Batting Average

Bravo wrote:Yeah... I just miss having batting avg. That was my point of the post.

Yes I agree with the BA stat being incorporated.
Back to points vs cats...you can argue till the cows come home which one best reflects mlb. It's a matter of opinion an interpretation so it comes down to which one the owners in this league like best. I like cats bc it makes harder to build a team/roster that will dominate every single week. We all can't draft/sign the top players in each cat, it's impossible. So sacrifices are made to dominate in one cat and lose in another. How you assess your team and make changes makes cats more intriguing and interesting when it comes to drafting and trading players based on your team's strengths and weaknesses.
With points, I find it to be more one-dimensional. Go for the player that produces the highest points.
Many teams sign players for their strength in one area...speed, power, ba, defense. They don't just start 9 guys who put up the best numbers but are atrocious on the field. It's a balance.
Alright, my rant is over!

im in a fourth year league that when began we i started in the academy. the stats are almost similar to the setup we have in our league. 8x8 except instead of ops and errors for offensive cats i have obp and triples, and instead of whip, cg, and qs weve got ip, hits and bb.

the reason why it is relevant to the case in point is because both settings have no BA but does have hits and i thought the whole purpose of not having it as we discussed at the beginning of the year was because the hits are incorporated into BA. If a majority wants it though i have no problem with that, so obviously i am suggesting it be put up for an official vote instead of this back and forth argument.

i would probably vote for yes because its all fair game and i play too nice but tim does bring up a good point about having already drafted based on how the setup was. since im down with anything im not gonna knock the stat cats too much, afterall there are pros and cons to just about every topic imaginable. for what its worth, i like how instead of having what looks like an nfl record the final standings will be in the 100 wins.

however, i guess if i want to be technical about the current stats since i spend so much time analyzing statistics and making a science out of the having the perfect stats, i like errors but not ops because of the emphasis on hitting power which is already accounted for in HRs (i went with obp because it includes walks/hit batters and without measuring hit for power). i like qs and whip is alright but cg is a useless category.
i suppose the reason i go with ip, hits and bb is because between the eight pitching categories it is equally unbias between starters and relievers splitting it halfway in favorability going with a 20 ip min to add additional options in strategy whereas in our setup there are more than 4 out of the 8 pitching categories that favor sway toward starters.

I withdraw my h2h points request

woohoo! In the end, all of this talk is only going to make this league better so keep the ideas going.

oh, and since we're on the topic of possible changes to cats...on the issue of fairness since drafts and trades are based on current cats, maybe we can make one change per year (if necessary) as voted on by the league. That way, we don't get sweeping changes that most of the league favours but could really screw one or two teams.
"Change is good, but not when it's done all at once"
- Tim (2010)

Ji and I were talking last night. We came up with this...

R 2B HR RBI SB AVG BB K

W L SV HLD K ERA WHIP QS

So for hitters take out ops and e, add 2b and avg.

i never like the L stat but i can live with it since you have K's for batters

i think the stats mentioned by bravo accurately portray the stats we see on players when we look at a baseball card or yahoo player profile, etc, so, why not use them?

Ya, I hate losses, I see no reason why we should include a stat thats only basis is a team one. At least wins, a SP has to go 5 innings to get one, but then we are going to punish him since his team couldn't score but the other team had one hit and it was a HR. The stat is mostly based on what the hitters do on that team.

Integrity wrote:i think the stats mentioned by bravo accurately portray the stats we see on players when we look at a baseball card or yahoo player profile, etc, so, why not use them?

And I do not look at losses on anyones card or yahoo, because it has nothing to do with them as a pitcher.

just for conversation, if losses dont matter then wins wouldnt matter either i guess.

the only other pitching cat worthy would be BA or OBP against.

who cares where their picture is on a yahoo card or a shithouse wall.I agree that the losses aren`t a good stat. Take away losses and leave CG in take 2b out add ave and leave ops. If you have 2b you might just as well have 1b 3b also don`t discriminate against them

no need for ops when you already have hr, avg, and bb... triples are a useful as cg's. i like doubles. you should know that theyre important. if you dont i can tell you a little story about some guys named pete rose or wade boggs.

we can do this all day and night.

lol this shit is funny. lets just put all stats in a poll and give everyone 10 votes. five for batting stats ans five for pitching stats. and the top five batting and pitching stats win! if we have a tie for the last stat, then there is a vote off for those stats

i think losses are okay to use... you play to win the game, so winning and losing should be reflected

i agree that greinke going 8 ip and allowing 1 run but losing sucks, BUT, we would gain stats in other cats that would help out tremendously, even with the loss, and short of going h2h points, you're not gonna come up with something that totally maximizes a player's output

i agree that to a degree losses is not the greatest category but it works and is a competitive stat. i also agree to a degree that triples are not very useful but not to the degree that cg's are.

cg's are a dime a dozen especially in this era where we have setup men and closers and only are available to starters. the reason i use triples as i mentioned with pitching is to offset every dynamic skillset in order to equally split the hitting categories favorability to that of a power skillset and to those of speed. but anyway, its not as rare to see triple in fact, there are more of late than in the past.

anyway, 2b would do fine as a mean of a competitive category only the power skillset still gets the edge overall with this format. with that said i am done rambling and this works for me. its good

R 2B 3B HR RBI SB BB K AVG (9 STATS) Can we all agree this covers everything with the exception of fielding?

W SV HLD ERA WHIP K QS (7 STATS)

We need 2 more cats for pitchers.

CG, L, OBPA, BSV are all options.

OBPA and WHIP are pretty similar.

OBPA (Hits Allowed + Walks + Hit Batters) / Total Batters Faced
WHIP (Walks + Hits) / Innings Pitched

Also, as I mentioned, if Blown Saves arent used Net Saves is a nice option. There should be some kind on penalty for our RP when they screw up.

Maybe Yahoo will get with the program someday and use some of the sabermetrics stats.

Here is what's available to use from Yahoo...

APP -- Pitching Appearances;
GS -- Games Started;
ERA -- Earned
Run Average (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only);
WHIP -- WHIP Ratio
(Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only);
K/9 -- Strikeouts per Nine Innings
(Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only);
K/BB -- Strikeout to Walk Ratio
(Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only);
W -- Wins;
L -- Losses;
CG --
Complete Games;
SHO -- Shutouts;
SV -- Saves;
OUT -- Outs;
H
-- Hits;
TBF -- Total Batters Faced;
R -- Runs;
ER -- Earned
Runs;
HR -- Home Runs;
BB -- Walks;
IBB -- Intentional Walks;
HBP
-- Hit Batters;
K -- Strikeouts;
WP -- Wild Pitches;
BLK --
Balks;
SB -- Stolen Bases Allowed;
GIDP -- Batters Grounded Into
Double Plays;
SVOP -- Save Chances;
HLD -- Holds;
TB -- Total
Bases Allowed;
IP -- Innings Pitched;
PC -- Pitch Count;
1BA --
Singles Allowed;
2BA -- Doubles Allowed;
3BA -- Triples Allowed;
RW
-- Relief Wins;
RL -- Relief Losses;
PICK -- Pickoffs;
RAPP --
Relief Appearances;
OBPA -- On-base Percentage Against (Rotisserie,
Head-to-Head Only);
WIN% -- Winning Percentage (Rotisserie,
Head-to-Head Only);
H/9 -- Hits Per Nine Innings (Rotisserie,
Head-to-Head Only);
BB/9 -- Walks Per Nine Innings (Rotisserie,
Head-to-Head Only);
NH -- No Hitters;
PG -- Perfect Games;
SV%
-- Save Percentage (Rotisserie, Head-to-Head Only);
IRA -- Inherited
Runners Allowed;
QS -- Quality Starts;
BSV -- Blown Saves;
NSV
-- Net Saves

This is good, 46 posts... I'm glad everyone is involved. To finish off from my post above I want to say that I agree... Losses arent the best of Cats and dont tell a whole lot about how good a pitcher is, but with the need of 8-9 hitting cats we need to compromise and come up with something to even it off. I wouldnt want a 9x7 so we need to figure out the last 2 whether it be CG and L, or CG and BSV or whatever.

If we can all agree on the 9x7 above, I can put that up for vote. If it passes we can put a bunch of polls up with 2 stats and the most popular one will be the 2 we need.

def agree on the 9x7

HR is always a possibility for one of the 2 other pitching cats.

ooo, now that is interesting

oh shit, is this our first thread that went to a 2nd page?

NICE

i vote CG & BSV

Bravo wrote:just for conversation, if losses dont matter then wins wouldnt matter either i guess.

the only other pitching cat worthy would be BA or OBP against.

Wins matter much more than saves but still are not the basis of good pitching, at least in wins you have to go 5 innings for a SP to get one. Losses you can go CG 1 unearned run and get the loss.

You can also give up 7 ER in 5 innings and get a win but it is less likely to happen I think.

which cats would u pick, Mike

W, ERA, WHIP, SV, K, HLD, QS, CG, K/9

I really like K/9 because it can help even out teams with say only 10 starts in a week vs. a team with 14 starts. Most likely that 10 start team will not win K's unless it is Philly and his killer pitching. So at least the team with 10 starts has a chance at a category.

this is if we stay with the 9 hitting catg's that was proposed in the 9x7 format

I like the 9x7 but don't know if it is fair to teams that stacked up on pitchers, just kinda makes the pitchers less valuble

CG could be changed out for BSV, I wouldn't mind that but I these are the pitching stats that I think are relevant

Yeah, we need even cats. I think he meant that we need two more pitching

We can do k/9 instead of k, but not both, imo. We'd have to do bb/9 as well then

Cg is worthless to me though

Integrity wrote:Yeah, we need even cats. I think he meant that we need two more pitching

We can do k/9 instead of k, but not both, imo. We'd have to do bb/9 as well then

Cg is worthless to me though

I don't see why we would get rid of K's if we had K/9. They are 2 completely different stats. They have to do with k's but they are in no way the same or near it.

Like I said if there is such a difference in games started by one team 10 to 14,15,16 why should the team with 10 starts even think he has a chance at winning K's unless like I said he has Timmy, Ubaldo, Cain, and sanchez haha

And BB/9 is included in WHIP so that would be a double stat pretty much.

It just doubles up on Ks tho

If a Guy runs out more starters, he faces potential negative results by higher era and such. Losses too if we use em

And with sp concerns, maybe we should use losses to make managers think twice about using certain pitchers vs certain teams

Just like right now, a quick look at my team stats, 28.1 IP 30K's

vs Lex right now 38 IP and 30K's

We tie K's I win K/9 one more K by him he wins K's I win K/9 still.

I didn't know I was winning this right now but I just wanted to prove a point that they are in no way the same