What does everyone think about doing this in a 5x5 roto league. The rationale is that OPS is a "better" stat than runs (better isolates player performance from team performance) and same for wins and quality starts. Good starting pitchers will still be rewarded (with good pitchers on crappy teams getting a noticeable boost) and good hitters will still be rewarded (for similar reasons).
Quality starts should be the default category, HUGE believer in this one. With wins as a category you are basically drafting that teams offense AND the pitcher, not the pitcher by himself. Quality starts is a very good indicator and gives people like Felix a huge boost, while also not hurting a guy like Roy Halladay, im not playing in a league this year if wins is a category.
OPS on the other hand favors power hitters quite a bit more as on base % is usually a good 50 to 100 points lower than a hitters slugging % putting more weight on power guys, not to say I'm against it, just on the fence...
Mind if i add to the thread?
What about Total Bases instead of runs? Runs are more dependent on the guys behind you while total bases reflects that players ability on his own more..
baseballcb95 wrote:What about Total Bases instead of runs? Runs are more dependent on the guys behind you while total bases reflects that players ability on his own more..
Not a fan of this... mostly because of the value-distribution of the bases isn't linear.
What about Runs Created? Too much math and not intuitive enough for the fan watching the on-field play. Or Runs Produced? This I like, because it combines both R and RBI, it's intuitive, and rewards individual performance on either end.
I'm doing a league with QS for the first time in a while this year. A major benefit is that there's no such thing as a vulture QS, and the bullpen's ability to blow a QS is very, very minimal. Gives more of an edge to smart owners, I think. Also tilts the balance away from middle relievers and towards starting pitchers.
OPS is good as well, but probably favours the sluggers a bit more than it should. OBA seems a little better. That's just nitpicking though. And I don't have a problem with BA as a category since it's nearly as predictable and fair, which is the main thing.
I play 6x6 with the standard 5x5 categories and OPS and K/BB added. I've added these two categories to my league because I like the idea of having stats that are more performance related mixed in with the other categories that have so much more to do with the team around the player.
Sure it's frustrating when your pitcher loses a win because the bullpen blows it. So what? You can't get caught up in trying to make everything as performance related as possible. I vastly prefer playing with the traditional categories. Who would want to abolish wins for a pitcher? Why? Just because there is variance and because you have to consider influences outside of the player's control? Boo hoo. Nothing personal, I'm going after the argument, not the OP.
Every fantasy player in every fantasy sport has his stats influenced by his teammates, his opponents, and in baseball his park factor. Why not just use FIP instead of ERA? I just don't get it. This is fantasy baseball. It's supposed to be fun. Part of the fun of it is not being able to control every little thing. Do I get frustrated when I don't get a win out of a starting pitcher? Sure, but it's part of the game.
This whole sentiment where people want to abolish wins and go with quality starts instead just reeks of crybabyism to me. In sports and in life &*%$ happens. It's still fun to put your nose to the grindstone and try to win in spite of it.
Is there a lot of variation between a pitcher's QS each year? I've always viewed QS as somewhat of a boring stat and not used it.
...Boston papers now and then suffer a sharp flurry of arithmetic on this score; indeed, for Williams to have distributed all his hits so they did nobody else any good would constitute a feat of placement unparalleled in the annals of selfishness. -Updike
It's just a preference. Obviously in a traditional league, you have to factor in the player's team. I'm fine with that. But I also think it would be fun to mix it up and have a league that more accurately rewards a player's individual performance. If a pitcher has a Cy Young season, he shouldn't be worse than John Lackey in any category (Lackey had more wins than Felix Hernandez last year with a 4.40 ERA). I'd prefer that the owner that drafted the superior pitcher (Hernandez) was properly rewarded. I feel as if this "team-factor" is highest in wins, thus I don't feel as compelled to replace ERA with FIP and whatnot (though I would agree with the rationale).
In a perfect world, you'd replace RBI and all the team-dependent categories but I think that would be too big of a change for my league. And once again, there's nothing inherently wrong with using traditional stats in a fantasy league (I won't say the same for assessing player performance though, let's enter the 21st century, sportswriters).
But, I'm currently leaning towards not using OPS for the reason that one of the guys above mentioned. I don't want to distort value towards power hitters. I want teams to strive for the traditional distribution of power and "lead-off" type hitters that you'd usually see in a fantasy league. I'm closer to replacing Avg with OBP at this point.
I like OPS as an additional category, not as a substitute for batting average. As for rewarding power hitters, I suppose it does, but honestly, maybe they deserve it. I've heard the OPS stat characterized as "the most accurate measure of a player's offensive proficiency." I can get on board with that thinking. I like it because traditional 5x5 doesn't show any difference between a single and a double and it doesn't reward a walk, except insomuch as these difference may lead to more runs scored or RBIs. Either way, it's nice to see a BB change something on the stat tracker, as well it should, even when the runner is retired soon after.
CBMGreatOne wrote:I like OPS as an additional category, not as a substitute for batting average. As for rewarding power hitters, I suppose it does, but honestly, maybe they deserve it. I've heard the OPS stat characterized as "the most accurate measure of a player's offensive proficiency." I can get on board with that thinking. I like it because traditional 5x5 doesn't show any difference between a single and a double and it doesn't reward a walk, except insomuch as these difference may lead to more runs scored or RBIs. Either way, it's nice to see a BB change something on the stat tracker, as well it should, even when the runner is retired soon after.
Completely agree with that sentiment. It's why I like replacing AVG with OBP. Still have the hits component plus the BBs. It's a simple fix that I'm amazed I didn't think of earlier.
I'm thinking that OPS would be most appropriate to replace RBIs because you think of both stats as measuring overall hitting prowess. Also, power hitters are typically the ones with 100+ RBI seasons rather than "lead-off types". The top-7 in OPS last year all had over 100 RBIs. But guys like Luke Scott who had big seasons on terrible teams would be more highly valued (14th in OPS and 75th in RBIs) with my switch.
EDIT: After doing some data-diving. I'm questioning the OBP for AVG idea. It's perfectly sound theoretically, but it kinda looks like it will bump up sluggers too much. I want to retain the category as strong for "lead-off" types. Prince Fielder was 6th in the league in OBP while batting .261. That makes for a very solid year performance wise but I don't like how much it would bump up his value fantasy-wise.
Just to quantify this apprehension. AVG correlates to HRs at a "rate" of .18 while OBP correlates with HRs at .41. This makes logical sense because sluggers are walked more. So in a league where Ichiro, for example, would be traditionally be 11th in AVG, he would drop to 40th based on OBP. Nobody is afraid to pitch to Ichiro. I don't like how much the stat switch distorts his value.
Once again, I want the stats to more accurately measure value (which I believe quality starts does).