Ten Best Performances By A Starting Pitcher
Ten Worst Performances By A Starting Pitcher
Ten Best Performances By A Hitter

Projected Final Point Totals

Still very early...one great or miserable pitching performance can radically change everything, but I like having a permanent week-by-week record
Only differences between the above and the raw point totals....

CC is second, not third
TM is third, not second
JL is fourth, not fifth
JG is fifth, not fourth

I'm starting to think I'd be better off benching all my starting pitching.

I'm starting to think these draft games are bullshit. :p

Don Malta, maybe you're right. I mean Tejada went what, 3/4 with a Double, an RBI and a Walk. Maybe I should only play The ESPN Diamond Daily...Although a certain pitcher got the Save in that game. He's quite young, not very experienced, and although it is extremely early, so far this season he has an E.R.A. of 0, he's 2/2 in save/save ops., and he's struck out three batters. His name is Chris Ray. Remember the name. :p

That presumably applies to football also, right?
That's the only game you apper to be playing anyway.

That presumably applies to football also, right? [/b][/quote]Yep.

Right.

ALL of them!

It's mostly LUCK of the draw anyway... means nothing....

Salary Cap games at least have an EVEN playing field!

But of course that's why you don't like them... cuz it's all skill rather than dumb season-long luck of a draft or crafty finagling, right? :p :rolleyes:

Fuck draft games! :p

Well, seeing as how I've won more salary cap games - by far - than anyone else around here, I guess I'm eminiently qualified to comment.

Salary Cap games almost certainly do require more skill than than this "draft" type of game -

(I won't even talk about how the luck of the schedule is the biggest single factor in determining the winner of those draft-style "head-to-head" games, since I've already shown that the schedule which does gets played is just one of thousands of possible random possibilities, and it's possible to construct one in which the person who finished last finishes first, based on the luck of the draw).

First of all, as in real life, there's the injury factor, which doesn't exist in salary cap.

Altho this is somewhat offset by the fact that some players are clearly more injury-prone than others and obviously should be avoided in a draft, there are many cases of injury which are pure luck.

Also, a draft game puts an inordinate amount of importance on the draft itself.

Although that unique aspect of the game is the one that I would guess that most playes enjoy the most, the fact is that if you are poor at drafting you are simply not gonna win, while if you can draft more skillfully than anyone else you can overcome anything, including the much over-rated (IMO) factor of when you pick (first, second, last, etc.).

While it can be argued that a draft-stlye game resembles real-life in that you have to construct a team from scratch, the fact is it is nothing at all like real-life.

In truth, major league sports teams spend lifetimes building their organizations - their front office personnel, their on-field management, their amateur draft strategy, the signing of free agents, their farm systems, etc. - and there is no sport which requires the skill of beng able to draft a team from scratch from the pool of existing major league-calibre players.

So while there obviously is a skill involved in doing so - deciding, for example, who to draft and who not to draft, based on a lot more than last year's statistics, but taking into account the expected improvement or worsening of a player's performance based on other factors, such as age, change in league, or changes in home park - it is a skill that bears no true resemblance to any in real life.

A Salary cap game, on the other hand - as you correctly point out - is played on a level playing field.

Everyone chooses from the same pool of players and has available to them the same set of data, so the winner will be that person who makes the best use of the information available, or who has the best "theory" (if you will) of how to use the data in developing a strategy of "how" the game should be played.

Now....that is not to say that a draft game is completely devoid of all elments of skill.

First of all, in this game in particular, skill is required in the management of the "maximum of 162 games at each position" (for both hitters and starting pitchers) factor - not only in making sure that you don't "lose" or "miss" any games (and the potential points that could be earned in those lost or missed games), but in deciding how to allot those games among the players on your roster, based on, for example, matchups.

Yes, you could argue that the management of the 162 game maximum aspect is nothing more than a mathematical exercise - which to some extent it is - but the math certainly takes a back seat to the strategy of deciding, as I said, on how those 162 games should be alloted.

There is also strategizing involved in developing an overall strategy for how to play - a philosophy, so to speak.

I'd really love to say more about that at this point but, sadly, because of the obvious risks involved in the divulging of the details of my own strategy, I am precluded from doing so.

And finally we come to the "trades" aspect of the game - to what you presumably (and humorously) refer to as "crafty finagling."

I would submit that that particular aspect of the game is skill.

Or, more accuarately, how is it not skill?

It resembles real-life sports in its purest form. Is there a General Manager in the world who doesn't think that he's either gotten the better of the deal or helped his team more than he's hurt it when he completes a trade?

Certainly not, because if that was not the case he wouldn't be making the trade in the first place.

So trading comes down to pure judgement, and to call it "crafty finagling" is rather unfair.

Some deals work out and help both teams, some don't work out and help only one.

Some end up helping neither team, but unless injuries become a factor Idon't see where the ability to make good trades is anything other than skill.

A little knowledge about the players, a little psychology with respect to the person with whom you're dealing, but hey, this is business, isn't it?

Finally, I guess you could put free agent/waiver moves under the same umbrella.

Once again, I'm afraid, there's a philosophy involved here which precludes my going into it too deeply.

Suffice it to say, however, that making free agent moves, can be nothing more than pure skill.

Certainly you're not suggesting that someone making them is just throwing a million moves against a wall and waiting to see what sticks?

I'd venture to say that every free agent move that anyone makes is made for a reason.

Sure, there's luck involved in seeing which ones work and which ones don't, but they are initially made for a reason.

Looking back at what I just wrote here, I guess I'm not arguing that salary cap requires more skill than a "draft game".

Both require elements of skill and luck.

But I would say that the "level playing field" factor in salary cap would probably leave me inclined to agree with you about ehich game requires less luck.

That, and the fact that if you draft poorly in a draft game you are left with virtually no chance of winning, and altho I should emphasize that drafting is a skill as well, it takes on a way too disproportionate amount of importance.

If you draft poorly - a two hour event before the season starts - you simply can't win unless you get extremely lucky, and a two hour pre-season event shouldn't be the largest (by far) single factor that determines the outcome of a game that takes six months to play out.

(Forgive typos, if any. I didn't read this over)

Monday Scores

Current Standings

The Baltimore Orioles beat The Tampa Bay Devil Rays 8 - 4 and whaddayaknow?! Why, that young gentleman Chris Ray got the Save. His Earned Run Average is still 0, he's 3/3 in saves/save ops., and he's struck out 4 batters. Chris Ray. Remember the name. :p

I think another three or four reminders should do it. :rolleyes: :p

Lol! Lol! I will if I have to... :p

Tuesday Scores

The cream has been rising.....

Current Standings

A 90 point jump?? Not too shabby. Ahh...I gotta work my way up from the basement before I can start talkin shit... :p :rolleyes:

Wednesday Scores
Current Standings
Starting pitching statistics, as expected, continue to improve.

Since our low point on the morning of 4/5, when we had gone through 26 starts for 65 Fantasy Points - an averge of 2.50 FPPG, we've had 65 starts, averaging 7.31 FPPG over that stretch.

Moreover, in our last 44 starts, we've averaged 8.61 FPPG, all of which has brought our overall average up to a more respectable (but still pretty low) 5.93.

What I expect will happen - as we continue to tweak our rosters by adding SPs who are doing well and dropping those who are turning out to be bombs, and as blue-chippers like Santana (to name only one) straighten themselves out and start scoring as we know that they will - is that our FPPG average per start will settle in somewhere at around 11-12 or so, which lends credence to JG's comment early on, when he said after DB's whine about Oliver Perez' 16 ("Arrrggghhh, friggin' Pirates bullpen....if Perez had gotten the win....")

"16 pts.....is gonna be a great line this year with our scoring, I think."

Maybe not "great", which looks like it will be somewhere in the high 20's and above (we've had 5 games of 27 or better so far; let's not throw around the term "great" too loosely here), but certainly a total that anyone will be able to live with on any given day.

Sorry, but I'm starting to have a problem with our scoring...

Zambrano, for instance...

6 IP 18 outs 4 hits 4 ERs 3 BBs 1 HBP 8 Ks

...not a terrible outting these days, by any means. In fact, a NORMAL outting these days! But he gets the loss, cuz his offense didn't get the job done, not cuz he didn't! He gave STL every opportunity, having only given up 4 ERs... but he's penalized (as I am) cuz the OFFENSE didn't produce.

1 point.

8 Ks, 3 BBs... 18 outs, 4 ERs. 1 fucking point.

Sorry, but I'm not liking that too much.

Timlin pitched ONE inning, got the 3 outs with one hit. He got 2 points. No save, no hold. That was it. One decent inning. But, TWICE as many points as a decent start. ????

C'mon now...! :rolleyes:

I hate to defend the scoring, but unfortunately when a SP loses, he usually doesn't get many points even if he pitched well. It's like that in almost any league.


....And 4 ER's in 6 innings is not really a good start.

that's exactly what happened with Matt Cain for me today. 5 IP, 15 outs, 5H, 3 ER, 2BB, 8 K, but the fuckin' Giants didn't score a single run to support him. anyway he carried the loss and ended up with 2 Fan Pts. now, Tom Gordon pitches 1 inning, allowing 1 hit and striking out 2. he got the save and more than double Cain's pts (5). I'm sure everyone will have an example of your own. I guess it's imposible to fix though, only if we had a comission of specialists to analyze and qualify every pitching performance regardless of the official decision. that'd be cool

I don't consider a start of 6 IPs in which a guys allows 4 ERs, 7 baserunners, and 1 HBP to be anything even close to a "normal outing" these days.

Considering that going yesterday's games our starters (after their very rocky beginning; see my post above) were averaging close to 6 FPPG, there's no way you can fairly describe a +1 point start as "normal".

And he didn't lose because his "offense didn't get the job done"

Requirng your offense to score 5 runs in 6 innings, or an average of 7.5 runs per 9 innings is hardly what I would call giving "STL every opportunity, having only given up 4 ERs (in 6 IPs)"

Requring that of your teams offense is not giving your team every chance to win

To put it another way....

How may games to you think the average team wins when their starter or pitching staff has an E.R.A of 6.00?

I'd be very surprised if a team wins more than 25-30% of the time when giving up 6 runs in a game.

So Zambrano (and you) weren't penalized because the offense didn't produce.

The offense was required to produce at the rate of 7.5 runs per game, which is a lot to ask of any offense.

Zambrano (and you) were penalized because Zambrano's start gave the Cubs practically no chance to win.

Also, please remember that if this game had been scored using the ESPN system, you would have gotten 6 more points because the ESPN system doesn’t deduct points when a SP is charged with a loss, as this system does.

Actually, the only reason you did as well as +1 was Zambrano’s 8 strikeouts, which IMO is the weakest part of our pitcher’s scoring system.

All strikeouts do is make power pitchers more valuable in this game, which, in reality, is not necessarily the case.

As far as Timlin and his +2 goes….

It could be argued that what he did for his team last night was more valuable than what Zambrano did for his.

Timlin came into a game that the Red Sox were losing 8-1 and held the other team in check, giving the Sox a chance to eventually come back (which they did) and have a chance (albeit a small one) to actually win the game.

And had his game been scored by ESPN and you had the Boston PS last night, you’d be overjoyed at his +2 in one winning, since that helped reduce the horrible score by the starter and make it at least slightly more respectable.

(And JL.....Why do you hate to defend the scoring system? That one hurt. If the system is right, it's right; if it's not, it's not. It shouldn't "hurt" you to defend it when it is.)

How come no one complains about the scoring system when their starter pitches like shit and gives up 4-5 runs in 5-6 innings, but escapes with some some points because his offense bails him out with a big night and he gets the extra 7 points that go along with picking up the win?

Maybe we should take away Wins & Losses as stat categories, so each pitcher is graded strictly on the basis of his performance as if he were pitching in a vacuum.

Doing that would have given Johann Santana (16-7, 2.87) more points last year than Chris Carpenter (21-5, 2.83).

Who had the better year?

I'm still bitter over the 5 RP, 2 point save system we have.

:p

The offense just needed to score 4+ runs. :p

How is that so ridiculous??

Am I just used to the Yankees (big games) or something?

Having 18 chances to get 5 guys over the plate isn't too much to ask. And he didn't even need 5 runs... he just needed 4 for a no-decision (not a loss).

I hear what you're saying... but... I stand by what I said. It's ridiculous, then, to pitch for a team that can't score 4 freakin' runs in 6 innings, or 5 runs in 9 innings. :p

How is that so ridiculous?

Because 4 runs in 6 innings is a rate of 6 per game.

No team averges 6 runs per game (except maybee the Yankees, and I'll be surprised if even they average 6 RPG by the ens of the season).

When you give up 6 runs, you lose maybe 75% of the time.

Zambrano gave up runs in this game at the rate of 6 per game.

He deserved the loss.

You are so truly off base on this one JG....

You say blithely say "The offense just needed to score 4+ runs...", like that's the easiest thing in the world to do....something that teams rountinely do regularly, and that is simply not the case.

Scoring 4+ runs in 6 innings is a rate of 6+, or 7, runs per game, and that doesn't happen all that often.

I remember Bill James did a study once where he looked at each team's W-L record at different levels of runs scored.

Like when a team scored 0, then obviously their W-L record would be something like 0 and whatever.

In games in which they scored 1 run, it would be something like, I dunno 2-15 or so.

When scoring 3 runs, maybe they were like 10-15.

The more runs a team scores, of course, the greater their chances are of winning, and in this study I remember that the point at which a team had a better than .500 record was at like 5 runs per game.

The inverse of all of this, naturally, was exactly the same.

When a team allowed 0 runs, they were like 10-0 or 12-0.

In games in which they allowed 1 run, they were maybe like 15-1.

And so on.

The point at which the reached .500 was the same also.

Allowing 5 RPG, a team's record was always under .500, and allowing 6 runs per game it was even worse.

Maybe not a losing percentage of .750, but certainly one in the 60%+ range.

Anyway....

I took a look at all the games so far this season in which a team allowed (or scored) exactly 6 runs (it only took a few minutes because there haven't been that many games yet).

So far there have been 30 such games, and teams allowing 6 runs have a record of 12-18 so far, for a winning percentage of .400

Also, what you keep overlooking is the fact that in order to avoid a loss when allowing 6 runs, the pitcher's team has to score at least 7, and that just doesn't happen very often.

I took a look at the score of every game so far this season, and in the 137 games involving 274 teams, one team scored 7 or more runs only 82 times, or 29.9%.

What I’m trying to convince you of here is that when allowing 4 runs in 6 innings, a SP does not give his team a very good chance to win.

Even baseball writers, statisticians, etc., in their what I believe to be a very liberal definition of what they call a "quality start" would not include Zambrano's effort yesterday as such.

But thanks for giving me a subject to do a thousand+ words worth of comments on. :p

Thursday Scores
Terrible day for the SPs again; 10 starts for a brilliant -18.

Current Standings

Yaaay! I'm no longer in last place, and I'm exactly one whole point ahead of Letizia. :p

Yeah, but (sadly) that's as high as you're gonna get, Homer.

Unless......

Enough of Hudson, huh JL?

You can't go wrong with a guy named Putz, though. Think of how tough a life this guy must've had with a name like that, and here he is a major league pitcher.

Another so so night for me. Wait a minute, a 64 pt. gain?! I think I'm doing pretty well...For a "Homer" that is... :rolleyes: :p

Friday Scores
Good day for the Pitching Staffs yesterday....
13 starts, 113 points, 8.69 points per start.

Current Standings
I'm gonna keep track of this for a while, JG. If you are correct in your opinion - that allowing runs at the rate of 6 per game is a reasonably good performance that affords the pitcher's team a reasonably fair chance of winning, and, accordingly, that the scoring system should be adjusted so that a pitcher in those circumstances achieves a reasonably decent score (5-6 points, maybe?), then we can make the necessary adjustments for next seson.