|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Sept 18, 2015 21:40:51 GMT -5
Hey all. Time to get the ball rolling. Once we decide on the scoring categories, AND all owners have posted an intro and signed off (posted) that they've read the rules, then we should be able to get the Franchise Selection random order generated and soon after we can begin selecting our franchises.
I'm listing 3 options to choose from, one of which is the 6x6 categories we use in DD1 and DD2. Please vote for the one you prefer the most - your 1st choice if you will. If after all 15 owners have voted and we don't have a clear consensus of what the majority of the league wants, then I'll ask you to give me a 2nd choice or we may need to come up with a different set of categories. But just 1 vote for now.
Thanks guys! Scott
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Sept 19, 2015 11:48:25 GMT -5
FYI guys, I was assuming most of us would be choosing between option 2 and option 3 (a new set of categories) as I've had clear intent in our previous discussions that the Diamond Duos I and II categories would likely be tweaked a bit for DD3. Option 1 is there really as a point of reference, but I guess if an overwhelming majority wants to keep the option 1 categories then we'd have to consider that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 11:57:25 GMT -5
I can't change it now but I prefer the 2nd category for stats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 12:29:52 GMT -5
I personally like option 1, but I wouldn't be opposed to mixing a few of the options up, I like the idea of K/9, net SB, net SB and QS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 13:36:09 GMT -5
I like option 3 I am just not a fan of innings pitch would rather holds or something else
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 16:28:41 GMT -5
I might be slow on the uptake here, but I think option three really de-values a bullpen. I like the idea of QS, but if you use it in combination with taking out holds and wins then you seem to eliminate an entire facet of the game which is 7th and 8th inning guys.
Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand option 3 better.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Sept 19, 2015 21:10:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Sept 19, 2015 21:23:01 GMT -5
Guys, I can't change the poll now since 10 of us have already voted, but I do need to recommend a change in Option 2. I feel strongly about Net SB and think that's a great category, but I might have been mistaken in thinking Net SV should be there too. IF Holds is a category then maybe the other should just be Saves, not Net SV.
Why? If a pitcher blows a Hold they actually are touched with -1 in Net SVs. So it's kind of like a double whammy. Does that make sense or am I looking to much into this? One of my Yahoo H2H leagues uses Net SV and Holds and it's competitive, but Weekly H2H is a completely different beast than 6x6 Roto.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2015 7:11:10 GMT -5
I'm kinda the same. I like #1 overall but definitely like QS over Wins. I think the k/9 really caters to those high k RP types. Kinda digging the TB over SLG too.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Sept 21, 2015 9:32:42 GMT -5
Having both K/9 and IP sort of cancel each other out. It's basically like having Ks count for two categories, which is fine. I think it makes relievers overly valuable though, as you can punt QS and IP and still win 4 / 6 cats without having any starters. I like IP as a category, but I like it used to give midrange starters value (which they have in real life).
My ideal cats would be
OBP, HR, R, RBI, SB, TB - QS, K, ERA, WHIP, SV+HLD, IP
opt two is closest to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2015 16:24:47 GMT -5
Just some testing I did with the settings. Columns are: Name, Alex suggestion, Option 1, Option 2, Option 3. Top 40 guys I selected based on major differences in rankings across methods (i.e., most other players are within a much narrow scope). Others were selected mostly at random but in general used to get an idea for other types of players. Please pay close attention to the fact that Alex's suggestion gives much more value to midrange starters (as he stated) like Volquez and Chen. Also, option 1 and option 2 noticeably devalue upper tier pitchers compared to hitters (e.g., Scherzer and Archer stand out; even Kershaw to a smaller degree; though Greinke takes a small hit with option 3). The last group gives you a collection of middle relievers (most are top holds earners this year) and provides perspective on their potential value Max Scherzer 21 37 32 21 AJ Pollock 13 6 12 16 Justin Upton 30 41 25 29 Chris Archer 34 62 61 30 Alex Rodriguez 36 52 30 31 Clayton Kershaw 4 9 9 4 Zack Greinke 5 4 4 9 Edinson Volquez 164 #N/A #N/A #N/A Glen Perkins 228 163 146 132 Martin Prado 286 257 281 382 Chris Coghlan 151 169 150 145 Wei-Yin Chen 109 273 222 213 Kyle Gibson 171 #N/A #N/A #N/A Billy Burns 150 133 166 193 Wade Davis 108 39 53 77 Dellin Betances 87 36 47 59 David Robertson 192 103 149 91 Tony Watson 119 48 66 172 Joe Smith 282 153 187 #N/A Sergio Romo 195 108 93 185 Pat Neshek 260 141 148 293 Edit: Not the easiest info to view, so I made a Google Sheet where you can see the above data in a more tabular form (and all top 40 players based on Alex's suggestion): docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BZGa9K02fez3JdcILiJGxLZ0OH-lgkO8NAwaAPfouJk/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Sept 21, 2015 17:45:07 GMT -5
Brian, Thanks for taking the time to do this and post for us all. Definitely good food for thought. We're still waiting on 4 guys to vote.
I like Alex's categories but I'm pretty sure I don't want SV+HD in the same category. But is that just me? Maybe it would be good our Diamond Duos league. I just don't know. Open to all ideas though. We have plenty of time to get this right and make it exactly how the majority of us want and think will be best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2015 18:53:56 GMT -5
No problem. Pretty easy to do and killed some free minutes I had before leaving work.
I like saves being its own category since it arbitrarily raises the value of a subset of players much like the MLB (in case it's not obvious, I think closers are way overvalued on the open MLB market).
One major question we have, I think, is whether this will be the kind of league where middle relief guys (outside of just stabilizing rate stats and providing vulture saves) are highly valued.
Also, I just added an option 4 (to satisfy my own curiosity) to see what happens if we changed option 3 IP to Holds. Skews 7th/8th inning guys way up and drives SP values way down (Overall, not the direction we want to go I think)
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Sept 22, 2015 9:23:22 GMT -5
I like option 1 the best: AVG, R, HR, RBI, SB, OPS - W, ERA, WHIP, K, SV, Holds.
I think when the categories are more traditional. I wouldn't mind seeing AVG and OPS being changed to OBP and SLG if you wanted to shy away from the traditional scoring. I like the pitching categories just fine. I'm not a fan of QS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 13:00:38 GMT -5
I voted for option 1 as the conservative route. I definitely understand the desire to shake up the traditional formats. I would have voted for option 2 if it were not for the 'net' categories.
I prefer OBP over AVG. Rewarding the walk in FB is probably overdue. QS and TB would be a nice addition as well.
I think there is enough built in penalty in the real game to penalize getting caught stealing and blowing a save. Closers loose their job and runners no longer get the green light thus your counting stats take the hit of ineffectiveness.
If you want to crush somebody then do TB - times K'd. That would damage the human windmills that hit 35 bombs at the expense of striking out 200 times. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Sept 22, 2015 16:14:30 GMT -5
Ok, I know 2 of the 4 who voted for Option 1 (original Diamond Duos categories) would actually go with Option 2 instead if it weren't for the "Net" SB and Saves.
Let's see how things shake out if I can get these final 3 owners to vote. I guess I'd be ok with Saves and SB without the Nets. I was hoping to shake things up but if we have OBP, TB and QS, that is shaking things up a good amount.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2015 16:27:12 GMT -5
Yeah, the net is what turned me off about option 2. I'm from Jawjuh, gotta keep it simple for us folks.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 28, 2015 11:22:17 GMT -5
AVG, R, HR, RBI, SB, OPS - W, ERA, WHIP, K, SV, Holds (sorry for being a "novice" apparently, but please explain "Holds" in greater detail but regardless this is the one i like most)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2015 12:11:12 GMT -5
This Wikipedia entry gives a pretty good breakdown. Leaders this year in holds: 1 Tony Watson P PIT 41 2 Sergio Romo P SF 32 3 Joe Smith P LAA 32 4 Dellin Betances P NYY 29 5 Justin Wilson P NYY 29 6 Pat Neshek P HOU 28 7 Kevin Siegrist P STL 28 8 Joaquin Benoit P SD 27 9 Pedro Strop P CHC 26 10 Zach Duke P CWS 25 11 Jim Johnson P LAD 25 12 Kevin Jepsen P MIN 24 13 Jeremy Jeffress P MIL 23 14 Boone Logan P COL 23 15 Mike Dunn P MIA 23
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Sept 29, 2015 15:14:53 GMT -5
AVG, R, HR, RBI, SB, OPS - W, ERA, WHIP, K, SV, Holds (sorry for being a "novice" apparently, but please explain "Holds" in greater detail but regardless this is the one i like most) Easiest way to understand it is that a hold is like a save except without the game ending.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2015 18:02:00 GMT -5
I assume with only 13 votes we're still a ways away from selecting franchises? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Sept 29, 2015 18:02:37 GMT -5
Absolutely. Holds are a Save situation and not giving up the tying run, in essence "holding" the 3-run or less lead. Thanks Brian and Alex for clarifying.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Indians (Brent) on Oct 8, 2015 19:48:34 GMT -5
Are we still waiting for one more owner to vote? Are we reaching out to him so he can find the 45 seconds or so that it takes to make a vote?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Oct 9, 2015 12:34:15 GMT -5
I am, and I have, and I don't know if I will continue to. I have another gung-ho owner waiting in the wings and there may be a switch. Sorry for the delay.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Indians (Brent) on Oct 9, 2015 15:43:52 GMT -5
Sounds good commmish! Yeah, I think that a "warning sign" if he's not willing to take the time to make a simple vote on a poll.
|
|