WM Proposal #10 – “The MoNathan Rule”
Fuentes 42, Mo 39, Nathan 37, Wood 25…
What do they have in common? They led the league in saves and weren’t owned in SOT. I think we all understand that the SV isn’t a perfect stat (what is?). I think we all understand that closers are overrated. I think we all understand that closers are paid too much. However, there’s no denying that Mo and Nathan have been the best two relievers in baseball over the past five years, yet have gone unowned in SOT. At the same time, Scott Downs, Jose Mijares, Matt Guerrier, and Michael Wuertz have become sought after commodities. We get it, they’re cheap, and they’re productive, no dispute. But I believe the value equation has tipped too far in the direction of Holds guys and I’d like to see it tip back towards closers. The fact is, we use MLB salaries to set a cap, and MLB GM’s have determined that closers are more valuable than middle relievers and pay them accordingly.
My solution:
SV catagory = 1.25pt
H category = .75 pt
This change would tip the scales back towards the closer. I’m aware that we’re a 365 day league, so if the league would prefer, we could enforce this rule in 2011 instead of 2010. However, with guys like Soriano, Gonzalez, MoNathan, Fuentes, Wood, and Rodney all available, there are plenty of options for teams looking to fill a SV role in 2010. This would also add some depth to our draft placing an emphasis back on the CL role.
“MLB GM’s value closers and pay them more than holds guys, another fact”
They might pay them more, but then why are teams always changing closers? Besides MO and Nathan, non of them have any real staying power with teams. The White Sox have been trying to trade Jenks for the last two years because he makes too much. The Angels already got Rodney as insurance to Fuentes. Oakland has a revolving door with closers. You think Bailey is going to be the closer for the next 5+ years for them? Doubt it. Houston Street was Rookie of the Year and now he’s been bounced. My point is, MLB doesn’t value them as much as you think. Aside from Mo and Nathan most teams are dying to unload those bad contracts. Cleveland would love to destroy the contract given to Wood and the Sox are sure to let Paps go when he makes too much. So the way I see it, we already mirror MLB as well as we can since most teams only want cheap closers. I just don’t see why we need to make this change. Every GM can manage their team fine as is without giving more points for saves. It’s almost like you feel sorry for closers or something and that they don’t get any respect. Screw em, if a team wants one then go pick one up!
As you already know, based upon our gchat, I have zero problem if the league wants to make saves worth more than holds. But, I can’t for the life of me understand how we can say that saves are going to carry the highest value in SOT.
VORP certainly has everything to do with MLB salaries. At least for the top GM’s in MLB. Theo and his crew now these stats in and out. The difference is the RED Sox and Yanks have a significant advantage over most other teams due to spending ability. Therefore, they can simply pay more than market value for players.
We however don’t have this luxury. We use the average AL team salary. Therefore, math tells us that we won’t be able to afford the same type roster as the Yanks or Sox. So of course there are going to be expensive players in SOT that are not owned.
The real issue here is SOT teams don’t have enough money to spend on 10-15M closers. Guess what? Neither do a lot of teams in the AL. From my eyes it’s clear SOT resembles MLB in the above example.
I don’t think we should make Holds less (.75). That too is wrong. Why in the hell did we vote to have them in the first place? There is no reason to change the point structure in this league at all
“They might pay them more, but then why are teams always changing closers?”
Not to be a wiseass, but who cares? The Sox have had three SS’s in the last three years, but one closer. How does this relate to the debate of H’s vs SV’s?
I can’t explain it any more clearer than I have over the 51 posts, and based on the responses, you are the only one that doesn’t understand why I proposed to separate the value between the SV and the HD. Mike pulled a John Kerry and flip flopped, so there’s now two of you. This is a simple exercise:
1) MLB GM’s have decided that saves are more valuable than holds by paying closers more than set-up men, agree?
2) SOT uses MLB salaries, agree?
3) SOT has both a SV and H category, agree?
4) SOT attempts to mimic MLB where possible, agree?
ANSWER = If MLB says SV > H, then I believe SOT should say SV > H.
You’ve explained it clear I’m just very against it
“As you already know, based upon our gchat, I have zero problem if the league wants to make saves worth more than holds.”
- Actually no, this is now a new stance, the 3rd different one today.
“But, I can’t for the life of me understand how we can say that saves are going to carry the highest value in SOT.”
- Fine. I’ve explained in multiple times, but it you can’t comprehend, there’s nothing more to do but move on to the next topic.
“VORP certainly has everything to do with MLB salaries.”
- You have data to back up this statement? Because TB just paid over $7M for a closer. CLE is paying over $10M for a closer. ANA just paid over $8M for a closer last year. CWS will be paying over $8M for a closer. The only reason teams aren’t paying big money for closers is because they have inhouse options that work. Soria, Bailey, Aardsma, Fransisco, etc.
“So of course there are going to be expensive players in SOT that are not owned.”
- We’ve gone down this road before, and it doesn’t look good for the point you’re trying to make. So far, we’ve found ONE position player that wasn’t owned because of his salary, ONE out of 112. However, last year FOUR out of 12 closers weren’t owned. You don’t see a problem here?
25% of the closers in the American League weren’t owned in SOT, a league which is set up to best mimic MLB. I’m trying to change this.
“The real issue here is SOT teams don’t have enough money to spend on 10-15M closers.”
- Talk about missing the real issue. The issue has nothing to do with SOT Teams having enough money. Why would SOT Teams spend money on a closer when they can get the same value out of a Holds guy? THAT’S the real issue here. Money has little to do with it, properly assigning value to mimic MLB is the problem.
“I don’t think we should make Holds less (.75). That too is wrong. Why in the hell did we vote to have them in the first place? There is no reason to change the point structure in this league at all”
Of all the rule changes proposed this offseason, this is the one I feel will improve SOT the most. So once again, we’re completely on opposite pages here.
And Marc, which part of this equation do you disagree with?
1) MLB GM’s have decided that saves are more valuable than holds by paying closers more than set-up men, agree?
2) SOT uses MLB salaries, agree?
3) SOT has both a SV and H category, agree?
4) SOT attempts to mimic MLB where possible, agree?
ANSWER = If MLB says SV > H, then I believe SOT should say SV > H.
“Why would SOT Teams spend money on a closer when they can get the same value out of a Holds guy? THAT’S the real issue here. Money has little to do with it, properly assigning value to mimic MLB is the problem.”
- Your entire argument until now is based upon MLB salaries. You claim they make more money because they are more valuable. While some GM’s believe this to be true, it’s obviously not the case with every AL MLB team. Oakland and Sea come to mind.
Let’s compare a 400K Saves vs 400K Holds guy. Huge advantage for 400K Saves guy. So that’s why a team would rather have the Saves guy. Here’s why: 16 Pitchers had 10 or more Saves last year. 37 Pitchers had 10 or more Holds last year. We can therefore deduce that the 400K saves guy is worth more than the 400K holds guy.
Let’s face it Saves guys are overpaid in MLB, I assume we’ll see a huge correction going forward. Like we’re seeing with defense and young players. The same can be said for catchers, who are paid primarily bases upon their defense. A backup catcher makes significantly more money than any other backup. Does that mean we should go back to 2 catchers? Or change a rule that says Varitek need to be owned? Of course not.
“Your entire argument until now is based upon MLB salaries.”
- Ya, the salaries that MLB GM’s hand out, that we as a league abide by. What’s your point?
“We can therefore deduce that the 400K saves guy is worth more than the 400K holds guy.”
- Agreed 100%. So what’s the point?
“Let’s face it Saves guys are overpaid in MLB, I assume we’ll see a huge correction going forward.”
- Agreed, but MLB GM’s aren’t onboard with that statement. Plus, you’re making my point. SV’s guys are making more than H’s guys, but we treat them equally in SOT. So this is now your 4th position on this rule today, very impressive. Are you or aren’t you in favor of making SV guys more valuable than H’s guys?
As for the correction, maybe we’ll see it. But the Sox are paying 9M for a closer this year. Cle paid 10M last year. Mets paid 12M last year. TB just paid over 7M for a closer. That correction isn’t happening yet. Do you think Papelbon on the open market (assuming he’s healthy), is taking a big pay cut?
“A backup catcher makes significantly more money than any other backup.”
- Really? According to who?