Need help understanding pitching scoring

[Canada8999]

I think the difference in the stats needs to be adjusted by solely looking at our countable stats.  Look at the IP!  Perhaps we need to bump up those points slightly. 

I also feel that the IP limit should be lowered.  A handful of GMs were against the limit, but perhaps now that we have adjusted then maybe we can move to a more realistic limit such as 75 or 80 IP.  Keep in mind that the minimum IP for 7 away games in a week would be 63 IP.  Make it 8 games (which is our fantasy schedule) and you have 70 IP.

I would argue that dropping the IP threshold would have enough of an effect that we don't need to explicitly reward for IP (you'll need to optimize the IP you have), but we could hash that out.

[Canada8999]

Colby,

The jury has heard the evidence from both sides ad nauseum.  I could be wrong here, but it seem as if you and Ben are the leading voices in favor of the current system.  I suggest that we put this to a vote and move on.  I want a system that takes hits allowed and earned runs into account.
 
Roy

Just for completeness, mjmezzetti is also a big voice since if memory serves me he either designed or helped Colby design the current system (although his posting has dropped off).

[rcankosy]

Colby,

The jury has heard the evidence from both sides ad nauseum.  I could be wrong here, but it seem as if you and Ben are the leading voices in favor of the current system.  I suggest that we put this to a vote and move on.  I want a system that takes hits allowed and earned runs into account.
 
Roy

[Colby]

His comparison is an example of one pitcher who got lucky with poor peripheral stats and one who got unlucky with better peripherals ... this is a pretty common argument against things like FIP, tERA, xFIP, etc., but there's just so much data out there on luck and pitching that you can't ignore it.  Again, this is part of the premise of the league...

 

I think the difference in the stats needs to be adjusted by solely looking at our countable stats.  Look at the IP!  Perhaps we need to bump up those points slightly. 

I also feel that the IP limit should be lowered.  A handful of GMs were against the limit, but perhaps now that we have adjusted then maybe we can move to a more realistic limit such as 75 or 80 IP.  Keep in mind that the minimum IP for 7 away games in a week would be 63 IP.  Make it 8 games (which is our fantasy schedule) and you have 70 IP.

[Mr.TradeKing]

I completely agree with Corey, Mike, and Roy. We have first made the mistake of "putting all of eggs in one basket" by relying overwhelmingly on these sabermetrics. We are being narrow-minded to continue to tweak/fix this system after countless accounts like "Niemann vs. Price."

~MTK

[VolsRaysBucs]

I can read the previous discussions and related research until I'm blue in the face.  It still does not convince me that there is not something flawed with the current scoring system.  There is absolutely no way Price should EVER score more points than Neimann, and there are countless examples on a daily basis around the league.  Again, I understand the metrics involved as well as anyone, but someone brought up a perfect point earlier.  These categories are being bastardized.  My suggestion, to state again, was to find a way that we can have the scoring metrics and "eye-ball testing" being more closely aligned.  This is what they do in MLB.  They have their spreadsheets, sure, but any scout whose spreadsheet and eyeballing of the Neimann and Price performance who said Price had the better outing would be looking for a new line of work.  Any GM who looked at that line, peripherals included, and concluded that Price was the more effective pitcher would be in the same boat. 

[bravesfan4]

In my opinion its gona be brought every year. Having a scoring where pitchers get blown up but still put in good points is just flat out crazy.

[Dan Wood]

Deja Vu all over again...

Please read it...

http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=6413.msg29445#msg29445

[Canada8999]

It is a widely accepted fact that K, BB, and GB/FB are the best indicator of a pitchers true skill/performance.  Because of that, these are the categories we use to measure scoring, in line with Colby's intentions for this league.

Agree to disagree I guess.  I dug up related articles last year when we had the same debate, I'm not really inclined to do so again every the argument comes up by someone who hasn't read them.  If you have read research that counters it, please post links and we can all review / discuss, but adding your opinions without statistical research is not sufficient.

[rcankosy]

Ben,

The research that you're so fond of is being misapplied.  The research simplies implies that there are some pitchers over the course of a season that may have had some bad luck in terms of hits and/or earned runs allowed.  To extrapolate that over the entire piching universe and saying that all flyballs should be outs is patently wrong.  MLB executives have access to information such as exactly how many hits were allowed by bad pitching as opposed to great defense.  Applying the research the way we have and to only factor in K, BB, and HR is just plain wrong.  The truth is that the vast majority of hits on flyballs or groundballs had NOTHING to do with defense.  We have taken the simple concept of how defense and bad luck can affect a FEW hits over the course of a game or season and bastardized it by removing all hits and earned runs out of the equation altogether.  That is NOT how MLB executives look at it.  They look at these stats IN ADDITION to the traditional ones, not IN PLACE OF.  We are tailoring a scoring system around the least common denominator which is great defense and/or luck rather than the most common which is the fact that a hit was a result of a bad pitch.

Lastly, I could just as easily argue that a K or BB is the result of the umpire as it was the pitcher.  Should we remove them from the scoring as well, because they are not "independent"?  Come on guys.  Let's use some common sense here and not be fooled by people using certain statistics that are being morphed into saying something that they don't prove at all.