You don't have to wait a few days.

Pitching is valued at somewhat less than it is in the Salary Cap game - where we always said it was too high - because there will be a negative value for pitcher's losses which should be not quite be offset by points awarded for starts, saves, and holds.

Just look at last year's scoring totals for this game, and see what percentage of the points were for pitching and what percentage were for offense.

Don't forget...Even though you're not getting points for the SP's win when the bullpen gets it as you would in the Salary Cap game (and as DB would have for Pittsburgh today), and only getting points for what the SP himself accomplishes, that's being made up for the separate points that you're getting for relief pitching (as DB points out with his comment about Turnbow's points).

To avoid the technical mumbo jumbo on the Official Baseball Rules... What is a Hold?

Well, Manny had a base hit and a walk, Coco Crisp had a base hit and two runs. Freakin Ordonez went 0 for and he's batting a godly .000 :rolleyes: Suzuki has 1 basehit in 4 ab so far and it's tied in the 8th. Carlos Delgado had a base on balls and nothing more. Man, he's not on my team (I didn't draft first ) but Fat Albert Pujols had 2 HR, 4 RBI, 3 R and 2 BB, oh yeah and he's starting off the season batting 1.000 Chipper Jones had a great game today too. I 'm interested in seeing how Barry Bonds deals with the pressure of being an enormous steroid filled asshole and who wins The Yankee/Athletic game.

Don Sicilia, I believe that a Hold falls between a Win and a Save. In other words when a reliever comes into a game with his team in the lead, but does not reach the required amount of innings or batters to get credit for a save, it is reffered to as him Holding the lead or getting a hold for his appearance. He held the lead for his team in his relief appearance.


Don Cardi

Cardi's right... that's what middle relievers get credited with when they don't fuck up (that's tech jargon, see the rule book! ) a lead -- it makes them feel like they've earned something.

Since this game only gives you 2 points for a save, closers aren't much more valuable than scrubs. I only got 5 points for Wagner and a save, and 4 points from Burgos in a KC Loss. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I think something's screwy regardless of what Plaw says. :p Shields pitched only 1.1 innings, got the W, and I got 12 points. Schmidt pitched 7 innings, gave up only 4 runs, and I have 4 pts from him (so far).

I'm sure Plaw's formula is just fine, but that's why I said in a few days I'll get more of a feel for scoring - I'd rather see it in action than have it explained to me for the 8th time.

The two leagues that I am in give 4 points for a save.


Don Cardi

My leagues gave us 5. I tried my best to get PL to reconsider, but I couldn't do it.

The big diference, JG, is that Shields got 7 points for the win, otherwise he only gets 5 points.

In the ESPN game, all of Shields' points would have gone to the Angels pitching staff, so if you had Colon you'd be happy.

This game just rewards the accomplishment of the individual player on a pitching staff, not the staff as a whole.

Again....

Just look at last year’s stats:

The top 25 offensive players ranged from 560 points to 737

The top 25 starting pitchers ranged from 339 points to 630

The top 25 closers ranged from 122 points to 294

The top 25 relievers who were not closers ranged from 112 points to 222.

What looks like it’s wrong with that? The scoring and the relative proportions and everything look OK to me.

If this year proves to be a statistical freak and a bunch a middle relievers get the win in an unusual amount of games and wind up with a lot more points than could have been expected, I can’t help that.

Shields won the first game of the season. For the whole year he may wind up 5-3 or something for a net of +17.

And, as far as what other leagues do and how many points they award for a particular caregory, that means nothing.

Everything has to be looked at and evaluated in the context of the scoring system for the league we are talking about.

They give 5 points for a save. Do they deduct anything for a blown save, which has much more impact on a game than a save with a three run lead does?

Yeah, JL tried to convince me to give 5 points for the save, but I don't remember any other argument as to why we should except "that's the way the other leagues I've been in do it"

Why 7 points for a win? Why not 6 or 5? Why one point for each total base? Why one point for an RBI?

Why anything?

because I attempted to create a scoring system in which the proportion of offense to pitching, and starting pitching to relief pitching seemed to be about "right".

You know, for three years we played the ESPN game, and everyone pretty much agreed that they picked their pitching staff every day based on who the starting pitcher was and paid little attention to that team's bullpen.

Then everyone moaned when a starter went out and pitched 8 great innings, left the game at +25 or something, and watched as the reliever gave up three runs in the 9th, turned the +25 that could have been a +35 with a win into a wasted +13 or so, and said how much better the game would be if you got only the points from your starting pitcher and the relievers didn't count.

Since the SP was the basis for your pick, if he did well, you did well. If he did poorly, so did you.

So I create a scoring system which rewards the achievements of the individual player rather than a whole staff, and because one day one guy gets a lot of points because he happened to get a win, you have doubts about that allready.

If you can't analyze it before the season plays out to figure out if anything is wrong with it, but have to wait until after the games are played so you can apply 20-20 hindsight, something is wrong there.

As I said above, the relative totals for the different categories of players and the proportions look OK to me.

Why don't you look at them and see if they look OK to you?

The only thing that's "screwy" to you is the 7 points that Shields got for the win, which made his total 12.

But a win is a win. Someone on the Angels should get those points, shouldn't they?

Or maybe relievers shouldn't be eligible for "win points" because they don't pitch enough innings or something.

All my baseball life I've complained about the MLB system wherein a pitcher can go 8 great innings and leave with the score tied 0-0 or 1-1, and watch his team score one run in one inning for a reliever and see the reliever get the win, but that's the way MLB does it.

If there was some system whereby the game's official scorer awarded the win to the pitcher who deserved it the most, that would be preferable in my mind, but since there isn't, we're stuck with the system that MLB uses.

Middle relievers don't even need to get a win. When A closer pitches a 1-2-3 ninth inning, gets a save, and only gets 1 more point than a reliever that comes in a game, in the 9th, with his team losing, IMO something is wrong.

Barry Zito

First of all, he gets two points for the save, so the closer gets 5 points and the other guy gets 3.

And if MLB would change the save rule to something meaningful I'd agree with you.

How about the closer that comes in with a 3 run lead, gives up two runs, and gets credit for a save?

Something is wrong there, IMO.

Way too many saves are really "cheap" - protecting a 3 run lead is nothing partcularly spectacular.

AAMOF, a reliever who comes into the game with his team losing 2-1 that pitches a 1-2-3 ninth and gives his team a chance to win did as much or more than a closer who comes in with his team winning 7-4 and pitches a 1-2-3 ninth and "saves" the game.

When MLB creates a rule that doesn't award a save unless the reliever faces the tying run, or at least has the tying run on deck, and the runners on base were not his doing, then I'll agree that a save is worth a lot.

But the way it is now, it's ridiculous, IMO.

And these fantasy games which don't deduct anything for a blown save...I can't understand that at all.

A typical reliever saves more than 80% of the games he closes, so a blown save has a tremendous impact on game because it happens relatively rarely. To not penalize the guy for that, but to give him points for saves when he protects a 3 run lead makes no sense to me.

And as far as the middle reliever geting the win, as I said, I'd much prefer a system where the official scorer awards the win to the pitcher who deserves it the most.

But since this is the way they do it, are you suggesting that we only award points for wins to starters?

Can we all get on the same page about when you have to use a "whine alert", or do I have to start assessing "penalty points"? :p

I didn't hear any whining about Roy Oswalt .

Has he been sent to AA yet?

Wagner got me 5 points with a save. Burgos with his 1K, in 1 inning in a 3-1 loss, got me 4 points. There is nothing that will change me my mind that this is not right.

Burgos got 4 points for a 1-2-3 inning and a strikeout.

Wagner got 5 for his inning, and the save. His strikeout was offset by the hit he gave up.

You're doing what JG did: Using one game as an example.

Talk to me when Wagner "saves" a game with a 1-2-3 inning and gets 2 strikeouts in a game with a 3 run lead and gets 7 points, or after a game where he blows a save and vultures a win and gets even more than 7 points, and compare that to a game where a middle reliever pitches a 1-2-3 inning with no strikeouts, keeps his team in a game they are losing 2-1, watches his team get the win in extra innings for another pitcher, gets only 3 points, and tell me who was more valuable that day or who did more to help his team win and who deserved more points, and tell me there was nothing wrong with that.

No system is perfect, and there will always be some inequities if you compare individual games.

So I'll say it yet again:

Look at the scoring from last year and the proportions between the hitters and starters and relievers, and tell me what looks out of whack.

If the worst thing anyone can say is that a closer with 30 saves should have gotten 30 more points, then I would say that the scoring system is pretty good.

At the end of the year, I'm not going to say a closer with 30 saves should have 30 more points. I'm going to say he should have 90 more points.

D.M.C. alright, I know the sample size isn't exactly ginormous but if trends continue... :p

I'd agree with you if saves weren't so cheap.

If, as i said, to earn a save the RP had to at least have the tying run on deck, or, even better, face thre tying ru, that would be a real save.

But these cheap saves where guys "protect a 3 run lead", or give up a couple of runs and still get a save....

In other words, if a save happened about as frequently as the best starters go a win; maybe 18-20-25 times a year, then I'd say that a save is worth what a win is worth.

Also, JL, and here's really the key question: What would you deduct for a blown save if you give 5 points for a successful one?

If you want to give a guy 5 points for a save and you're willing to deduct enough for a blown save to make the proprtions right......

PL, you seem to have a problem with MLB's scoring system, so you're trying to correct it in the game. Right or wrong that isn't how real baseball is right now. "Cheap saves", are still saves. If it were my league, it would 10 points for wins, -5 for loses, 5 points for saves, and -5 for blown saves.

As always, JMO YMMV.

The problem with that is as follows:

Since an average closer converts more than 80% of his opportunities, I can't see why a blown save shouldn't be worth three times as much as a save.

By valuing them equally, a closer who blows half of his opportunities winds up with a net of "0", when he should be deep in the minus column for a performance like that.

A average starter, on the other hand, wins slightly less than 50% of his decisions, so a win should be worth slightly more than a loss so a starter who has a .500 W-L record winds up slightly on the plus side.

As far as my problem with MLB scoring goes, yeah, I think it stinks and I think that saves are a way overvalued statistic.

After all, how important or hard is it to get a save when the average closer does it 80% of the time?

So yes, I made a save less valuable than what the public perception of what the value of a save is.

It's almost like stolen bases in a Roto scoring format.

Some scoring systems give a stolen base with the same value as a home run.

If you have a guy with 40 steals and no homers, and I have a guy with 40 homers and no steals, we each "win" a category, but there isn't a person in the world that thinks the stolen base guy is more valuable to a team than the home run guy is, is there?

"JMO is" "Just my opinion" I guess. What is "YMMV"?

"You may...."? "Yours may...."? "You might...."? "You must...."?

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary.

I pretty much agree with PL, but when I said...

...I meant, to me, I need to SEE IT PLAY OUT for it to stick in my head. But your 8th, 9th, and 10th explanations above were helpful also....

Hey, we're all in the same boat - no one gets an advantage that I can tell. So if we all suck at pitching, we ALL suck at pitching. Doesn't really effect overall scores...

Gotta remember that one.

Here's how I'm gonna do the standings every day:

I'll list everyone in the order of their raw points total, but also indicate how many games you've used, so you have a relative idea of where you stand in relation to everyone else.

On offense, I think everyone will stay pretty close to one another, so it won't make that much of a difference, but in the number of pitching starts used there might
be a big difference.

Also, showing how many pitching starts everyone has used is important in the race to the 162 game maximum in that category.

(BTW, the only thing that good ole Yahoo is not showing us that we need is the number of games we've used at each ofensive position. But since they offered that as a stat modifier - ours, as you know, is 162 - I have to believe that this is a bug which they will work out, 'cuz the same problem would be evident if we had chosen, say, a maximum number of innings pitched for each team).

Anyway....

OPU: "Offensive Players Used". How many starts your offensive players have made for the season. The maximum here for all 9 positions is 1458.

OPTS: "Offensive Points". How many points your offensive players have earned for the season.

SPU: "Starting Pitchers Used". How many starts your starting pitchers have made for the season. The maximum here is 162.

SPTS: "Starter's Points". How many points your starting pitchers have earned for the season.

RPU: "Relief Pitchers Used". How many relief appearances your relief pitchers have made for the season. We really don't need this one in there, since there is no maximum number of appearances, but I figured it would be interesting to have anyway.

RPTS: "Reliever's Points". How many points your relief pitchers have earned for the season.

Total: Total number of points earned for the entire season to date.

Quiz tomorrow.

Sunday & Monday Scores and Tuesday Standings
(Note: CC and TM are tied, so I gave the higher waiver priority today to TM, since CC's projected total is higher.)

I don't know if it's just plaw's oratory, but I believe our system is just fine. I also didn't like when I saw those "top 1000 players lists" with a million of closers in it, just because they have 30 or 40 saves that don't mean to me more than 10 wins for an average starter or a sub 3 ERA for a middle reliever.

If we are judging by 2005 stats, then I'm fine with the scoring system.

I'm with JG - let's wait a few weeks before we determine if the scoring system is fair or not. Just like DMC and Don Jasani said - our sample size is too small right now to make any judgements.

Thanks DC. This is what I thought it was and maybe it was the technical mumbo jumbo that I needed.

Does a team have to be up by a certain amount of runs (maximum? minimum?) for a closer to be eligible for a hold?

How many outs does he have to get?

If he leaves with a smaller lead (he gives up some runs), does he still get a hold? Does it matter if the runs he gave up are earned or unearned?