Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thoughts on proposed scoring changes in H2H league

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thoughts on proposed scoring changes in H2H league

    14 team 5x5 H2H league with standard cats. It's a keep forever league with 4 mandatory keepers and up to 4 late round keepers.

    We are voting on the following changes:

    1. Change from BA to OBP
    2. Change from SV to SV+HLD

    I've never been in a league with other. Would you vote Yay or Nay and why?

    Ottawa Triple Eh's | P.I.M.P.S. | 14 team keep forever
    Champions 16,21 | Runner up 17,19-20

    The FOS (retired) | MTARBL | 12 team AL 5x5
    Champions 01,05,17 | Runner up 13-15,20

  • #2
    BA to OBA tends to favor power, which is already a concern. That said, it's closer to RL baseball.

    I have been in multiple Sv+H leagues. No problem with that switch. It tends to shift RP focus to total Ks. As a footnote, PitcherList does a Sv+H ranking once a week during the season.

    J
    Ad Astra per Aspera

    Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

    GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

    Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

    I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

    Comment


    • #3
      I like both changes, but if possible, Savesx2+holds may be even better. Gives value to holds, so opens up the talent pool, but still favors closers, which is more like tradional leagues and still fund to chase saves/closers.

      Comment


      • #4
        We changed to solds (saves + holds) last year and While I thought I would like it, I really didn't. Adding the holds in there makes it almost too easy to compete, and to make up ground.
        "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
        - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

        "Your shitty future continues to offend me."
        -Warren Ellis

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
          I like both changes, but if possible, Savesx2+holds may be even better. Gives value to holds, so opens up the talent pool, but still favors closers, which is more like tradional leagues and still fund to chase saves/closers.
          I tend to go the other direction and do net saves + holds.

          Originally posted by Hornsby View Post
          We changed to solds (saves + holds) last year and While I thought I would like it, I really didn't. Adding the holds in there makes it almost too easy to compete, and to make up ground.
          It is easier to find talent cheap. That takes getting used to.
          Ad Astra per Aspera

          Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

          GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

          Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

          I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

          Comment


          • #6
            Like the OBP switch, don’t like S+H. As Horns noted, the RP part of the pool essentially all turns into endgame plays, with a handful of exceptions the have great ratios and get tons of Ks (Josh Hader, for example).
            I'm just here for the baseball.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by chancellor View Post
              Like the OBP switch, don’t like S+H. As Horns noted, the RP part of the pool essentially all turns into endgame plays, with a handful of exceptions the have great ratios and get tons of Ks (Josh Hader, for example).
              Agreed.

              We went to OBP a few years ago and it has been fine.

              We voted down holds for reasons stated above.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by virgonomic View Post
                14 team 5x5 H2H league with standard cats. It's a keep forever league with 4 mandatory keepers and up to 4 late round keepers.

                We are voting on the following changes:

                1. Change from BA to OBP
                2. Change from SV to SV+HLD

                I've never been in a league with other. Would you vote Yay or Nay and why?
                we went to on base % about 10 years ago, never looked back.

                starting in 2021, we are going saves + holdsx3.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Art Vandelay View Post
                  we went to on base % about 10 years ago, never looked back.

                  starting in 2021, we are going saves + holdsx3.
                  What is the logic of making holds 3 x more valuable than saves?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sour Masher View Post
                    What is the logic of making holds 3 x more valuable than saves?
                    ooops, my bad...I wrote it backwards.

                    save is worth three times more than a hold.

                    save times 3 + hold

                    a gm in our league already has exposure to saves and holds and said his league went through a couple of iterations before settling on this formula.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Art Vandelay View Post
                      ooops, my bad...I wrote it backwards.

                      save is worth three times more than a hold.

                      save times 3 + hold

                      a gm in our league already has exposure to saves and holds and said his league went through a couple of iterations before settling on this formula.
                      Yeah, I think 2x is best, but 3x works. Still gives a bit more value to the elite non-closers, which is nice.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think the best mix between saves and holds depends on whether it is a weekly or daily league. If it is weekly, you can do it 1-1 (because closers get more saves than MR's get holds) or 2-1. 3-1 is probably necessary for daily leagues. The reason (that I have learned the hard way in revo's online league the last two years, lol) is that when it is weekly, you can't just go cheap on relievers and make it up with a bulk of MR's without killing yourself in K's and W's. In daily leagues, you can do that much more easily.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cavebird View Post
                          I think the best mix between saves and holds depends on whether it is a weekly or daily league. If it is weekly, you can do it 1-1 (because closers get more saves than MR's get holds) or 2-1. 3-1 is probably necessary for daily leagues. The reason (that I have learned the hard way in revo's online league the last two years, lol) is that when it is weekly, you can't just go cheap on relievers and make it up with a bulk of MR's without killing yourself in K's and W's. In daily leagues, you can do that much more easily.
                          Good consideration. It's daily.

                          Ottawa Triple Eh's | P.I.M.P.S. | 14 team keep forever
                          Champions 16,21 | Runner up 17,19-20

                          The FOS (retired) | MTARBL | 12 team AL 5x5
                          Champions 01,05,17 | Runner up 13-15,20

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Since it's daily, I would go at least 2-1---and I think 3-1 would be better. Too much streaming in daily.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This is why I like leagues with transaction limits. Streaming is not an option if you have 30 adds for a whole season.
                              Ad Astra per Aspera

                              Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy

                              GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler

                              Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues

                              I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X