CT Fantasy Baseball - Interested?

[mattmitchl44]

FWIW - in terms of scoring categories, I think we should still consider substituting OBP for AVG.

I know AVG is "traditional", but we don't have to be hide bound to tradition. Using AVG and OPS still undervalues walks in comparison to singles. Singles are going to count in AVG and both OPS components (OBP and SLG). Walks only count toward one (the OBP component of OPS).

If we use OBP and OPS, we're at least counting walks twice (OBP and the OBP component of OPS) while still counting singles three times. That seems much more in keeping with their value in the real game.

How about dropping OPS, and adding separate categories for SLG & OBP?

Are you suggesting having AVG, OBP, and SLG (3 categories) instead of AVG and OPS (2 categories)? Or are you saying OBP and SLG instead of AVG and OPS?

Three categories, representing a traditional slash line.

AVG/OBP/SLG

I would say you basically still have the same problem. Singles count in all three categories, walks only count in OBP. If you index that to what we understand reality to be (e.g., the linear weights value of singles vs. walks), singles are only about 30% more valuable as an event than walks.

Just having OBP and OPS (two categories) would make the value of singles (counting three times) vs. walks (counting two times) close to that realistic understanding the value difference between the two.

I am not in favor of removing batting average in a roto league.

Matt, I think most of what you're looking for aligns with a points H2H league. Here are how points breakdown in the league that I'm in with that format:
5 - Single
10 - Double
15 - Triple
20 - HR
2.5 - Walk
2.5 - HBP
5 - Run scored
5 - Run batted in
10 - Stolen base
-1 - Strikeout
-2.5 - Caught stealing

I really don't think the format should matter. The only reason for keeping AVG, in any format, is because of tradition, not because it is a better metric.

I mean... in your opinion.

It's the best metric to determine how frequently a guy hits his way on base. OBP and OPS don't tell you that.

The original roto is a 5 x 5 format with Runs, HR, RBI, SB, and AVG. We're not seeing who has the best wRC+ or fWAR in their lineups.

Why is "hitting your way on base", specifically, relevant? As opposed to just getting on base (OBP)?

And, if we're still stuck on "but a single is better than a walk at driving in runs," well, you are already counting RBIs as well.

I'm not proposing to throw everything out and start over, I'm proposing one very specific change.

[mattmitchl44]

FWIW - in terms of scoring categories, I think we should still consider substituting OBP for AVG.

I know AVG is "traditional", but we don't have to be hide bound to tradition. Using AVG and OPS still undervalues walks in comparison to singles. Singles are going to count in AVG and both OPS components (OBP and SLG). Walks only count toward one (the OBP component of OPS).

If we use OBP and OPS, we're at least counting walks twice (OBP and the OBP component of OPS) while still counting singles three times. That seems much more in keeping with their value in the real game.

How about dropping OPS, and adding separate categories for SLG & OBP?

Are you suggesting having AVG, OBP, and SLG (3 categories) instead of AVG and OPS (2 categories)? Or are you saying OBP and SLG instead of AVG and OPS?

Three categories, representing a traditional slash line.

AVG/OBP/SLG

I would say you basically still have the same problem. Singles count in all three categories, walks only count in OBP. If you index that to what we understand reality to be (e.g., the linear weights value of singles vs. walks), singles are only about 30% more valuable as an event than walks.

Just having OBP and OPS (two categories) would make the value of singles (counting three times) vs. walks (counting two times) close to that realistic understanding the value difference between the two.

Okay… if we kill AVG (I am reluctant to do this), how about keeping OPS and adding cumulative categories for Hits and Walks?

I guess you could do different things - but why make it any more complicated than just replacing AVG with OBP?

I mean, if there is one thing "modern baseball" understands, it is that OBP is much more important than AVG. Why not just embrace the simplicity of making that switch?

If we were to truly modernize the league, there would be many more changes to be made. Keeping the traditional 5x5 categories is not merely out of stubborn tradition - it’s also to keep the league accessible to those familiar with that format.

Is a simple swap of OBP for AVG going to make it any more "inaccessible" than adding QS (a rather non-traditional category, I think) already?

We've all been familiar with OBP for, like, forever.

[An Old Friend]

FWIW - in terms of scoring categories, I think we should still consider substituting OBP for AVG.

I know AVG is "traditional", but we don't have to be hide bound to tradition. Using AVG and OPS still undervalues walks in comparison to singles. Singles are going to count in AVG and both OPS components (OBP and SLG). Walks only count toward one (the OBP component of OPS).

If we use OBP and OPS, we're at least counting walks twice (OBP and the OBP component of OPS) while still counting singles three times. That seems much more in keeping with their value in the real game.

How about dropping OPS, and adding separate categories for SLG & OBP?

Are you suggesting having AVG, OBP, and SLG (3 categories) instead of AVG and OPS (2 categories)? Or are you saying OBP and SLG instead of AVG and OPS?

Three categories, representing a traditional slash line.

AVG/OBP/SLG

I would say you basically still have the same problem. Singles count in all three categories, walks only count in OBP. If you index that to what we understand reality to be (e.g., the linear weights value of singles vs. walks), singles are only about 30% more valuable as an event than walks.

Just having OBP and OPS (two categories) would make the value of singles (counting three times) vs. walks (counting two times) close to that realistic understanding the value difference between the two.

I am not in favor of removing batting average in a roto league.

Matt, I think most of what you're looking for aligns with a points H2H league. Here are how points breakdown in the league that I'm in with that format:
5 - Single
10 - Double
15 - Triple
20 - HR
2.5 - Walk
2.5 - HBP
5 - Run scored
5 - Run batted in
10 - Stolen base
-1 - Strikeout
-2.5 - Caught stealing

I really don't think the format should matter. The only reason for keeping AVG, in any format, is because of tradition, not because it is a better metric.

I mean... in your opinion.

It's the best metric to determine how frequently a guy hits his way on base. OBP and OPS don't tell you that.

The original roto is a 5 x 5 format with Runs, HR, RBI, SB, and AVG. We're not seeing who has the best wRC+ or fWAR in their lineups.

Why is "hitting your way on base", specifically, relevant? As opposed to just getting on base (OBP)?

This feels like an odd question. Batting average has always been a thing. Guys win batting titles for having the highest average in the league. It's one of the original back of the baseball card stats.

I don't know how it is 'irrelevant'. Batting average is part of the fabric of baseball AND fantasy baseball.

And, if we're still stuck on "but a single is better than a walk at driving in runs," well, you are already counting RBIs as well.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

I'm not proposing to throw everything out and start over, I'm proposing one very specific change.

I know... I just don't understand why we'd consider throwing that out.

Why not throw out HR if we're counting SLG / OPS? That's a rhetorical question.

[mattmitchl44]

This feels like an odd question. Batting average has always been a thing. Guys win batting titles for having the highest average in the league. It's one of the original back of the baseball card stats.

I don't know how it is 'irrelevant'. Batting average is part of the fabric of baseball AND fantasy baseball.

I think if you simply asked people in baseball, "Of AVG/OBP/SLG, which stat do you think is the least relevant today in terms of evaluating a player?", most everyone would probably say AVG. I doubt many teams play guys specifically because they hit for average, and that is consistent with how much league AVG has dropped over the years. I think they play guys because they get on base (including by walk) and/or hit for power.

Why are we "hunting" for something in fantasy (AVG) that teams don't seem to be hunting for anymore, and not hunting for (OBP) what they are, when the two are similar?

I'm surprised that we have to have any discussion in 2024 about OBP being a more complete measure than AVG. The "fabric" argument is just another statement of "it's traditional so we can't change it."

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

I'm saying that one of the few event advantages of a single over a walk (why you'd value a single more), is because a single can drive in a run in situations where a walk will not. But we are crediting the hitter who may produce more singles than walks in such situations because we already count RBIs. So they are given value for that anyway.

I know... I just don't understand why we'd consider throwing that out.

Because there is just an obvious alternative.

[An Old Friend]

This feels like an odd question. Batting average has always been a thing. Guys win batting titles for having the highest average in the league. It's one of the original back of the baseball card stats.

I don't know how it is 'irrelevant'. Batting average is part of the fabric of baseball AND fantasy baseball.

I think if you simply asked people in baseball, "Of AVG/OBP/SLG, which stat do you think is the least relevant today in terms of evaluating a player?", most everyone would probably say AVG. I doubt many teams play guys specifically because they hit for average, and that is consistent with how much league AVG has dropped over the years. I think they play guys because they get on base (including by walk) and/or hit for power.

So what?

We are talking FANTASY BASEBALL.

I'm surprised that we have to have any discussion in 2024 about OBP being a more complete measure than AVG. The "fabric" argument is just another statement of "it's traditional so we can't change it."

We're not evaluating baseball players. We're building fantasy teams with the goal of compiling the best numbers across a host of categories over the course of the season. We're not trying to win real baseball games.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

I'm saying that one of the few event advantages of a single over a walk (why you'd value a single more), is because a single can drive in a run in situations where a walk will not. But we are crediting the hitter who may produce more singles than walks in such situations because we already count RBIs. So they are given value for that anyway.

I know... I just don't understand why we'd consider throwing that out.

Because there is just an obvious alternative.

Obvious to you... but in the pantheon of fantasy baseball, average has always been a category. Getting rid of it is blasphemous.

I think removing batting average unnecessarily forgives big strikeout guys who live with low batting averages (Adam Dunn, Chris Carter, Kyle Schwarber, etc.) and devalues guys who put the ball in play more often.

I understand why you have your perspective as a baseball fan in general, but not from a fantasy perspective. I'd give zero consideration to eliminating batting average as commish / co-commish.

[mattmitchl44]

This feels like an odd question. Batting average has always been a thing. Guys win batting titles for having the highest average in the league. It's one of the original back of the baseball card stats.

I don't know how it is 'irrelevant'. Batting average is part of the fabric of baseball AND fantasy baseball.

I think if you simply asked people in baseball, "Of AVG/OBP/SLG, which stat do you think is the least relevant today in terms of evaluating a player?", most everyone would probably say AVG. I doubt many teams play guys specifically because they hit for average, and that is consistent with how much league AVG has dropped over the years. I think they play guys because they get on base (including by walk) and/or hit for power.

So what?

We are talking FANTASY BASEBALL.

I'm surprised that we have to have any discussion in 2024 about OBP being a more complete measure than AVG. The "fabric" argument is just another statement of "it's traditional so we can't change it."

We're not evaluating baseball players. We're building fantasy teams with the goal of compiling the best numbers across a host of categories over the course of the season. We're not trying to win real baseball games.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

I'm saying that one of the few event advantages of a single over a walk (why you'd value a single more), is because a single can drive in a run in situations where a walk will not. But we are crediting the hitter who may produce more singles than walks in such situations because we already count RBIs. So they are given value for that anyway.

I know... I just don't understand why we'd consider throwing that out.

Because there is just an obvious alternative.

Obvious to you... but in the pantheon of fantasy baseball, average has always been a category. Getting rid of it is blasphemous.

I think removing batting average unnecessarily forgives big strikeout guys who live with low batting averages (Adam Dunn, Chris Carter, Kyle Schwarber, etc.) and devalues guys who put the ball in play more often.

I understand why you have your perspective as a baseball fan in general, but not from a fantasy perspective. I'd give zero consideration to eliminating batting average as commish / co-commish.

But what we are doing here in fantasy baseball space should be connected to what is happening in the actual game of baseball.

In fantasy baseball, we are trying to collect statistics based on what is happening in actual baseball games.

It only makes sense that what we, in fantasy baseball space, put a priority on trying to collect what the people who run/play actual baseball games are trying to produce. And in 2024 they are trying to produce OBP much more than AVG. We should be trying to "pick up" what they are trying to "put down," so to speak.

And swapping OBP for AVG isn't "getting rid of" AVG, it is just adding to it, as for most players what they do in AVG is like 80% of their OBP anyway. Guys with low AVG are still going to be punished somewhat if you use OBP, unless they are high BB% guys, but we should be crediting them appropriately for being high BB% more than we are.

Why would we just out of "tradition" stick with a metric that causes us to overvalue the "Luis Arraez"s of baseball when we don't have to?

[An Old Friend]

This feels like an odd question. Batting average has always been a thing. Guys win batting titles for having the highest average in the league. It's one of the original back of the baseball card stats.

I don't know how it is 'irrelevant'. Batting average is part of the fabric of baseball AND fantasy baseball.

I think if you simply asked people in baseball, "Of AVG/OBP/SLG, which stat do you think is the least relevant today in terms of evaluating a player?", most everyone would probably say AVG. I doubt many teams play guys specifically because they hit for average, and that is consistent with how much league AVG has dropped over the years. I think they play guys because they get on base (including by walk) and/or hit for power.

So what?

We are talking FANTASY BASEBALL.

I'm surprised that we have to have any discussion in 2024 about OBP being a more complete measure than AVG. The "fabric" argument is just another statement of "it's traditional so we can't change it."

We're not evaluating baseball players. We're building fantasy teams with the goal of compiling the best numbers across a host of categories over the course of the season. We're not trying to win real baseball games.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

I'm saying that one of the few event advantages of a single over a walk (why you'd value a single more), is because a single can drive in a run in situations where a walk will not. But we are crediting the hitter who may produce more singles than walks in such situations because we already count RBIs. So they are given value for that anyway.

I know... I just don't understand why we'd consider throwing that out.

Because there is just an obvious alternative.

Obvious to you... but in the pantheon of fantasy baseball, average has always been a category. Getting rid of it is blasphemous.

I think removing batting average unnecessarily forgives big strikeout guys who live with low batting averages (Adam Dunn, Chris Carter, Kyle Schwarber, etc.) and devalues guys who put the ball in play more often.

I understand why you have your perspective as a baseball fan in general, but not from a fantasy perspective. I'd give zero consideration to eliminating batting average as commish / co-commish.

But what we are doing here in fantasy baseball space should be connected to what is happening in the actual game of baseball.

In fantasy baseball, we are trying to collect statistics based on what is happening in actual baseball games.

It only makes sense that what we, in fantasy baseball space, put a priority on trying to collect what the people who run/play actual baseball games are trying to produce. And in 2024 they are trying to produce OBP much more than AVG. We should be trying to "pick up" what they are trying to "put down," so to speak.

And swapping OBP for AVG isn't "getting rid of" AVG, it is just adding to it, as for most players what they do in AVG is like 80% of their OBP anyway. Guys with low AVG are still going to be punished somewhat if you use OBP, unless they are high BB% guys, but we should be crediting them appropriately for being high BB% more than we are.

Why would we just out of "tradition" stick with a metric that causes us to overvalue the "Luis Arraez"s of baseball when we don't have to?

At what point, then, do you work your way across the categories and notice that we have wins (which causes us to overvalue pitchers on good teams) and saves (not necessarily the best relievers)?

How is that any different than this discussion?

[Quincy Varnish]

At what point, then, do you work your way across the categories and notice that we have wins (which causes us to overvalue pitchers on good teams) and saves (not necessarily the best relievers)?

How is that any different than this discussion?

Matt really hates singles.

[mattmitchl44]

This feels like an odd question. Batting average has always been a thing. Guys win batting titles for having the highest average in the league. It's one of the original back of the baseball card stats.

I don't know how it is 'irrelevant'. Batting average is part of the fabric of baseball AND fantasy baseball.

I think if you simply asked people in baseball, "Of AVG/OBP/SLG, which stat do you think is the least relevant today in terms of evaluating a player?", most everyone would probably say AVG. I doubt many teams play guys specifically because they hit for average, and that is consistent with how much league AVG has dropped over the years. I think they play guys because they get on base (including by walk) and/or hit for power.

So what?

We are talking FANTASY BASEBALL.

I'm surprised that we have to have any discussion in 2024 about OBP being a more complete measure than AVG. The "fabric" argument is just another statement of "it's traditional so we can't change it."

We're not evaluating baseball players. We're building fantasy teams with the goal of compiling the best numbers across a host of categories over the course of the season. We're not trying to win real baseball games.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

I'm saying that one of the few event advantages of a single over a walk (why you'd value a single more), is because a single can drive in a run in situations where a walk will not. But we are crediting the hitter who may produce more singles than walks in such situations because we already count RBIs. So they are given value for that anyway.

I know... I just don't understand why we'd consider throwing that out.

Because there is just an obvious alternative.

Obvious to you... but in the pantheon of fantasy baseball, average has always been a category. Getting rid of it is blasphemous.

I think removing batting average unnecessarily forgives big strikeout guys who live with low batting averages (Adam Dunn, Chris Carter, Kyle Schwarber, etc.) and devalues guys who put the ball in play more often.

I understand why you have your perspective as a baseball fan in general, but not from a fantasy perspective. I'd give zero consideration to eliminating batting average as commish / co-commish.

But what we are doing here in fantasy baseball space should be connected to what is happening in the actual game of baseball.

In fantasy baseball, we are trying to collect statistics based on what is happening in actual baseball games.

It only makes sense that what we, in fantasy baseball space, put a priority on trying to collect what the people who run/play actual baseball games are trying to produce. And in 2024 they are trying to produce OBP much more than AVG. We should be trying to "pick up" what they are trying to "put down," so to speak.

And swapping OBP for AVG isn't "getting rid of" AVG, it is just adding to it, as for most players what they do in AVG is like 80% of their OBP anyway. Guys with low AVG are still going to be punished somewhat if you use OBP, unless they are high BB% guys, but we should be crediting them appropriately for being high BB% more than we are.

Why would we just out of "tradition" stick with a metric that causes us to overvalue the "Luis Arraez"s of baseball when we don't have to?

At what point, then, do you work your way across the categories and notice that we have wins (which causes us to overvalue pitchers on good teams) and saves (not necessarily the best relievers)?

How is that any different than this discussion?

Again, I'm not proposing to upend everything. I'm talking about one, very specific substitution - OBP for AVG. And, as already stated, using OBP does not do away with AVG, as most players' AVGs are a large component of their OBPs. By using OBP you are ADDING TO AVG, not subtracting from it.

If you want to have a conversation about adding "holds" as a compliment to "saves," that's a different discussion that could be had. If you had the capability to have a category something like "0.5 * Holds + Saves," maybe that would be something to think about given the emphasis today being put on deeper bullpens to pitch more middle relief innings and their importance.

I think you've already recognized the accuracy of what I'm saying with respect to actual baseball games. Why do we need to be more rigid/traditional in our fantasy baseball thinking than what we are when it comes to discussing actual baseball?

[mattmitchl44]

At what point, then, do you work your way across the categories and notice that we have wins (which causes us to overvalue pitchers on good teams) and saves (not necessarily the best relievers)?

How is that any different than this discussion?

Matt really hates singles.

No, the point really is to value walks more appropriately.

[Quincy Varnish]

Again, I'm not proposing to upend everything. I'm talking about one, very specific substitution - OBP for AVG. And, as already stated, using OBP does not do away with AVG, as most players' AVGs are a large component of their OBPs. By using OBP you are ADDING TO AVG, not subtracting from it.

If you want to have a conversation about adding "holds" as a compliment to "saves," that's a different discussion that could be had. If you had the capability to have a category something like "0.5 * Holds + Saves," maybe that would be something to think about given the emphasis today being put on deeper bullpens to pitch more middle relief innings and their importance.

I think you've already recognized the accuracy of what I'm saying with respect to actual baseball games. Why do we need to be more rigid/traditional in our fantasy baseball thinking than what we are when it comes to discussing actual baseball?

Perhaps a reminder is needed - this IS Cards Talk fantasy baseball

[mattmitchl44]

Again, I'm not proposing to upend everything. I'm talking about one, very specific substitution - OBP for AVG. And, as already stated, using OBP does not do away with AVG, as most players' AVGs are a large component of their OBPs. By using OBP you are ADDING TO AVG, not subtracting from it.

If you want to have a conversation about adding "holds" as a compliment to "saves," that's a different discussion that could be had. If you had the capability to have a category something like "0.5 * Holds + Saves," maybe that would be something to think about given the emphasis today being put on deeper bullpens to pitch more middle relief innings and their importance.

I think you've already recognized the accuracy of what I'm saying with respect to actual baseball games. Why do we need to be more rigid/traditional in our fantasy baseball thinking than what we are when it comes to discussing actual baseball?

Perhaps a reminder is needed - this IS Cards Talk fantasy baseball

I do feel like most of the people, both you and AOF included obviously, who want to participate in the fantasy league are smarter than the average bear when it comes to a modern recognition of what goes into actual winning baseball in 2024. Which is why this particular conversation about hanging onto "traditional values" so perplexes me.

If, like, CardsFan4Life were dying on this hill, I'd say it was in character. Not so much the two of you, however.

[Quincy Varnish]

Again, I'm not proposing to upend everything. I'm talking about one, very specific substitution - OBP for AVG. And, as already stated, using OBP does not do away with AVG, as most players' AVGs are a large component of their OBPs. By using OBP you are ADDING TO AVG, not subtracting from it.

If you want to have a conversation about adding "holds" as a compliment to "saves," that's a different discussion that could be had. If you had the capability to have a category something like "0.5 * Holds + Saves," maybe that would be something to think about given the emphasis today being put on deeper bullpens to pitch more middle relief innings and their importance.

I think you've already recognized the accuracy of what I'm saying with respect to actual baseball games. Why do we need to be more rigid/traditional in our fantasy baseball thinking than what we are when it comes to discussing actual baseball?

Perhaps a reminder is needed - this IS Cards Talk fantasy baseball

I do feel like most of the people, both you and AOF included obviously, who want to participate in the fantasy league are smarter than the average bear when it comes to a modern recognition of what goes into actual winning baseball in 2024. Which is why this particular conversation about hanging onto "traditional values" so perplexes me.

If, like, CardsFan4Life were dying on this hill, I'd say it was in character. Not so much the two of you, however.

I’m not dying on any hill… I’ve even proposed an alternate plan that would include OBP.

The league was formed with the intention of preserving the original 5x5 roto categories, and I’m inclined to keep it that way. I’m open to adding on, but I think it needs to be done thoughtfully.

How about adding additional categories for BB & XBH?

[mattmitchl44]

Again, I'm not proposing to upend everything. I'm talking about one, very specific substitution - OBP for AVG. And, as already stated, using OBP does not do away with AVG, as most players' AVGs are a large component of their OBPs. By using OBP you are ADDING TO AVG, not subtracting from it.

If you want to have a conversation about adding "holds" as a compliment to "saves," that's a different discussion that could be had. If you had the capability to have a category something like "0.5 * Holds + Saves," maybe that would be something to think about given the emphasis today being put on deeper bullpens to pitch more middle relief innings and their importance.

I think you've already recognized the accuracy of what I'm saying with respect to actual baseball games. Why do we need to be more rigid/traditional in our fantasy baseball thinking than what we are when it comes to discussing actual baseball?

Perhaps a reminder is needed - this IS Cards Talk fantasy baseball

I do feel like most of the people, both you and AOF included obviously, who want to participate in the fantasy league are smarter than the average bear when it comes to a modern recognition of what goes into actual winning baseball in 2024. Which is why this particular conversation about hanging onto "traditional values" so perplexes me.

If, like, CardsFan4Life were dying on this hill, I'd say it was in character. Not so much the two of you, however.

I’m not dying on any hill… I’ve even proposed an alternate plan that would include OBP.

The league was formed with the intention of preserving the original 5x5 roto categories, and I’m inclined to keep it that way. I’m open to adding on, but I think it needs to be done thoughtfully.

How about adding additional categories for BB & XBH?

I stick with my original recommendation - I think just substituting OBP for AVG is the least intrusive way of making a change, inasmuch as AVG is like ~80% of OBP anyway. Call it "AVG+" rather than "OBP" if it feels better.

Having BB as their own category is probably too much.

[An Old Friend]

Again, I'm not proposing to upend everything. I'm talking about one, very specific substitution - OBP for AVG. And, as already stated, using OBP does not do away with AVG, as most players' AVGs are a large component of their OBPs. By using OBP you are ADDING TO AVG, not subtracting from it.

If you want to have a conversation about adding "holds" as a compliment to "saves," that's a different discussion that could be had. If you had the capability to have a category something like "0.5 * Holds + Saves," maybe that would be something to think about given the emphasis today being put on deeper bullpens to pitch more middle relief innings and their importance.

I think you've already recognized the accuracy of what I'm saying with respect to actual baseball games. Why do we need to be more rigid/traditional in our fantasy baseball thinking than what we are when it comes to discussing actual baseball?

Perhaps a reminder is needed - this IS Cards Talk fantasy baseball

I do feel like most of the people, both you and AOF included obviously, who want to participate in the fantasy league are smarter than the average bear when it comes to a modern recognition of what goes into actual winning baseball in 2024. Which is why this particular conversation about hanging onto "traditional values" so perplexes me.

If, like, CardsFan4Life were dying on this hill, I'd say it was in character. Not so much the two of you, however.

I’m not dying on any hill… I’ve even proposed an alternate plan that would include OBP.

The league was formed with the intention of preserving the original 5x5 roto categories, and I’m inclined to keep it that way. I’m open to adding on, but I think it needs to be done thoughtfully.

How about adding additional categories for BB & XBH?

I just added you back as co-commish but it doesn't look like we can adjust settings yet. I'm not sure what all categories are available but it feels like there are a billion to choose from these days.

To Matt's compliment about baseball acumen... noted and appreciated... trying to think of a good analogy... I like older video games like Tecmo Super Bowl, Super Mario Bros 3, Mario Kart... I used to be super into Madden (pre-marriage / kids / life getting actual busy), and the newer ones on PS5 are so complex that they're not as fun. I like the simplicity of fantasy baseball.

[mattmitchl44]

Again, I'm not proposing to upend everything. I'm talking about one, very specific substitution - OBP for AVG. And, as already stated, using OBP does not do away with AVG, as most players' AVGs are a large component of their OBPs. By using OBP you are ADDING TO AVG, not subtracting from it.

If you want to have a conversation about adding "holds" as a compliment to "saves," that's a different discussion that could be had. If you had the capability to have a category something like "0.5 * Holds + Saves," maybe that would be something to think about given the emphasis today being put on deeper bullpens to pitch more middle relief innings and their importance.

I think you've already recognized the accuracy of what I'm saying with respect to actual baseball games. Why do we need to be more rigid/traditional in our fantasy baseball thinking than what we are when it comes to discussing actual baseball?

Perhaps a reminder is needed - this IS Cards Talk fantasy baseball

I do feel like most of the people, both you and AOF included obviously, who want to participate in the fantasy league are smarter than the average bear when it comes to a modern recognition of what goes into actual winning baseball in 2024. Which is why this particular conversation about hanging onto "traditional values" so perplexes me.

If, like, CardsFan4Life were dying on this hill, I'd say it was in character. Not so much the two of you, however.

I’m not dying on any hill… I’ve even proposed an alternate plan that would include OBP.

The league was formed with the intention of preserving the original 5x5 roto categories, and I’m inclined to keep it that way. I’m open to adding on, but I think it needs to be done thoughtfully.

How about adding additional categories for BB & XBH?

I just added you back as co-commish but it doesn't look like we can adjust settings yet. I'm not sure what all categories are available but it feels like there are a billion to choose from these days.

To Matt's compliment about baseball acumen... noted and appreciated... trying to think of a good analogy... I like older video games like Tecmo Super Bowl, Super Mario Bros 3, Mario Kart... I used to be super into Madden (pre-marriage / kids / life getting actual busy), and the newer ones on PS5 are so complex that they're not as fun. I like the simplicity of fantasy baseball.

I do appreciate the point you are making.

My response to that is that I really don't think OBP instead of AVG complicates anything. Basically you can find and understand OBP just as readily as AVG. I think we all understand OBP as readily as AVG.

If I were proposing something much more esoteric, like wOBA, instead of AVG then I'd wholeheartedly agree that that is a completely different level of complexity and not a realistic proposal for most people to necessarily work with.