Give me a break, George. Just because there's more randomness to the category, doesn't translate to 'we should all have the same amount'.

There's nothing stopping you from using your streaming strategy with a QA category.

My point was if wins were, in fact, random, then we would all have about the same amount. That's how randomness works over many observations.

But wins are not random, because an owner can adopt a strategy to consistently win the category. I choose to compete in the category. Others don't. It's a decision that has consequences that play out throughout the season.

I don't know how QA works. I don't know what strategy to adopt to win it. Does anyone?

From my perspective, it seems like a rule change has been proposed largely because one coach's team consistently wins it, and other coaches don't like it? If that sounds harsh, I don't mean it to be. I either don't understand other rationale or find other arguments unpersuasive. I invite you to try again.

To clarify, this is a game, with 10 categories we have to win. I play it as a game, and I try and win those categories and beat my opponent. If you've got a pitcher who pitched well but didn't get the win, so what? That doesn't matter. It just matters that you have the player who got the win, regardless of how he pitched. In many ways, it seems like this boils down to, is fantasy about baseball? Or is fantasy about gaming? To me, it is a game first, and about baseball second.

Wins are not random nor did I say they were. They are more random than any other category and track least with actual player performance compared to any other category.

Even if they were truly random, we wouldn't average the same amount at the end because we all utilize different strategies: primarily the number of pitchers we keep on staff.

QA's are similar to wins with the biggest difference being the category will track closer to actual pitcher performance. I encourage you to look at this article or this article. The first compares QA4 to Quality Starts (QS), which I was never on board with, and the second discusses QA's v. QS's v. Wins.

We've been talking about changing Wins for a decade now and I don't ever recall your strategy or the strong showing in the Wins category creating any kind of impetus for the change. It's not about you and never was. The only time we nerfed your strategy was when we put a limit on FA acquisitions about, what, 15 years ago, the year you had over 300 acquisitions? That was the only time we thought it needed to be reined in. Everyone knows you stream pitchers, no one cares if you do it (because you pay for it in other ways), and I don't really see anyone emulating it. No offense but if I were to try to nerf anyone it would be Matt. A rule change would probably not do that and I'm not magical.

When it comes to change, I tend towards the conservative in the games I run. If the game is generally fun and people are engaged, let it be. I suspect I vote no on amendments more than I vote yes. But sometimes, when an opportunity arises to make changes I believe are worth doing, I will get behind them. When I saw what Fantrax could offer us in the pitching categories is when I knew we may have found the replacement for Wins. I really, really like some of those QA categories and I think they'll make the game better. It may or may not be favorable to your strategy, I don't know.

If you are serious about considering arguments, go look at some data: I just added QA4 to our league stats and left Wins in as a comparison. While FT does not forecast 2024 QA's, you can look at 2023 stats and it will show QA's for all pitchers.

I understand this stat better. Thank you for putting it up on Fantrax. I understand how it would play out . It's reasonable.