Throwing a couple of things out there

[Indians_GM]

First, it has come to my attention that many of us (including myself) have roster errors in the manner of misspellings, lack of owning MLB teams etc, according to our constitution, these are things that need to be 100% accurate. So we need to fix them ASAP. As part of this, I'd like to see some roster standardization take place, for now this will be optional, however it may become a rule for next season:

Roster standardization makes it easier to track players, where they play and generally make sense of who makes up a team and what holes are on it. I'd like to see standardization in how players names appear, and for most rosters the standard First Name Last Name combo seems to be in use. I'd also like to see players broken up by position, for instance you could have Starting lineup (C-UT), Bench, Starting Rotation, Bullpen, Bench, Prospects or Infielders (by order of position) Outfielders (by LF, CF, RF), UT, Bench (C-UT in order) Rotation, Bullpen, Bench. Now, I don't care where you insert your benched players, you could have your bench like mine where it's after the starting lineup but between the bullpen and rotation or however else you like it. But standardizing the rosters on the boards makes it easier in the off season to figure things out.

Another thing I wanted to propose for the future is expanding our stats again or otherwise altering the stats we use. I play in some other leagues that look beyond the standard 5x5 stats to look at other factors such as Quality Starts (defined by 6 IP and 3 or less runs allowed), FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching, click the link for an explination: sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-FIP?urn=mlb-206286 ), removing AVG and separating OPS into OBP and SLG and perhaps adding a defensive metric or a metric that takes defense into account (UZR, DRS, WAR which is a stat used by pitchers and position players, Fielding Percentage, Errors, etc) Obviously though the league has to be balanced so if we did alter what we currently use it would have to be remain 6x6 or 7x7 etc and not be 5x7 or 6x5, of course though, if we add any more stats I'd like to bump up our salary caps and penalties to match our expanded categories.

As usual, I want opinions. So chime in below. I know some of you aren't stat-heads and don't know much about sabermetrics and the like, but if we want to emulate the MLB experience as best that we can, why not work on our measurements?

[Giants_GM]

I looovee the idea of using new measurements, except for FIP or xFIP because there are guys like Matt Cain who consistently pitch better than their FIP.

Also it determines what the ERA should have been, and I think we should stick with stats that are based in reality (the article you linked said the same).

Of course that's just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

And when it comes to defensive sabermetrics, we could use them, but no one of them are truly accurate (and what would we do with full time DH's?)

Otherwise I think we can definitely add some more interesting stats.

[Indians_GM]

DH's would be like having a terrible defensive shortstop (Betancourt anyone?) You'd basically be punting those numbers with them and gives more incentives to use better fielders at utility positions even if their bats aren't quite up to snuff (remember, they're utility guys, not DH's). Your argument about defensive metrics inherently being flawed though is very true and I've been hesitant to propose them in the past because of the flaws in the system. However, stats like Errors or FPCT are standard numbers that most people use to get a surface look at players. UZR and DRS though would almost have to be used together since they vary so much in how they define players. According to DRS the Indians were a top defensive team last year, but UZR hated them. Likewise for the Rockies OF, DRS likes them, they pass the eye test (minus Smith) but UZR says they're bad, then you have the Giants who's OF wasn't much better IMO than the Rockies, but UZR loves them because of the smaller park.

As for FIP and xFIP some guys outperform their ERA, Jason Hammel comes mind first because he throws strikes, hardly walks anyone but gets hammered at the same time. So his ERA gets high, but his FIP stays low. FIP wouldn't replace ERA by any means, it can't, it's more of a predictive stat than ERA. ERA tells you how many runs the pitcher gave up per 9 innings, FIP tells you how well the pitcher performed outside of the defense behind him. Two different, but not completely unrelated things there. Another category I wanted to add for pitching specifically is GIDP, some pitchers are strike out guys, some pitch to contact, right now we barely recognize contact pitchers as being valuable in the league, something I feel is a terrible offense.

[Indians_GM]

Please let us know what you guys think! A new announcement being read 23 times asking for feedback shouldn't have just one person replying to the post! I know you guys want to be heard, but we can't hear those who don't speak up.

[Phils_GM]

I'm not a big fan of "too much," but i think these are interesting stat categories.

I would not have a problem adding them, going to a 7x7 or whatever.

However, rather than expanding our salary cap, i think we need to re-examine the logic behind LAD's value system. some of the arb values seem ridiculous - some are crazy high, others are crazy low.

if we change the $100 base, that impacts, for the third time in three years, the value of signed free agents.

I think rather than "growing" the salary cap, I would be more accepting of another plan to mitigate salary, possibly something where you can release a guy who is signed to a guaranteed contract, but you will have to eat X percent of his salary for the duration of the contract.

or even something like this: say some dumb ass trades for Holliday at $23 and ... he wants to offer him to the market ... another team, seeing Holliday as a quality stat producer but not worth the money, could tender an offer of $8 for Holliday's services. at this point, if the dumb ass who traded for him likes that deal, Holliday goes to Team B at $8, but the dumb ass eats the remainder, or $15, for the duration of the contract.

I see this as accomplishing two things: this gives the teams holding a big contract an out, and it gives the teams looking to fill a spot to remain competitive and additional opportunity to pick up some talent at a reasonable cost.

Just having a stream of consciousness moment ... not saying anybody really would trade for Holliday and his ridiculous contract ... get real.

[Haloes_GM]

I think what we have is pretty good. I don't want to expand the categories anymore. I would hate to see GIDP be as important as a win.

I do think that the arb values should be changed some. Free agents went for less money this offseason and arb players cost more now because we added OPS. Arbitration eligible players are supposed to be somewhat of a deal while you own them for their first 6 years.

[Indians_GM]

While your points are valid, how important is a win when half of the pitchers cannot contribute offensively? If you're Zach Greinke or Felix Hernandez you know that you pitch like a winner almost every game, you know that you do everything that you possibly can to win, but your offense and defense can fail you and force you into a ND or worse, a loss without giving up a single earned run. Wins are about as arbitrary of a stat as one can find in baseball, completely and utterly useless to track talent. GIDP on the other hand, measures a talent, and measures one that is at least as good as a strike out. Already calculating WHIP allows us to see who is better overall, the contact GB pitcher, the FB flamethrower with control issues, or the power armed GB pitcher with impeccable control.

What I would hope for is the removal of Wins all together for QS (3 ER or less in a 6 IP start) while still having HLD and SV as categories (I feel that it's justified if only because RP's aren't eligible for a QS and to get these marks they have to retain a close lead). My goal is for our league, without getting too overly complicated to actually measure talent levels of players vs luck, Wins are a bad stat to compare GIDP (though wins are by far the more common and accepted fantasy stat) with. Ultimately a stat like that would have to be agreed upon by the league (or in the case of stalled voting or lack of interest, by the leadership which includes myself, the Phills, Jays and Cubs as we saw with many changes this season).

I don't want this league to expand past 7x7 and 8x8 is the point where I cringe, but feel is still manageable. We've long been talking about altering the values of the arbitration scale and I've recently questioned (though not officially) why we count years that players spend in the minors after reaching 150 AB/50 IP against their arb clock when there club is exercising option years), some of LAD's stat scales are off line, and we intend to correct it. If this causes further inflation in arbitration prices (remember, you're paying for OPS in free agency too, you're paying for HLD's, these aren't stats to ignore and I believe will begin to be treated with more respect as we grow used to them) then we'll look at ways to cut costs without undervaluing players (some guys are really good but didn't earn much, like Justin Upton), while there is value in seeking these players out, there is no value in not properly evaluating them. In Roto, Upton was more valuable than Gardner as he provided more stats overall, but LAD's system had him going for $1, but Gardner (assuming that he and Upton would have also been a 6th year, which is not the case, but still makes a good example) provides a team with one elite and one above average stat, and he did a good job at producing them (47 SB, 97 R), now, would you rather have .277 97 7 47 47 for $4 or .273 73 17 69 18 for $1? You see how in this case Upton is completely undervalued while Gardner providing you with two categories (only one being elite) costs so much more? I want to balance it out a little bit more, perhaps make the truly elite arb players less expensive by comparison to their simply above average counter parts (ie lower ceiling, higher floor on arb prices). I want guys that produce across the board to see their values go up while guys that produce in one category go down a little.

I hope this eases some of your pricing concerns and explains why I would really want to have wins go away and GIDP introduced.

Apr 8, 2011 22:54:02 GMT -5 Haloes_GM said:

I think what we have is pretty good. I don't want to expand the categories anymore. I would hate to see GIDP be as important as a win.

I do think that the arb values should be changed some. Free agents went for less money this offseason and arb players cost more now because we added OPS. Arbitration eligible players are supposed to be somewhat of a deal while you own them for their first 6 years.

[Haloes_GM]

I still believe Wins is absolutely the most important stat, since that is what really counts. Every other stat is arbitrary in comparison. Does it really matter if you force the opposing team's pitcher into a double play in a 10-0 blowout. At least for a win, you need to pitch 5+ innings and hold the opposition to less runs than your team.

I don't mind Quality Starts. But this can also be misleading. Would you rather have a pitcher have 6 IP/3 ER which would be a QS, or 9 IP/4 ER which is not a QS. Or even 5 2/3 IP and 0 ER which is not a QS.

I just think every stat can be scrutinized and made to look meaningless. I like what we have right now.

[Phils_GM]

I agree with Haloes about the arb players ... they should be a deal.

We have added stats and increased "built in" value of the arb guys. Now it is important for us to evaluate the impact of the money change. If something has pushed arb prices UP, we need to look at something to move them down ... re-work the scales SLIGHTLY.