Sticky Spice wrote:How ridiculous would it be to have five offensive categories, but six pitching categories? Many players can achieve at all five offensive categories, but pretty much zero pitchers can achieve at all six pitching categories if QS, Sv, and H are all part of the equation.
I don't think having 6 cats would be an issue , but Quality Starts suck .
Quality Starts aren't perfect, but I like them a lot more than Wins. At least with Quality Starts there is a defined criteria you must meet in order to earn the QS. Wins are so random sometimes.
Best Example:
- Pitching 8 shutout innings in a 3-0 game and getting no credit for the great outing when the closer blows the lead...
- While that same closer gets the W when his team scores in their next at bat
“Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” --Henry David Thoreau
Sticky Spice wrote:Quality Starts aren't perfect, but I like them a lot more than Wins. At least with Quality Starts there is a defined criteria you must meet in order to earn the QS. Wins are so random sometimes.
Best Example:
- Pitching 8 shutout innings in a 3-0 game and getting no credit for the great outing when the closer blows the lead...
- While that same closer gets the W when his team scores in their next at bat
Pitching 6 innings with a 4.5 era is far from quality, and I'd bet that happens more than a guy pitching 8/0 runs with a no decision, wins aren't the be all to end all of stats but better than QS.
I prefer the Quality Starts category over wins in regular 5x5 league, but when you add middle relievers, I think wins creates a new way to win a fantasy league.
Wins are not SP or RP exclusive. Wins can be had by any pitcher in the game. Quality Starts are exclusively SP stats. No RP will pitch 6 innings.
I understand the argument of 4.50 ERA is not quality, but that's a definition problem, not a stat category problem.
There were 32 SP with 20 QS or above and only 1 SP with an ERA above 4.00 (Ian Kennedy had a 4.02). Only 9 out of 32 SP had an ERA above 3.50.
Meanwhile, you had 27 pitchers with 15 or more wins. 3 of them had an ERA above 4.00 10 had an ERA above 3.50
So over the course of the season, I think Quality Starts, while not perfect, shows a better gauge of pitcher performance than Wins.
I find it funny that the people who hate Quality Starts lock in on this '4.5 ERA is not quality!', and forget that that is the MINIMUM outcome for a quality start.
Assuming a pitcher pitches no more than 9 innings, there are 40 possible outcomes that qualify as a Quality Start, and only 3 of those result in an ERA over 4.00.
Sticky Spice wrote:Quality Starts aren't perfect, but I like them a lot more than Wins. At least with Quality Starts there is a defined criteria you must meet in order to earn the QS. Wins are so random sometimes.
Best Example:
- Pitching 8 shutout innings in a 3-0 game and getting no credit for the great outing when the closer blows the lead...
- While that same closer gets the W when his team scores in their next at bat
Pitching 6 innings with a 4.5 era is far from quality, and I'd bet that happens more than a guy pitching 8/0 runs with a no decision, wins aren't the be all to end all of stats but better than QS.
imho
It's a bit ridiculous to criticize a QS because it could result in a 4.50 ERA in the worst case scenario. Whereas you could have an ERA as high 10+ and still qualify for a W. Over the course of a season it is a very accurate representation of how good a pitcher is. How about Ivan Nova and his 5.02 ERA doubling Cliff Lee and his 3.16 ERA's win total in 2012. I defy you to find anomalies like that with QS.
We should tally up all of the starts that turned into QS and find the aggregate ERA, and do the same for all starts that end in W. Another problem is that relievers also get credited with a W if they're lucky enough to pitch the inning before the winning run is scored. It's very random, and rarely do the best relief pitchers (the setup men and closers) get wins, but it's the middle relievers who are in the game down a run or 2 in the 7th inning.
daullaz wrote:Your best bet may be to go to a H2H points format.
I wouldn't do this if I were you. Points leagues are pretty awful at least for what I prefer in my fantasy.
To me standard leagues are still best. As much as people talk about better representing real baseball I think the best part of fantasy baseball is juggling the various stats. You want a league set up so the maximum number of players are useful and you are constantly trying to juggle the different stats to find the perfect balance. That is why for example I don't like OBP or SLG replacing AVG. You end up with a smaller useful player field since you streamline the game towards power hitters who tend to have a higher OBP and SLG and away from the speedier types who tend to hit for a higher AVG.
If you dislike SV I would suggest you move towards SV+Hold. It makes the field of useful RP much much larger and makes bad RP who happen to be closers mostly worthless like they should be.
daullaz wrote:Your best bet may be to go to a H2H points format.
I wouldn't do this if I were you. Points leagues are pretty awful at least for what I prefer in my fantasy.
To me standard leagues are still best. As much as people talk about better representing real baseball I think the best part of fantasy baseball is juggling the various stats. You want a league set up so the maximum number of players are useful and you are constantly trying to juggle the different stats to find the perfect balance. That is why for example I don't like OBP or SLG replacing AVG. You end up with a smaller useful player field since you streamline the game towards power hitters who tend to have a higher OBP and SLG and away from the speedier types who tend to hit for a higher AVG.
If you dislike SV I would suggest you move towards SV+Hold. It makes the field of useful RP much much larger and makes bad RP who happen to be closers mostly worthless like they should be.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
, but Quality Starts suck 
.
