Fantasy Baseball Discussion

[Lawrence of Arabia]

When there are say 0 walks for a certain pitcher, it may or may not count that towards the total on K/BB (and this happened to me a lot last year)

example

Kurt Schilling 9 K, 0 BB
Mike Mussina 3 K, 4 BB

THe K/BB ratio would be 4.00. Unfortunatly, the computer will sometimes calculate the K/BB ratio as 9/0 (which is zero) + (3/4) which would be a K/BB ratio of 0.75

[Soul Survivor]

C, 1B, 2B, 3B, RF, CF, LF and Util I'd love to see that

SP, SP, SP, SP, RP, RP, RP, P would be nice too

I don't think the rosters should be much bigger than 20 or 21, because then the FA pool becomes rather thin at the top - although I guess this might encourage trading... and big rosters with daily changes will really kill the people who can't change their lineup every day.

So maybe 19 or 20 for daily and 21 or 22 for weekly?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Doesn't whip cover that?

Some of it. Of course WHIP is walks and hits, while OBA is hits/at bat . WHIP doesn't care about at bats.

[Berzerker]

example

Kurt Schilling 9 K, 0 BB
Mike Mussina 3 K, 4 BB

THe K/BB ratio would be 4.00. Unfortunatly, the computer will sometimes calculate the K/BB ratio as 9/0 (which is zero) + (3/4) which would be a K/BB ratio of 0.75

With your display of mathematical acutemen, I wonder if it was the computer messing up

12 K's to 4 BB's is a ratio of 3.00 and 9 K's with 0 BB's isn't zero (or were you saying the computer read 9 k's and 0 bb's as 0.00?). Are you sure this happened? I kept an eye on these kinds of stats and never saw an error. But maybe you're right...

Having K's and BB's as separate categories with no K/BB's is fine with me though. Did you ever see errors in whip or other calculations? If we have just K's and BB's, I don't see much point in having K/BB or K/9 innings. But if we start eliminating stats because of overlap, we'd have to get rid of a couple more. Maybe we should go that way, but then we'd have to dump homers because of total bases and dumping total bases and keeping homers would screw doubles and triples.

I don't mind some overlap for special aspects of the game. Homers are definitely special...

hits
runs
HR
RBI
SB
TB
ave
walks
ops

wins
losses
saves
era
K's
BB's
hits allowed
holds

That's 9 and 8 for a total of 17. I think this is how I'd vote.
And an 18 IP/week is fine too, although all-star week can be a bit tricky.

[jdd2007]

I had a lot of fun playing last year, and I will probably spend more time on fantasy baseball this summer, but I would still prefer weekly roster changes. I like Vlad's positions and roster size. As for stats, I don't mind.

[Stuie]

I like the idea of including Innings Pitched for the pitching stats. You could still stick one pitcher in and probably win a couple categories, but you'd be sure to lose most of them. But if we're going with a minimum, 18 innings sounds about right.

I'd also prefer the OF, OF, CF positions to cover the outfield. Force a centerfielder on us, but keep the corners flexible.

21 man roster sounds good - big enough to encourage some trading without becoming too unwieldy.

Oh, and I'd definitely like OPS included for the batting stats. Other than that I'm flexible.

[vlad]

Berz position limits are each position gets 162 starts, that allows for everyday lineup changes, but you can't go over on the position games. In the original days of online leagues they all used that system. Not sure if you can even do that with Yahoo.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and I'd definitely like OPS included for the batting stats.

What about instead having OBP and SLG (which make up OPS when combined) .

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Oh, and I'd definitely like OPS included for the batting stats.

What about instead having OBP and SLG (which make up OPS when combined) .

A player with a good slugging percentage won't necessarily have a good on-base percentage and vice-versa. I would like to reward all-around performance, thus use OPS. In fact, I wouldn't mind including all three.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would like to reward all-around performance, thus use OPS.

Well if you want to reward all-around performance you would be against using HRs and BA, wouldn't you, since one with good BA wouldn't necessarily have a lot of HRs .

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I would like to reward all-around performance, thus use OPS.

Well if you want to reward all-around performance you would be against using HRs and BA, wouldn't you, since one with good BA wouldn't necessarily have a lot of HRs .

I meant I would like one category to reward overall performance, not that all of them should.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ahhh, I see.

Hits
Runs
HR
RBI
SB
TB
OBP
SLG
OPS

Wins
Losses
Saves
ERA
K's
BB's
Hits Allowed
WHIP

is my list so far then (you'll notice no BA... I just had it there as a placeholder... OBP is much more important and basically similar anyway).

[War4ever]

I think in this age of specialized relievers, HOLDS are a very important part of the game and do clearly indicate just how worthy a pitcher is to a team.

You have to keep TB b/c you screw doubles hitters otherwise, and you have to keep HR's b/c lets be honest, despite the rise in them, they still are the "most exciting" statistic and action of the game...

add more pitching stats the game revolves around pitching anyways hahah

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think in this age of specialized relievers, HOLDS are a very important part of the game and do clearly indicate just how worthy a pitcher is to a team.

But you have to admit... it's kind of a bull**** stat (then again, so are saves) .

[Lawrence of Arabia]

2 K's to 4 BB's is a ratio of 3.00 and 9 K's with 0 BB's isn't zero (or were you saying the computer read 9 k's and 0 bb's as 0.00?). Are you sure this happened? I kept an eye on these kinds of stats and never saw an error. But maybe you're right...

hmm. little queasy there with the first math part. what im saying is that the computer read 9 Ks and 0 bbs as infinity and/or zero and then didnt include that when it added to the rest.