I got some pushback on it, but the net impact is minimal. We also put a max on starts per week for obvious reasons. Most of the league is pushing for a decrease in innings from 3 to 2, while increasing the value of wins and quality starts. This was the primary driver used in decreasing the value of pitchers.

I'm forever tweaking this, but as of now it looks as such:

hits 1 1b 1 2b 2 3b 3 hr 4 r 1 rbi 1 bb 1 sb 2 cs -1 ko -.75 out -.25 gdp -1

bbi -1 bs -3 cg 5 er -2 hit allowed - 1 hit batsmen -1 hold 4 inning 2 k 1 loss -5 qs 4 save 7 shutout 5 win 10

tavo2311 wrote:Thanks for the guidance. I am using excel now to generate rankings on the past 3 years stats in different scoring systems, just wanted a system to start with that someone already thought made some sense. One question for you if you don't mind. Why no negatives for AB's, even -.25 or something. This way it would have a semblance of Avg, OBP, etc... Thanks

well if a guy goes 4 for 4 he gets 3 points instead of 4, kind of seems backwards to me.

When you put it like that, yes. When you say that a guy that goes 4 for 4 doesn't outscore a guy that goes 4 for 8 though (all hits being equal for this example) that's more where I was coming from. 4 for 4 is more impressive, and in a sport where we live by Averages (Bavg, Obp, etc..) I was just thinking more impressive maybe deserves more points.

Thanks for all the input all. I know there be many tweaks over time. Unlike football there are just too many positions and scoring categories to find what one would call " a standard scoring system" but hearing from some others' trial and error helps me get started.

tavo2311 wrote:Thanks for the guidance. I am using excel now to generate rankings on the past 3 years stats in different scoring systems, just wanted a system to start with that someone already thought made some sense. One question for you if you don't mind. Why no negatives for AB's, even -.25 or something. This way it would have a semblance of Avg, OBP, etc... Thanks

well if a guy goes 4 for 4 he gets 3 points instead of 4, kind of seems backwards to me.

When you put it like that, yes. When you say that a guy that goes 4 for 4 doesn't outscore a guy that goes 4 for 8 though (all hits being equal for this example) that's more where I was coming from. 4 for 4 is more impressive, and in a sport where we live by Averages (Bavg, Obp, etc..) I was just thinking more impressive maybe deserves more points.

Thanks for all the input all. I know there be many tweaks over time. Unlike football there are just too many positions and scoring categories to find what one would call " a standard scoring system" but hearing from some others' trial and error helps me get started.

I don't think you want to go that route. The guy that goes 4 for 4 has 4 more at bats to get more points, so he's in good shape.

I think -2 for an earned run by a pitcher is pretty harsh as well. I haven't mapped out what it does, but I imagine it's going to make anything but the top SPs real liabilities. Owners will want to avoid the blow ups. With holds in there as well, you'll likely end up with people starting only a couple of very solid SPs and sticking just with highly skilled relievers. Getting a -10 from one pitcher is just not anyone's cup of tea in a weekly league. May you want that, so that's fine. Sometimes looking at total points for the year doesn't give you a picture of what can happen with one individual week, so I thought I would point it out.

Last edited by noseeum on Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I could post a thesis with formulas and everything on making a proper points scoring system, but there are really only two things that matter:

You absolutely have to have an equilibrium between the average points scored by a starting-worty hitter and a starting-worthy pitcher. If this doesn't balance, then your league will dictate the winning strategy to the owners, which is the opposite of how it should be.

One scoring system will not work for every setup. The number of hitters and pitchers that you start is the single most important factor in determining your point system. For instance, if you had one league that started 9 hitters and 9 pitchers, and then compared that to another league that started 12 hitters and 9 pitchers, the same scoring system would have dramatically different results.

StlSluggers wrote:I could post a thesis with formulas and everything on making a proper points scoring system, but there are really only two things that matter:

You absolutely have to have an equilibrium between the average points scored by a starting-worty hitter and a starting-worthy pitcher. If this doesn't balance, then your league will dictate the winning strategy to the owners, which is the opposite of how it should be.

One scoring system will not work for every setup. The number of hitters and pitchers that you start is the single most important factor in determining your point system. For instance, if you had one league that started 9 hitters and 9 pitchers, and then compared that to another league that started 12 hitters and 9 pitchers, the same scoring system would have dramatically different results.

StlSluggers wrote:I could post a thesis with formulas and everything on making a proper points scoring system, but there are really only two things that matter:

You absolutely have to have an equilibrium between the average points scored by a starting-worty hitter and a starting-worthy pitcher. If this doesn't balance, then your league will dictate the winning strategy to the owners, which is the opposite of how it should be.

One scoring system will not work for every setup. The number of hitters and pitchers that you start is the single most important factor in determining your point system. For instance, if you had one league that started 9 hitters and 9 pitchers, and then compared that to another league that started 12 hitters and 9 pitchers, the same scoring system would have dramatically different results.

I agree with your logic, and you've helped me immensely in the past with this topic, but I have a couple of questions. Shouldn't bench size be taken into consideration as well? If the league setup was even number of hitters/pitchers started, and the average points scored of each was equal, wouldn't the goal of owners be to maximize point potential by keeping pitchers on the bench? Particularly starters, which could be substituted without leaving production on the bench (assuming a daily league).

This kind of touches on your second point, as even in a league where you start equal amounts of hitters/pitchers, when bench is factored, the actual amount of pitchers that can be started may be higher, thus producing different results.

Mike_nyc wrote:I agree with your logic, and you've helped me immensely in the past with this topic, but I have a couple of questions. Shouldn't bench size be taken into consideration as well? If the league setup was even number of hitters/pitchers started, and the average points scored of each was equal, wouldn't the goal of owners be to maximize point potential by keeping pitchers on the bench? Particularly starters, which could be substituted without leaving production on the bench (assuming a daily league).

This kind of touches on your second point, as even in a league where you start equal amounts of hitters/pitchers, when bench is factored, the actual amount of pitchers that can be started may be higher, thus producing different results.

Daily lineups would cause some problems with respect to churning. Personally, I believe that churning in a points league should be absolutely forbidden. I think the easiest way to mitigate someone starting too many pitchers in a given week would be to limit weekly starts by each team. By doing that, you can mathematically prepare for teams starting the max number of pitchers each week when working out your balanced score system. If an owner doesn't want to start the max, that would be up to them.

I think that's what you were asking about. Let me know if I'm off base there.

Oh, and for roto points leagues, you'd just limit yearly starts.

Mike_nyc wrote:I agree with your logic, and you've helped me immensely in the past with this topic, but I have a couple of questions. Shouldn't bench size be taken into consideration as well? If the league setup was even number of hitters/pitchers started, and the average points scored of each was equal, wouldn't the goal of owners be to maximize point potential by keeping pitchers on the bench? Particularly starters, which could be substituted without leaving production on the bench (assuming a daily league).

This kind of touches on your second point, as even in a league where you start equal amounts of hitters/pitchers, when bench is factored, the actual amount of pitchers that can be started may be higher, thus producing different results.

Daily lineups would cause some problems with respect to churning. Personally, I believe that churning in a points league should be absolutely forbidden. I think the easiest way to mitigate someone starting too many pitchers in a given week would be to limit weekly starts by each team. By doing that, you can mathematically prepare for teams starting the max number of pitchers each week when working out your balanced score system. If an owner doesn't want to start the max, that would be up to them.

I think that's what you were asking about. Let me know if I'm off base there.

Oh, and for roto points leagues, you'd just limit yearly starts.

Couple of things that can help with churning: -Weekly lineup changes instead of daily. Set your lineup on Sunday and that's it for the week. -Increase the negative consequences of a bad start as a disincentive for grabbing mediocre two start pitchers. This is a little difficult to get right, as you don't want it to be too terrible as to make everyone hate pitching altogether. You don't want it to totally screw your draft up. -Reduce the value of a win and instead add value to actual quality pitching. Instead of 10 points for a win, make it 5 for a win and 5 for a quality start.