No, it reallocates value across pitchers. Some pitchers drop a round or two. Other pitchers, set up guys, rocket up 5-7 rounds
No it doesn't~. Yes setup guys rocket up a few rounds but in general all pitching slides down compared to all hittings. The #15 hitter is more valuable than Santana in that setup etc. Sure you can play whatever settings you want but the guy asked for opinions and I'm giving mine.
Just went over to BaseballMonster to test this and you're mostly wrong. In 5x5 based on 2006 stats, they rate Santana #1. Add holds and OPS and he drops to 3.
In the top 50 in 5x5 there were 16 pitchers. 6x6 there were 14 pitchers. So, there's some marginal slippage of pitching, but it's not nearly as extreme as you say. Mussina drops out of the top 50, but Zumaya and Shields zoom into it. Guys like Saito who had both holds and saves arein the top 50 both times, but higher once holds are added. The median ranking in 5x5 for these top 50 pitchers is 27.5. In 6x6 it's 33.5. So, as I said, the major effect is to redistribute value within pitching, with only marginal slippage in pitching value compared to hitting,
Gotowarmissagnes wrote:As I said, chacun a son gout. You have your opinions on holds, but that opinion really has little solid basis in logic or facts. You just don't like them. That's fine. Different strokes. But let's not dress it up in some pseudo-scientific critique.
Ender wrote:Whatever, you are the one who hasn't given one shred of statistical evidence for why they are good or how they affect the league. If you honestly don't think Holds devalues pitching you really need to take a second look at your ratings.
The freason why I haven't given any statistical evidence for why they are good is because I don't think there is one shred of statistical evidence for why they are good. You are the one making the argument based on stats, not me. I've explained at length my opinion on why I think they add something of value to a league.
At least from my quick look at the data, I don't think it supports your claim that pitching's value drops dramatically. It may slip marginally, though I'd like to see how it works in later rounds, and the main effect appears to be redistributing value within pitching.
I don't disagree with your comments about OPS, but that's a change I welcome. It values what is truly important in hitting. It makes stupid one-cat SB guys much less valuable, forcing you to adopt a more sophisticated strategy for generating SBs. Even if it does place a higher value on hitting, I welcome that change, too. Everything I know about baseball demonstrates to me that hitting is more important for winning than pitching, so that development supports something I like, making fantasy baseball closer to real baseball in terms of what is valued.
Furthermore, given your emphasis on de-emphasizing randomness, you should welcome making hitting more valuable as hitting is much less random than pitching.