Jack Leiter netting any positive points today for this line: 3.2 IP, 8 hits, 7 ERs, 3 BBs, 3 K’s (17.18 ERA), seems absurd to me.
I know that’s what the formula calculates but maybe that formula needs to be adjusted…
Thats less than 1 PT/IP. Thats not good…
He didnt give up any HRs. and ERs are irrelevant.
Definitely not good and read why “earned runs are irrelevant” but that WHIP, the hard contact and yes the runs, they’re all certainly relevant to what happened in the game…and not all fielding independent (a lot was pitcher dependent, though he didn’t have great help from Leody Taveras)
What is the point of this post? Just to troll? I dont get it. IF you dont like points leagues dont do points leagues
Im just saying the results on the field (bad) are reflected in the points (bad). It definitely would have been a waste of 3.2 innings if you started him…which i nearly did…ha
1 Like
your post is to troll. my post is to get a conversation started about pitching/scoring. How “runs” are a big deal for hitters (not RBIs) and yet “runs” are discounted for pitching as if they have no impact on run control
And, btw, the context for my leagues are H-to-H, 10 starts (which would be a wasted start) and no limit starts (which added value without penalty, albeit minimal, but, where I’d like to see a negative point total for a line like that)
Points are based on linear weights. They won’t be changing. I would recommend learning a bit more about linear weights.
4 Likes
Big deal for hitters meaning you think they should count for hitters? The only scoring system option that gives hitters run points also factor in pitcher ERA. Runs not counting for either seems the most logical for me, but it is slightly discounted for the pitcher since two triples have the same point consequence as two singles and QS/W/L/BS aren’t factored in to potentially ding him on that end. The only potential hole for me is that - two pitchers can have the same scoring stat line but one let in 3 runs while the other let up 0. Or how letting up a single homerun costs you more points than letting up 5 triples/doubles etc.
Relievers have a minor factor but its too iffy since they would only be giving up points there if they blew a hold or save situation. So since we don’t factor the extended batter performance on how they hit and we don’t factor in any QS/W/L/BS/ERA and use raw hits with a major lopsided consequence for HRs then I can see your point for something potentially missing. Anything can happen in a single game but I’d be interested to see how much it would change things when applied to a full season. My initial thought is that it likely balances out pretty well already and would have a sub 10% variance on scoring if it was somehow included
One of the only things for me that seems overwhelmingly logical on scoring is including pick offs. Taking a big base lead and getting thrown out has the same consequences and motivations. One failed to make it to the next base and one failed to make it back to base, but he was never required or forced to take a lead. It actually is lopsided towards getting picked off being less valuable than CS. Failure in each results in an out, but only success in stealing actually provides a team benefit.
So getting picked off has the risk and consequence (within the game) as stealing but without any potential upside. There might even be room for conversation on getting picked having a steeper point consequence than CS to be honest (3.2 vs 2.8 or something). Getting picked off should 200% count against batters haha
First of all, let me say again (this isn’t “trolling” for our alert Troll watchers out there), but an attempt to continue a discussion on how we measure performances. And it’s not pointing fingers or questioning how great Ottoneu is (b/c it’s pretty pretty great)
But, for pitchers, I continue to think the current formula is more fantasy than reality (despite so many of our rules being based on actually). Take today’s line for Jesus Luzardo:
5.0 IP, 5 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 3BB 2 K’s 2 HRs
Nearly a quality start, but he allowed some traffic (though he pitched well to get out of it) with the two solo shots allowed being his only real blemish (of course, under the current linear weighted pitching formula it’s assumed that there are men on base even if the reality is that their weren’t – despite us not doing that for exit velocity for batters or giving credit for RBIs).
Anyway, Otto’s evaluation of Luzardo’s work? -8.07 Wow. I can find lines where a pitcher goes out and gives up far worse, but enjoys a better end points result than Luzardo today [take Jack Leiter, as mentioned above, who generated 3.3 positive points on 3.2 IP, 8 hits, 7 ERs, 3 BBs, 3 K’s (17.18 ERA). Why? because no homers.
Which seems to tell me that we don’t always measure reality (and lend ourselves to expected reality in some but not all the metrics used to generate points)
And, I’ve examined “linear weights” like Niv suggested above. Linear weights as used in FIP also didn’t like Luzardo’s line today [FIP 9.34] [but see xFIP 6.12].
So that made me look at FIP lines for other pitchers today and I centered in on Dylan Cease (who got hammered in NY) 3.2IP, 7 H, 7R, 7ER, 3 BB, 5 K 2 HR for a rightfully frightful -14.67 Pts.
Interestingly, Cease had a similar FIP [and xFIP] to Luzardo, and this despite a .231 BABIP for Luzardo and a .455 BABIP for Cease (those BABIP differences being due in part to the 96.4 avg exit velo vs Cease and the much softer contact (87.3 avg velo) vs Luzardo)
So, seems to me that either we’re not selecting all the relevant linear weights or placing too much emphasis on some over others; or, maybe relying on linear weights tends to not capture all of the most important pitching metrics or data.
Look, I know no measurement is perfect, but there are just too many days I’m like what is going on. I’ll take Luzardo’s 2 runs allowed over 5 IP every day in reality (and any other fantasy league), but if he’s doing that here, I’m cutting him.
Turning to Batters, the four/five suggestions I have are:
-
GIDP. we should include GIDP as an additional negative point (for making an additional out). If we’re following reality/contributions to the team, there’s hardly anything worse than grounding into a double play. An absolute reality, rally and buzz killer (especially since we penalize CS so highly); and
-
counting 2 out RBIs or close game RBIs or GW RBIs (we count holds and saves for pitchers which are based on the game status, why not for hitters); and
-
reducing HBP from 3 to 2 (this is so much more a pitcher failure than a hitter achievement and while it results in a runner on base, it’s not through batter diligence); and
-
Making SBs count the same as 2Bs (or closer to). It’s a two bagger from a run creating perspective that sabermetrics love so much. Of course, the 2B has the chance to drive in runs, whereas that SB does not (except if a runner scores from 3rd on a throw to 2nd, which the runner going to second, of course, doesn’t get credit for)
adding an Avg Exit Velo coefficient or xBA coefficient to the points scored is probably too much (as it wouldn’t represent the actual results in the game, just expected results, which wouldn’t truly measure that game’s performance, just expected performance)
In the end, it’s not “Hey let’s rewrite all these”, it’s just a possible down the road look in the mirror and see if maybe we need to reexamine the point calculations and just tinker to make them even better.
1 Like