Sports Talk Discuss all things Sports Related
View Poll Results: Vlad or Wood?
Vladimir Guerrero
7
77.78%
Kerry Wood
2
22.22%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Fantasy Baseball debate: Vlad or Wood?

Old 04-23-04, 09:50 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 6,719
Fantasy Baseball debate: Vlad or Wood?

Please settle a debate. If you were in the following points league:

Hitting stats: R (1), H (1), 2B (1), 3B (5), HR (2), RBI (1), SB (3), CS (-2), BB (.5), K (-1), E (-3)

Pitching stats:W (10), L (-5), CG (5), SHO (15), SV (5), H (-.333), ER (-1), BB (-.5), K (1)

Who would you rather have on your team: Kerry Wood or Vladimir Guerrero?
rabbit77 is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 09:59 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
~~ PAL ~~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,268
Vlad.

Because Wood uses many pitches and walks people, so you'll probably never get any points for CG or SHO. He career high on wins is 14, even if he has 20 wins this year, that's only 200 points. Wood will get you a lot of Ks though, although somewhat offset by the BBs.

Anyway, this is based on my interpretation of your scoring system, and I didn't bother crunching any numbers...
~~ PAL ~~ is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 11:14 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Maumee, OH, USA
Posts: 3,296
5 points for triples and 2 for HRs?

Gimme Juan Pierre in that league....

With the two players you listed, I'd still rather have Vlad.
bralph is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 11:22 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 6,719
Originally posted by bralph
5 points for triples and 2 for HRs?

Gimme Juan Pierre in that league....

With the two players you listed, I'd still rather have Vlad.
Triples are a lot harder to get than HR's. I like to balance speed and power in my league.
rabbit77 is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 11:52 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
~~ PAL ~~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,268
But you don't have much balance between hitting and pitching scoring. Based on your system, hitting is much more valuable than pitching. You have 3 out of 11 negative catagories for hitting, but 4 out of 9 negative catagories for pitching?

Also, the fact that most of the scoring from pitching is on the win/loss/saves, you're encouraging people to load up on RPs. Essentially, a bunch of closers and setup guys will score way more points than a handful of starters and use up less innings, unless you've done some creative lineup restrictions to prevent people from doing that.
~~ PAL ~~ is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 12:08 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 6,719
I'm still tweaking the stat modifiers to provide a good balance, but would still like to have a hitting tilt in the league.

The negatives for pitching weighs less than the negatives for hitting, since a pitcher who gives up a hit only loses 1/3 of a point, and the incentive to start starters comes from the potential for a 20 point bonus for a complete game shutout.
rabbit77 is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 12:11 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
El Scorcho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 39,628
Vlad.

It's only a matter of time before Wood's arm falls off again, thanks to Dusty "I've never seen a 130-count pitch-count that I didn't like!" Baker.
El Scorcho is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 12:13 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
Deftones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 74,846
Yep, even though Vlad is a much higher risk for injury, he's more valuable in your league.
Deftones is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 01:09 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
LurkerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 21,998
Take the numbers for Vlad's 2002 season, and the numbers for last season fro Wood. How do they compare? (sorry, I'm way too lazy to do it myself).

It's reasonable to expect Vlad to duplicate 2002, and it's reasonable to expect Wood to slightly improve from last year.
LurkerDan is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 02:54 PM
  #10  
MrX
DVD Talk Legend
 
MrX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,785
Vlad
MrX is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 03:24 PM
  #11  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Originally posted by rabbit77
I'm still tweaking the stat modifiers to provide a good balance, but would still like to have a hitting tilt in the league.

The negatives for pitching weighs less than the negatives for hitting, since a pitcher who gives up a hit only loses 1/3 of a point, and the incentive to start starters comes from the potential for a 20 point bonus for a complete game shutout.
Can I be blunt? That's a terrible scoring system. It's so far out of whack, even Darren Erstad might be more valuable than Kerry Wood.

Hitters will probably rack up twice as many points as pitchers, and as was previously stated, relievers are more valuable than starters.

To balance it out, a good place to start would be to give +1 for each IP. That'll at least get it in the ballpark, yet still give you a hitting tilt in the league.
DarkElf is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 03:33 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 10,614
Vlad!
Da Thrilla is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 03:44 PM
  #13  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Originally posted by LurkerDan
Take the numbers for Vlad's 2002 season, and the numbers for last season fro Wood. How do they compare? (sorry, I'm way too lazy to do it myself).

It's reasonable to expect Vlad to duplicate 2002, and it's reasonable to expect Wood to slightly improve from last year.
Here ya' go:

Vlad 2002 = 570 points
Wood 2003 = 225 points



Giving Wood +1/IP = 436 points
Reduce Vlad's SB attempts by 50% off his 2002 totals (reasonable, I'd say) = 530 points

At least that's a lot closer, and still gives the hitter's tilt he's looking for.
DarkElf is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 03:44 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 6,719
Originally posted by DarkElf

To balance it out, a good place to start would be to give +1 for each IP. That'll at least get it in the ballpark, yet still give you a hitting tilt in the league.
In my league there's only 7 teams. So all of our rotations are very deep, with 6 good starters. Last year we all maxed out our innings. There's a cap of 1250 innings pitched and we all hit the max. What would be the point if every team equally scores 1250 points?

Our lineup consists of a SP, 2 RP and 2P. So at most you can only have 4 closers on the team, and 2 if you have 3 starters going at the same day. Since there's 7 of us, that's 28 closers distributed between us.

Maybe I should give more credit for pitchers' K's (to 1.5 or 2). What do you think?

Last edited by rabbit77; 04-23-04 at 03:50 PM.
rabbit77 is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 04:23 PM
  #15  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Originally posted by rabbit77
Maybe I should give more credit for pitchers' K's (to 1.5 or 2). What do you think?
That definitely will balance out the pitching. With Ks = +2, of your top 30 pitchers, ~20 would be starters. If Ks = +1.5, then it's about 50-50.

However, that doesn't address the HUGE disparity between hitters and pitchers. And if you want to get at least a semblence of balance between hitting and pitching, you're gonna need to include IP. And by including IP, then you have your starters dominate the closers, so you have to consider something like bump up points for saves, or taking away more points for hits and walks.

You have to decide what kind of mix you want. Say, out of your top 50 points producers, how many do you want to be hitters, starters and closers? And I say closers rather than just relievers because your league is so shallow and you just don't have the roster space for middle relievers.

The way you have it now, there might not be a pitcher in your top 50.
DarkElf is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 04:24 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
El Scorcho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 39,628
As a Darin Erstad fan, I'm crushed.
El Scorcho is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 04:32 PM
  #17  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
BTW, I should add one more thing. If you've already had your draft, then unless EVERYONE agrees to it, it would be unfair to drastically alter the points system in place. The points system will obviously dictate drafting strategies.
DarkElf is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 05:24 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 6,719
Thanks for the advice...

I just did some # crunching and with a change from 1 point to 2 points for a K, there is no unbalance between hitters and pitchers anymore. With this new setup the following scores from 2003 would have come out:

Hitters
1) A-Rod: 516
2) Bonds: 496
3) Pujols: 601
4) Delgado: 449
5) Pierre: 548
6) Erstad: 143

Starting Pitchers
1) Prior: 527
2) Wood: 492
3) Schmidt: 589
4) Halladay: 472
5) Loaiza: 423

Relief Pitchers
1) Gagne: 468
2) Smoltz: 328
3) Foulke: 427
4) Rivera: 328
5) Wagner: 375
rabbit77 is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 05:28 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 6,719
Oh, and for the record, with 2 points per K:

Wood (2003): 492 points
Vlad (2002): 570 points

so it's still not close, even though Vlad won't steal 40 this year.

The reason why I brought up the topic was because I offered a 3-way deal that would have sent Vlad to by bro-in-law (a biased Cubs fan), and he would have sent Wood to my friend who would send me Carlos Beltran. He said he would "never trade a dominating pitcher like Wood for a RF because any RF would give points, and dominant pitchers are hard to come by." And he told me to ask anybody. So there you go.

Last edited by rabbit77; 04-23-04 at 05:41 PM.
rabbit77 is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 05:49 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
~~ PAL ~~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,268
Sorry rabbit, still unbalanced. Now K (+2) has a huge advantage over BB (-0.5). So, now high K, high BB guys like Wood will be way better than control pitchers with low K like Hudson.

You really need to seriously consider adding IP as part of scoring. Yes, the maximum is 1250 and everyone will reach that. But you're forgetting the difference between quality innings and disaster outings. Plus, a guy that goes out there getting shelled to the tune of 3 IP, 9 H, 5 ER, 5 BB, and 5 K (this is quite a terrible outing) would score -0.5 pt. in your system. I'm sorry, but that's not very balanced to me.
~~ PAL ~~ is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 05:50 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
El Scorcho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 39,628
Originally posted by ~~ PAL ~~
Plus, a guy that goes out there getting shelled to the tune of 3 IP, 9 H, 5 ER, 5 BB, and 5 K (this is quite a terrible outing) would score -0.5 pt. in your system. I'm sorry, but that's not very balanced to me.
Ahh.

Let this be known as the "Greg Maddux 2004" rule.
El Scorcho is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 05:52 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
~~ PAL ~~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,268
Originally posted by El Scorcho
Ahh.

Let this be known as the "Greg Maddux 2004" rule.
Actually I made those numbers up, but I do like the name.
~~ PAL ~~ is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 05:53 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
El Scorcho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 39,628
Figures he gave up 1 run on a few hits today too. But it's the mets so it doesn't count.
El Scorcho is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 06:02 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 6,719
Originally posted by ~~ PAL ~~
Sorry rabbit, still unbalanced. Now K (+2) has a huge advantage over BB (-0.5). So, now high K, high BB guys like Wood will be way better than control pitchers with low K like Hudson.

You really need to seriously consider adding IP as part of scoring. Yes, the maximum is 1250 and everyone will reach that. But you're forgetting the difference between quality innings and disaster outings. Plus, a guy that goes out there getting shelled to the tune of 3 IP, 9 H, 5 ER, 5 BB, and 5 K (this is quite a terrible outing) would score -0.5 pt. in your system. I'm sorry, but that's not very balanced to me.
no, it would score -5.5, and that's if the guy's lucky enough to get a ND. Call me Rocky Stallone, but I still don't understand why IP would help balance things out since the fact remains that everyone reaches the max. This is the first year I've gotten rid of IP because the last 3 years we had IP as a stat, everyone finished with 1250 points.
rabbit77 is offline  
Old 04-23-04, 06:03 PM
  #25  
Moderator
 
DarkElf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: La Jolla, CA
Posts: 18,277
Originally posted by rabbit77
Thanks for the advice...

I just did some # crunching and with a change from 1 point to 2 points for a K, there is no unbalance between hitters and pitchers anymore. With this new setup the following scores from 2003 would have come out:
Yes, +2 for Ks is a big help, and gives starters more value on average than closers. Maybe 20 of the top 30 pitchers will be starters. That's fine. That should keep the low end closers on the free agent list.

But as for balance between hitters and pitchers, that's only for the elite. Look at the merely "very good" players, guys going in the middle rounds in your drafts, it's still balanced for the hitters, which is what you're looking for anyway. I like to take the top 50 or top 100 point players and have maybe 60% be hitters since fantasy rosters tend to be about 60/40 proportion. Just eyeballing the 2004 projections and making some estimates, with your new scoring system, the top 100 is probably more like 75% hitters. I think that's still too high IMO, but it's better than it was before.

Erstad 2003 does so poorly in points based leagues because he missed most of the year. Give him 150 games like he'll likely play this year at 1B, and he rises considerably. In your new scoring system, I'm making a guess that Erstad will be fairly close in points to pitchers like Russ Ortiz and Matt Clement.
DarkElf is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.