|KNIP: The New Saves|
|Written by Todd Zola|
|Friday, 18 May 2012 00:46|
OK, so this is rather embarrassing. I set up this whole “homework assignment” and it turns out I messed up the data a little. If you have not seen it, I posted a series of five pitcher rankings based on last season’s final stats and asked for opinions as to which list was favored with respect to how pitchers should be ranked for fantasy purposes. I have fixed the list, so if you took the time to go through them, I apologize. Everyone, please take a moment to look at the corrected lists, with the second series of names being the one that is changed. Of note is where relievers now fall, please click HERE.
For those that picked the second, do you still feel that way?
Here’s the deal. We all know how wacky this season has been with respect to closers. Even before this season. many leagues have addressed the issue by incorporating holds in different machinations. Three of these are included on the list, and for the record, I play in a league that uses each one.
But I have an issue with that. I think holds are every bit as suspect as a stat as saves, perhaps even more so. It is still up to a manager’s whim and is just an artificial means of attempting to reduce the randomness relievers are awarded the closer role. Now, that same randomness extends to the set up guys.
Perhaps the main reason I don’t like using both saves and holds is they violate what I feel is a basic tenet of the way fantasy baseball should be played. It is my opinion that the game should consist of the following:
The use of saves and holds violates the top line. Projecting saves and holds is a complete crapshoot. I hate to sound cliché, but there is no skill to assigning saves and holds. Granted, one can argue there is some degree of logic, but even that is more common sense and not based on anything analytical, derived from projection theory.
And to anticipate those that (correctly) point out that there is a degree of this logic and common sense outside of projection theory when it comes to projecting wins, RBI and runs, you are right. That said, to me anyway, saves and holds are at another level of being whimsical. Better pitchers with better offenses and good bullpens should get more wins. Players hitting first and second should score more runs while those hitting after should get more RBI. Yes, these are all team-dependent, but they are less subject to the manager’s mood than setup men and closers. Lineups are designed based on the skills of the hitters. Rotations are constructed based on skills of the pitchers. Bullpens, however, are not always organized based on skills.
You know the expression “don’t come to me with a problem unless you have a solution?” Well, here’s the solution.
What skill is the most important for a pitcher? Shouldn’t this be what we use as a fantasy category? In my not so humble opinion, this skill is K/9. I know that no single skill is the be all end all, but if you had to use one skill as an initial filter and you were not allowed to use multiple, my choice would be K/9. Therefore, my ideal scoring system uses K/9.
I realize an argument can be made that K/BB is arguably better and maybe it is. But from a fantasy baseball perspective, walks are already accounted for in WHIP, so having K/9 replace saves is my first suggestion.
Uh oh, now we have K/9 and K’s as categories, we can’t have that. So here is what we do. Replace strikeouts with innings pitched. Think about it, this is representative of a pitcher’s skill, or at minimum, reflective of the pitcher’s contribution to his MLB team. Pitchers should be rewarded for the simple fact they threw an inning. Yeah, I know, batters don’t get credit for every at-bat, but in general, they don’t get pulled from the game if they are struggling either.
This makes my ideal 5x5 scoring system W, IP, ERA, WHIP, K/9. OK, maybe this is not ideal as there are still some issues with W and even ERA, but we are having a hard enough of a time getting leagues to recognize on-base percentage is superior than batting average, how the heck can we get them to use QS and xFIP in roto-scoring? Let’s crawl before we walk.
For those that doubt I can get the fantasy community to listen, guess who used what is now called the KDS draft spot designation process five years before the National Fantasy Baseball Championships revolutionized draft slot assignment? I’ll give you a hint; he’s the same guy that pestered the Tout Wars LLC for five years before they finally agreed to convert an outfielder spot to a swing position, capable of being filled by a pitcher or hitter – that’s right, THIS GUY.
Let’s reveal the scoring systems used for the five sets of rankings and I again apologize for botching them.
As alluded to in the beginning, the telltale aspect of the K/9+IP list is the absence of a reliever until Craig Kimbrel at #36. Even more relevant is the subsequent order of relievers, which is a far better measure of the player’s skills and contributions. Here is just the reliever ranking within each list. Do you feel the relative rank is more representative than in standard scoring?
The 400-pound gorilla of this idea is Mariano Rivera. He checks in at #28 among relievers. Is Al Alburquerque really a better pitcher than Mo? But you can’t have it both ways. Either saves are meaningful or they are not. Well, that’s not exactly true. Maybe this is just a jumping off point and the wins category is altered to include saves.
After all, there is a reason they call this fantasy baseball.
|Last Updated on Friday, 18 May 2012 06:38|