STLtoday.com

Fun stuff. Thanks for planting the seed and watering the plant. I had a lot of fun following baseball this year until the school year took over my remaining free time.

I’d do it again. I really don’t have many qualms. I hadn’t done a season-long stat collection and had some fun with the strategy. I don’t think I was ever successful in initiating a trade, but still had some good discussions and back & forth interactions.

Mega cred to whatashame. You earned it. We had a hard time connecting on trades, but I give you a lot of credit for working with it. Mega cred to Quincy for keeping the trade training rolling. I believe that lead to the league-wide activity. Mega cred to An Old Friend for driving the idea to start a league.

I’m leaving people out, but if you were active throughout the whole year and participated in baseball discussions, you helped make this a very fun 6 months

Lots of highs & lows. Perfect mix to keep it interesting. Let’s do it again!

Final comment. Screw you beth, you data deleting dork

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑01 Oct 2024 07:10 am

Dazepster wrote: ↑01 Oct 2024 06:57 am5SP
2RP
4 Pitching Utility Spots. Use as you see fit.

That the jist of it?

The innings limit troubles me. I ran out a sizable bullpen for a fair portion of the season chasing Saves and Cheap Wins. Ran right up to the Innings limit and lost out on many a solid start in trying to avoid tripping it.

So why lower. You tripped it as well I believe.

The limit in most league is 1400. That’s also around where most major league leans end up. In such a deep league, it’s a chore to reach the limit without streaming scrub starters from the bottom of the barrel. 1500 IP would be more than enough for 6-7 starters and a full bullpen.

Yeah, it was grind.

If you had 7 SP "slots" with relatively solid SPs making 200 total starts at 6 innings per start, getting to 1200 IP there and then filling in another 350 with closers/high leverage RPs would be at least possible.

But when we have an average of less than 5 1/3 IP per start, losing 70, 80, 100 innings there left many scrambling to try to get innings pitched.

Congrats to everyone who participated. I have never been a part of a 15 team league before so I found that challenging. A lot more players were brought into the mix. Quincy, AOF and whomever else was responsible for putting this together, nicely done. I don’t know that I know anyone any better but it does kind of put a pseudo face to a lot of the CT community.

Don’t make too many changes to the format. Tweaking the innings pitched max could be a thought. I would consider a spot or two for the N/A players. Making this a keeper league is a thought but I would keep it to just one keeper, two max. I have been in leagues where as many as 5 keepers were used and in a 15 team league you are tying up a lot of players.

Maybe some day we could consider a get together so we could actually put faces to names. That might be interesting.

I thought things went pretty smoothly considering the amount of movement in the league. Of all the trades made, there was only one trade vetoed, which later went through. Most everyone was pretty fair to deal with. Didn’t always see eye to eye on value but that’s a part of it.

Again, thanks to most everyone for participating for the whole year. It certainly made the whole league more interesting.

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.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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?

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 06:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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?

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:41 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 06:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:44 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:41 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 06:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:58 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:44 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:41 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 06:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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?

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:58 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:44 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:41 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 06:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 09:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:58 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:44 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:41 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 06:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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?

An Old Friend wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 09:47 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:58 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:44 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:41 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 06:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 10:52 am

An Old Friend wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 09:47 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:58 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:44 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:41 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 06:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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.

When is The Draft???

Dazepster wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 11:13 am When is The Draft???

Hehe… sometime in March. I can’t even schedule it yet.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 10:51 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 09:45 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:58 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:44 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 08:41 am

Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑29 Nov 2024 06:41 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 04:57 am 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.