 R, 2 RBI = 10 points (win)
1 2B, 1 HR, 2 R, 2 RBI = 10 points (no win)
Shouldn't two equal performances by pitchers equal the same amount of points, just like two equal performances by batters do? That's the fundamental point of my argument. The batter doesn't get graded by the outcome of the game, so why does the pitcher?
I understand your arguement, really, I do. :)
And as someone who had at least 5 or 6 wins by Pedro Martinez blown by the Sawx bullpen, I can sympathize. But that's part of the game. And if it means that Andy Pettitte is more valuable with his 16-7 record and 4.01 ERA in 27 starts than Steve Trachsel and his 13-7 record and 4.01 ERA in 27 starts, then so be it. (And I didn't evaluate all the other numbers such as IP, K, H, BB, etc).
Originally posted by patrick.o
It's especially ludicrus (to me) when you think about some of the ways a pitcher can go about getting a win, like blowing a save and then watching his offense rescue his bacon.
True, though in that case he'd get negative points for the hits and runs allowed, and the blown save as well. He'd still end up with positive points because of the win bonus, but again...that's baseball. :)
I may be liberal in my politics but I'm conservative in my baseball, and doubt you'd ever convince me to vote to get rid of the win points. :)
patrick.o
08-28-03, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
Heck, if we took away this W-L scoring, that just might make some pitchers from crappy teams more available.
Exactly. What if I told you you could choose one of these two guys:
4.26 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, .267 BAA
4.28 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, .257 BAA
Based on those numbers most people would take the second guy. But he unfortunately plays for Milwalkee and is .500, while the first guy plays for Atlanta and is 4 games over .500.
patrick.o
08-28-03, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
doubt you'd ever convince me to vote to get rid of the win points. :)
Fair enough. I'll put you down as "undecided" :lol:
#1PaFan
08-28-03, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
I understand your arguement, really, I do. :)
And as someone who had at least 5 or 6 wins by Pedro Martinez blown by the Sawx bullpen, I can sympathize. But that's part of the game. And if it means that Andy Pettitte is more valuable with his 16-7 record and 4.01 ERA in 27 starts than Steve Trachsel and his 13-7 record and 4.01 ERA in 27 starts, then so be it. (And I didn't evaluate all the other numbers such as IP, K, H, BB, etc).
[/B]
THAT is a part of Baseball, not Fantasy Baseball. Hitters are judged strictly on THEIR performance. So should Pitchers.
Should a position player get judged on the performance of a pinch hitter or pinch runner? Of course not!
I think Patrick's proposal is outstanding. I'm not sure why anybody would be against it, quite honestly. It just makes sense. :gulp:
Bozidar
08-29-03, 12:29 AM
give the 10 points for a win
give the 10 points for a CG
give the 10 points for a SHO
If premier pitchers that give you those stats in enough volume to imbalance the scoring system such that pitchers are worth more?
Good. They're hard to come by in the real game too. They're worth that much in the real game, too. So be it.
#1PaFan
08-29-03, 12:57 AM
GOOD! Bozidar spoke. His ideas will be implemented immediately. :)
The Win Rule is Bozibull................. It's a TEAM stat. The Complete Game is NOT a Team Stat. Nor is the Shutout Rule.
YES, premiere pitchers are hard to find, which makes them (or SHOULD) make them more valuable than a .280 hitting right fielder. It's more in line with Baseball. Pitchers ARE more valuable than position players. If you haven't learned that yet, you may never learn it.
Patrick came up with a damn good idea. I'm not exactly sure why Boz is against it.
Bozidar
08-29-03, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
I'm not exactly sure why Boz is against it. because you are a bitter asswipe, and i have the right to my opinion :) I like wins being part of the game. Are they always fair? No. But either is baseball..
#1PaFan
08-29-03, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Bozidar
because you are a bitter asswipe, and i have the right to my opinion :) I like wins being part of the game. Are they always fair? No. But either is baseball..
It must be nice to be a moderator and be able to call me a "bitter asswipe."
Nobody said you didn't have a right to your opinion. I just think your opinion shows a shocking ................ing lack of knowledge.
No, Baseball (like Life) is often NOT fair. But, in Fantasy Baseball, we can make it fairer. And we should. Patrick proposed a damn good scoring change.
And, by the way, don't ever type ................ like that again.
patrick.o
08-29-03, 11:48 AM
George, George, George. I appreciate the support, but driving something down people's throats almost always galvanizes them against it. Let everyone digest it on thier own. If some people aren't going to buy into it, then that's the way it is. With luck there will at least be enough support to put it to a vote when the time comes, but if not then so be it. It's not worth getting worked up about, and I think I'll just let it rest for now (at least for a few minutes :D ).
And re: Boz, this is just my take, but I don't think you're being quite as fair minded as you might. If you're going to push the limits with what you dish out, you have to be prepared to take the same in return. Less BoziBull................ comments would probably equal less bitter asswipe comments.
Saxmania
08-29-03, 12:13 PM
"Sabermetric" scoring scheme
Batting:
As above
Pitching:
IP = 5
Hit allowed = -1
Walk allowed = -1
Strikeout = 1
Earned Run Allowed = -3
Wild Pitch, Balk, HBP = -1
This again results in a fairly even balance of hitting and pitching points, with no points for "game situation" stats, but more for "pitcher specific" stats. The downside is that middle relievers will be even less valuable than now, so we'd either have to abolish the bullpen or have stricter rules on using starters instead of relievers (and on leaving spots empty).
Personally, I prefer the more traditional approach I first posted, because it's more "friendly" (evaluates players on a similar weighting to the media, with wins important) and so should be more welcoming to new owners. Also, I think there is such a thing as pitching to the score. Orel Hershisher said once that he used his least good pitches when he had a big lead, because he didn't want to show hitters anything he might need in a close game to get them out. In other words, he would happily degrade his personal line by giving up a few runs if it didn't risk the team's win. The "sabermetric" system doesn't reflect that.
Additionally, I can justify allowing fewer points for a pitcher giving up hits than a hitter hitting them because the defense also plays a part in the hit being given up. A walk is trickier, but I'm willing to go with it for the sake of balance.
We could also credit/debit hitters for double plays turned, errors allowed, runners thrown out (catchers) and passed balls allowed (catchers), but I don't know how many of those are tracked by Yahoo.
In any case, ideally we could settled upon a choice of two scoring systems (perhaps like the two above) for owners to choose between in the next few weeks. More than two risks the vote being split between similar options. Can we work towards this?
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
#1PaFan
08-29-03, 01:20 PM
Thank you, Patrick, Patrick, Patrick. :) :lol:
I apologize if I came off too strong. :)
It's STILL a good idea, Son! :gulp:
Ansky39
08-29-03, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
THAT is a part of Baseball, not Fantasy Baseball. Hitters are judged strictly on THEIR performance. So should Pitchers.
Should a position player get judged on the performance of a pinch hitter or pinch runner? Of course not!
I think Patrick's proposal is outstanding. I'm not sure why anybody would be against it, quite honestly. It just makes sense. :gulp:
ditto sir...:smokin:
Ansky39
08-29-03, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
GOOD! Bozidar spoke. His ideas will be implemented immediately. :)
The Win Rule is Bozibull................. It's a TEAM stat. The Complete Game is NOT a Team Stat. Nor is the Shutout Rule.
YES, premiere pitchers are hard to find, which makes them (or SHOULD) make them more valuable than a .280 hitting right fielder. It's more in line with Baseball. Pitchers ARE more valuable than position players. If you haven't learned that yet, you may never learn it.
Patrick came up with a damn good idea. I'm not exactly sure why Boz is against it.
ditto again sir...:smokin: :gulp:
Bozidar
08-29-03, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o
And re: Boz, this is just my take, but I don't think you're being quite as fair minded as you might. If you're going to push the limits with what you dish out, you have to be prepared to take the same in return. Less BoziBull................ comments would probably equal less bitter asswipe comments. Believe me patrick, i take a lot more than i dish out in that department.
What a VAGINA!!!!
George just isn't used to getting the dirty comments back...looks like he can't take a joke, to me.
As far as my opinion of the rule goes..
In every game, of every baseball game recorded since they started "W"s and "L"s, one pitcher gets the W, one pitcher gets the L.
I think fantasy baseball should use this stat. I don't give a flying ................ that it's not always fair, but how often do you find a 17 game winner who doesn't ................ing deserve to be a 17 game winner?
I've had enough of this. I voiced opinion.
Sorry, i have too much going on right now to give a flying ................. Whatever you guys decide is fine with me. Just let me know what the rules are before the draft.
G'night.
patrick.o
09-01-03, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
Look at patrick's team, for an example........ He's got ................ for pitching.
You know, Derek Lowe (14-6, 4.76 ERA, 1.44 WHIP) and Ramon Ortiz (15-11, 4.78 ERA, 1.49 WHIP) both have worse ERAs and WHIPs than any starter on my team who isn't a bench warmer, but they also both have better records than anyone on my team.
Also, I've been running some numbers and formulas today and I noticed something interesting. The Truth are 12th in ERA (4.24) while the Bashers are 13th (4.35), and the Truth are 8th in WHIP (1.29) while the Bashers are 11th (1.34)!!!!!!
As a matter of fact, the Truth staff is slightly better than the Bashers staff in almost every category. The only places the Bashers have any real advantage are save % and, you guessed it, W-L record (Truth 65-65, Bashers 73-47). When you remove the win bonus and the loss penalty from this year's scoring system, the Truth have the 6th highest scoring staff, whereas the Bashers have the 13th!!!
I'm telling you, with the win bonus reduces the need to be good and increases the need to be lucky.
#1PaFan
09-01-03, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by patrick.o
You know, Derek Lowe (14-6, 4.76 ERA, 1.44 WHIP) and Ramon Ortiz (15-11, 4.78 ERA, 1.49 WHIP) both have worse ERAs and WHIPs than any starter on my team who isn't a bench warmer, but they also both have better records than anyone on my team.
Also, I've been running some numbers and formulas today and I noticed something interesting. The Truth are 12th in ERA (4.24) while the Bashers are 13th (4.35), and the Truth are 8th in WHIP (1.29) while the Bashers are 11th (1.34)!!!!!!
As a matter of fact, the Truth staff is slightly better than the Bashers staff in almost every category. The only places the Bashers have any real advantage are save % and, you guessed it, W-L record (Truth 65-65, Bashers 73-47). When you remove the win bonus and the loss penalty from this year's scoring system, the Truth have the 6th highest scoring staff, whereas the Bashers have the 13th!!!
I'm telling you, with the win bonus reduces the need to be good and increases the need to be lucky.
Agreed yet again.
As it stands now, Hitters are judged STRICTLY on their performance. Pitchers are judged not only on their performance, but also on their team's performance.
Pitching is Baseball 101. It's the whole point of the game.
You can have Cy Young pitching. It doesn't guarantee a win. It depends on your OFFENSE.
There is NO way that a guy that wins a 7-6 game should get more points than a guy that loses a 2-1 game.
Figure something out fair. This ain't a video game. It's supposed to be Fantasy Baseball.
patrick.o
09-01-03, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
There is NO way that a guy that wins a 7-6 game should get more points than a guy that loses a 2-1 game.
There it is exactly. THAT is what I've been trying to find a way to say all this time.
In fantasy sports, where a "team" is made up of guys who play on different teams, a performance should be judged in the vacuum of the individual performance, whether the player being judged is a batter or a pitcher. When one player's value is based solely on his performance and another's is is based on his performance plus his team's bullpen's performance plus his team's offense's performance, it's inherently illogical.
A good pitcher is a good pitcher. When Nolan Ryan went 8-16 in 1987 it wasn't because he was a lousy pitcher. He led the majors in ERA, hits per 9, K's, and was 3rd in WHIP! That's why he finished in the top 5 for the CY, even though he was a meaningless 8-16. It wasn't his fault that his team was a pathetic 10 games under .500.
#1PaFan
09-01-03, 05:56 PM
Damn right, Patrick. Fantasy teams are "perfomance based."
Except with Pitchers in this league. It's SO simple, yet so difficult! Judge Each player on how THEY perform. That is, or should be the basis of a Fantasy League.
AND, Pitching SHOULD count more than hitting. It's the entire premise of the Game. They're the QB's of the team. THE PITCHING is what makes the game ................ing Unique. It ALL comes down to the Pitcher.
Am I in France or something?
This Ain't football.! :lol: :lol: :lol:
patrick.o
09-02-03, 11:28 PM
You know, I haven't been able to help but notice what a cluster ................ this league is at times as compared to my football and hockey leagues. Lots of arguing and bickering and such. Tonight while talking with another member of the league it kind of hit me -- in my other leagues we don't discuss rules changes during the season. Don't get me wrong, we tweak the rules every year. But we do it in a nice orderly way, instead of throwing things out and arguing about them and then moving on before they're resolved.
Now I know that this thread in particular was started because Sax wanted to get us involved while all of our attentions are here, instead of during the offseason when some people apparently don't bother. But I say screw the people who don't bother. It would reduce a lot of crap if we instead had a system in place for proposing, debating, and approving or rejecting rules changes.
Here's my suggestion - we set a specific time frame for rules discussion. Say, Feb 1st we send any proposals we have to Sax. He in turn sorts through them, merges similar ideas, and then presents the proposals in whatever he determines is an orderly fashion (some rules will obviously need to be worked out before others). All owners who are signed up for the upcoming season can discuss and vote on said proposals by posting a yay or nay, and after a set time, say 3 or 4 days or a week or whatever, the vote is closed and the will of the majority of voters is adhered to. Any owner who doesn't vote, or joins the league after rules have been voted on - that's life.
Now obviously it doesn't have to be exactly like that, but the point is that I think rule changes should go through the commissioner so that some sense of order can be established.
For instance, I don't like the win bonus. So I send Sax a proposal saying I want to do away with the win bonus and explaining my position. Sax then submits my proposal to the league via a thread at the predetermined rules discussion time that everyone will be aware of in advance and people can discuss it. I can make a case for getting rid of it, people who support me can chime in, people who oppose can state their cases. Everyone who wants to gets a chance to discuss their view, offer their opinion, and weigh what other people have said. Then, after a few days we vote, and the majority wins. If only a few people vote then so be it, but the majority of voters decides it.
In this way we can probably settle all rules and scoring changes in about 2 weeks, we can avoid taking the focus off the season while we're still playing, and we can avoid or at least lessen the long circular arguments we seem to have about every different thing. Present it, talk about it, vote on it, and either enact it or forget about it until next year's rule discussion. Think of the money we'd save on aspirin.
Saxmania
09-03-03, 06:10 AM
I think that's a corking plan (as we say in this part of the world), but have a few questions:
1) How would you recommend we choose commissioner, and when? Before the rules for 2004 are announced? Afterwards? There are some obvious issues in terms of decision-making and administration.
2) Do you think not having the rules decided before players sign up is likely to cause slow recruitment, or even dropouts before the draft? Those can be difficult, especially for a head-to-head league that requires a certain number of owners by draft date.
3) Wanna be commissioner? ;)
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Ansky39
09-03-03, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
Agreed yet again.
As it stands now, Hitters are judged STRICTLY on their performance. Pitchers are judged not only on their performance, but also on their team's performance.
Pitching is Baseball 101. It's the whole point of the game.
You can have Cy Young pitching. It doesn't guarantee a win. It depends on your OFFENSE.
There is NO way that a guy that wins a 7-6 game should get more points than a guy that loses a 2-1 game.
Figure something out fair. This ain't a video game. It's supposed to be Fantasy Baseball.
ditto brother...:smokin:
patrick.o
09-07-03, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
1) How would you recommend we choose commissioner, and when? Before the rules for 2004 are announced? Afterwards? There are some obvious issues in terms of decision-making and administration.
What issues do you mean? I can't see as it makes a difference, but what do I know? And I vote for you to be comissioner for life, unless we impeach you. ;)
2) Do you think not having the rules decided before players sign up is likely to cause slow recruitment, or even dropouts before the draft? Those can be difficult, especially for a head-to-head league that requires a certain number of owners by draft date.
Not knowing the rules didn't stop a whole lot of people from signing up this year! ;) And anyway, I don't think it would make too big a difference. People either want to play or they don't; I doubt many people say yeah, I'd like to play, and then look at the rules and say, oh forget it.
3) Wanna be commissioner? ;)We already have a fair and competent comissioner. Unless you're considering stepping down? :uhh:
Saxmania
09-07-03, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by patrick.o
What issues do you mean? I can't see as it makes a difference, but what do I know? And I vote for you to be comissioner for life, unless we impeach you. ;)
I guess the difference is: If the commissioner is elected after the rules are decided, then potentially the outgoing commissioner has to decide the rules for a season s/he's not going to commish.
Not knowing the rules didn't stop a whole lot of people from signing up this year! ;) And anyway, I don't think it would make too big a difference. People either want to play or they don't; I doubt many people say yeah, I'd like to play, and then look at the rules and say, oh forget it.
Well, we struggled to get 18 owners, and I don't know how many owners intend to return for 2004. It hasn't been a particularly smooth ride, has it? But perhaps you're right.
We already have a fair and competent comissioner. Unless you're considering stepping down? :uhh:
Yes, I'm considering it.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
patrick.o
09-07-03, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
I guess the difference is: If the commissioner is elected after the rules are decided, then potentially the outgoing commissioner has to decide the rules for a season s/he's not going to commish.
Well, as long as the league as a whole is voting on the rules (or at least the people who are signed up and involved) then the commish is really just directing the discussion and method of voting, not actually creating rules. I guess I don't really care when we vote for a commish, but before we start voting on rules would probably be best.
Well, we struggled to get 18 owners, and I don't know how many owners intend to return for 2004. It hasn't been a particularly smooth ride, has it? But perhaps you're right.
Again, I don't think it will make too much difference. Heck, maybe the chance to be involved in shaping the rules will spur people to sign up earlier. And while the ride has had it's share of bumps, I don't think it was too horrible. We had a set up, we played it out, playing it exposed flaws, and now we'll try to fix some of the flaws. No big deal. The bitching to discussing ratio was a bit one sided for my taste, but that's life.
Yes, I'm considering it.
I'm sorry to hear that. In my opinion you've done an admirable job, especially considering there's not really too much you can do to answer the incessant complaining about this and that except to try and calm people down. I mean, seriously, it's not like you're empowered to make midseason rule changes. Essentially it's the commish's job during the season to approve or deny trades if necessary and to follow up on complaints that owners might have. Other than that people might as well keep the bitching to themselves for all it's worth. But to answer your original question, sure, I'd consider taking on the role if there was void. But I'd prefer you stay on.
Saxmania
09-08-03, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by patrick.o
Well, as long as the league as a whole is voting on the rules (or at least the people who are signed up and involved) then the commish is really just directing the discussion and method of voting, not actually creating rules. I guess I don't really care when we vote for a commish, but before we start voting on rules would probably be best.
Yes, I would propose a year-end kind of thing. End of league stuff and discussion of new rules during November and December. Elect a new commissioner in January. Decide the league rules in February. Sign up and draft in March.
Again, I don't think it will make too much difference. Heck, maybe the chance to be involved in shaping the rules will spur people to sign up earlier. And while the ride has had it's share of bumps, I don't think it was too horrible. We had a set up, we played it out, playing it exposed flaws, and now we'll try to fix some of the flaws. No big deal. The bitching to discussing ratio was a bit one sided for my taste, but that's life.
You're probably right. I just can't help remembering that in both 2002 and 2003 we had 50 people or so say that they were interested initially, but eventually we were scrabbling around for 2 or 3 extra owners to make up the numbers both years. Maybe having a keeper league will make it easier.
I'm sorry to hear that. In my opinion you've done an admirable job, especially considering there's not really too much you can do to answer the incessant complaining about this and that except to try and calm people down. I mean, seriously, it's not like you're empowered to make midseason rule changes. Essentially it's the commish's job during the season to approve or deny trades if necessary and to follow up on complaints that owners might have. Other than that people might as well keep the bitching to themselves for all it's worth. But to answer your original question, sure, I'd consider taking on the role if there was void. But I'd prefer you stay on.
I appreciate the kind words, but really, I'd be naive not to at least consider stepping down. When I signed up for this in January 2002 I was in a very boring and lightweight job, with no money for a social life, and very few friends who were within travelling distance. I'm now in a high-stress job with a lot more friends around me, and many more ambitions. While this doesn't mean that I don't have time to work on fantasy baseball, it does mean that it feels more like a chore than it used to. Of course, this is added to the general unhappiness with the way this league has been run this year from many different quarters. I think I would be doing the league a disservice if I just blindly carried on regardless.
Possibly the best option is that I agree to stand for one more year, and, if elected, try to a) get more people involved in writing and organising (e.g. Big_E's marvellous scoreboards) so that the league is more active and there's less for me to do; and b) hope to get a stable set of rules going so that there's few handover issues. It would be nice to close out a three-year term with a fun, stable keeper league that can carry on for a while. However, that's assuming that no-one else steps up wanting a go. This job can be a lot of fun at times, particularly if you have the free time to devote to it.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
YanksRockMan
09-11-03, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Saxmania
Possibly the best option is that I agree to stand for one more year, and, if elected, try to a) get more people involved in writing and organising (e.g. Big_E's marvellous scoreboards) so that the league is more active and there's less for me to do; and b) hope to get a stable set of rules going so that there's few handover issues. It would be nice to close out a three-year term with a fun, stable keeper league that can carry on for a while. However, that's assuming that no-one else steps up wanting a go. This job can be a lot of fun at times, particularly if you have the free time to devote to it.
Sax, if you need it, I'd be more than happy to write the weekly reports for you....like the MVPs and matchup reports...stuff like that. Hey, think about it..:)
#1PaFan
09-12-03, 04:22 PM
Another idea for next year. Expanding the playoffs and abolishing the bye week.
We could have playoffs with six teams. This would be similar to the NFL, actually. The two divisional winners with the best record WOULD get a Bye the first round. The other divisional winner plus THREE Wild Cards (Could be the 3 teams with the highest TPs that didn't win a division or best second place record and 2 teams with highest TP) would face each other in the first round. The winners would then meet the two bye teams in the following round, etc.....
This way, we would be rewarding both luck AND talent. Just another idea of mine that will probably get shot down. :)
Bozidar
09-12-03, 04:38 PM
I don't agree with the expanded playoffs. I like that the post-season is an exclusive club, and difficult to get to -- even when i don't get there i'm not wishing that there were more openings, just that i had done well enough to make it.
The bye-week is needed. last year one division had a 4-way tie for the divison lead, and none of them were wildcard teams i don't think. So we needed that week.
#1PaFan
09-12-03, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
I don't agree with the expanded playoffs. I like that the post-season is an exclusive club, and difficult to get to -- even when i don't get there i'm not wishing that there were more openings, just that i had done well enough to make it.
The bye-week is needed. last year one division had a 4-way tie for the divison lead, and none of them were wildcard teams i don't think. So we needed that week.
Well, I like it. It would still be rather exclusive. Heck, 2/3rds of the league would STILL miss the playoffs altogether.
The bye week is NOT needed! You could easily have a whole system of tiebreakers. Head to Head. Divisional Record. Total points. Team ERA. Team HRs. Hell, anything. PLUS, it will keep the interest alive for AT LEAST two more teams.
Even YOUR team would have made the playoffs last year under this rule. Just give it a thought before dismissing it so quick! :)
Bozidar
09-12-03, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
Even YOUR team would have made the playoffs last year under this rule. Just give it a thought before dismissing it so quick! :) My team didn't deserve to make the playoffs last year :P
#1PaFan
09-12-03, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Bozidar
My team didn't deserve to make the playoffs last year :P
I ................ing HATE to say it, but SURE your team did. Bitch.
Hey, Imagine somebody else came up with this Idea, Honey. You just might go for it. It IS a good idea.
Now, DAMNIT! Get Back in that Laundry Room and finish ironing my shirts! I have some Job Interviews to go to Monday morning. And, for the Love of God, take that poor Gerbil out of your Asshole, Brian! You sick, twisted ................! :barf:
Bozidar
09-12-03, 10:46 PM
And this from the guy who got bent out of shape when i called him a "bitter asshole" or something like that :)
George -- it's not you, i just don't like systems that have large amounts of teams going to the post-season. I like it being a short post-season. I like that you've got to be both good and lucky to get in.
I think that the idea of the team with the most amount of points that's not in the playoffs getting the wildcard is a decent suggestion. I'm a purist, and would prefer it to be the team with the best win-loss record, but i realize not everyone is like me. I'll admit that that idea adds to the fairness of the league, even if it takes away from the head-to-head feel of the league. But this suggestion of yours, seems just aimed at making people happy.
This ain't a pay league.. it's a donation league. Folks shouldn't get their money's worth ;) If you dont' make the post, you don't make the post, and those of us that do get to make fun of you for a week or so until our asses are booted out of contention too :lol: It's fun.. and i like it this way, even when i'm on the wrong side of it -- as i was last year.
This is just my opinion.. i like it as it is.. by all means vote to expand it if you like :) But i'll be voting know, and it's just personal preference.
(and no, i didn't deserve it last year. Like Wai this year, I failed to beat my fiercest divisional rival, her, last year. She played spoiler to me last year, and i've been quietly gleeful to do the same to her this year. But that's how real rivalries are born, not the make-up ego-bull................-fights that you me kurt and some others have -- real rivalries.)
#1PaFan
09-13-03, 01:19 AM
Oh, for crying out loud! Two-Thirds STILL wouldn't make the playoffs! BUT,TWO more teams Would. WHAT is wrong with that?
My idea would reward the three Head-to-Head Winners AND the the three Highest Scoring Teams.
Not only would it keep interest alive in the late weeks of the Season, BUT it would ALSO keep interest alive in the late weeks of the Season.
Oh, I don't know. I'm just a Bitter Asshole! :lol: :lol: :lol:
I STILL think it's a GREAT rule (that NEVER would have benefitted ME!)
As I stated before, 2/3rds of the League would STILL miss the playoffs and the Top Two Divisional Winners would get Byes in the First week of Playoffs.
There would be more action at the end of the season with more teams. I believe it to be a Good Thing! :)
Saxmania
09-13-03, 03:58 AM
#1Pa, how about tracking how this plan would have worked this year until the end of the season? That is, after the Championship Series, tell us how things would have gone down if we were using your playoff system. Everyone's still scoring points on Yahoo, after all. I think we'd be in a better position to judge whether it's "fair" after we've seen it work.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
#1PaFan
09-13-03, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by Saxmania
#1Pa, how about tracking how this plan would have worked this year until the end of the season? That is, after the Championship Series, tell us how things would have gone down if we were using your playoff system. Everyone's still scoring points on Yahoo, after all. I think we'd be in a better position to judge whether it's "fair" after we've seen it work.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
Well Sax, it would be Impossible, well Improbable to correctly track this year because at least two of those teams already probably don't give a ................. (I know I couldn't care less how MY team does right now)
It is NOT a Difficult idea to comprehend. I'm not really sure what is so hard to understand about it.
And no, I am NOT going to Track anything or put anything into an Excel spreadsheet to Prove anything to anybody.
I thought it was a good idea to get more teams involved in the "post-season" and to also reward the two best winning teams with "byes" and ALSO reward the highest scoring teams.
I ain't gonna get more anal than this. You guys do what you want to do. My Linguists will be there next year, no matter what.
Saxmania
09-13-03, 07:48 AM
I think it might be, too. I just thought it would be easier for you to make your case if you had an example of how it might work. No need to get defensive.
To be honest, the reason I quite like the current scheme is that it mirrors real life quite well. That's not to say I'm not open to change, however. If the rest of the league thinks that 4 out of 18 isn't enough playoff teams, then perhaps we should change it.
And Big_E is still posting team stats, so it shouldn't be that difficult to track.
Be seeing you,
Saxmania
BANZAIMATSUI
11-28-03, 07:16 PM
I would like to see 1-2 more playoff teams added. Also I think maybe we should discuss a small entry fee, and prizes if anyone is interested. Part of the entry fee could count as a donation to the commish, scorekeepers, reporters etc for all their work. Happy Holidays everyone!!
Bozidar
11-29-03, 10:50 PM
There already IS an entry fee, i guess you didn't pay yours. It was supposed to be a $10 donation to the site.
As far as prizes go.. it's been discussed before, and maybe worth talking about again. I know that for me, the 2003 NYYFans.com Fantasy Baseball Champion who beat all your chump asses ;)
Bragging rights really is enough :D
#1PaFan
01-15-04, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by #1PaFan
My Linguists will be there next year, no matter what.
I Meant it when I said it. My Linguists WILL be there for the 2004 Season.
Even if we suck, which we probably will! :)
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0