WM Proposal #11 – Net Saves & Holds
It appears Net Stolen Bases was a success this year. How do we feel about making the same happen for Saves and Holds in 2010? I still have that spreadsheet from last year EE if you need to see how it works.
It appears Net Stolen Bases was a success this year. How do we feel about making the same happen for Saves and Holds in 2010? I still have that spreadsheet from last year EE if you need to see how it works.
Net holds?
I hate net sb.
Why would you propose net saves and not net wins? Not in favor of either just wondering why one and not the other.
Not in favor.
I liked it last year, I’ll like it this year, and I’d like it going forward. I know EE, AG, and TRC were three of the outspoken critics of net saves, can one of them refresh my memory on the reason why?
I like the idea of net saves/holds.
My reason was I didn’t believe net save was going to add any value to closers, if it did I didn’t notice.
The obvious value being a closer with more net saves than an other provides for value to their respective team.
I’m a huge fan of the net steals, So it seems like a good fit for Saves and Holds
Ellsbury steals two bases, and Guitzy and Pedroia get caught stealing the same day. Ells SB’s are negated that day. I’m just not fan of the rule.
No proponent of net saves and holds has explained why they neglect to propose net wins?
Richie,
How about the guy who steals 10 bases and gets caught 10 times. Where is the value there?
Ag,
Without doing extensive research(I may be wrong). A reliever has more control over the outcome of a save or hold than that of a Starting pitcher getting a win.
I don’t think that is a fair assessment and don’t think the pitching categories for relievers should be treated differently then for starters. I’m not in favor of any of these net categories.
Chris
why should those 10SB negate Ellsbury though?
Richie,
I’m not “SOT” – that’s the commish, so he can answer it.
But to me, I view each player in a silo, so I don’t see it as one player negating another player. But if an MLB team has a guy stealing 10 and getting caught 10 times, he’s not a productive baserunner. Under the old SOT rule, he wasn’t being penalized as such.
AG,
I would never propose net W’s because I already think the W category is seriously flawed.
If a baserunner gets CS, that was caused by him alone, and he should be penalized for it. If a pitcher loses a game, it’s possible that he just pitched a gem, but his team or defense failed him. That’s the big difference I see, and the reason why I’d never vote for a Net W category.
Sorry, about that Chris. Any way you slice you are negating a positive stat from another player. A player that goes 0 for 10 didn’t help your team anyway. But now those players are penalizing players that were successful in stealing bases……….I just don’t like it. Same with net saves.
It’s clear we look at it in two different ways, so it’s not like either of us will change our opinion. That being said…
I try to look at players from an MLB GM perspective, and under that guideine, a player who goes 0-10, is providing negative value to their MLB team. Those -10 SB’s hurt his team. I believe they should hurt the SOT team as well, which they now do with the Net SB rule.
just don’t think it fits in fantasy baseball, especially with stats like saves and SB’s that are hard enough to accumulate.
But SV’s and SB’s are hypothetically hard to accumulate for all teams, not just one. And the total numbers are irrelevant here, we’re all working on the same net-scale.
Rich,
You want to see the spreadsheet from last year, showing how the net categories works? Or let me sum it up here:
2010
TRC – Rivera 40 Sv’s and 0 Blown Saves.
DMB – Wood 45 Saves and 10 Blown Saves.
Under the current rule, DMB would beat you in Saves.
Under the proposed rule, TRC would receive more points.
Which one makes sense to you?
“”But SV’s and SB’s are hypothetically hard to accumulate for all teams, not just one. “” I agree
Does it actually award the most efficient team at stealing bases? I didn’t do the research just curious…
TRC – 140 Sb’s and 20 Caught Stealing. Net 120
DMB – 145 SB’s and 30 Caught Stealing. Net 115
Something like this?
maybe SB% is what i am thinking
It just makes no sense that someone would want to add blown saves and blown holds to the league scoring; but not loses. There is no consistancey there. Starters and relievers are capable of loses. No starter will get a blown save or hold.
“Does it actually award the most efficient team at stealing bases? I didn’t do the research just curious…”
I don’t know either, but I assume so.
Ag,
Did you read Galvin’s post on Wins?
“Starters and relievers are capable of loses.”
True, guys who throw no hitters are capable of losses as well. The W/L is in many cases, a meaningless statistic often subjected to things like, # of runs an offense scores while the starter is on the mound, and type of defense behind said pitcher.
Last game of the season, AG is leading WTNY by one win in the hypothetical “Net W’s” category. Clay Buchholz throws a no-hitter but the Sox lose 1-0 on an error by Lowell, and Buch is saddled with the loss. John Danks goes 5 inn’s, gives up 10 hits, and 8 ER’s. Fortunately, CWS score 20 and Danks gets the win. WTNY takes the lead over AG. Sound fair to you?
I grant you that H’s and SV’s aren’t great stats either, but for relievers, do you have another suggestion on ways to keep them relevant in SOT?
“2010
TRC – Rivera 40 Sv’s and 0 Blown Saves.
DMB – Wood 45 Saves and 10 Blown Saves.
Under the current rule, DMB would beat you in Saves.
Under the proposed rule, TRC would receive more points.
Which one makes sense to you?”
Well I’m still taking Rivera he is the better pitcher just like in this example.
2009 Rodney 37 saves 1 blown (net 36)
Papelbon 38 saves 3 blown (net 35)
I assume you want Papelbon in this case.
My biggest issues is if Rivera is perfect in saves, other pitchers on my roster can blow saves and eat into his net total. An extreme example I found was Mark Lowe 3 saves 10 BS.Now someone can say you don’t have to keep him but he has 26 Holds. Less extreme example is Oki zero saves 2 blown which would change Rivera’s 40 net saves to 38.
I don’t think making holds and saves net categories makes them relevant. I actually think it makes them less relant and that is my problem. This proposal would make wins more meaningful and we agree that it is a flawed stat. Your example above does not take into account the other scoring categories that would be helped by a no hitter.
I don’t look at this and say, “now saves are relevant.” The same way I didn’t look at SB’s last year when we passed net-SB’s and say, “now SB’s are relevant.” I look at both of these and say, “Ok, now players are being more accurately penalized for failure, i.e. via caught stealing and blown saves.” What both of these net categories do is make the more successful players more valuable. The guys who blow less saves are more valuable to your team in this one category. Isn’t that the goal here, to reward the better players?
AG, I don’t see the Wins connection here – need some help.
And of course the other categories would be impacted in a positive way by a no-hitter, but how can we ever justify penalizing a pitcher for throwing a no-hitter because his team didn’t win the game?
Are we combining saves and holds?
“Are we combining saves and holds?”
- What’s this mean?
Are saves and holds going to be on category? I’m just wondering if this is where we are going with Net saves/net holds….
Oh, I don’t think so. I haven’t thought about that really. If we did do that, the SV would still have little value.
I say we make holds and saves one category, called ‘Bullpen”. Like other categories winning this category equals 8 points. With in this scoring system though Saves are worth 2 and Holds are worth one.
I think Chris already posted something similar. But this would be the order if we combine saves/holds…..the point totals are combined from each category last season
Total Saves/Holds 2009 with Total Points
JM 123 10pts
USA 116 10pts
TRC 93 10pts
WTNY 81 8pts
101 74 7pts
EE 70 9.5pts
Si7 61 9pts
DMB 56 8.5pts