|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jun 13, 2019 18:52:37 GMT -8
I've been heavily contemplating switching from K/9 to total K as a scoring category for the last couple of seasons and would like to open the possibility open for discussion. As I see it, K total would serve as an interesting compromise between innings and strikeout capacity. Personally, I would feel more compelled to consider starting pitchers that might otherwise hurt my ERA and WHIP, therefore deepening the pool of viable starting pitchers without de-valuing the contributions of the elite strikeout pitchers too much.
This could then be offset by removing the required minimums on games started and relief appearances, which I have grown to find incredibly clunky. With this proposed change, we would have a balance among pitching categories between ratio stats (ERA and WHIP) and counting stats (K, QS) for the purposes of starting pitching, with relievers still effective contributors to the ratio stats and of course holds and saves. It would likely make K-heavy relievers less valuable, but still IMO plenty effective in bringing down ratios and collecting holds and saves.
This proposal would be put into effect at the beginning of the 2020 season.
Let me know your thoughts. Again, the motivation is to add depth to the effective pool of starting pitchers, as I see it as a real problem towards parity at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jun 15, 2019 5:59:08 GMT -8
I agree with this 100%. Going to straights K’s and getting rid of minimum appearances gives us more flexibility to construct a lineup.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Jun 15, 2019 23:45:55 GMT -8
I am in favor of this potential rule change. Some thoughts.
-Required minimums are clunky, especially when bad injury luck hits.
-Even though high strikeout relievers wouldn’t be as valuable, I don’t know how much less valuable they’d really be because they would offer owners the ability to pickup saves or holds while also being less of a K liability than other relievers. To have a top pitching staff across the board you’d still need the stud K/9 relievers or you’d be a little behind either in K’s or SV/HD’s.
-Starting pitchers are undervalued under the current scoring rules and switching from K/9 to K total would balance things out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Jun 16, 2019 9:44:43 GMT -8
I think it favors SP too much. I would DFA most of my RP's over night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jun 16, 2019 12:33:19 GMT -8
I think it favors SP too much. I would DFA most of my RP's over night. The 5 SP and 6 RP limit in the scoring lineup would remain, it's not like someone could slot in 11 SPs |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 14:53:12 GMT -8
I don't see how it favors SP when it's easier to dominate ratios with a ton of relievers and you'd be punting SV/Hlds to do better in QS/K. If anything, without the limits RP with SP eligibility become more valuable although those guys only usually retain dual eligibility for that season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Brewers (Mike) on Jun 16, 2019 19:33:23 GMT -8
I'm not sure it would change the value of SP as much as it would impact RP valuation. Not necessarily in a good or bad way, just a different way. I think all could adapt to that, but I agree that there could be a roster/salary impact. Contract and trade decisions have been made based on the current scoring structure.
I wouldn't want to drop minimums completely. Yes, due to injuries it can create issues, it has for me this season. Minimums don't eliminate tanking, but should help to keep that from happening somewhat. Maybe reducing the minimums would alleviate some of that potential injury impact while keeping some checks in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Jun 16, 2019 21:09:00 GMT -8
I would support altering the minimum requirements if we don’t want to remove them outright.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Jun 16, 2019 23:14:28 GMT -8
I think it favors SP too much. I would DFA most of my RP's over night. The 5 SP and 6 RP limit in the scoring lineup would remain, it's not like someone could slot in 11 SPs Like Hasan said, there are guys with dual eligibility. I have many every year who have RP eligibility but who are starting games. So under this new rule. If a RP doesn't get a SV or HLD every couple of days, he is going in the trash. To be honest, I'm not going to play town cryer on this one because I sensed last year in rule change discussions, that the Scoring for pitching was going to be very fluid, changing often going forward. So I already change my strategy, as funny as it may sound to someone outside this league, I don't base my long term decisions on the rules of this league anymore, I base them on what other certain owners are doing or may prefer. Given how open people are about rule changes here I'm more surprised no one has suggested eliminating QS yet. Given how many teams are employing "Starters" and then bringing a pitcher, who typically would be a starter, to pitch the bulk of the innings. Thus robbing many guys of a QS they would of deserved had they thrown the first pitch. But that is probably a discussion for another thread. Like we say where I live. "If you don't like the weather, wait 10 minutes"  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 2:46:53 GMT -8
I'm not sure it would change the value of SP as much as it would impact RP valuation. Not necessarily in a good or bad way, just a different way. I think all could adapt to that, but I agree that there could be a roster/salary impact. Contract and trade decisions have been made based on the current scoring structure. I wouldn't want to drop minimums completely. Yes, due to injuries it can create issues, it has for me this season. Minimums don't eliminate tanking, but should help to keep that from happening somewhat. Maybe reducing the minimums would alleviate some of that potential injury impact while keeping some checks in place. Yeah I'm not in favor of outright eliminating minimums...maybe reduce them to 3 and 7-8 (starts/relief appearances) so you can't totally game the system with dual-eligibility guys or have them be worth ridiculously inflated trade value. Even as is, it seems like most of the roster violations are the more inactive teams although the 4-10 limits are high enough you could fluke into having them be a factor one week. I was sweating out the Reds' rain delay just to get my one or two ratio points this week since I had three other starters with one start each and Miley got pushed back which I didn't know on Monday, I would have just put in Merrill Kelly if I had, and as it turned out won two more categories  I do think reducing minimums and taking away one ratio category dramatically reduces the frequency and impact of violations without completely creating a loophole by eliminating them altogether. And re: Matt's QS point, the mediocre guys used as mid-inning fillers with 4-5 IP wouldn't be the guys getting QS's in the first place so it doesn't really affect it at all. If anything it only affects the start cap both ways - since you could either get cheap starts from openers or jipped out of starts from the mid-inning guys. But at least QS's reward quality pitching while wins (which would likely be what replaces it) are almost flukish at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Jun 17, 2019 21:39:22 GMT -8
I'm not sure it would change the value of SP as much as it would impact RP valuation. Not necessarily in a good or bad way, just a different way. I think all could adapt to that, but I agree that there could be a roster/salary impact. Contract and trade decisions have been made based on the current scoring structure. I wouldn't want to drop minimums completely. Yes, due to injuries it can create issues, it has for me this season. Minimums don't eliminate tanking, but should help to keep that from happening somewhat. Maybe reducing the minimums would alleviate some of that potential injury impact while keeping some checks in place. Yeah I'm not in favor of outright eliminating minimums...maybe reduce them to 3 and 7-8 (starts/relief appearances) so you can't totally game the system with dual-eligibility guys or have them be worth ridiculously inflated trade value. Even as is, it seems like most of the roster violations are the more inactive teams although the 4-10 limits are high enough you could fluke into having them be a factor one week. I was sweating out the Reds' rain delay just to get my one or two ratio points this week since I had three other starters with one start each and Miley got pushed back which I didn't know on Monday, I would have just put in Merrill Kelly if I had, and as it turned out won two more categories I do think reducing minimums and taking away one ratio category dramatically reduces the frequency and impact of violations without completely creating a loophole by eliminating them altogether. And re: Matt's QS point, the mediocre guys used as mid-inning fillers with 4-5 IP wouldn't be the guys getting QS's in the first place so it doesn't really affect it at all. If anything it only affects the start cap both ways - since you could either get cheap starts from openers or jipped out of starts from the mid-inning guys. But at least QS's reward quality pitching while wins (which would likely be what replaces it) are almost flukish at this point. lol if you think they are mediocre I'll take them off your hand. I have 3 solid guys who, yes, would be getting QS if they threw the first pitch. But again, in this league the weather will change soon, its all about figuring out what they will want it to change too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 3:03:53 GMT -8
Which three guys would these be? Pena who has what would have been one QS in ten non-starter appearances and none in his four actual starts this year? Peralta who got bounced from the rotation for ineffectiveness and his only QS-worthy outings have come as a starter anyway?
If the pitchers used as secondary guys could go 6-7 innings consistently they would still be actual starters for the most part. MLB hasn't jumped the shark that much yet to use guys like MadBum or even decent consistent innings eaters as a 2nd-inning reliever. Maybe it'll get to the point where it's not just the young pitchers breaking in to control their innings or fringe guys that are doing the whole post-opener thing soon but until it does QS is still a far better stat than wins.
If you want to change QS to innings pitched well I could see the argument for that, although it would tip the balance between effectiveness stats (QS/WHIP/ERA) and bulk stats (K/SV/HLD) even more toward the bulk stats than just taking away K/9 and replacing it with K would.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Mariners (Robin) on Jun 18, 2019 20:23:12 GMT -8
I am against this rule change, because I feel like ratios would keep balance. With the mainstream use of openers, owners could stack their RP slots with "followers" and boost total Ks
Plus for all the owners that have tried to build minors depth over multiple seasons for K/9 would also be affected.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Jun 20, 2019 10:56:59 GMT -8
I am against this rule change, because I feel like ratios would keep balance. With the mainstream use of openers, owners could stack their RP slots with "followers" and boost total Ks Plus for all the owners that have tried to build minors depth over multiple seasons for K/9 would also be affected. The RP eligibility aspect I think would warrant a rules discussion to prevent a stacking scenario. Another dynasty I'm in requires pitchers be in the lineup spot that reflects their current MLB role and while issues occasionally arise the league generally self polices. Idk if it would work here, but I have seen it work elsewhere. Still, I'm not sure owners would sell out like that for K's and not go after Saves and Holds. Doesn't seem like the best trade off to me, to hurt yourself in two categories to go after one. As far as concerns about the effect on owners that have built minor league depth for K/9, prospects with high K ratios are also known as good prospects. It's not like good pitching prospects are suddenly going to go out of demand. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jun 21, 2019 12:14:48 GMT -8
I think the concerns about this changing player evaluation are a bit overblown. I ran Rotowire's auction calculator (the same tool I use in the offseason to calculate the players' values from the season to determine player/mutual option acceptance) on our league's settings for both K/9 and total K as a category. Attached are the results plotted in 3 charts for SP, RP, and dual eligibility SP/RP guys. It really doesn't change the earned values for pitchers much, even guys with dual eligibility (of which there are only about 25 viable guys that have earned positive value at this point in the season). I should clarify that in the charts the x-axis is the rank among like-positioned players. The leftmost charge plots the value earned by the #1 ranked SP (Positional rank = 1) and then the value earned by the #2 most valuable SP, and so on. That said it does change weekly strategy, and that is my intent. I cannot see punting saves and holds in favor of QS and total Ks to be a viable strategy even using openers to rack up IP and thus Ks, especially when each of our 12 categories count for a discrete win/loss each week. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Jun 21, 2019 23:40:19 GMT -8
MLB teams don't implement a RP to start games because the guy doing the bulk of the work "can't" pitch more innings, its because analytics tell them its better for a pitcher not to face a hitter for a 3rd time. So using Pena as the example. He would actually have 5-6 quality starts, because the inning he is going to get the hook in (after the 6th ic he does well) is pre-determined by that strategy befor he throws his first pitch.
But in any event, it would be nice if this current issue about k's was settled befor the Trade Deadline.... Give some more time to adapt.
|
|
