nuggets wrote:Neither would I, unless paired with K. It does measure some sort of quality, but not as well as OPS or RC does, that's for sure. Do any providers offer RC/27 as a roto stat? That would be sweeet.
yah. sportsline lets you define algebraically your own statistics so you can create whatever derivation of the RC stat that you want given about half an hour.
Matthias wrote:i think bb as an isolated statistic is silly because i really can't say what attribute it is measuring.... capacity to take pitches?.
The latest studies indicate BB rate comes from power (along with a good eye) and therefore respect from the pitchers, i.e. Juan Pierre gets more pitches in the zone compard to Manny Ramirez.
but still, in a baseball sense... what are you measuring? nothing really. a single that didn't get recorded. as i said, stand-alone: non-sensical.
BB measures power and eye. How many of these guys aren't high quality hitters?
great. so do eye exams and bench presses. but those aren't used as fantasy baseball stats.
separated from average, the statistic doesn't have a holistic meaning in the same way that many other statistics do. HR means you cleared the bases. RBIs measure how many people you brought across the base with that. Rs means how many times you crossed the base yourself. even the less traditional, sabermetric stats, like runs created, have a MEANING: how many extra runs did your team score for having you in their lineup versus a replacement level player. isolated walks don't have the same type of underlying meaning.
so i wouldn't use it as a stat.
shouldn't stolen bases be taken out then? stolen bases don't mean a run. a stolen bases is like earning only a base, not a run, but it's still included in standard 5x5. i would think a walk is like a single (i know singles are different from walks in real baseball, but your point was that runs/hrs/rbis refer to actual runs being scored thus deserving to be fantasy baseball categories, and my point is that both singles and walks are alike in the aspect that neither of them necessarily refer to a run being scored), and singles are factored in when people use AVG, and it is only an advancement of one base. if categories like SBs and AVG are used, seems to me like there's nothing illogical with using BBs if someone wanted to.
as for original poster, i'd go with replacing AVG with OBP and SLG, and innings pitched for pitches, since it measures the same thing that CG does (how effective a pitcher was, how durable he is, etc) without the randomness of it (if a pitcher pitches 8 innings, you get 8, instead of you missing out on a CG even though the opponent's pitcher pitched only 5 innings).
I had a problem with SB as a stat when I first started FBB, after playing for years I kind of like how it forces you to balance your team with other types of players, giving the Juan Pierre types more value.
I love SHO as an extra category for H2H... basically if you get one shutout during the week you win the cat. Yes, it can be a bit random and certainly sporadic, but I'm of the theory that fantasy baseball should be fun.
Replace AVG with OPS or OBP, then add Ks as a negative hitting cat. That way the changes won't just favour power hitters because they tend to strike out more.
And what's wrong with holds? Seems like a much better cat than CG in that a whole new group of pitchers (middle relieve) gain value and would make your season more interesting.
WittyC wrote:I love SHO as an extra category for H2H... basically if you get one shutout during the week you win the cat. Yes, it can be a bit random and certainly sporadic, but I'm of the theory that fantasy baseball should be fun.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Art Vandelay » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:41 pm 
