Standard 5x5 is unrealistic

[fantasyfiend]

If you're trying to balance the proper weighting between speed, power, and positional scarcity, Win Shares (at least the offensive ones) are exactly what is your best metric for that. My point is that if your system does not even show up in the top 100 players someone who is in the top 20, then it is not very well calibrated. It's not enough to compare it to the arbitrary nature of 5x5 since that's not what you're (ostensibly) trying to do.

I'm having a hard time making sense of this.

[bigh0rt]

I've gotten some great feedback here, and am looking forward to even more great feedback. I especially like Big0rhts idea of substituting SLG with isoP, as it's a better reflection of power, and doesn't overlap with the other categories as much as SLG%.

It only took me 4 years to make a positive contribution to the site

But seriously, I do <3 ISO.

[fantasyfiend]

Aren't you the one that compiles all the blog feeds, too? =D

Anyway, what do you think of taking BB/9 out, and putting WHIP back in?

Pitching: IP, K/9, WHIP, ERA, SV

[neoforce]

Fantasyfiend: Here is your first post from this thread:

I have an idea for new 5x5 categories that I feel accomplish the same competitive balance, putting accurate weight on the different types of skill sets that comprise a current major league team.

Batting: Plate Appearances, OBP, SLG, R, SB
<details removed>

Pitching: Innings Pitched, K/9, BB/9, ERA, SV
<details removed>

Its been a great discussion, and I really appreciated you posting it. And truth is, the beauty of fantasy baseball is each league can do their own thing, as long as members of the league agree.

I'm particularly curious about the idea of a very minor change, substituting net SB and net SV for the two values above. Doesn't that provide more accurate skill set that comprise a current major league team?

I'd love your thoughts regarding which way is better and why.

[bigh0rt]

Aren't you the one that compiles all the blog feeds, too? =D

Anyway, what do you think of taking BB/9 out, and putting WHIP back in?

Pitching: IP, K/9, WHIP, ERA, SV

I'm opposed to having 20% of your pitching categories go towards IP in general. I understand your reasoning, I just feel it is better suited to use something else.

A category you may want to investigate using is K/BB. Then you could replace BB/9 or WHIP with something like SLG Against, if that's available for use. Then you're rewarding high rate K pitchers, pitchers who may not K as many batters but don't BB even fewer, the K/9 still helps boost relievers then, as well.

[fantasyfiend]

Fantasyfiend: Here is your first post from this thread:

I have an idea for new 5x5 categories that I feel accomplish the same competitive balance, putting accurate weight on the different types of skill sets that comprise a current major league team.

Batting: Plate Appearances, OBP, SLG, R, SB
<details removed>

Pitching: Innings Pitched, K/9, BB/9, ERA, SV
<details removed>

Its been a great discussion, and I really appreciated you posting it. And truth is, the beauty of fantasy baseball is each league can do their own thing, as long as members of the league agree.

I'm particularly curious about the idea of a very minor change, substituting net SB and net SV for the two values above. Doesn't that provide more accurate skill set that comprise a current major league team?

I'd love your thoughts regarding which way is better and why.

I kind of like the spontaneity of SB in general. sometimes a slugger will pick up a few, but they rarely do so without getting caught a few times, so net SB would negate those few diamond in the rough SB you can get over the course of the season. And, most managers these days only let players steal bases that are pretty efficient (74% or above). I'd let organization's philosophy filter out junk basestealers.

I think blown save, or save% is highly susceptible to luck, so I wouldn't bother with net SV. Saves are hard enough to get as is, adding the extra element of efficiency might be getting too granular with your scoring format, but that's just my opinion.

[fantasyfiend]

Aren't you the one that compiles all the blog feeds, too? =D

Anyway, what do you think of taking BB/9 out, and putting WHIP back in?

Pitching: IP, K/9, WHIP, ERA, SV

I'm opposed to having 20% of your pitching categories go towards IP in general. I understand your reasoning, I just feel it is better suited to use something else.

A category you may want to investigate using is K/BB. Then you could replace BB/9 or WHIP with something like SLG Against, if that's available for use. Then you're rewarding high rate K pitchers, pitchers who may not K as many batters but don't BB even fewer, the K/9 still helps boost relievers then, as well.

0rt, i enjoy the feedback, but can you tell me why you're against 20% of pitching-scoring going to IP?

I think IP is a very important "skill". Durable, effective, efficient pitchers rack up IP totals pretty quickly. THe best pitchers in the game lead the league in IP, I think it's works in that regard, and also helps balance the rate stats.

If i'm using K/9, SLG%, ERA, SV, an owner can just meet the minimum IP requirement, and never start a non-Closer pitcher again.

thanks for the continued feedback.

[Nerfherders]

Interesting thread. I would like to point out that if you have a respectable innings pitched cap, you won't need K/9, because the goal then is to maximize K's with respect to innings pitched. You still have to have alot of good k/9 guys because if you have, say, a 1350 IP cap, you're going to want to get as close to 1350 K's as possible. K/9 is also what is boosting RP stats in your projections.

On the pitching side, I think ERA, WHIP, and K's are fine. I don't think anyone can argue that being great in those three cats mean you are an outstanding pitcher. Wins and Saves are the tough ones. I would trade Wins for Quality Starts. Then you need something else for ALL relievers. At one time I was thinking of a metric like (saves + holds)/Games, which would apply to all pitchers, and more or less be zero for starters, and very positive for relievers.

My preferred stats for hitting would be R, RBI, SB-CS, OBP, SLG. I do tend to like the HR stat, but I have to admit that SLG is better.

[RedSoxNation04]

Its been mentioned a few times, but I don't understand the benefit of QS as a category. A pitcher gets a 4.50 ERA and is rewarded for it? We considered using it as a new cat in our league, but I just don't see the value of it.

[J35J]

Its been mentioned a few times, but I don't understand the benefit of QS as a category. A pitcher gets a 4.50 ERA and is rewarded for it? We considered using it as a new cat in our league, but I just don't see the value of it.

I'm not a fan of this arguement against QS. I'm not saying I use QS but a 4.50 ERA is the WORST possible outcome to get a quality start. You can throw out an 11.00ERA and still get a Win.