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.
Why do you have to name 3 of the 4 relievers that I have owned the past year? I feel attacked.
I thought EE was a “holds organization.”
I like it.
Hurts my chances considerably. But i like it. Only seems fair.
How does it hurt you? And if someone has an issue because it goes against their specific strategy, we should consider putting this in place for the 2011 season. But as I pointed out, there are more than enough closers out there for teams to adjust their lineup.
Speaking of hurting my chances, me losing the distinct advantage I had with Mauer and Vmart on my roster. Talk about some B.S. My franchise still hasn’t recovered, and may never. The curse of 2DH’s haunts WTNY.
Hurts me because DMB was the team that made it fashionable not to carry “Saves Guys”. Been my motto for a couple years. Not sure if you noticed, but DMB has been relatively successful over the past couple seasons.
Not sure if you’ve noticed, but your strategy last year in those categories was below average:
TRC – 10 pts
Tillman – 10 pts
JM – 10 pts
EE – 9.5 pts
Si7 – 9 pts
DMB – 8.5 pts
WTNY – 8 pts
101- 7 pts
Don’t let facts get in the way of your argument though. You may want to reconsider the motto.
But I hear ya on the strategy component, which is why we can push it out a year if teams like this.
Fact 1: Back to Back Titles
Fact 2: Not having an expensive Closer opened up money for Position Players and Starting Pitchers.
Fact 3: Money well spent. See Fact 2
I saved money on my SOT by not employing an expensive commodity known as “Closers”.
Look out for my new book coming out in February called “Winning in SOT”. The above post was taken directly from the back cover.
Fact 1: Back to Back Titles
- Yes, it’s a fact. It’s also a fact that your 2009 victory had nothing to do with “closer strategy.” In fact, your no closer strategy was below avg.
I saved money on my SOT by not employing an expensive commodity known as “Closers”.
- I guess Si7 didn’t read the rest of the DMB* book, because he did the same thing. Didn’t really work out for him though. Oh wait, he skipped the chapter on acquiring Mark Teixeira and Miggy Cabrera for Casey Kotchman and Cameron Maybin. Marc, that’s in the 2nd book I guess, can’t wait to buy it for Xmas.
- Weren’t both Mauer and VMart two of the top c/dh players in SOT when that rule change was passed and today?
- Has any SOT owner benefited more from NL to AL trades than DMB?
Not sure Tex is all that, considering the only thing he is fetching me this off-season is a cold.
Ag’s response to my tex offer, “not enough money”. Could it be the 11.6M he spent on Paps and Jenks?
Come on guys, I traded Cabrera for A. Gordon and H. Kendrick. Anyone really think either of these players have helped DMB win Back to Back titles? Any reasonable person would so “hell no”.
The reason why I had to trade Miggy? Anyone? Because I couldn’t afford both Tex and Miggy.
Appreciate the bid.
So Miggy didn’t help you win in 2008 before you traded him in August and Tex didn’t help you win in 2009?
If you would like to revisit the trade conversation you reference from Jan 26th let me know.
Ya, Mauer and Vmart were and are still two of the best. It just carried more cache when two C spots were needed instead of only one. With our “2 game” rule, it’s fairly common for Of’s, 1b’s, 3b’s to also gain C eligibility in the current SOT.
And you are 100% correct, no other team has benefited from NL to AL trades more than DMB. Sometimes you need those breaks to get you over the hump.
In 2007 SOT, DMB had 15 offensive points. In 2008 SOT, DMB had 45 SOT points. I wonder what happened between those two years? Oh wait, he was given TWO 35HR, 100R, 115RBI, .300AVG, .950OPS bats for free.
“Not sure Tex is all that, considering the only thing he is fetching me this off-season is a cold.”
- Pass it around my man, share whatever you’re smoking.
“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.”
For many months in our league ARod has been unowned, does that mean we should change HR to 1.25 and SB to .75? Clearly many GM’s do not value the SB, and some organizations are clearly against it, but we still give 1.0 pt to the category.
I thought about the Arod example, but isn’t he really the one outlier here? He’s literally the only player not owned, making more than 15M, that actually contributes in a positive way. When it comes to closers, there’s an entire list, including the top three from last season who went unowned.
I think the fact that he makes over 30M is the factor here.
Not sure what i was thinking here. Why would we be allow Saves to be worth more than QS or every other Pitching category.
The short answer is to have the top three closers owned, and give them more value than middle relievers, in the same way that MLB treats them via the payscale.
The longer answer, we have 7 pitching categories. Starters have always contributed to those categories far more than relievers since they pitch more innings. We added QS last year to give even more value to the starters, all which is a good thing because starters have the most value in MLB. But by adding a .25 to SV’s, we can start to give the CL’s back some of the value they lost when we added H’s.
If you have a huge problem with the .25, I’d be okay proposing it as 1.00 vs .75, but I’m not sure the .25 drop is enough to separate CL from H guys. Maybe 1 vs .5?
It’s quite obvious i was lucky to have Tex and Miggy on my team in lieu of Kotch and Maybin, but doesn’t every team experience luck in SOT in any given year? Ben Zobrist goes from Bench Player to SOT MVP?
Wasn’t in the 2007 Draft(contraction year) when Soxin7 was handed Davide Ortiz, 101 – Vernon Wells, and JM handed Jon Lackey?
All about making the most of what you got. So far, with a little help it’s working for DMB. Not sure about the rest of you.
Nobody was handed anything that contraction year. The league voted on how to handle the displaced Balco Bunch players. I also think that Sox7 made a trade to get Ortiz.
I did make a trade
you’re right, EE and I were handed Iguchi and Nate Robertson. Just another example of EE and WTNY getting screwed by the SOT man.
TRC was handed Longoria with the fifth overall pick. I’ll take that kind of lucky everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
1 sox – ortiz
2 usa – matsuzaka
3 101 – wells
4 jm – lackey
5 trc – longoria
6 ee – igushi
7 dmb – drew
8 wtny – roberson
Amazing how that works out. You can make an argument that no one else on that list should be owned this year, other than Longoria.
I would be for making saves more valuable.
“I thought about the Arod example, but isn’t he really the one outlier here? He’s literally the only player not owned, making more than 15M,”
I think there were 3 players making 15M or more by seasons end not owned. Arod,Mags(I know he sucks) and Rivera.
You cut off the most important part of that sentence, the “contributed in a positive way” part. Pretty sure no one wants Mags and his 18M all year.
Honestly, Saves can’t be worth more than HR or Runs, so 1 point is the max we can allow. We could only reduce what a hold is worth.
No matter what, I still don’t see teams acquiring Rivera in the upcoming season. Whether that be with 10 pitchers or not. We have 14 categories, so it’s impossible to justify spending money on expensive closers.
“But by adding a .25 to SV’s, we can start to give the CL’s back some of the value they lost when we added H’s. ”
- This is a scary statement. We now want to give reparations for closers, because they’ve been mistreated in the past?
At the time holds were put into place its obvious the league did not foresee how it would play out. If we are trying to mimic mlb as many owners have written, it makes sense that saves would be worth more then holds; 1pt/0.5pt or 1pt/0.75pt.
“This is a scary statement.”
- What’s scary is that you read it as if the statement stood by itself, and there weren’t 20 other posts above it further explaining the thought process here. Of course this isn’t reparations, it’s putting the SV back in it’s proper context vs the Hold. As I said numerous times, I don’t have a problem with it being 1.25 vs 1, but you do, so if we made it 1 vs .5, that’s fine too.
JM is right on the money, as usual. We added holds because set-up guys have value and we wanted to best replicate an MLB roster. However, I don’t think anyone thought we’d get to the point where the top 3 closers in the AL weren’t owned last year. Adjusting their worth to fit MLB salary structure is the plan I’m interested in. Based on the comments, a few others are as well.
Rock the vote!
I am in favor of this, closers need to carry more weight in this league. I think this is a good start, at least most owners agree we need to up the ante on saves.
DMB, I am looking forward to the book.. I think two is your lucky number, two championships and even better, two votes in all league matters!!
I’m in agreement. Either 1.25 for saves or 0.75 for Holds.
Peter, Please stay off the blog. 1.25 for saves? Really? Now you want saves worth more than Hr’s?
Peter,
Mike has a very difficult time thinking outside the box, excuse his response please and I’m glad to have you onboard the rule change.
WTNY
How about we make make QS worth 2 points in 2010? Since guys like M buerlhe aren’t drafted or kept ever year. Is the “outside the box” thinking you are looking for?
Just reading through this thread, I only see one person with a problem with the 1.25 pts. But I’ll make one final post for everyone to read, although it may not be as witty as, “How about we make make QS worth 2 points in 2010?”
A majority of owners would like to see closers regain their value. We currently have 7 pitching categories, with only one of them closer-centric (SV). Closers contribute to K’s, WHIP, W’s, and ERA, but it’s minimal. The top closers in baseball get paid as such, earning between 12-15M/per year, which is close to what the top starters and position players earn. Mike argues that we can’t make the SV worth more than the HR. Why not? Position players can impact 7 offensive categories. Starting pitchers can impact 5 pitching categories. Yet closers are only impacting one category, but being paid the same as your position players and starters. This is just one more reason for teams to acquire closers, just as every MLB team has. We’ve often said, we want this to resemble MLB as best as possible, which is why we initially brought in the Hold category.
Also, by going with 1.25 and .75, we’re still keeping the bullpen at 2 total points. 2 out of 7. If we drop the H to 0.5, we’re cutting into the bullpen’s value as a whole.
So while I’d be okay with 1.0 (SV) vs 0.5 (H), because it’s better than what we currently have, I believe the better option is 1.25 (SV) vs 0.75 (H).
Get out the vote!
I’m sorry but having a closer get more points than any other player is absurd. If you want to make a hold .5 that’s fine, but rewarding overpriced guys for 1 inning to the point where they are the most valuable players on our rosters is not good. Every team can manage there team how they like, but to enforce a rule to tell me that I now have to find cap space for a closer because the league wants them to have more valued is wrong. So am I to look over my team and let certain players go so I have cap space for some 10m a year 1 inning guy? I just think every team is structured the way we want to manage them. If this is something that would actually pass, which I hope doesn’t, I think it would have to be implemented years down the line as I shouldn’t have to change the dynamics of my team because we feel closers aren’t getting enough respect.
“I’m sorry but having a closer get more points than any other player is absurd.”
That’s the point, the closer isn’t getting more points, he’s getting FAR less than anyone else because he’s only impacting one category, but being paid equally.
Marc, we’re not a sabermetrics league, we have R’s, RBI’s, W’s, etc, so talking about “overpriced” carries no weight.
“I just think every team is structured the way we want to manage them.”
Huh?
By changing the points to 1.25 changes the way we have to manage our team, which I would rather not do. Right now, most teams probably don’t have the cap space for a closer making 8 or 10 mil. Why is it so wrong if some teams don’t want a closer? I feel like this change is being brought up because most don’t have a closer, right? Well the reason is cap related and not value related. Making a save worth 1.25 probably isn’t going to make a bunch of teams scramble to make cap space to get a closer, and if they do that is their strategy. They would rather put money toward a bullpen arm over filling spots at say CI and 2B. I just don’t see how this is a good change for the league. It’s almost like forcing us to acknowledge closer are out there, but we already know they are, we just can’t afford most of them. It all comes down to how teams want to allocate the $$ under the cap. I know we try to be like MLB, but that really isn’t realistic. I like trying to be as close but we have a cap and are AL only which makes the dynamics of our league a bit more complex than MLB.
I think this is the most I’ve said on a topic in years. Bring on draft day!
It is the most you’ve said, and I like it, keep it coming. Must be the whole being engaged thing, you need to establish who’s wearing the pants.
“Why is it so wrong if some teams don’t want a closer? I feel like this change is being brought up because most don’t have a closer, right?”
I’m not saying you’re wrong for not wanting a closer, I just disagree with that line of thinking in a roto baseball league. If we were some type of saber league with FIP, WAR, VORP, I could understand where you’re coming from. My argument for having a closer was made up top, so I won’t rehash it, and I also noted, “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.” Although there are plenty of closers available right now.
It sounds like your disagreement is with the idea of making closers more valuable than holds guys in general, and not the 1.25 pt issue, am I correct? If that’s the case, then we just look at the structure of a roto baseball league completely different, that’s all.
If we have categories like W’s, R’s, RBI, SB’s, and SV’s, and also have a salary cap in place, something needs to be done to adjust the scoring or you end up with the top three closers (by SV’s) not owned, as it happened last year.
Changing to 1.25pt and 0.75pt would still give two categories two points total. Not that big of a change; but a step that helps.
Welcome to the forum PQ. Do you have the Capone’s pizza order ready to go for the WM?
AG, yes it equals 2 points but it’s two different positions so that isn’t the same. Not sure on your reasoning on here. You are basically saying that hold guys aren’t worth much and that we need to value closers more by giving more points for a save. Please tell me why we voted to have Holds then? Lets stop voting to change so many things so years later we aren’t changing the whole point structure. Honestly, if everyone want to put 10 mil into a closer feel free. You’ll just lose points in some offensive category because you can’t spend enough to fill an offensive position. By making saves 1.25 this doesn’t make them more valuable, it’s forcing you to feel like you have one now because they will be worth more than any other player on your roster. I really don’t like this idea at all, as you can tell
WTNY,
A couple days ago, you mentioned the problem with a new owner coming into SOT with some of the proposed rules above. What would a new prospective owner have to say about a league that values Saves more than any other stat?
We have multiple valuable players unowned in SOT every year. Because a couple AL teams can afford to overpay for closers, that doesn’t mean SOT rules should change to accommodate overpriced closers. Some MLB teams value closers and pay them hansomely for it. Same can be said for Defense. Every AL team spends and constructs their roster based on a team philosophy. The same holds true for SOT teams.
“What would a new prospective owner have to say about a league that values Saves more than any other stat? ”
- In a silo, this statement is correct. But it’s the equivalent of me saying Jeremy Guthrie was a #1 pitcher last year, simply because he was #1 on Baltimore’s staff. So the statement is correct, but we all know he wasn’t a #1, we just needed to look at the bigger picture to see that. So saying SV’s are worth more than any other stat, when evaluated in the bigger picture, isn’t true. Closers are only impacting one stat, and that’s the SV category, yet MLB GM’s are paying them and valuing them in a similar fashion to top level starting pitchers and position players. Top level HOLD guys are not getting paid by GM’s, yet under current SOT rules, we’re saying they’re equal bullpen components.
“We have multiple valuable players unowned in SOT every year.”
- Really? Who?
“Because a couple AL teams can afford to overpay for closers.”
Rivera – $15M
Nathan – $12M
Wood – $10M
Fuentes – $9M
Papelbon – $9M
Jenks – $8M
Soriano – $7M
Gonzales – $6M
More than half the teams are paying $6M for closers, and the other 6 teams all have relatively young guys or low service time guys, who will get paid in a few years (Perry/Zumaya, Soria, Bailey, Fransisco, Aardsma).
99% of MLB teams value a closer, and the only reason some aren’t being paid is due to service time.
…do your research next time.
“We have multiple valuable players unowned in SOT every year.”
- AROD, Ordonez, Beurhle
“Closers are only impacting one stat, and that’s the SV categor”
- they impact 6 of the 7 pitching categories, some all 7. Shit Garza had 8 wins last year. 2 more than some of those players on your list. So it’s safe to assume these closers offer more value than just SV’s.
Arod, yes, he’s the one guy who stands out as a super producer not owned. At the same time, his 30M salary is also the super outlier among hitters salaries. It’s like 30% higher than the next closest salary, which is insane. But Ordonez? Buerhle? We’re talking about the best closers in the game in Mo and Nathan who weren’t owned, and you’re comparing them to a guy who hit 9 HR’s with 50 RBI and 54 R’s to go with his 810OPS. Okay numbers sure, but not near the top of the production chart like MoNathan. Buerhle too was pretty good (and owned in SOT for a period, like Ordonez), but 3.84ERA 1.24WHIP, 13W’s, and 105K’s isn’t close to the top of the pitchers production list.
Closers do contribute to each pitching category (excluding QS), but nowhere close to what starting pitchers do and positional players do. Mike and I just had this debate via gchat, and he’s of the opinion that closers contribute equally to all pitching categories, in the same way that starters contribute to all categories, and positional players contribute to all categories. I just can’t get onboard a debate that says someone who pitches 50-60 inn’s has the same impact as guys who pitch 200 inn’s. I don’t see how that math adds up.
Ag,
You posted this “Changing to 1.25pt and 0.75pt would still give two categories two points total. Not that big of a change; but a step that helps.”
My problem is this: 6 out of the top 10 AL Relievers in VORP were holds guys. With this being the case, is it safe to assume that the value of holds vs closers is a lot closer than most of you think?
Mike,
What does VORP have to do with MLB salaries? Obviously nothing, if you’re telling us that 6 out of the top 10 were holds guys. VORP isn’t a category in SOT and has no impact on MLB salaries, which is the debate we’re having here. We use MLB salaries in our league, just a fact of life, it’s what makes our league unique. We also have SV’s as a category in our league. MLB GM’s value closers and pay them more than holds guys, another fact. We try to align our league as close to MLB as possible, which is why this proposal is on the table. What happened to this response:
“Hurts my chances considerably. But i like it. Only seems fair.”
Did you start thinking more about the first part of the sentence?