Saves + Holds

[kawaise]

Our local AL-only 4x4 keeper league is in the process of moving to a 5x5 league next year. We've agreed to add Runs as a hitting category and Strike Outs as a pitching category.

We are debating on changing the Saves category to some sort of combination of Saves + Holds. We are tired of throwing money at saves that may or may not be there OR some team getting lucky and picking one or two players off of the free agent market that get many saves and end up drastically changing the league race. Nate Jones, for example, was bought for $16 at auction this year, while someone picked up Fernando Rodney from the scrap heap three years ago and is still riding that magic carpet.

The majority of the league is in favor of the change, however, we are trying to figure out the best combination. Some are in favor of simply SvH, while others favor a combination that gives more weight to Saves (either 3 times Saves + 2 times Holds or 2 times Saves + Holds).

Do you have experience using some sort of combination of Saves and Holds? If so, do you give more weight to Saves?

[bryanbutler]

my main league uses SV - BS + Ho/2. we're happy with it. it rewards the premium closers the most, then premium setup guys, then the mediocre closers, then the crappy closers (who get punished for the blown saves). mediocre setup guys are dangerous as hell, as they are lightning rods for blown saves.

[cardboardbox]

My keeper switched to Sv+H and I dont really like it. I like the idea of 2xSaves + Holds.

If you have daily trans, closers become even less valuable.

[onejayhawk]

I would think 2xHolds + Sv.

J

[bryanbutler]

yeah, i don't like SV + Ho at all. undervalues closers and overvalues setup guys. JWRL had that category, i think...

[Weapon1]

Played with holds a couple of years, didn't like it. Seems just as random as saves sometimes, and they are always available on the free agent list.

[bryanbutler]

Played with holds a couple of years, didn't like it. Seems just as random as saves sometimes, and they are always available on the free agent list.

agree it's random. the rule is actually even more cryptic than saves. but disagree that they're always available. not the good ones. unless you've got league-mates that don't understand how it works.

[Weapon1]

agree it's random. the rule is actually even more cryptic than saves. but disagree that they're always available. not the good ones. unless you've got league-mates that don't understand how it works.

As of today, 10 players in MLB have more than 15 holds. 50 have between 10 and 15. Some of those definitely have poor ERA and Ratio. But that begs the question, for example, how did Brian Wilson get credited with 15 holds?

[Andrewski]

yeah, i don't like SV + Ho at all. undervalues closers and overvalues setup guys. JWRL had that category, i think...

This. The relief pitcher slots almost seem like a waste since there are SO MANY use-able players.

[kawaise]

[QUOTE=Andrewski;194503]This. The relief pitcher slots almost seem like a waste since there are SO MANY use-able players.[/QUOTE

Agreed, but we want to put something in place that devalues "closers" however. There is always clamoring over the turnover in that position (just a little more than 1/2 of the MLB teams currently have the closer that they started the season with). There can be so much luck when finding a closer - as well as wasted money. The more I play the game the more I more closely follow the adage of not paying for saves (and in some leagues I simply punt the category).

[bryanbutler]

As of today, 10 players in MLB have more than 15 holds. 50 have between 10 and 15. Some of those definitely have poor ERA and Ratio. But that begs the question, for example, how did Brian Wilson get credited with 15 holds?

yeah, that's the key. the good ones have good ERA and WHIP, and will help in those cats. plenty of holds to go around, but careful with that axe, eugene, as your rate cats may suffer.

again, valuing holds at half saves is a good compromise, i think. whether to include blown saves; YMMV.

[cavebird]

I agree with the attempt to devalue saves. And adding holds would do it. However, it then overvales holds, which are beyond a silly stat. You can come in, suck, not get anyone out, and still get a hold. Hell, someone got a hold and a loss for the Tigers last night because he came in for a save situation and left while it was still a save situation but all the baserunners he left on later scored what turned out to be the winning runs.

[kawaise]

I agree with the attempt to devalue saves. And adding holds would do it. However, it then overvales holds, which are beyond a silly stat. You can come in, suck, not get anyone out, and still get a hold. Hell, someone got a hold and a loss for the Tigers last night because he came in for a save situation and left while it was still a save situation but all the baserunners he left on later scored what turned out to be the winning runs.

So what's the answer? Go radical and totally do away with any relief pitching categories? There is some value in those quality set-up men as well as premium closers. However, I think the cost is too much.

I think the change to 5x5 (from 4x4) in itself will devalue saves, as now it'll only be 1/10th of the point total as opposed to 1/8th of the point total. There may be some owners who've played 10+ years or who've always coveted closers that may be slow to realize this fact - but that'd be a competitive advantage that some owners would have.

[bryanbutler]

W are wonky.

SV are wonky.

just because Ho are a wonky stat doesn't mean they should be completely avoided. making them half the value of SV is a good compromise, IMHO.

[kawaise]

W are wonky.

Agreed.

We are currently discussing the merits of changing Wins to Quality Starts.

Thoughts? Now I'm hijacking my own thread ....