Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
F1 Driver (Pro VI)
 
Posts: 7891
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 14 Jan 2023, 12:34 pm

With what?

I like Brent's idea of using something like QA4. Here are the options in that area:
Screen Shot 2023-01-14 at 2.34.07 PM.png
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 4:37 pm

Post 14 Jan 2023, 2:42 pm

I like QA4 though I wish the ERA threshold were more like <4.0 rather than <4.5. I understand that’s not an option in Fantrax. I prefer QA4 to QA5 just given usage patterns on teams with openers.

QA is another interesting one. It adds some value for relievers, particularly long relievers. Closers and setup men would very likely not get a QA if they blow a SVHD, unless the runs were unearned.

QS has the disadvantage of being impossible to earn if you follow an opener.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3506
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 17 Jan 2023, 1:05 pm

Wins are for winners. You don't want wins to count anymore? What does that say about your attitude? :razz:
User avatar
F1 Driver (Pro VI)
 
Posts: 7891
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 19 Jan 2023, 7:03 pm

Copying from chat so I don't forget some of the arguments:

Corey
I took the Liberty of temporarily adding QA, QA4, and QS to our league stats so we can see actual stats from 2022 on the Players Screen. Should help us have a more informed debate.

I was trying to reply to Freeman with my first statement. I strongly disagree that W represent strong pitchers or even pitchers that frequently go deep into games


Mike
Good idea, Corey. I also threw in QA9 as it's more stringent. I don't like QS but QA's have promise. It's interesting that 3 RP's had double digit QA4's and one for QA9.


Wolfdog
I like the look of either QA4 or QA9.


Mike
The biggest argument against moving away from wins is the high correlation between ERA and the QA's. Are we measuring the same thing twice? Wins adds a randomness that also makes you consider the team the player pitches for.


Wolfdog
That's true.and there's an argument that R and RBI require team quality, too. But also W are so rare that the variability gives it a very low correlation with overall team win%.

And there's some synergy between offensive categories, too.


Mike
Also takes away the frustration of seeing the hard fought win get blown followed by an RP vulturing it.

Cimber and Stratton each had 10 wins as relievers. Cimber had 4 BS and Stratton 5. Neither had a QA4 or QA9. Yeah, it's time to nerf those guys.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Jan 2023, 8:28 pm

What is it we're trying to accomplish moving away from wins?

I don't like giving credit to starters pitching only 5 innings.

But maybe I could be convinced on QA9 just to get rid of vulture wins. One problem I have with the whole concept:

Example A: pitcher goes 5 innings gives up only 2 runs. Gets QA9 point. Leaves down 2-0. Team comes back and wins 6-3.

Example B: pitcher has a shut-out through 6 innings. Has a 6-0 lead. Stays in and gives up three runs in 7th. Team goes on to win. No ​QA9 point.

Did the pitcher contribute more to the team win in Example A or Example B?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 21 Jan 2023, 6:38 am

Don't know about overall correlation but on my team last it sure felt that some of my pithers won more because they were on good offensive teams with good bullpens: Gonsolin, Garcia, Taillon...

I wasn't being negative by my question about what we're trying to accomplish moving away from wins. Just trying to define what our goals are in doing so and then seeing the evidence pro/con in support of the change. Again, I think the strongest argument is the randomness of vulture wins, particularly when they are the result of a relief pitcher's incompetence. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with pitchers getting more wins because they are on better offensive teams with solid bullpens because that is something we can strategize about.