How Would You Build a Sabermetric Categorical League?

[Tavish]

I've looked into this and, as far as I can tell, points leagues would be the best possible way to do this. They are simply more customizable.

AA, I love you. <img src=/forums/images/smiles/kiss.gif>

Everyone read this? Points. That's right. Points. I'm changing the title of this thred to read "How Would You Build the Perfect League?"

He said they are more customizable. Not more fun, exciting, interesting, etc.

[Archduke Chocula]

Everyone read this? Points. That's right. Points. I'm changing the title of this thred to read "How Would You Build the Perfect League?"

He said they are more customizable. Not more fun, exciting, interesting, etc.

True. It's just a coincidence that it's also how to set up the perfect league.

To elaborate on a serious note, you can adjust the scoring for SB and CS so that a CS not only negates a SB, but is more negative than a SB is positive-- as it is in real baseball (where a 50% breakeven success rate is unacceptable vs. at least 63.5% success).

[Tavish]

Any thoughts on which produces a better 5X5 league? I checked on RotoTimes and both systems don't affect things too much in terms of change.

* As of now, I have it OBP, R, HR, RBI, SB-CS and QS, Saves, ERA, WHIP and K's. I feel OBP>BA since it counts both hits and walks. As for pitchers, K/9 hurts spot-starting and surely helps relievers, but I feel it puts too much emphasis on relievers (I checked a site and using K/9 makes Joe Borowski>Brandon Webb) and QS is more indicative of a SP's performance than wins.

The problem with using QS is that you take away a decent incentive for people to draft middle relievers. Using K/9 helps give them some value back, but as you already noticed having 3 rate stats and saves composing 4 of the 5 pitching categories closers will become a very dominating factor.

It becomes sort of a toss-up on what you would find more interesting. A league that overvalues closers or a league that undervalues MRs.

[DaQ]

Any thoughts on which produces a better 5X5 league? I checked on RotoTimes and both systems don't affect things too much in terms of change.

* As of now, I have it OBP, R, HR, RBI, SB-CS and QS, Saves, ERA, WHIP and K's. I feel OBP>BA since it counts both hits and walks. As for pitchers, K/9 hurts spot-starting and surely helps relievers, but I feel it puts too much emphasis on relievers (I checked a site and using K/9 makes Joe Borowski>Brandon Webb) and QS is more indicative of a SP's performance than wins.

The problem with using QS is that you take away a decent incentive for people to draft middle relievers. Using K/9 helps give them some value back, but as you already noticed having 3 rate stats and saves composing 4 of the 5 pitching categories closers will become a very dominating factor.

It becomes sort of a toss-up on what you would find more interesting. A league that overvalues closers or a league that undervalues MRs.

hmm...maybe simplicity (wins) is better. I was hooping for my league to be able to utilize MR's like Scot Shields. Playing devil's advocate to your assumption, just to see how you think of it:
1.) MR's will help in the ERA and WHIP departments, right?
2.) I still feel QS is more indicative of a SP's performace than wins are.

I do see your point though about how closers would become dominant, and I don't want that.

Keep in mind if I use wins, I revert to the regular categories for 5X5, and for hitters, only OBP is different (and that simply adds the effect of walks).