Rule Vote 1
Pitching Staff Scoring (PSS)
The dynamic of MLB pitching continues to evolve. The early 2000's saw
MLB average ERA well over 4.00, then dropped below 4.00 in the 2010's,
now back to well over 4.00 (2022 season being a lone outlier). We
previously made a huge change in 2019 after the top 7 pitching staffs
outscored all position players by a significant amount in 2018. The
change worked well and returned pitching scoring to the desired levels.
The desired level has been that a few top pitching staffs may outperform
position players, but the majority of top pitching staffs are
comparable to top position players. In 2023 we saw a completely
different result unlike any fantasy season before. Only one pitching
staff scored in the top 10 of all players, only 4 in the overall top
25.
This led to some frustration among owners. Was this a one year anomaly?
Is this just the randomness of baseball? So I spent time trying to
evaluate what happened and what was the root cause of the frustration. I
looked at MLB averages, how our scoring system reflects that and how
it all translates to the fantasy results.
Another concern I looked at was the high negative pitching staff scores.
We have limited negative scores in other fantasy leagues, but baseball
still has the potential for as much as -6 pitching staff score. That can
really be detrimental to a team in a game or the week.
NOTE: My focus in evaluating changes was on ER, Strikeouts, Hits,
Walks and HBP only. No changes to wins, saves, complete games or no
hitter/perfect game bonus.
After a week's long evaluation I asked myself, what is the desired
pitching goal? Getting a strikeout is the ultimate pitching goal. I
began to feel we are not properly rewarding what good pitching is. What
is good pitching? For me, good pitching is throwing strikes, limiting
the amount of hits/runs and getting strikeouts. A pitcher that throws
strikes (the desired goal) will ultimately allow some hits/runs, that is
just part of baseball. Bad pitching is not throwing strikes and allowing
walks and HBP.
Based on what good vs bad pitching is, I explored separating hits from
walk/HBP allowed. On Fantrax we can create three separate categories
(hits, walks, HBP), but there is not a walks/HBP combined category. I
created the separate tiers for the three categories. I also tweaked the
strikeouts tiers to reflect the current MLB average of 8.7 per game as
the 2023 scoring system started at 10 strikeouts to get 1 point.
I ran over 30 simulations using common pitching lines. My goal was to
increase pitching staff scoring over 2023, but not to go back to 2018
extremely high levels. My early simulations with "logical changes"
didn't go well. It actually made pitching scoring higher than it was in
2018. That is not what we want to do!
I kept at it for a week and finally tweaked things to what I hope is an
appropriate level. The final simulations with my
proposed changes show an average game score for the 5 separate
categories (ER, Hits, Walks, HBP and Strikeouts) as follows:
2024 3.5
2023 2.4
2018 4.3
While I feel my simulations do provide a reasonable expectation,
baseball is also very random. There is no guarantee it will actually
work as desired, just as there always is with changes we make. (some
good, some not as much!) That is why we keep tweaking things and will
continue to do so in future years.
Here is the proposed changes to the 2024 pitching staff scoring
compared to 2023 and 2018:
|
2024 |
|
2023 |
|
2018 |
|
|
ER |
Pts |
ER |
Pts |
ER |
Pts |
|
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
5 |
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
|
5-6 |
-1 |
5-6 |
-1 |
5 |
0 |
|
7+ |
-2 |
7-8 |
-2 |
6-7 |
-1 |
|
|
|
9+ |
-3 |
8-9 |
-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
10-11 |
-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
12+ |
-4 |
|
2024 |
2023 |
|
2018 |
|
|
Hits |
Pts |
BB |
Pts |
HBP |
Pts |
H/BB/HBP |
Pts |
H/BB/HBP |
Pts |
|
0-1 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
7 |
|
2-3 |
4 |
1-2 |
1 |
1-2 |
-1 |
1 |
6 |
1-2 |
6 |
|
4-5 |
3 |
3-4 |
0 |
3+ |
-2 |
2-3 |
5 |
3-4 |
5 |
|
6-7 |
2 |
5-6 |
-1 |
|
|
4-5 |
4 |
5-6 |
4 |
|
8-9 |
1 |
7+ |
-2 |
|
|
6-7 |
3 |
7-8 |
3 |
|
10 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
8-9 |
2 |
9-10 |
2 |
|
11-14 |
-1 |
|
|
|
|
10-11 |
1 |
11-12 |
1 |
|
15+ |
-2 |
|
|
|
|
12 |
0 |
13 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-14 |
-1 |
14-15 |
-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-16 |
-2 |
16-17 |
-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17+ |
-3 |
18-19 |
-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20+ |
-4 |
|
2024 |
|
2023 |
|
2018 |
|
|
K's |
Pts |
K's |
Pts |
K's |
Pts |
|
19+ |
6 |
20+ |
6 |
22+ |
6 |
|
17-18 |
5 |
18-19 |
5 |
19-21 |
5 |
|
15-16 |
4 |
16-17 |
4 |
16-18 |
4 |
|
13-14 |
3 |
14-15 |
3 |
13-15 |
3 |
|
11-12 |
2 |
12-13 |
2 |
10-12 |
2 |
|
8-10 |
1 |
10-11 |
1 |
7-9 |
1 |
RULE VOTE 1
A) Keep 2023 Pitching Staff Scoring system
B) Change to new 2024 Pitching Staff Scoring
system
VOTE 2 (FA)
Free Agent Add/Drop Moves Week 1
Our current rule is we only allow IL moves during
week 1. The first day to make a free agent add/drop move is Monday of
week 2. This has created frustration for owners as often the prime early
season free agents are often gone by the time we get to the first day to
make a free agent add/drop move. Teams are "penalized" for not having an
IL eligible player and being able to claim a free agent during week 1.
Teams are allowed to use a free agent claimed in a week 1 IL move in
their week 1 weekend lineup, another advantage providing frustration.
This rule has always been in place in our leagues.
The reason behind it has been that we wanted to wait until week 1
results are posted before determining priority for claims. Trying to
reward teams that have a bad week 1 (whether they scored bad or just had
an opponent score really well) while allowing IL moves all week 1 seems
a bit contradictory and outdated.
Considering how engaged our owners are, I see no
reason to make teams wait a full week to make a free agent add/drop move
while other teams are making IL moves all week. A change would give all
teams that same chance to improve their team in week 1, not just through
IL moves.
The proposed change is as follows:
1) Teams that draft an IL eligible player would
be allowed to replace them the day after the draft.
2) Free agent add/drop moves would be allowed
starting the next day (two days after the draft)
3) Priority for all claims after the draft and
during week 1 would be in order of the player drafted. The higher
drafted player would be the higher priority.
RULE VOTE 2
A) Keep the current rule, no free agent
add/drop moves during week 1.
B) Change rule to allow free agent
add/drop moves during week 1
Our current rule is all players dropped in a
transaction remain on waivers for 2 days before they can be claimed
as a free agent. This rule has been in place for a long time. The
reason was so owners had time to see players dropped and decide
whether to make a claim. It came from a mindset of not every owner
checks things every day.
As we have discussed multiple times over the
years, the days of owners that only check things a few times a week
are long gone. Even if it is just checking transaction emails or
scores on your phone, owners are engaged on pretty much a daily
basis.
We have rules in other leagues that allow
players dropped in IR moves to be claimed the next day. This is done
to prevent free agents not being available when teams could use
them. I am not sure differentiating a player dropped in an IL move
versus an add/drop move is necessary. Why not get all dropped
players available sooner? This is especially relevant in baseball
when we make weekend lineup changes. Currently, a player dropped on
Thursday is not available to be used that weekend as they can't be
claimed until Saturday.
Managing your team during the
year is crucial to success. Free agents are often hard to come by as
the season progresses. I think the quicker we can make free agents
available the better.
The proposed change is to
change waivers to one day. Players dropped in any move can be
claimed as free agent the next day.
RULE VOTE 3
A) Keep the current rule, players
remain on waivers for two day.
B) Change rule, players
remain on waivers for one day
VOTE 4
Transaction Deadline (Trans)
Our current rule is transactions are processed
daily at 8pm mtn time. That was moved forward from 9pm mtn several
years ago. I now live in Houston on central time now and still work
early in the morning. I often struggle to process moves at night and
frequently do them in the morning before work in all leagues. Some
owners live on the West Coast and getting moves in by 7pm local time
can be challenging as well.
Some owners for a variety of
reasons wait until right at the 8pm deadline. Sometimes I get
multiple emails right at 8pm, or even a little past 8pm,
that makes it challenging for me to process and get to bed at a
reasonable time when I get up so early. It can be difficult for
everyone. I would like to consider changing the transaction deadline
time and move it overnight. This would allow all owners to submit
claims any time during the evening and I would process first thing
in the morning, normally before 7am.
I am proposing the following
change:
1) Change the transaction
deadline to 3AM mtn time daily.
2) On Monday and Friday when
lineup changes are due, transactions would also still be processed
at the 5pm lineup deadline. (in essence, transactions would be
processed 9 times per week, at 3am all seven days, as well as
Mon/Fri at 5pm)
RULE VOTE 4
A) Keep the current rule,
transaction deadline at 8pm mtn daily.
B) Change rule, transactions
processed at 3am mtn daily.
VOTE 5
Sub Player on IL (Sub)
Our current rule is if a team starts a player
who is on the IL, they do not get a sub. Teams
are given one lineup deadline as a grace period from when a player
is placed on the IL before the no sub rule is enforced. This is done
to ensure owners maintain their roster and field a complete team.
The league is very competitive and seeing a team you are in a
division or playoff race with playing a team with injured players
starting is not good. This is also done to prevent teams from
leaving an injured player in the lineup and using a preferred sub.
We do have a "not in the best interest of the league rule" to try
and prevent this as well.
I have been asked why not the same rule for a
sub? Why do they still potentially get one of the optional
subs? This has occured in recent years and it is getting harder for
me to decipher. Is it an owner not paying attention or done on
purpose to get the optional sub? Being how much subs can come into
play I do think we need to
consider the same penalties for subs as starting players. This would
apply to the CI, MI, 4th OF, 2nd catcher and potentially the 2nd
Optional sub. (i.e. 1B and Ci is out, Opt 1 is on the IL for a week)
The proposed change is to treat subs
the same as starting players. We will not give teams the optional
sub for a CI, MI, 4th OF, 2nd catcher or Optional 1 that is left in
the lineup but on the IL past the one lineup deadline grace period.
RULE VOTE 5
A) Keep the current rule, only
starters on the IL don't get a sub.
B) Change rule, no
optional sub for sub players on the IL.
I know most owners are big baseball fans. Our
fantasy baseball season ends Labor Day weekend, but I know many of
us are still engaged with MLB through the fall. I trade many emails
and texts during the MLB playoffs with owners. The MLB playoffs are
exciting and for many like me, a must watch even if our favorite
team is not playing.
I was asked if I had ever thought
of having a MLB Playoff Pool similar to our NFL Playoff Pool that is
popular? I had not but I think that is a GREAT idea! This can give
us our fantasy baseball fix during the most exciting part of the MLB
season.
Using the same basic format as
the NFL PP, here is how it would work :
1) Pool entries would be the
regular 9 player starting lineup. You can only have one player from
each MLB team
2) Entries would be $5 per
team. No limit on the number of entries. It would be open to anyone
to join
I would like to give each team
two paid entries to the proposed MLB Playoff Pool from the league
entry fee. This would be an additional $120 to account for. There
are two options to do this:
1) Take $120 from the existing
prize fund
3) Increase our league entry
fee from $215 to $225
I am including a separate vote
for that
RULE VOTE 6A
A) No MLB Playoff Pool
B) Add MLB Playoff Pool
RULE VOTE 6B (if rule vote 5A passes,
but please vote now as if it passed)
A) Use existing prize fund
B) Increase entry fee by $10
If you have any questions about the votes, please let me know.
Please email me your choices. Each team
gets one vote, teams with multiple owners will have to
collaborate and send me one team vote. I would like to have the
results posted next week. Thanks!