MBBRL Official Thread

[Yellow Fuzzies]

Looks like Quality Starts is gaining some support...until the old guys chime in


Old guy chiming in...
I vote no on all 4.
I like the standard categories in my most competitive leagues. I don't need to change it up to make it more interesting...it is already interesting and challenging without a tweak.

 

[Reverend Jim]

I'm one of the old guys

Old guy chiming in...

Damn Old Guys Hey you kids.......got off my lawn!

 

[Reverend Jim]

Jim is getting excited.

Update so far:

1: 1 Yes, 6 No
2: 5 Yes, 2 No
3: 6 Yes, 1 No
4: 1 Yes, 5 No
QS looking like it has a chance.

I think you can safely cross 1 and 4 off the list.

 

[tlance]

I think you can safely cross 1 and 4 off the list.

Update:

1: Officially defeated with negative votes.
2: 6 Yes, 4 No
3: 6 Yes, 4 No
4: 2 Yes, 7 No

Since Jim abstained from voting on initiative 4, 1 more negative vote will defeat the initiative.

 

[Reverend Jim]

Since Jim abstained from voting on initiative 4, 1 more negative vote will defeat the initiative.

Well far be it for me not to put the nail in the coffin, make mine a no and we'll put that one to bed.

 

[tlance]

Well far be it for me not to put the nail in the coffin, make mine a no and we'll put that one to bed.

LOL.

It is still theoretically possible. If the last spot gets filled soon and all remaining owners vote affirmative, then the count would be 16 to 8 and it would pass.

 

[TKOSpikes]

I vote

1. Yes (BUT) .. not adding holds, adding QS
2. Yes ... gotta reward the walks a little bit
3. No ... I like QS, but not by itself, I know wins can be "taken away" from the starter, but a 4.50 era good?
4. No ... totally takes away any trade value (the little they have anyway) of closers

 

[MilkSpiller22]

We are still looking for 1 more in the Prospect League, but we need to proceed with voting anyway. As stated in the Constitution, the vote must reach 2/3 majority in order to change an existing setting. If someone abstains from voting, it will not count toward either side. For example, if 24 owners vote, we would need 16 affirmative to change a rule. If only 12 vote, then we need 8. BOTH leagues must use the same settings, so everyone is included on the vote. Right now the existing scoring system uses the traditional 5 x 5 categories.

Here are the initiatives:

1) Should we move from 5x5 to 6x6? If yes, we would add both OPS (on-base+slugging) and Holds as separate categories.

2) Should we change BA (Batting Average) to OBP (On base Percentage) to more accurately reflect a hitter's true value?

3) Should we use QS (Quality Starts) Instead of Wins as a pitching category?

4) Should we change the saves category to Saves + Holds to make more relievers relevant?


*Please note that if we decide to move to 6x6 initiative 4 (and maybe 2) will become irrelevant.

Voting will close 1 week from today on 2/26 at midnight. Please get your votes in.

From these options i would vote:
1. 5X5
2. OBP- i think walks needs to be accounted somehow
3. dont care- see the benefits of both
4. Just saves


and question about the note- have we decided what the 6X6 categories would be???

 

[tlance]

1 and 4 have both been defeated.

2: 8 Yes, and 4 No
3: 6 Yes, 5 No

Looking more and more bleak for QS

 

[Driaz]

1. No - Holds would suck as a separate category given our other league setup (roster construction/weekly lineups)
2. Yes - Should already be standard in fantasy baseball
3. Yes - Both are obviously flawed, but QS is at least actually reflective of a pitchers "skill = 4.50" most of the time
4. Yes - Absolutely!!! Draft the best relievers without trying to figure out which managers are going to do stupid shit with their bullpens.....

 

[KevinJebens]

1) Should we move from 5x5 to 6x6? If yes, we would add both OPS (on-base+slugging) and Holds as separate categories.

2) Should we change BA (Batting Average) to OBP (On base Percentage) to more accurately reflect a hitter's true value?

3) Should we use QS (Quality Starts) Instead of Wins as a pitching category?

4) Should we change the saves category to Saves + Holds to make more relievers relevant?

Guess that since 1 and 4 are dead, I'll just vote for the middle ones. 2: Yes. 3: No.

I like BA to OBP, affects every hitter's value. I don't like QS to W, because it further reduces value of non-closing RP. Let some relievers pick up the occasional win to help their value. Otherwise they're reduced to minor K help, as well as small to medium roles in ERA/WHIP. If we switch to QS, there's almost no reason to roster any non-closing RP unless you're hoping for a role change.

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

We are still looking for 1 more in the Prospect League, but we need to proceed with voting anyway. As stated in the Constitution, the vote must reach 2/3 majority in order to change an existing setting. If someone abstains from voting, it will not count toward either side. For example, if 24 owners vote, we would need 16 affirmative to change a rule. If only 12 vote, then we need 8. BOTH leagues must use the same settings, so everyone is included on the vote. Right now the existing scoring system uses the traditional 5 x 5 categories.

Here are the initiatives:

1) Should we move from 5x5 to 6x6? If yes, we would add both OPS (on-base+slugging) and Holds as separate categories.

2) Should we change BA (Batting Average) to OBP (On base Percentage) to more accurately reflect a hitter's true value?

3) Should we use QS (Quality Starts) Instead of Wins as a pitching category?

4) Should we change the saves category to Saves + Holds to make more relievers relevant?


*Please note that if we decide to move to 6x6 initiative 4 (and maybe 2) will become irrelevant.

Voting will close 1 week from today on 2/26 at midnight. Please get your votes in.

1) 5*5
2) BA
3) Wins
4) Just Saves

 

[tlance]

1 and 4 have (still) been defeated.

2: 10 Yes, 5 No
3: 7 Yes, 7 No

Getting close to defeating the QS initiative, but OBP has a real chance.

 

[TREFF]

Ya know, I would've voted for QS's, if a quality start was a minimum of 7 innings and 3 or less earned runs. . But I dont care for scoring a category that is basically defined as exceedingly average starts.

Wins aren't perfect either, But at least wins determine who's holding the W'S trophy every year.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Ya know, I would've voted for QS's, if a quality start was a minimum of 7 innings and 3 or less earned runs. . But I dont care for scoring a category that is basically defined as exceedingly average starts.

Wins aren't perfect either, But at least wins determine who's holding the W'S trophy every year.

Not a debate for the fantasy board, but i love the hate that QS gets... I am a huge fan of QS as a stat, and actually think it is one of the best stats for pitchers- as it is the only stat that measures consistancy... Just throwing that out there since i have been hearing lots of bashing of QS during this thread... But again it is not a debate for this board...

 

[Reverend Jim]

Quality Starts over Wins
quality starts over wins | The Fantasy Assembly
I should have remembered to post this earlier.....slacker

 

[TREFF]

Not a debate for the fantasy board, but i love the hate that QS gets... I am a huge fan of QS as a stat, and actually think it is one of the best stats for pitchers- as it is the only stat that measures consistancy... Just throwing that out there since i have been hearing lots of bashing of QS during this thread... But again it is not a debate for this board...

Well see, that's just the thing, and why no one can ever convince me to want to use them. I %100 agree a quality start is a better measure of the actual pitcher than wins are. . My problem isn't that. .It's the way QS's are currently defined. .That's all. There's just nothing quality, IMHO, about 6 innings and 3 ER's.

It's more of a principal of the thing, than it is the practicality of it being used.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Well see, that's just the thing, and why no one can ever convince me to want to use them. I %100 agree a quality start is a better measure of the actual pitcher than wins are. . My problem isn't that. .It's the way QS's are currently defined. .That's all. There's just nothing quality, IMHO, about 6 innings and 3 ER's.

It's more of a principal of the thing, than it is the practicality of it being used.

I will just say this, and hope it ends here so the thread does not get hijacked...

the problem with your dislike is the misunderstanding of the stat... ERA is irrelevant to the stat, the purpose of the stat is to theoretically predict whether your team should win with the performance a pitcher gives... But even that is almost irrelevant, what i love about QS is that it is the only stat that measures consistancy throughout the season and even better throughout the career...

I will give you that it is a little arbitrary, but every base number can be seen as arbitrary, so as long as it is equally arbitrary for all, i dont consider the arbitrary-ness to be a negative...

Why is baseball 9 innings-arbitrary
why is each half inning 3 outs- arbitrary
why is it 4 ball= walk and 3 strikes=out-- arbitrary...

 

[TREFF]

Nah it ain't that. .I want starters going more than 6 innings, pure and simple.

 

[Chef99]

Nah it ain't that. .I want starters going more than 6 innings, pure and simple.

I'm with you on this. I also think that 3 runs in 6 innings is not particularly quality. Didn't Ryan Dempster do that all last year?

That said, I love the concept and think it could be a great barometer of a pitcher's skills. Change it to 3 runs in 7 innings. That one inning makes a world of difference, IMO.