A league I am doing has converted to using Quality Starts instead of Wins. The wisdom of such a decision aside, I was wondering people's thoughts on how this impacts the values of starting pitchers.
It makes things a bit more objective, not having to worry about Santana's offense for example. In that sense it might help guys like Santana or Peavy, but hurt guys like Lowe (who gets shelled fairly often).
I think it might increase the value of the top tier arms, as they rarely get shelled, making it more necessary to get a solid ace or 2. However, I am just starting to evaluate this change, so that is hardly a thorough analysis...
Thoughts? Anyone dealt w/ a league like this before?
Simply put, guys that depend on their offense lose their value and guys that are pitchers and could care less about the teams performance get rewarded (See ex. Roger Clemens, Oakland Athletics pitching staff, etc.)
Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God wrote:Simply put, guys that depend on their offense lose their value and guys that are pitchers and could care less about the teams performance get rewarded (See ex. Roger Clemens, Oakland Athletics pitching staff, etc.)
You mean that Oakland team that almost made the playoffs? Didn't Houston also win a few games?
Its an ugly stat, I dont like it, and I dont see the point. Why bother? I'd rather use wins.
not too much will change. AL pitchers are less likely to be victims of a strategic hook, but are more likely to give up runs. IP hogs are probably your best bet, but since there are other categories to consider i don't think you need to adjust much. just don't let thoughts slip into your head about who plays for what team while you're drafting. Livan Hernandez comes to mind as a good bet to move up a few slots since he averages about 500IP per year and is in a great pitchers park.
Zito is God wrote:Simply put, guys that depend on their offense lose their value and guys that are pitchers and could care less about the teams performance get rewarded (See ex. Roger Clemens, Oakland Athletics pitching staff, etc.)
You mean that Oakland team that almost made the playoffs? Didn't Houston also win a few games?
Its an ugly stat, I dont like it, and I dont see the point. Why bother? I'd rather use wins.
Umm...lets see how many wins clemens had as opposed to how many he SHOULD have had. Clemens would have been a lock for the Cy Young if his offense showed up to the games once in a while. As for Oakland, the guys did not put up good offensive numbers. haren should have been huge this year, offense let him down. I am not saying the TEAM can't win, I am saying the PITCHER can't win...
Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
IrishSox wrote:A league I am doing has converted to using Quality Starts instead of Wins. The wisdom of such a decision aside, I was wondering people's thoughts on how this impacts the values of starting pitchers.
It makes things a bit more objective, not having to worry about Santana's offense for example. In that sense it might help guys like Santana or Peavy, but hurt guys like Lowe (who gets shelled fairly often).
I think it might increase the value of the top tier arms, as they rarely get shelled, making it more necessary to get a solid ace or 2. However, I am just starting to evaluate this change, so that is hardly a thorough analysis...
Thoughts? Anyone dealt w/ a league like this before?
I agree with the idea of using QS instead of wins but it would have an effect on the importance of middle releivers and set up men and even closers who would never pick up QS's whereas they would gain a small number of wins which could have an effect on league standings.
Zito is God wrote:Simply put, guys that depend on their offense lose their value and guys that are pitchers and could care less about the teams performance get rewarded (See ex. Roger Clemens, Oakland Athletics pitching staff, etc.)
You mean that Oakland team that almost made the playoffs? Didn't Houston also win a few games?
Its an ugly stat, I dont like it, and I dont see the point. Why bother? I'd rather use wins.
Umm...lets see how many wins clemens had as opposed to how many he SHOULD have had. Clemens would have been a lock for the Cy Young if his offense showed up to the games once in a while. As for Oakland, the guys did not put up good offensive numbers. haren should have been huge this year, offense let him down. I am not saying the TEAM can't win, I am saying the PITCHER can't win...
But this doesn't acknowledge the psychology of pitching. How many times have you seen a game blown open, where the pitcher relaxes too much and suddenly it's a close game again? Whose to say that the pitcher would have pitched the same just because he had a lead?
Anyway, I don't really see that much of a difference (maybe a few players ranked a few places higher or lower). Only wins or qs are impacted, with the other stats remaining the same.
Interesting. Up until this morning, I was more or less decided that I was going to push for QS over W's in our league. Because I believe in the school that, when assembling a fantasy team, what you're really emulating is an All-Star type experience of, if you have a certain roster of players on your team, how would your team fare against the rest of the league. And, in that lens, QS is more meaningful than wins as QS is an individual pitching statistic.
But, reading through the thread cited above, I'm not so sure now. Because there are other statistics that measure, sort of, the same thing that QS does. Although QS is more of a counting variable and ERA more of an average (your pitcher's 1-inning 8-run blowup will kill your ERA but be just a blip in the QS column) it still might be sufficiently emulated by other variables that there is an argument for leaving in the "intangible" nature of Wins.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by IrishSox » Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:49 pm 
