matmat wrote:just wodering how the stat is calculated.
say your pitcher goes 6 innings gives up 4 runs. the league average support (I don't know what it is, I am guessing) is 6/start is this a SNW or not? does the number get prorated to the number of innings that the pitcher pitched? does it assume that the bullpen will hold any lead the starter gives them? I am not actually arguing about whether the stat is bad or not, but I want to know exactly how it is calculated... maybe I don't understand what "support runs" are...
For the details, you can check out the BP web site. But basically, it looks at the number of runs you allow (including, I think, what an average bullpen would allow in if it inherited your runners) and the runs scored by an average team. It then calculates the likely winning percentage based on the runs you allowed and the runs the average team scores, and uses that to create your W-L record.
great gretzky wrote:would the game even continue to be fun if every stat was "neutral"? I don't think so, and if such stats existed, I would want no parts of this anymore.
To me, the fun is taking in context the raw stats for a player PLUS your overall knowledge of the game and teams and how the players relate to each other.
Knowing that soriano changed leagues and arod is on a stacked lineup is what makes the game fun -- the debate and differing player evaluations are what makes the interpersonal element of the game.
Anyone can jsut read and plug in rankings -- that element would be made worse, not better by the ultimate in individaul, neutral stats. I like that certian players will be overvalued because of their team, and others overvalued.
Will say florida, continue to run as a philosphy, thus increasing the fantasy usefulness of crawford and pierre? or will they slow down?
Will someone's lineup produce, increasing the rbi opportunities or not?
Without these kinds of assesments, it would be almost like one big math problem, and that doesn't seem to be much fun to me.
The way it is currently formulated, is that fantasy baseball seems to me a lot like chess. Rational, logical and mathmatical analysis are skill sets that can win. BUT, "feel" and interpersonal economic ability can also yield a win. Some teams may not be great at initial player assesment and projections -- I certianly am not the strongest in that regard.
But, I feel like I am fairly strong at reading the "market" so to speak -- anlayzing the other teams, seeing what surplus of stats they have, which stats will be hard for them to trade for, scarce postions etc, and capitalizing on them.
To me, making trades, wire pickups etc are the lifeblood for me, the statistical analysis is the base.
So if every stat were simply neutral, all you woudl have to do is get a reliable projection and make your decisions based on that. "Feel" wouldn't matter as much, because you can't exploit other owner's insecurities, perceptions in the way of scarcity and surplus etc.
If everything was based ona player's skill in a vacuum, quantified by "neutral" stats, everyone would have a fairly uniform draft lists, plug them in and watch.
If there is anything I learned abotu fantasy sports that everything is relative -- the mlb players realtive to their surrounding teams and others at their position ANd everything realtive to the others in your league. Taking that away would detract from the whole experince.
I think there's a lot of merit in the regular stats, mostly because they are transparent and easy to understand, which can't be said for a lot of better stats.
But I don't agree that using "neutral" stats takes away from the game. Player performance still varies. Park factors are not precise. There's still a hell of a lot of judgement involved. Nuetral stats just better reveal what a player's true value is. That true value still bounces around quite a bit.
I agree strongly with gretzky. The way fantasy is now, it rewards owners who have a strong knowledge of all of baseball and not just players. Not only do you have to know that Derrek Lee is a good player, but that he moved from a big running team to the Cubs, where he might hit more homers but will almost certainly not have as many chances to steal. Wins work the same way--not only do you have to know that Jake Peavy is a talented young pitcher, but if you correctly predict that the Padres are going to have a strong offense this year, you will do better in wins.
In short, stats like this make knowledge more important to fantasy success.
Regardless of that, though, I think wins aren't so unfair of a stat. To make a bizarre cross-sport analogy, I played tennis for four years in high school, and there was one player on the team that always played just well enough to lose a close match. He would lose 7-5, 7-5 no matter whether we were playing the best team in the state or the worst. I, myself, played tons of long, close matches, but never lost a conference match (not to toot my own horn, or anything). In short, I guess he was a choke artist, but that's not really the point. I think it translates to fantasy baseball in that some pitchers will pitch better in close games and some will flop.
Granted, it still often comes down to run support, but not necessarily to the extent that everyone says. Sure, Pettite wouldn't have gotten 6 runs of support in a given game if he'd played for the Tigers--but maybe if he played for the Tigers he would have born down and held the other team to 2 instead of 4 and gotten the win anyway. A lot of times, pitchers with a big lead will ease up and just try to get through innings, leading to higher ERAs while still getting the win.
That was a lot of words for a fairly simple point, but I would say that some pitchers are winners, and will pitch just as well as they have to. Wins are by no means a perfect category, but they do measure this factor--and I think they make the game fun. You don't just root for your pitcher to do well, you root for his team to score, and you get more involved in the game.
Does anyone have a tylenol?? this is giving me a headache... LOL.... But anyway.... The arguement is going back and forth about wins and the bullpen factor and run support..... If the bullpen fails then the pitcher does not get the win.... and if the bullpen fails slightly (enough that the SP doesn't get the win) or if the SP left the game while behind and run support comes later in the game, the W goes to the RP who came in to take the lead. SO taking these two things into account. W's for a starting pitcher are actually a pretty good measure based on his performance in the entire team framework. To earn a win yes it requires the entire team to perform but it also requires him to pitch to a level to put his team in a position to win with as much or as little run support as he can receive. Granted a team pitcher on the Yankee's will look better in the W column than one for say the Brewers due to larger run support but at the same time. A Brewers win usually is indicative a strong pitching performance which cannot always be said for the Yankee's. I guess then many would argue that as meaning the stat is a wash but in fantasy ball, it is still a good measuring stat and a fair means of evaluation, because as one of my predecessors said, (paraphrasing) it requires the fantasy owner to know baseball and not just stats on the sheet. IS Ben Sheets a better pitcher than Andy Petitte?? I guess we will see this year.
In a given year, luck (hit rate %), bullpen (strand rate), run support, can greatly effect era and wins. SNW (support neutral wins), does a good job at showing who was lucky, and unlucky. It can forewarn you about certain guys. Over the course of a career, things tend to even out, although Pettitte could be a exception.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
Hall of Fame Hero
(Past Year: 305)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.