
Most Accurate MLB Experts Past 4 Years
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
NZ Eff wrote:That away 9th inning thing is a factor.
Another thing I've just thought of is when you draft closers you possibly don't want closers in the same divison. For example if Wood and Izzy are your closers you will get fewer ops. as they play each other so often.
NZ Eff wrote:That away 9th inning thing is a factor.
Another thing I've just thought of is when you draft closers you possibly don't want closers in the same divison. For example if Wood and Izzy are your closers you will get fewer ops. as they play each other so often.
bigh0rt wrote:NZ Eff wrote:That away 9th inning thing is a factor.
Another thing I've just thought of is when you draft closers you possibly don't want closers in the same divison. For example if Wood and Izzy are your closers you will get fewer ops. as they play each other so often.
Two things.
1) The Cubs play the Cards 15 times this season, or roughly 9.3% of their games.
Of the 3 match ups the clubs have already had, one went to extras on a BS by Izzy (Op), one had no Save Op, and Izzy recorded a Save in the 3rd. I'm not sure how the Cardinals playing the Cubs as opposed to any other team affects Wood's Save Ops, and vice versa. I mean, I understand the argument; I just disagree.
2) Your argument would conclude that Wood and Izzy's Save Ops are dependent on one another even if they aren't both owned by you then, correct? The argument is being made not to own both, as it may affect their Save Ops, but then it would stand to reason that their Save Ops are affected whether you own them or not. Is this what you are saying?
NZ Eff wrote:Ender wrote:You don't want to look at a single player or at saves when you look at this though. You want to look at team based save opportunities. Good teams generally have less turnover at closer than bad teams.
No flat out incorrect, that's exactly what you don't want to do. By looking at team based ops. it totally skews the stats. For example Walker from Baltimore and Benoit from Texas have both blown 3 saves this year but have never been close to the closers role. You only want to count save ops. for a team by the teams closer but by all means add those together if there has been more than 1 used.
NZ Eff wrote:bigh0rt wrote:NZ Eff wrote:That away 9th inning thing is a factor.
Another thing I've just thought of is when you draft closers you possibly don't want closers in the same divison. For example if Wood and Izzy are your closers you will get fewer ops. as they play each other so often.
Two things.
1) The Cubs play the Cards 15 times this season, or roughly 9.3% of their games.
Of the 3 match ups the clubs have already had, one went to extras on a BS by Izzy (Op), one had no Save Op, and Izzy recorded a Save in the 3rd. I'm not sure how the Cardinals playing the Cubs as opposed to any other team affects Wood's Save Ops, and vice versa. I mean, I understand the argument; I just disagree.
2) Your argument would conclude that Wood and Izzy's Save Ops are dependent on one another even if they aren't both owned by you then, correct? The argument is being made not to own both, as it may affect their Save Ops, but then it would stand to reason that their Save Ops are affected whether you own them or not. Is this what you are saying?
You can't get two saves in one game. 15 games a year you cannot get more than 1 save out of your two closers. If you had 2 closers from different leagues this is not an issue. A very small factor but a factor all the same.
Ender wrote:NZ Eff wrote:Ender wrote:You don't want to look at a single player or at saves when you look at this though. You want to look at team based save opportunities. Good teams generally have less turnover at closer than bad teams.
No flat out incorrect, that's exactly what you don't want to do. By looking at team based ops. it totally skews the stats. For example Walker from Baltimore and Benoit from Texas have both blown 3 saves this year but have never been close to the closers role. You only want to count save ops. for a team by the teams closer but by all means add those together if there has been more than 1 used.
100% wrong, you are just adding sample bias to your argument with this. Good teams with established closers are always going to have more saves than bad teams with fluid closer situations. Good teams are more likely to have established closers and you already give more value to established closers irregardless of save opportunities. Ignoring this just makes your data useless.
bigh0rt wrote:
Yes, as I said, I understand the argument. It's just rubbish. Papelbon/Rivera, Jenks/Nathan, K-Rod/Putz, Hoffman/Saito. None of these closers have had issues racking up saves due to another closer in their division. This is over-thinking at it's finest.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests