Fcbl

[mrdannyg 274]

First update!Lethbridge Bulls - 0 Musky Muskrats - (-1)Monkeyballers - 14 Toronto Mustangs - 1Overpaid Bobbleheads - 2 Coaldale A's - 8Long Ball Whalers - 2 Go Bears - 0Nuclear Scientists - 0 Broadway - 0Newmarket Hurricanes - 4 DoucheGators - 2

[SBriand 4]

First update!Lethbridge Bulls - 0 Musky Muskrats - (-1)Monkeyballers - 14 Toronto Mustangs - 1Overpaid Bobbleheads - 2 Coaldale A's - 8Long Ball Whalers - 2 Go Bears - 0Nuclear Scientists - 0 Broadway - 0Newmarket Hurricanes - 4 DoucheGators - 2

Might have issues with pitching. Check gameday thread.

[Speed Limit 0]

Garrett Jones is a bad bad man.He's working hard for a fat contract.

[mrdannyg 274]

Baseball Prospectus' comments about DoucheGators prospects:4. Jesus Montero - Catcher (behind only two pitchers and Heyward)"Opening Day: Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barre. He's staying at catcher for now, but the bat is so advanced, one has to wonder if the glove has any chance of keeping up."11. Chris Carter - 1B"Opening Day: Triple-A Sacramento: Part of the best 3-4 punch in a minor-league lineup, along with 20th-best prospect Michael Taylor."20. Michael Taylor - OF"Opening Day: Triple-A Sacramento. The Oakland outfield situation is crowded, but none of them have the upside of Taylor."37. Starlin Castro - SS"Opening Day: Double-A Tennessee. He was probably the best shortstop for the Cubs this spring at any level, but Chicago doesn't want to rush things after learning tough lessons from Felix Pie and Corey Patterson"39. Josh Bell - 3B"Opening Day: Triple-A Norfolk. In line for a September call-up at the very least, Bell is lined up to man the hot corner in Baltimore on Opening Day in 2011."woot! Should have a new full-time 1B, SS and 3B in 2011, with Taylor probably starting somewhere too. Who knows where Montero will fit in, but whether its a DH in 2011 or a catcher in 2012, I'm not sure I have a preference.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Baseball Prospectus' comments about DoucheGators prospects:4. Jesus Montero - Catcher (behind only two pitchers and Heyward)"Opening Day: Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barre. He's staying at catcher for now, but the bat is so advanced, one has to wonder if the glove has any chance of keeping up."11. Chris Carter - 1B"Opening Day: Triple-A Sacramento: Part of the best 3-4 punch in a minor-league lineup, along with 20th-best prospect Michael Taylor."20. Michael Taylor - OF"Opening Day: Triple-A Sacramento. The Oakland outfield situation is crowded, but none of them have the upside of Taylor."37. Starlin Castro - SS"Opening Day: Double-A Tennessee. He was probably the best shortstop for the Cubs this spring at any level, but Chicago doesn't want to rush things after learning tough lessons from Felix Pie and Corey Patterson"39. Josh Bell - 3B"Opening Day: Triple-A Norfolk. In line for a September call-up at the very least, Bell is lined up to man the hot corner in Baltimore on Opening Day in 2011."woot! Should have a new full-time 1B, SS and 3B in 2011, with Taylor probably starting somewhere too. Who knows where Montero will fit in, but whether its a DH in 2011 or a catcher in 2012, I'm not sure I have a preference.

Very nice. If you're looking for something to do, have a look at what they say about these guys.Mike Stanton OF FLAJuan Francisco 3B CINBuster Posey C SFJohn Bowker OF SFDelmon Young OF MINColby Rasmus OF STLJay Bruce OF CINAlcides Escobar SS MILDavid Freese 3B STLDaric Barton 1B OAKIke Davis 1B NYM

[mrdannyg 274]

Very nice. If you're looking for something to do, have a look at what they say about these guys.Mike Stanton OF FLAJuan Francisco 3B CINBuster Posey C SFJohn Bowker OF SFDelmon Young OF MINColby Rasmus OF STLJay Bruce OF CINAlcides Escobar SS MILDavid Freese 3B STLDaric Barton 1B OAKIke Davis 1B NYM

5. Mike Stanton:"Opening Day: Double-A Jacksonville. Stanton did nothing this spring to hurt his stock; he just has more work to do. With his kind of power, it's easy to forget how young he is."9. Buster Posey:"Opening Day: Triple-A Fresno. I've given up trying to understand what the Giants are doing here."19. Alcides Escobar:"Opening Day: Milwaukee Brewers. Overshadowed among NL rookies by Heyward, Escobar should play stellar defense while holding his own with the bat. Basically, he is this year's Elvis Andrus, but a maybe a better pure hitter."The rest are either not on the list, or aren't on their top 50 list. I'm pretty sure at least Bowker, Young, Bruce, Rasmus, Freese and Barton don't qualify, but not sure on the rest.

[mrdannyg 274]

The Musky Muskrats with a dominating performance! 51 points so far, 12 more than second place.The 'Gators are surging up the leaderboard - 18 points just a few minutes ago, now up to 32. With Mariano "Teh Awesome" about to close out the Red Sox (pitching), overall score will be middle of the pack at best though.

[Speed Limit 0]

My pitching tonight ended up with 34 points. 20 of those were from strikeouts alone.Yeah I'm a little worried about how weighted pitching is.

[MapleLeafs 142]

My pitching tonight ended up with 34 points. 20 of those were from strikeouts alone.Yeah I'm a little worried about how weighted pitching is.

Mine only got 5.

[digitalmonkey 929]

15 for mine

[mrdannyg 274]

My pitching tonight ended up with 34 points. 20 of those were from strikeouts alone.Yeah I'm a little worried about how weighted pitching is.

We should not be worried about 34 points. As I put in the other thread, total points don't matter. What does matter of course is differential.What should worry us is that Adam's pitching got 34 points, mine got -3. -3 points in a game where Detroit gave up 3 runs in 10 innings. A 37 point differential for pitching alone is probably too much, where neither did anything particularly amazing or terrible....I really don't know if we can change much now, since people paid a lot for pitching because of these rules, but something is out of whack. I really wanted to give strikeouts only 1.5 points when making the rules, but didn't to avoid fractions.

[mrdannyg 274]

Total Score (Pitching Score)Lethbridge Bulls - 42 (11) Musky Muskrats - 61 (6)Monkeyballers - 58 (14) Toronto Mustangs - 39 (16)Overpaid Bobbleheads - 37 (7) Coaldale A's - 65 (30)Long Ball Whalers - 71 (28) Go Bears - 52 (19)Nuclear Scientists - 64 (34) Broadway - 72 (22)Newmarket Hurricanes - 36 (4) DoucheGators - 62 (7)The good:Pitching did not change the result of any of the games. None.The bad:Still big differences. 7-34 points, on a pretty non-descript night pitching-wise. For unused teams, the range was (-3)-36 points. Also, team scores were pretty significantly different. I'd guess pitching will change the result of 2-3 matches on most nights.Analysis:While calculating the scores, I think winning a close game is still valuable. I wanted to make it exciting, but it is too much right now. I think we would be beneficial to lower saves from 5 to 3-4 points and/or lower holds to 1-2 points. To be honest, if I was the Emperor of the FCPBL, I'd lower saves to 4, holds to 1.5 and K's to 1.5. But I'm not, thankfully.It does seem like any team that won a close game received too much of an advantage. That is hard to predict though, and probably does not significantly benefit any team in a way that was not predictable at the beginning of the season. Because of that, while I would vote for a change myself, I would not use my Competition Committee power to institute a change.

[digitalmonkey 929]

How about:- limiting holds to 1 per game- subtracting point for BBI don't think anyone acquired a specific pitching team based on holds and it's not unreasonable to penalize walks.IMO

[mrdannyg 274]

How about:- limiting holds to 1 per game- subtracting point for BBI don't think anyone acquired a specific pitching team based on holds and it's not unreasonable to penalize walks.IMO

I like both these ideas. Limiting holds is a bit weird, and in a way, penalizes teams that do well in holds. When we're doing tiers at the end of the year, I assume we'll use all holds just for ease of calculation. So teams with a lot of holds will be ranked higher, even though they only get credit for 1/game. This will probably punish NL teams more than AL teams, since they're a lot more likely to have multiple hold games. Still, that is a very minor benefit. At worst, it might move a team up or down one ranking, and likely wouldn't affect the tier a team falls in.I think those ideas are both very good, and will equalize things in some positive ways.Disclaimer: I have two AL pitching teams.

[MapleLeafs 142]

Here's some suggestions:First hold is worth 2 points. Any after that are worth 1.Strikeouts are worth 1 each.Walks are -1 each.Wins are worth 4.No penalty for a loss.I'm not saying use all of them, but some combination may work.

[Dubey 1,035]

Here's some suggestions:First hold is worth 2 points. Any after that are worth 1.Strikeouts are worth 1 each.Walks are -1 each.Wins are worth 4.No penalty for a loss.I'm not saying use all of them, but some combination may work.

I definitely like the idea of having the negative for walks the same as the positive for K's, so you are only getting points for a positive K/BB ratio.

[SBriand 4]

My suggestion is 6 for win-3 for loss1 for K-1 for BB1 for hold3 for save-2 for BSAgain, not in stone, just my suggestion. With all our suggestions we should be able to make a new model.I don't support taking away stat categories or limiting them. I think all holds should count but not count as 2 points. I think the consensus is -1 for walks. We just need to restructure the other stats point wise and I think just limiting the point totals should get us closer to the goal. Just for my own benefit I want to score the Brewers in current, current + BB penalty, the one aboveCurrent: 35Current + BB = 30above - 13Current + BB and 1 point holds =21

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

I hate to muddy up the waters, but I dont like the hold category for this pool. I dont think it works well when we use team pitching. Holds are meant to give value to MR in their roles....but when you do it as a team, now, a team might get 3 holds, and then blow the lead, and that in turn is a better team pitching stat line for a FCPBL team then a complete game by a starter, right? Doesnt make sense to me. The team could blow a lead, but still get 6pts from hold because the first 3 guys managed to pitch an inning without giving up a run. Personally, I think ideally we would give points if the MR's on the team came in, and held a lead. But since thats too hard, Im ok with either limiting it to 1hold max per game, or at the VERY least, only 1pt per hold. And agree with -1 for BB. For some reason, I thought that was already a given. (sorry to just come on and whine. I appreciate all the work you guys are doing to make this league work, and work well)

[Dubey 1,035]

My suggestion is 6 for win-3 for loss1 for K-1 for BB1 for hold3 for save-2 for BSAgain, not in stone, just my suggestion. With all our suggestions we should be able to make a new model.I don't support taking away stat categories or limiting them. I think all holds should count but not count as 2 points. I think the consensus is -1 for walks. We just need to restructure the other stats point wise and I think just limiting the point totals should get us closer to the goal. Just for my own benefit I want to score the Brewers in current, current + BB penalty, the one aboveCurrent: 35Current + BB = 30above - 13Current + BB and 1 point holds =21

I support this point system

[MapleLeafs 142]

I hate to muddy up the waters, but I dont like the hold category for this pool. I dont think it works well when we use team pitching. Holds are meant to give value to MR in their roles....but when you do it as a team, now, a team might get 3 holds, and then blow the lead, and that in turn is a better team pitching stat line for a FCPBL team then a complete game by a starter, right? Doesnt make sense to me. The team could blow a lead, but still get 6pts from hold because the first 3 guys managed to pitch an inning without giving up a run. Personally, I think ideally we would give points if the MR's on the team came in, and held a lead. But since thats too hard, Im ok with either limiting it to 1hold max per game, or at the VERY least, only 1pt per hold. And agree with -1 for BB. For some reason, I thought that was already a given. (sorry to just come on and whine. I appreciate all the work you guys are doing to make this league work, and work well)

You do have the pitching "team" though, the starters, the middle relievers, and the closer, and if those 3 relievers that you own do their job then you should be rewarded.

[SBriand 4]

You do have the pitching "team" though, the starters, the middle relievers, and the closer, and if those 3 relievers that you own do their job then you should be rewarded.

This was my thought as well. Holds are part of the team aspect. But I do agree that 2 points is too much.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

You do have the pitching "team" though, the starters, the middle relievers, and the closer, and if those 3 relievers that you own do their job then you should be rewarded.

Yes, but, here's how I look at it.Team A- 9IP 0ER 1W 1SV- 13ptsTeam B- 9IP 2ER 1W 1BS+3H 1SV = 15ptsTeam A had Halladay go 8IP, and Lidge get the save in the ninth.Team B had Garland go 4IP, and 3 guys hold, and one guy blow the save, and them offence get the lead back in 8th.Team B gets 2 more points, with what I would call a worse pitching line. This is just one simple explanation of how your team having a bad starting staff might actually make your team pitching a better thing!In our system, a no hitter could be worse than a starter getting knocked out after 4IP! (just adding that to be an ass!)Im just arguing my point, but I will accept whatever you guys decide. Im ok with 1pt per hold, willing to compromise to help.

[mrdannyg 274]

Yes, but, here's how I look at it.Team A- 9IP 0ER 1W 1SV- 13ptsTeam B- 9IP 2ER 1W 1BS+3H 1SV = 15ptsTeam A had Halladay go 8IP, and Lidge get the save in the ninth.Team B had Garland go 4IP, and 3 guys hold, and one guy blow the save, and them offence get the lead back in 8th.Team B gets 2 more points, with what I would call a worse pitching line. This is just one simple explanation of how your team having a bad starting staff might actually make your team pitching a better thing!In our system, a no hitter could be worse than a starter getting knocked out after 4IP! (just adding that to be an ass!)Im just arguing my point, but I will accept whatever you guys decide. Im ok with 1pt per hold, willing to compromise to help.

This is true. Then again, defence does not get rewarded in this league either. We're not building the best team, we're building stats. So having pitchers earn potentially more for a 4-inning stint than a no-hitter is not 'bad' IMO.I also wanted this to be exciting, hence giving extra points to close games, as opposed to just rewarding wins or good performances. I can get on with some of these suggestions, but if so, I think we need to look at pitcher's salaries, or raise tiers. I haven't run the numbers, but I very much doubt any pitchers would've gone for $5+ at auction with some of the suggested new scoring.I think something close to Steve's suggestion, but leave K's at two points, would preserve the reason people picked the pitchers they did. I actually like Jay, Arp and Dale's suggestions too - I think they all do a pretty good job.

[Dubey 1,035]

Some random thoughts:I think we should worry about what makes sense for the league in the long term first, and what people spent on pitchers second. Nobody has spent more than $5ish on any one pitching team. If that team can average 2 or 3 additional points per night over a lower tier pitching team, then it is money well spent, IMO. I know Dale believes that pitching should make a major impact on the scores, I'm not sure I agree. I'm just speaking for myself here, but I spent hours mulling over draft picks to fill out my roster, browsing forums, checking stats, etc.. My overall time spent working on the other 24 spots on my roster is probably 20-1 over the time spent looking at pitching stats. (this may not be indicitive of others, not sure) In my opinion, pitching numbers, with regards to this pool, and the way it is structured, should closer reflect the output of 1 player, rather than the output of 10-12 players (a whole pitching staff).

[MapleLeafs 142]

Yes, but, here's how I look at it.Team A- 9IP 0ER 1W 1SV- 13ptsTeam B- 9IP 2ER 1W 1BS+3H 1SV = 15ptsTeam A had Halladay go 8IP, and Lidge get the save in the ninth.Team B had Garland go 4IP, and 3 guys hold, and one guy blow the save, and them offence get the lead back in 8th.Team B gets 2 more points, with what I would call a worse pitching line. This is just one simple explanation of how your team having a bad starting staff might actually make your team pitching a better thing!In our system, a no hitter could be worse than a starter getting knocked out after 4IP! (just adding that to be an ass!)Im just arguing my point, but I will accept whatever you guys decide. Im ok with 1pt per hold, willing to compromise to help.

Of course I see your point Arp. I guess you can argue that Team B was more of a team win. You'll remember that I lobbied harder than anybody for individual pitchers. Maybe we should have had 3 different types of pitchers you can bid on. Ex. Yankees starters, Yankees relievers, Yankee closers.