RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: RIBC 2016 - possible scoring change

Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 09:45

There has been a suggestion in the organizing thread to replace the saves category with (saves plus holds).

To quote Khahan: "Saves is a very narrow category. Its easy to manage in 10 and even 12 team leagues. But when you start getting into leagues the size of ribc they can be problematic. Closer changes due to injury usually means the fastest on the draw benefits. ... Opening the Saves category to Save + Holds would presumably open up the very limited market and make a whole category much less volatile and susceptible to injuries, committees, or poor performance. Saves stands out because it truly is different from the other 10 categories. No other category has such a narrow focus with a rules-driven small pool. "

This topic came up a couple of years ago, but as I look back, we never had a formal vote due to the timing constraints. So I'd like to put this to a vote. And - rather than just polling the members of the top RIBC, I'd like to open this to all managers in any RIBC league. There are currently 61.

So here is the question:

Should the pitching category of saves be replaced by saves plus holds?
Yes (saves plus holds)
No (saves only - no change)

Use this thread to cast your vote, and also to post any comments on this potential change. It appears that saves+holds is an available category in both ESPN and Yahoo.

If you cast your vote one way and then are subsequently swayed to change your mind, you can change your vote.

Let's see where the broad consensus lies.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
30loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 10:38
NO

Keep Saves category.
31RoboGuru
      ID: 23152129
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 11:40
No.I agree with Guru's analysis that this leads to too big of a pool of players getting similar S+H numbers. While I don't love the Saves category, it seems like the lesser of two evils here.
32Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 11:44
My tally at this point ( a few have emailed their vote, rather than posting) is:

16 yes
11 no

36 have not yet expressed an opinion.

33artforthehall
      ID: 451282212
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 11:59
yes.
34Thumqer
      ID: 411102611
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 12:10
Yes, sounds good to me.
35Perm Dude
      ID: 01112222
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 12:51
In many cases, the team's holds leader would be the guy to step up as the closer should that closer get injured or fail to do the job. Making those pitchers more attractive as either a handcuff to a closer or a holds guy alone is a good thing. I vote YES.
36Da Bomb
      Donor
      ID: 487112814
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 13:03
I vote no under the current roster settings. It would go from being a challenge to get saves to being way too easy to get holds+saves.
37mailedfoot
      ID: 27912109
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 13:50
Voting no
38 Valkyrie
      ID: 421472214
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 14:28
No- Merely being active on a winning team isn't really indicative of any value.
39Dave R
      SuperDude
      ID: 3010361110
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 15:05
Put me down for a NO vote
40RJ
      ID: 43027297
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 15:26
No saves are more valuable imo. I would entertain 2 pt svs and 1 pt holds.
41beebop
      ID: 39040261
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 15:29
Ill vote no
42jason
      ID: 361522614
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 15:53
I prefer keeping the SAVE categorie. To get some closer or relievers with chance to be a closer is an interesting part of the draft.
So, my vote is NO.
43Holt
      ID: 38142615
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 16:04
No
44GO
      ID: 2111117
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 16:19
No
45Holt
      ID: 38142615
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 16:33
My biggest issue is that the roster space is already very tight, making it difficult to deal with injury issues. Adding holds to the equation pretty much compels you to contribute even more roster space to relief pitchers.

Right now, middle relievers are a strategy choice. With holds being added, you pretty much have to carry more relievers, sacrifing bench slots.
46el fatador
      ID: 451492615
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 16:49
I say yes I will have another beer. Oh I mean yes to whatever the subject was. Whatever. Can we call it "Solds"
47Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 17:18
We are now at 18 yes, 20 no.
48C1-NRB
      ID: 31162617
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 18:06
Put me down for YES
49mmikulka
      ID: 531172617
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 18:21
I vote NO.

I actually like the idea in principle, but like some have mentioned, the roster size is too small to expand the number of valuable pitchers by this much.

RIBC is deep enough that almost any free agent position player you pick up will hurt you in multiple categories. With holds added, there would likely be several free agent RP available at all times who get holds and are above average in the other categories as well.

I think this would be a more viable option if we had an extra roster spot or two and/or if there was some level of weighting to give saves more value than holds.
50 sparkyanne
      ID: 22115818
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 19:00
I vote yes.
51Judy
      ID: 35493114
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 20:59
Yes!
52beastiemiked
      ID: 469172814
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 22:06
No, this would be a disaster.
53Ywk
      ID: 461252622
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 23:25
I would vote NO though this is quite intriguing to me---tend to select at ends of the draft and the so-called closer run always panics me. But before the roster could expand a bit I would rather keep SV intact.
54GO
      ID: 4011412823
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 23:30
As someone mentioned above, I wish there was a way to let saves count 2-1 vs. holds. Then you have a essentially a Save = HR, and a Hold = 2B... you can still pick up a few doubles hitters to try and accumulate that good OPS but the HR hitters are still the closers.
55Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 23:34
Interesting that those in the top RIBC league have voted 2-10 against so far.

All others have voted 20-13 in favor.

One plausible explanation is that those who have been more successful at navigating the status quo prefer to keep it that way.
56Graydog
      ID: 4511271214
      Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 00:31
No

Strongly agree with 25 Toral.

Getting saves in RIBC format is difficult - which is why it is so great and frustrating at the same time. Saves + holds has a significant devaluation of reliever usage strategy.

I completely disagree with Khahan's quoted points (nothing personal!):

"Saves is a very narrow category. Its easy to manage in 10 and even 12 team leagues. But when you start getting into leagues the size of ribc they can be problematic."
Yes saves is narrow - but so is steals. They are likely the only two categories you could punt and still win an RIBC league. The fact that it is narrow creates a high level of strategy and thought that must be put into the category.

"Closer changes due to injury usually means the fastest on the draw benefits". Being quick on the draw will help nearly as much with saves plus holds. As an injury to anyone consistently getting saves and holds with create a new spot in the bullpen for someone else doing so.
57Khahan
      ID: 51120619
      Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 01:29
"Closer changes due to injury usually means the fastest on the draw benefits". Being quick on the draw will help nearly as much with saves plus holds. As an injury to anyone consistently getting saves and holds with create a new spot in the bullpen for someone else doing so.

The counter to this is that Saves + holds creates a larger pool of players to take from so you are not necessarily down with no way to dig out just because 1 of 2 or 3 people you drafted solely for a specific category got injured. It alters the supply in the supply/demand equation. Last season there were 89 MLB players who had double digit steals. There were over 100 with double digit HR. There were 37 with double digit saves. There were 69 with double digit wins. But those pitchers with double digit wins - most who were drafted were expected to contribute to K's and ERA and/or WHIP. In fact only 5 of those pitchers didn't break triple digit K's.
There were 85 pitchers with double digit holds last season. This means you go from having a limited pool of players (89 total last year, many of which were not even viable until after the season started) who are drafted primarily for a single stat, to a pool of around 170. So if one of your drafted picks goes down and you are on vacation or in a meeting or asleep or just not the first one there, you aren't screwed.

Last year when Kimbrel got traded, the Soria owner in each league lost unless he was the first to grab Grilli. And when Grilli went down, that owner lost unless he was the first to grab Jim Johnson. At least with an expanded pool if you dont get a guy who steps in, you can still actually manage your team and get players who will contribute to the category. The fact that its narrow creates a bit of strategy during the draft. It can create a bit of speculation during the season. But the reality is what it creates the most of is - luck of the draw. More than any other stat, losing a closer costs a team because unless you are lucky enough to be first to the WW, you are not replacing any of those stats.

It would suck going from Paul Goldschmidt down to say Brandon Moss. But at least Moss can fill in 1st base and continue adding to the HR and rbi totals, even if its not at the same pace as Goldschmidt. But if Kimbrel goes down this year, unless you drafted Uehara you lose.
58kdl212
      ID: 24117272
      Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 03:18
Closers are not drafted for a single statistic. If that were true, no one would ever play a non-closing reliever, because they would add nothing of value. But plenty of set-up men are in starting lineups b/c of their ratios and k/9 (Carter Capps gave me 20 glorious innings last year, without a single save). Similarly, closers contribute in both the ratio categories (often in dominant fashion), k/9 and in wins (sometimes better on a per inning basis than even the league leaders in wins).

People aren't screwed if their closers get hurt. Uptown Bombers won RIBC a few years ago finishing dead last in saves.

I think there is a certain appeal to Saves + Holds. But under current roster sizes and especially with no transaction limit, it is a recipe for dissatisfaction once the reality of how it would play out sinks in by June 1st.
59ksoze
      ID: 271212719
      Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 07:28
No
60ksoze
      ID: 271212719
      Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 07:31
No
61el fatador
      ID: 451492615
      Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 09:10
Another alternative is to have 2 separate categories. Saves and Holds. This way if a closer goes down, you might have his set up guy and he will just step right in as the closer. Much bigger pool for holds guys cause 2-3 guys can earn a hold in a game. If the closer loses a game, a mid level pitcher can still earn a hold. It would bring a whole new strategy into picking your pitchers.
62loki
      SuperDude
      ID: 4211201420
      Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 10:06
I think that for a significant rule change a super majority should be required.
63Dave R
      SuperDude
      ID: 3010361110
      Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 10:15
Continuing, a solid closer helps in more cats than just saves. For the most part, ratios, and K's ( on per inning basis ) are in play. Call them 4 cat players

Compare that to steals, your top base runners are often a drag on your ratios, and offer limited RBI's, offering help in only steals , and maybe runs.

The intriguing part of closers is when to draft. We've all been caught on the wrong end of a closer run. Honestly if this idea is implemented a viable strategy would be to ignore closers all together and draft those later on in the draft who might only offer holds, with the possible promotion in the event of an injury to a closer

I still vote no, if if ain't broke don't fix it
64Tilt23
      ID: 120161420
      Sat, Feb 27, 2016, 17:18
NO
65jdrenbarger
      Dude
      ID: 04035768
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 00:35
I don’t believe anything distorts our game (and particularly leagues of 14 or more teams), vis-a-vis “real” baseball, more than does inclusion of saves as a category – even though omitting it completely would distort it even more. We see it in the always-too-early drafting of closers by some, forcing generally two closer runs that exhaust the pool of likely contributors in the draft many rounds earlier than it ought to be exhausted, and we particularly see it in the race to the waiver wire and free agent pool by essentially every manager in the league whenever a closer goes down. Every other category offers more ways to build a team that’s competitive in that category, and generally no one races to the waiver wire/free agent pool, other than the immediately affected manager, when a non-closer goes down. Our game is I think already better than standard games, via using OBP and SLG ... and I think it’s worth trying to improve this aspect of it as well. I’m persuaded by comments in another thread, moreover, that attempting to address this with a FAAB isn’t practical.

I’m accordingly in favor of seeing how a combined category of saves plus holds will work this year ... even if it is only implemented in either only AA, or in both AA and AAA. I’m sensitive to the claim that this change will “dumb-down” the game ... but I mostly disagree with it, too. I still believe the best path to a championship will be to come close to the IP max, I still believe it will take roughly 6 starters (if you take a consistent approach throughout the year, and there are of course other ways to get there) to do that, and I would not support an expansion of bench slots to accommodate this change. From last year’s stats, seeing Tony Watson and Joe Smith on more rosters (and John Axford and Fernando Rodney on fewer) would not, to me, be such a bad thing. Such a change will make the category more competitive and will unfortunately somewhat eliminate the really difficult choices everyone has to make about it (but what does it say when punting this category is actually a plausible strategy for our game?), but it also, I believe, will greatly lessen the importance of simply winning the race to the waiver wire/free agent pool. While there will now be some decent choices to replace the loss of a closer or someone regularly accumulating holds, those choices should still not be as good as players that are already rostered. And while I’d rather see saves valued more than holds in a perfect world, I’d rather see how it works with holds – since separate valuations aren’t possible – than to not try at all.

I still vote yes.
66kdl212
      ID: 56138261
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 01:31
Tony Watson was held by the manager who drafted him the entire year, and he finished 90th on the pitcher Player Rater for our league settings (well ahead of Axford and Rodney), because even though Watson only earned a single save, he was more valuable to have on your roster than Axford/Rodney.

I'd be curious to know how many of those managers who ended up with the next-in-line closers who contributed in saves picked up that next-in-line closer by winning "the race to the waiver wire" after news or injury, compared to the times when those pitchers were already on someone's roster before they became the closer. It's my sense, though I could be wrong, that most of the next-in-line guys are held by someone before the injury/trade/deposing happened.

Indeed, it is that bit of strategy (do I devote a sacred roster spot to a guy who might become a closer?) that adds a dimension to imaginary baseball that is completely lost if we switch to Holds + Saves.

Imaginary baseball will always be distorted from real baseball. We use RBIs and SBs as 40% of our hitting scoring, for goodness sakes. Trying to succeed within the distortion is the beauty of the game to me.
67 MathRob
      ID: 171482113
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 11:23
I vote Yes.
68s R
      ID: 322361912
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 11:38
No.
69Khahan
      ID: 51120619
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 13:18
Continuing, a solid closer helps in more cats than just saves. For the most part, ratios, and K's ( on per inning basis ) are in play. Call them 4 cat players

I will not call a closer a 4 cat player. The high end closers, maybe a very small handful of them are possibly 4 cat players. We have 1350 IP. Lets say with Tony Watson and his 16 earned runs you ended up with a 3.33 ERA. This means in 1350 IP you gave up a total of 500 runs. Now, take tony watson out. You used a SP for a few starts and filled those 75.1 innings streaming somebody who gave up 25 earned runs. You now have an ERA of 3.39. Those 75.1 IP had a .06 variance in the total ERA. From the one guy out of all the RP who were not anointed a closer at some point last year that lead them all in IP. The leader had a .006 affect. He also had a phenomenal ERA to deal with. You get the average closer or middle reliever who might pitch 60 IP and have an era closer to 3.00 than 1.00 and the effect is even more minimal. If you used your full IP a relieve with really good k/9 can have a beneficial affect on K's if you use enough of them. Now, you get enough relievers pitching 75+ IP that .006 adds up pretty quick. But no, an individual closer or middle reliever is not a 4 cat player. The numbers just aren't there.

As for strategy - where is the strategy during the draft in picking Dellin Betances over Andrew Miller only have Miller end up being named the closer after the draft ends? Where is the strategy in drafting Soria only to have Kimbrel arrive and take the job from him, Grilli step up then hurt and have Jim Johnson suddenly be a closer? There is no strat. There is only a rush to the waiver wire.

Know where there is a strat though: Do I draft Chapman, Betances or Miller? Or go for all 3? Now, go back to my earlier point about having 1 RP having a minimal affect and expand the pool where you may have access to more than a small handful. Now do you draft Brad Boxberger (41 Saves, 3.71 ERA, 1.37 whip and 74k's in 63 IP or do I go for maybe Pedro Strop (28 H, 2.91 era, 1.00 whip 81k's in 61 IP). Suddenly Strop looks a whole lot better than a guy who closed last year. Strategy runs on a bellcurve. If the pool is too small, the curve for strategy is at the low end. As you increase that pool, the strategy in the draft grows to a certain point. If it is flooded with options that are endless the strategy goes back down. Whats the strat if you can wait until round 23 and 24 to grab 2 solid options?

Here's the thing about Saves + Holds - last year there were 65 pitchers who had a combined 20+ Saves/holds. You'll find guys from Darren O'Day who suddenly become very useful to Ferdando Rodney, who suddenly look a lot less attractive. Go make a league on Yahoo and choose era, whip, k's, saves, holds and S+H as the categories and start parsing the data that is out there. I think you'll find what I've found - a lot more strategy to the game than anybody is giving the category credit for. You'll see names you never considered to be viable and names that were once viable to drop out of contention. What you'll see is a set of data points that takes knowledge and skill to navigate. You'll also find that the luck factor and speed factor to pick ups is diminished. It isn't getting dumbed down. The smarter managers, the managers who pay attention - they get more shrewd choices to make. The managers who look at yahoo/espn rank, dont pay attention to stuff like K/9, the cumulative affect of multiple relievers with low era's vs starters with higher era's (again, no 1 closer with very few exceptions is a 4 cat player, this can be demonstrated like above) - they are the ones who would have a harder time with holds/saves combined.
70Uptown Bombers
      ID: 38261518
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 16:11
The nays outnumber the yeas, but there seems to be enough interest that one of the lower level leagues should give it a try and see how it ends up working out.

And I also don't buy the "dumbing down" argument. Any change in league settings will simply allow new thoughtful and creative strategies to emerge. We should all know that by and large, this community is filled with smart and competitive fantasy players who will find varying ways to use their pitching slots if Holds are allowed.

Switching to Sv+H strikes me as a similar thing to using OPS cats instead of AVG and HR, in that more credit is given to hitters for their full range of skills and now relief pitchers will have their value determined by their full range of skills (and not just that they a 4+ ERA closer). I agree with some others above that some weighted difference between saves and holds (again, just how OPS give more weight to HR, than singles) might be best, but if that isn't an option, then why not at least have one or two leagues try it out and test the results.
71Judy
      ID: 35493114
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 17:53
Like the option is having one AAA league try it and have managers chose that league and then have an evaluation at the end of the season? I think we could get enough managers willing to try it???
72kdl212
      ID: 56138261
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 18:46
Khahan: I think you are underestimating how thoughtful the RIBC managers already are about relief pitchers. The same manager drafted both Betances and Miller last year (trust me, that was a strategic decision). Watson, Strop, and O'Day were all drafted last year, and produced more value (according to the year end player rater for our league settings) without getting any credit for their holds than John Axford and his 25 saves. Again - they were each, according to math that considers their contribution in all 5 categories, better to own than Axford.

So the choice between running to the waiver wire and adding Axford or sticking with Watson/O'Day/Strop is most definitely a strategic choice.

Bottom line for me - I've been in Saves+Holds leagues, and it hasn't enhanced the league. The same relief pitchers are owned, except that the reward goes to the managers who stream middle relievers to rack up holds, and I am against any scoring change that encourages/rewards roster streaming.
73Khahan
      ID: 51120619
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 20:41
Final decision is Guru's. If he say no across the board, I'm fine with it. If he ok's a AAA league to do S/H, I'll volunteer my league.
74Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Feb 28, 2016, 21:50
I've decided to stay with the two-AAA league structure, and have emailed all AAA managers for their preference as to Yahoo vs. ESPN.

There are still some strong preferences for each site. So then I looked to see how the managers in each league voted on this issue.

The RIBC league voted 3-11-2 against (3 in favor, 11 opposed, 2 not voting.)

The managers likely to be in the ESPN-AAA voted 5-6-4, slightly against.

The managers likely to be in AAA-Yahoo voted 4-7-5 against

Only the AA managers were in favor, 10-3-2.

So, I don't think it's fair to set up one of the AAA leagues to use different rules. If these managers are competing to get into the top league, they should play by the same rules, especially when there is no strong consensus to change.

And although there is consensus in the AA league, I don't think we do those managers any favor by using different rules there.

So I think we'll all stick with saves only for all RIBC leagues.

If there are 16 managers who would like to set up a separate "experimental" league with S+H, be my guest. But it seems unlikely that the RIBC leagues will change anytime soon, regardless of how any experimental league might work out.
75RoboGuru
      ID: 23152129
      Mon, Feb 29, 2016, 12:21
I understand the sentiment Uptown, but if we follow that plan, what was the point of putting it up for a vote? "We didn't get the results we wanted, so lets just test it out anyway?"
76Uptown @work
      ID: 481322917
      Mon, Feb 29, 2016, 18:35
re: post 75 RoboGuru

22-27 hardly seems definitive, so it wasn't about me not getting the result I wanted. The vote tallies, in my view, reflect a division of opinion that is fairly close, even with the "no's" winning. With so much support for the idea, testing it out seemed reasonable to me. Note, that in my post I did not decree that the league I end up in should be the test league. Also, I would not have made my post if the vote was lopsided. My intention was to broker compromise.

I guess I should be clear: I'm more than happy to abide by Guru's ruling, whatever it would have been on the issue.
77Seattle Zen
      ID: 301361318
      Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 17:56
Speaking of stupid categories...

"J.A. Happ: 21-4 in 30 starts since Aug. 19. That’s the most wins for any pitcher since that date (via @EliasSports)."

Side note, I voted Yes enthusiastically in this poll and I joined a Saves+Holds league this year.

In AA, I'm in first in saves by a ton
In that other league, I'm in dead last in S+H. Funny how that works...
78Nerfherders
      ID: 33543714
      Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 18:33
To add to that: Happ's last 365 days:

21-4, 190 IP, 174 K, 2.61 ERA, 1.08 WHIP

He obviously found something in Pittsburgh when he got traded there and it's carried forward. I got him at the end of the draft in a couple leagues as a 5th/6th starter.
79Bean
      ID: 41052279
      Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 00:56
How about we just stop using Saves as a stat?
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

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: RIBC 2016 - possible scoring change

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 hours11
Last 7 days22
Last 30 days1513
Since Mar 1, 200748941384