RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: RIBC 2014: getting started

Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 13:49

I have sent out 16 invitations for the 2014 RotoGuru Invitational Baseball Challenge. All 16 have responded with a commitment to play.

As background, the RIBC invitations went to the top 6 in last year’s RIBC (excluding me), plus the top three teams in each of the two AAA leagues, plus the winner of each of two AA leagues, plus me. The 16th team was selected as the better finishing 4th place team from among the two AAA leagues.

Here are the 16 managers in the 2014 RIBC:
bmd
kdl212
evan
Jkaye
mailedfoot
JeffG
twilson
Seattle Zen
WG
Jasonprof
reeb
HOLT
jdrenbarger
Meatwads
mmikulka
Guru


Qualifying league sign-ups are first being solicited via email to all other managers from 2013. For details, see the RIBC 2014-preregistration thread.

The first regular season MLB game is on March 22, as there are two early games played in Australia. Last year, the draft lasted about 13 days, so if we are to finish before those games, we will need to start around March 7. Draftime.com will again be used to host the draft.

The league will again be hosted at ESPN.

Are there any suggestions for changes in league rules that we should consider before we being to prepare for the draft?
1Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 14:50
I would like to propose RIBC consider changing the win category to quality starts. RIBC has always been on the cutting edge, OBP and SLG well ahead of the curve. Wins are extremely fickle, the statistic is mocked by sabermatricians. I share the disdain.

I propose this change for a few reasons. First, wins are fickle, we should reward a quality start. Second, with the IP limit so low, the strikeout category is really more of a K/9, which overrewards relievers. Third, we have two different batting categories, we should have at least one nontraditional pitching category.

If we were to switch to quality starts rather than wins, middle relievers' values drop slightly because they no longer get wins that fall into their lap. It reminds me of 2012 where Jon Rauch got three wins in a single week and Cliff Lee had only three more for his entire year. To me, that's just stupid. I believe that middle relievers with +ERA and +WHIP and +K/9 are amply rewarded enough.

I say "Yes" to quality starts.
2Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 14:55
To make sure we're all on the same wavelength, a "quality start" is defined as a game in which the starting pitcher completes at least six innings and permits no more than three earned runs.

3 Evan
      ID: 29181714
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 15:08
I like it. I vote YES for Quality Starts to replace Wins.
4JeffG
      ID: 2654157
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 15:25
Here are your 2013 QS leaders (QS% is also sortable).

I agree that 'win' is a tempormental category - prone to C-Losers and bullpens blowing a potential win, seeing great starts go for naught when they leave with the score tied or ending up with a pitchers duel loss, or on the other side getting credit for a win in a slugfest.

Like Seattle Zen said, middle relievers and closers who also occasionally contribute to the W category would have no impact there (which I am not sure is a positive or a negative) where only starters can get a QS.

Looking at ESPN fantasy baseball custom roto scoring categories I am not really fond of any other category that could swap out for W.

On the fence, hopefully the vote does not come down to me.
5Meatwads
      ID: 151361715
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 16:37
I am also in favor of switching. Although QS is far from perfect, it is a better indication of how well a pitcher did during the season.
6Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 17:31
Some might argue that a Win (vs QS) is no more a matter of luck than is a HR (vs a flyout). RBIs and Runs could also be seen as circumstantial in the same context.

All that said, I play in a league that uses QS vs W. I play in far more that use W. Either is acceptable, though using QS does remove a strategy of collecting Set up men.

Pick the right set up men, and you get more Ws per inning than starters. You need more roster spots for them, that's why people dont use that strategy much.


7holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 18:53
Not that Wins are a perfect stat by any stretch, but I'd like to point out something about Quality Starts that annoys me to no end. A pitcher who goes 9 innings and gives up 4 runs doesn't get a QS. 4 runs in 9 IP is better than 3 runs in 6 IP isn't it?
8holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 19:00
Also, a 4.50 ERA isn't what I'd consider quality. The definition of Quality Start needs to be heavily modified (won't ever happen). Maybe something like 2 R in 5 or 6 IP, 3 in 7 or 8, 4 in 9. But it's not. It's just 3 ER in 6 IP.

Why isn't 0 runs in 5 2/3 IP a quality start?
9Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 19:57
Holt makes a good point. For those of you of who, like me, cannot escape bemoaning their losses, who raise their hands to the heavens beseechingly when some idiot manager makes a boneheaded move, there is still plenty to bemoan with quality starts.

When your pitcher gives up his second and third run on his 110th pitch in the seventh inning, escaping with the bases loaded, then he is trotted out there in the eighth because "the bullpen needs a rest", oh the howls of disenchantment!

Yes, tis true. But there are simply too many 1-1 games in the 8th these days.
10beastiemiked
      ID: 5911312710
      Mon, Feb 17, 2014, 22:15
I'm not in favor of switching. Quality starts is far from perfect. Hurts RPs a lot more than you'd expect.

QS + wins is superior to wins or quality starts alone. However, like I said I'm not in favor of switching. It really complicates things for projections and finding decent outside sources.
11reeb
      ID: 35842259
      Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 08:49
Not in favor of the switch.
12Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 09:33
My primary objection is that this detracts from the value of relievers.
13Evan
      ID: 29181714
      Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 10:59
If less relief pitchers are rostered, theoretically there should be more closer "opportunities" on the free agent market. In the past, every good reliever
(and even some mediocre to bad ones) are rostered for the hope that they will get a chance to close. Its like throwing darts; some of them close but many of them won't. Even the poor ones who don't close provide some value because they give you that extra "win" once in awhile.

I don't mind devaluing that set-up man in this situation. If you have a good one, great. You'll capitalize on strikeouts and WHIP. Anyone can roster a couple of stinky relievers and snag a few wins over the course of the season.
14maspero
      ID: 2151810
      Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 11:06
as AAA partecipant (don't know if my vote count here ...) I would vote for QS .... just sayin' ...
15holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 12:58
I don't mind people loading up on middle relievers. It leaves more position players available. Also if you are rostering a lot of relievers then there's a chance you are falling short on games played or IP limits. Nothing wrong with a diversity of possible strategies.

If you discourage the rostering of set-up men (I'm not sure if QS would do that or not) then you are giving more advantage to those who have instant news and instant access to adding a new closer.

I did have Cliff Lee in 2012. His bad luck defied all odds. It was ugly.
16mjd
      Dude
      ID: 501381415
      Tue, Feb 18, 2014, 13:06
In a 16 team league, there really aren't enough decent SP to go around for QS (Though I love QS for 10 or 12 team leagues).

Plus with a 1350 IP limit, you really need middle RPs. I also am concerned about devaluiing them.
17kdl212
      ID: 231211918
      Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 19:30
for every silly non-quality start (0 runs in 5 and 2/3) there's a silly win (1/3 IP to end the inning, 3 runs, team takes lead in bottom of inning). Neither is perfect.

and, true, a pitcher could make 30 starts, and compile 30 QS with an ERA of 4.50. But that is the absolutely worst-outcome scenario. I don't have stats in front of me, but I think the ERA for pitchers for their quality starts is something around 3.1 or 3.20.

And when you sort the leaderboard by wins, and by QS, the QS leaderboard is higher quality in my mind. The wins leaderboard has 6 in the top 15 with an ERA of 3.39+, and 6 in the top 15 with a WHIP of 1.29+ (Jeremy Guthrie! Jorge de la Rosa!). The QS leaderboard has 3 with an ERA of 3.39+, and only one pitcher with a WHIP over 1.24.

But if I had to vote, I think I'm sticking with wins. And this from the guy who finished the league 2nd in WHIP, 3rd in ERA and 13th in wins.
18holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 22:51
I can agree that QS is slightly more indicative of a good performance than a W, but the QS is still bad overall. The guy who came up with it must have been striving to keep it very simple, but it's just overly simple. Should have been more like: at least 5 innings with an ERA under 4.00, or whatever.

There's also the fact that wins are still a revered stat by most baseball fans while quality starts sre mostly ignored. Sometimes an announcer will mention them. That's about it. How does one go about pushing for a new stat anyway? Somehow, the QS and the hold were adopted.
19Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 00:52
Just remember how you voted, kdl212, this year when you see that your two best pitchers are scheduled to start against each other...

You could have had a chance at two quality starts.
20Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 10:12
At this point, I'm not seeing enough interest to even put this to a formal vote.

By my count, three RIBC managers have spoken in favor, five are against, and one is on the fence. Seven have not yet commented, which I interpret to mean they are not particularly interested.

Unless there is more of a groundswell of support, I think this is dead for this year. There is some value to year-to-year continuity, and while I'm not opposed to change, I think there needs to be a stronger level of interest. If other managers are interested in making this change, I'd like to hear from them now.

21Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 10:32
Registration info for Draftime was just emailed to all managers.

The six returning managers should already be registered at ESPN. (Please verify.) New managers should have received an invitation from ESPN. Check your spam folder if you don't see it.
22jdrenbarger
      Dude
      ID: 04035768
      Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 11:05
I'm not in favor of the switch ... though I share the frustration with wins as a category.
23Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 13:19
I think I may have failed in my attempt to have ESPN send out the invites this morning, so I just tried it again.
24mailedfoot
      ID: 128391010
      Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 13:29
In theory, I like the idea of QS over W, as I think it is a better indication of a SP's performance.

Just not sure if it is worth it if it will completely change the strategy of pitcher usage currently in place. As Guru indicated, I believe there is something to be said in favor of continuity unless things have gone way out of balance.

One other thought I had was to change W to QS and change S to S plus H as a way to keep RP relevant. But that would really be changing things up and I kind of get the sense it might be too radical of a change.



25Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 15:24
[34] that last suggestion is rather intriguing, and I do note that ESPN could handle it (i.e., saves plus holds). Not sure I'm prepared to embrace that change this year, but it certainly is something to mull over.
26Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 10:41
Four managers have not yet signed up at Draftime:
Jasonprof, bmd, kdl212, JKaye

Only Jasonprof has not yet signed in at ESPN. However, WG and reeb still need to set up a name for their team.
27Meatwads
      ID: 57134714
      Sun, Feb 23, 2014, 09:29
It sounds like we are keeping it the same but I think we should always be looking for ways to improve to give us the best game to play.

#17 - I agree with most of this. I think the goal of the league should be to most accurately display value for pitchers. I think Felix and Greinke won maybe 13 & 12 games the years they won the Cy Young. We could all throw out endless examples of why we should keep wins or switch. It sounds like the leaderboards speak for themselves. Plus, I think we should be valuing the pitcher, not his teams ability to score runs.

#24 - I also like the idea of S+HD for relief pitchers with QS. I think both stats are a step in the right direction for true value for players in real life, if that is indeed the goal. Some middle relievers are better than the closers. I think we should be rewarded for drafting and adding good relief pitchers rather than just saves.

Either way, I'm looking forward to a fun season!
28Seattle Zen
      ID: 3310162612
      Sun, Feb 23, 2014, 12:02
Our game was created some thirty years ago and back then it was 4X4. I'm sure that there was resistance to adding runs and strikeouts, but are we not all glad that we did? The game is better 5X5. Similarly, our game would be better with quality starts and I suspect that the RIBC will make the change, maybe as soon as 2015.
29holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Sun, Feb 23, 2014, 21:05
I think I said this before, but the concept of a Quality Start is a good one. The current definition at 6 IP and 3 ER or less is a terrible one. It would be cool if there were a fantasy site that allowed you to have user defined categories. IF the QS didn't exclude a pitcher with 9 IP and 4 ER, or 5.2 IP and 0 ER then I could fully support it.

Regarding Saves plus Holds. That's a large can of worms. Right now Saves are a scarce thing. With S + H the scarcity would not be much of a factor. A big part of piling up S+H would be how many roster slots you could devote. If your team has injury problems you'd fall behind. Our roster size is very tight, considering the number of starting slots we have to fill and the number of teams in the league (16 team league means its common to carry "platoon" type players who don't start every day due to lack of quality full time position players being available).
30holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Sun, Feb 23, 2014, 21:42
Also want to add that a huge part of rotisserie is the strategy involved in juggling the categories. If you really want a league that attempts to reward you for the "true" value of each player as closely as possible, then you need a points based league to do that. Changing from W to QS necessitates changing from S to H + S. This would be like removing the scarcity of SB from the hitting equation (say, by changing to SB + total bases advanced??). I'm not just trying to be argumentative. Just reminding that a big part of Roto strategy has always been based on these quirky and scarce stats like stolen bases, wins, and saves.

Notice that the stolen base category involves no penalty for number of times caught stealing. And yes, Wins involve a team component (runs scored). What's wrong with that? R, RBI, & Saves do the same thing. If you're wanting a league that attempts to isolate individual performance as accurately as possible then you need a points league.
31Seattle Zen
      ID: 3310162612
      Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 12:04
Switching from wins to QS does not necessitate adding holds to saves. I agree that adding holds to saves is a enormous change and one I am not in favor of. Changing from wins to QS, however, is not a big change, honestly, it's an improvement.

Baseball has been changing, offensive production is down significantly. Back in the 90's, if you pitched 7 or 8 innings and gave a up a single run, you would get the win at least 90% of the time. I don't have the data, but it seems obvious to me that percentage has dropped.

The measurement of individual production is not the sole province of points leagues.
32Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 14:06
We had some good discussions here. Since there hasn't been a groundswell of support for a change, and since we need to move ahead toward the draft (since the season starts so early), I'm deciding that we will make no scoring category changes this year.

However, I am intrigued by the idea of saves plus holds as a category, and I'm likely to put that to a vote next season. We can also vote on QS vs wins at that time. I want to be sure that if/when we make such a change, that managers have enough advance warning to properly reflect on it when planning for the draft. And it never hurts to mull things over for a season before committing. (If I'm alert enough, I may even put these items to a vote sometime late in this season.)

That said, it's time to start selecting our draft slots. I'll generate a set of random numbers (1-16) and line them up next to an alphabetical list of managers (using the names in the opening post) to set the draft selection round order. I'll have audit copies of the random numbers sent to a few managers. (If you get one of those, we'll only be using the top set of numbers.)

Stand by...
33Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 14:14
Here are the random numbers:
13, 16, 4, 14, 7, 11, 1, 15, 12, 6, 2, 8, 5, 9, 10, 3

That produces the following order for the draft selection round:

1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 Guru
5 reeb
6 mailedfoot
7 Jasonprof
8 mmikulka
9 Seattle Zen
10 twilson
11 jdrenbarger
12 kdl212
13 bmd
14 HOLT
15 Jkaye
16 evan


We can start immediately. Remember that we use a traditional snake draft for 25 rounds. Although this is an untimed round, if we wait more than 24 hours for anyone to select, I may skip that person - especially if time is running short.

BTW, initial waiver priorities will be set equal to the reverse of the random order above. So Evan will open the season with the top waiver priority, followed by JKaye, etc.

I'm still hoping to start the actually draft around March 7th.
34JeffG
      ID: 2654157
      Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 14:25
1 JeffG
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

next to select: Meatwads
35Meatwads
      ID: 57134714
      Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 17:52
Sorry for the delay...

1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

next to select: WG
36WG
      ID: 552431321
      Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 18:18
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

next to select: Guru
37Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 20:14
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Guru
15
16

next to select: reeb
38reeb
      ID: 53234417
      Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 21:10
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 reeb
12
13
14 Guru
15
16

next to select: mailed foot
39mailedfoot
      ID: 531322718
      Mon, Feb 24, 2014, 21:50
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 reeb
12
13
14 Guru
15
16

Next: Jasonprof
40Jason
      ID: 59882610
      Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 05:55
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 reeb
12
13
14 Guru
15
16 Jasonprof
41mmikulka
      ID: 71372512
      Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 13:38
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5
6 mmikulka
7
8
9
10
11 reeb
12
13
14 Guru
15
16 Jasonprof

Next to select: Seattle Zen
42Seattle Zen
      ID: 3310162612
      Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 13:48
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5 Seattle Zen
6 mmikulka
7
8
9
10
11 reeb
12
13
14 Guru
15
16 Jasonprof

Next to select: twilson
43twilson
      ID: 322401523
      Wed, Feb 26, 2014, 00:46
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5 Seattle Zen
6 mmikulka
7
8
9
10
11 reeb
12
13
14 Guru
15 twilson
16 Jasonprof

Next to select: jdrenbarger
44 jdrenbarger
      Dude
      ID: 04035768
      Wed, Feb 26, 2014, 07:45
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5 Seattle Zen
6 mmikulka
7
8
9
10
11 reeb
12
13 jdrenbarger
14 Guru
15 twilson
16 Jasonprof

Next to select: kdl212
45kdl212
      ID: 231211918
      Wed, Feb 26, 2014, 12:03
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5 Seattle Zen
6 mmikulka
7
8
9
10
11 reeb
12 kdl212
13 jdrenbarger
14 Guru
15 twilson
16 Jasonprof

Next to select = BMD
46beastiemiked
      ID: 5911312710
      Wed, Feb 26, 2014, 13:12
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5 Seattle Zen
6 mmikulka
7
8
9
10 bmd
11 reeb
12 kdl212
13 jdrenbarger
14 Guru
15 twilson
16 Jasonprof

Next to select HOLT
47holt
      Donor
      ID: 308491916
      Wed, Feb 26, 2014, 15:16
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5 Seattle Zen
6 mmikulka
7 holt
8
9
10 bmd
11 reeb
12 kdl212
13 jdrenbarger
14 Guru
15 twilson
16 Jasonprof


Jkaye up
48JKaye
      ID: 31192314
      Thu, Feb 27, 2014, 17:19
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5 Seattle Zen
6 mmikulka
7 holt
8
9 Jkaye
10 bmd
11 reeb
12 kdl212
13 jdrenbarger
14 Guru
15 twilson
16 Jasonprof
49 Evan
      ID: 29181714
      Fri, Feb 28, 2014, 09:11
1 JeffG
2 Meatwads
3 WG
4 mailedfoot
5 Seattle Zen
6 mmikulka
7 holt
8 Evan
9 Jkaye
10 bmd
11 reeb
12 kdl212
13 jdrenbarger
14 Guru
15 twilson
16 Jasonprof

Good, I wanted spot number 8 anyway. Haha

DRAFT ORDER COMPLETE
50JeffG
      ID: 2654157
      Fri, Feb 28, 2014, 17:09
I see our tentatative draft start date is 'around March 7'. Is that our official launch?

51Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Feb 28, 2014, 17:25
As far as I know. No one has spoken up to say that date is a problem.

Following my typical approach, I'll activate the draft sometime the day before (Thursday, March 6), so that people can begin to set up queues if they wish. Picks will be allowed at that time as well. We'll try to make it through one round before turning on the clock, just to make sure everyone is on board. Hopefully, we can clear the first round sometime on Friday.
52kdl212
      ID: 231211918
      Mon, Mar 03, 2014, 14:02
Will Australia games count, or are we skipping over them?
53Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Mon, Mar 03, 2014, 14:28
They will count. That is why we are getting the draft started this week.
Rate this thread:
5 (top notch)
4 (even better)
3 (good stuff)
2 (lightweight)
1 (no value)
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.

If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.

If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.

RotoGuru Baseball Forum

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread




Post a reply to this message: RIBC 2014: getting started

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Click here to insert a random spelling of Mientkiewicz
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours22
Last 7 days44
Last 30 days1111
Since Mar 1, 200736911031