We were so close...

I still advocate for QA4 as a replacement.

SLOTerp wrote:We were so close...

I still advocate for QA4 as a replacement.

Can you copy all of the QA options from Fantrax here?

Wins seems simpler.

I very much favor quality starts in favor of all these QA alternatives. Gets rid of vulture wins, requires a level of pitching that gives a pitcher's team a legitimate chance to win and is under their control (except for fielding/park but at least not offense), requires the pitcher to start going through the batting order a third time which is a big separator between starters nowadays (this is why so many starters get pulled after 4-5 innings so this makes the 6th inning requirement quite meaningful) and 6 innings takes some of the burden off of the bullpen.

Actually, I am kind of starting to like the quality appearance options:

QA Quality Appearances 1 point if: IP >= 1 1/3 and <= 2 1/3 and ER = 0, or IP >= 2 2/3 and <= 5 and ER <= 1, or IP >= 5 1/3 and <= 7 2/3 and ER <= 2, or IP >= 8 and ER <= 3
QA10 Quality Appearances 10 1 point if: IP >= 2 and <= 2 2/3 and ER = 0, or IP >= 3 and <= 4 2/3 and ER <= 1, or IP >= 5 and <= 6 2/3 and ER <= 2, or IP >= 7 and <= 8 2/3 and ER <= 3, or IP >= 9 and ER <= 4

I prefer QA 10. Gives credit to dominant pitching. And gives more importance to the bullpen which right now is pretty much a throw-in. But if people don't like giving credit for pitching a few innings and getting a point I like QS or maybe QS+Ws.

Look at all the Wins+ categories...

Those are interesting, too. Other than coming up with an improvement over wins, I think saves+holds has devalued relievers too much. Saves made closers valuable but other relievers mostly worthless. Saves+holds made non-closers worth something BUT by vastly increasing the pool of relievers who could get saves or holds made spending on relief problematic. So wondering if there is a category that can create a market for relievers again? Just snapping up guys on the waiver wire isn't very strategic...

I guess I'm more bothered than a SP who only goes 4-5 innings getting credit than I am by vulture wins. I think I would consider voting for just plain old QS--going 6 innings and allowing only 3 runs is a bigger deal than it used to be. But I'm fine with sticking with wins at this point .

This is probably the one I am most invested in regards change. Wins are stupid and often have nothing to do with the quality of a pitchers outing.

Vultured wins are even stupider as they sometimes reward a shitty appearance (blowing a save, followed by gaining a win). To add insult to injury, the SP now loses the win. The Rockies & Guardians each had 34 blown saves last year. 34.

Stats on Blown Saves

Note: BS = blown save; BW = blown save + wins

These guys are the top six in blown saves (I could look further but I think they make the point).

Clase: 12 BS, 2 BW
Bird: 11 BS, 1 BW
Puk: 9 BS, 2 BW
Stephan: 8 BS, 2 BW
Finnegan: 8 BS, 3 BW
Doval: 8 BS, 3 BW

Total blown saves = 56
Total wins after BS = 13
Percent blown saves with win = 23%

That's @#$! ridiculous. Case closed.

Agree about vulture wins. But pitchers who only go 4-5 innings are pulled because the manager doesn't trust them to go through the line-up 3 times or they're wild and use up too many pitches (they might use a lot of pitches if they pitch badly but then they would not get a QA4 point). Basically, they're not very good pitchers. Currently, I would prefer not drafting them because they're unlikely to get wins. I just can't see rewarding that kind of pitching performance.

What's wrong with QA13?

freeman3 wrote:What's wrong with QA13?

Huh... it's not in the list above.

Quality Appearances 13 (QA13) - 1 point if (IP >= 5 and IP < 6 and ER <= 2) or (IP >= 6 and ER <= 3)

Freeman - because it’s just not the managers’ decision alone anymore. Front offices dictate that these guys throw fewer innings to protect their health and/or because the statcast metrics say so.

SLOTerp wrote:Wins are stupid and often have nothing to do with the quality of a pitchers outing.

Sez you. Wins are for winners. :-p

geojanes wrote:

SLOTerp wrote:Wins are stupid and often have nothing to do with the quality of a pitchers outing.

Sez you. Wins are for winners. :-p

More seriously, a common complaint is that wins are random and have nothing to do with quality, I counter that by saying, if wins were random, then we should all have about the same number of wins, but we don't. The Bombers consistently win the wins category because they try to win it. Others decide not to compete for wins and then they're surprised when they lose? And so want to change the rules? That's not very good sportsmanship.

Every coach could compete on wins, but most choose not to. That's fine, some coaches also choose not to compete with saves. It's a choice. But we shouldn't change the rules just because some coaches don't want to compete in a category.