Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Feb 21, 2024 7:01:30 GMT -5
Preamble:
mlbbaseballleague.proboards.com/post/53576/thread
Possible area for improvement:
Replacing the 'Wins' scoring category.
Why this could be considered an area for improvement:
Wins, whilst a traditional measure of success for starting pitchers and a traditional fantasy scoring category, is a statistic which could be argued to be a poor representation of pitcher value, quality and/or success. As pitcher usage has evolved over time, the purpose of the Win statistic is itself in question in some quarters.
Possible solution (A):
Replace Wins with Innings Pitched.
Pros of solution:
- It could be argued that Innings Pitched is a better measure of a pitcher's success and value than Wins.
- A pitcher who goes deep into a game but fails to record the win (often through no fault of his own, such as a low-scoring offense or a blown save) will still be rewarded for his performance.
- A small uptick in value for multi-inning relievers who provide volume.
- Elimination of 'vulture' wins from relievers.
Cons of solution:
- Parting with tradition.
- Innings Pitched will likely correlate closely with Strikeouts, potentially double-counting (even poor quality) volume.
- Questionable benefit, given that most (if not all) scoring categories are not necessarily accurate indicators of success/quality/performance.
Possible solution (B):
Replace Wins with Quality Starts.
Pros of solution:
- It could be argued that Quality Starts is a better measure of a pitcher's success and value than Wins.
- A pitcher who goes deep into a game but fails to record the win (often through no fault of his own, such as a low-scoring offense or a blown save) will still be rewarded for his performance (assuming he meets the QS criteria).
- Elimination of 'vulture' wins from relievers.
- Increase the value of starting pitchers relative to relievers.
Cons of solution:
- Parting with tradition.
- Quality Starts are quite arbitrary - the 'worst' quality start (6IP with 3ER is a 4.5ERA) is not that quality. Then again, a Win is pretty arbitrary too.
- Modern starting pitcher usage is seeing even effective starters fail to go deep enough into games to quality for a QS, even when pitching well.
- A bulk pitcher following an opener could not be rewarded with a Quality Start.
- Questionable benefit, given that most (if not all) scoring categories are not necessarily accurate indicators of success/quality/performance.
Possible solution (C):
Replace Wins with Wins + Quality Starts.
Pros of solution:
- It could be argued that Quality Starts is a better measure of a pitcher's success and value than Wins. Combining the two rewards those who achieve either, whilst doubly-rewarding those who achieve both.
- A pitcher who goes deep into a game but fails to record the win (often through no fault of his own, such as a low-scoring offense or a blown save) will still be rewarded for his performance (assuming he meets the QS criteria).
- Marginally increase the value of starting pitchers relative to relievers.
Cons of solution:
- Parting with tradition.
- Quality Starts are quite arbitrary - the 'worst' quality start (6IP with 3ER is a 4.5ERA) is not that quality. Then again, a Win is pretty arbitrary too.
- Questionable benefit, given that most (if not all) scoring categories are not necessarily accurate indicators of success/quality/performance.
Possible solution (D):
Replace Wins with Starter Wins.
Pros of solution:
- Elimination of 'vulture' wins from relievers.
- Increase the value of starting pitchers relative to relievers.
Cons of solution:
- Parting with tradition.
- A bulk pitcher following an opener could not be rewarded with a Win.
- Questionable benefit, given that most (if not all) scoring categories are not necessarily accurate indicators of success/quality/performance.
Notice period for adoption if solution voted in:
Long (2+ years)
mlbbaseballleague.proboards.com/post/53576/thread
Possible area for improvement:
Replacing the 'Wins' scoring category.
Why this could be considered an area for improvement:
Wins, whilst a traditional measure of success for starting pitchers and a traditional fantasy scoring category, is a statistic which could be argued to be a poor representation of pitcher value, quality and/or success. As pitcher usage has evolved over time, the purpose of the Win statistic is itself in question in some quarters.
Possible solution (A):
Replace Wins with Innings Pitched.
Pros of solution:
- It could be argued that Innings Pitched is a better measure of a pitcher's success and value than Wins.
- A pitcher who goes deep into a game but fails to record the win (often through no fault of his own, such as a low-scoring offense or a blown save) will still be rewarded for his performance.
- A small uptick in value for multi-inning relievers who provide volume.
- Elimination of 'vulture' wins from relievers.
Cons of solution:
- Parting with tradition.
- Innings Pitched will likely correlate closely with Strikeouts, potentially double-counting (even poor quality) volume.
- Questionable benefit, given that most (if not all) scoring categories are not necessarily accurate indicators of success/quality/performance.
Possible solution (B):
Replace Wins with Quality Starts.
Pros of solution:
- It could be argued that Quality Starts is a better measure of a pitcher's success and value than Wins.
- A pitcher who goes deep into a game but fails to record the win (often through no fault of his own, such as a low-scoring offense or a blown save) will still be rewarded for his performance (assuming he meets the QS criteria).
- Elimination of 'vulture' wins from relievers.
- Increase the value of starting pitchers relative to relievers.
Cons of solution:
- Parting with tradition.
- Quality Starts are quite arbitrary - the 'worst' quality start (6IP with 3ER is a 4.5ERA) is not that quality. Then again, a Win is pretty arbitrary too.
- Modern starting pitcher usage is seeing even effective starters fail to go deep enough into games to quality for a QS, even when pitching well.
- A bulk pitcher following an opener could not be rewarded with a Quality Start.
- Questionable benefit, given that most (if not all) scoring categories are not necessarily accurate indicators of success/quality/performance.
Possible solution (C):
Replace Wins with Wins + Quality Starts.
Pros of solution:
- It could be argued that Quality Starts is a better measure of a pitcher's success and value than Wins. Combining the two rewards those who achieve either, whilst doubly-rewarding those who achieve both.
- A pitcher who goes deep into a game but fails to record the win (often through no fault of his own, such as a low-scoring offense or a blown save) will still be rewarded for his performance (assuming he meets the QS criteria).
- Marginally increase the value of starting pitchers relative to relievers.
Cons of solution:
- Parting with tradition.
- Quality Starts are quite arbitrary - the 'worst' quality start (6IP with 3ER is a 4.5ERA) is not that quality. Then again, a Win is pretty arbitrary too.
- Questionable benefit, given that most (if not all) scoring categories are not necessarily accurate indicators of success/quality/performance.
Possible solution (D):
Replace Wins with Starter Wins.
Pros of solution:
- Elimination of 'vulture' wins from relievers.
- Increase the value of starting pitchers relative to relievers.
Cons of solution:
- Parting with tradition.
- A bulk pitcher following an opener could not be rewarded with a Win.
- Questionable benefit, given that most (if not all) scoring categories are not necessarily accurate indicators of success/quality/performance.
Notice period for adoption if solution voted in:
Long (2+ years)
