OK, so I proposed in my main money league to increase the value of a save from 4 to 5 points because I thought the closer was undervalued in our league.

The current pitcher scoring is as follows:

Scoring for Pitching Categories

BBI - Walks Issued (Pitchers) -.5 points

BS - Blown Saves -2 points

ER - Earned Runs -1 point

HB - Hit Batsmen -.5 points

INN - Innings 0.5 points

K - Strikeouts (Pitcher) 1 point

L - Losses -3 points

NH - No-Hitters 10 points

S - Saves 4 points

SO - Shutouts 10 points

W - Wins 10 points

The commish is not liking the idea of giving closers any more value, in which this was his response:

OK, some owners have made positive replies regarding the increased value for a closer. It seems the time has come for me to speak about the opposite.

In no way should a save in our league be equal to a win. That's preposterous!!!

Here's a little something you should be aware of:

There are 30 teams in the MLB. Let's assume they all use 5 starters and 1 closer per team. That's 150 starters and 30 closers. A ratio of 5:1 starter to closer.

In our league, 4 closers finished in the top 20 pitchers point-wise in 2006. That's 16 starters and 4 closers. A ratio of 4:1.

In essence I feel that our closers are a bit OVER-valued. This is proven above. Basically 30 starting pitchers in the league are useless, because even the worst closer would be better than the bottom 30 starters. That's 1/5th, or 20% of starting pitchers.

Here's an example: Let's say that we give closers 1 more point for a save, just one, a total of 5 pts per save. That would give Joe Nathan 36 additional points, making him the 3rd most valuable pitcher in the league for 2006. That's not right in my book. Not by a long shot. He would never be drafted that early in any league.

Seems like he makes some good points, is this refutable, or do you still see an argument to increase the value by 1 point?