More Math, Less % – WTNY Reports, You Decide…
| 2009 Total | SV & H Pts | Total |
SV + H | Pts | $ Spent | Net Pts | |||
| JM | 10 | JM | 123 | 16 | 13,175,000 | +6 | |||
| Tillman | 10 | Tillman | 116 | 14 | 5,339,000 | +4 | |||
| TRC | 10 | TRC | 93 | 12 | 8,550,000 | +2 | |||
| EE | 9.5 | WTNY | 81 | 10 | 3,044,000 | +2 | |||
| Si7 | 9 | 101 | 75 | 8 | 3,840,000 | +1 | |||
| DMB | 8.5 | EE | 70 | 6 | 4,826,000 | -3.5 | |||
| WTNY | 8 | Si7 | 61 | 4 | 1,600,000 | -5 | |||
| 101 | 7 | DMB | 56 | 2 | 2,530,000 | -6.5 |
New 2009 Standings (based on combined SV/HD category):
TRC – 80.5
DMB – 76.5
WTNY – 73
EE – 69
101 – 64.5
Tillman – 63.5
Si7 – 41
JM – 36
Some notes:
- $ spent is an estimate, it’s tough to calculate exact figures because often players are added and dropped. JM was one of the few teams to own most of his relievers throughout the year.
- The table on the left represents the 2009 point total for teams in the SV’s category and HD category.
- The table on the right represents the 2009 point total for a combined SV + H category (our new rule).
- Net pts is the total pt difference between the old rule and the rule voted in for the 2011 season.
- The ‘New Standings’ above is how the new rule would affect the league standings.
My conclusions:
1) If you look at the money spent, the two teams that spent the least on relievers during the 2009 season, had the least amount of total points.
2) The team that spent far more than anyone else on relievers during the 2009 season, had the most points.
3) The two teams that punted the SV category, had the least amount of points.
4) The two teams that had 400k closers, Tillman and WTNY, scored well in the pts per $$ spent.
5) DMB and EE would move down one spot, TRC and WTNY move up one spot.
So while DMB is suggesting that this rule would cause the earth to shake, teams to bypass holds, and make it impossible for a team to compete unless they could acquire two closers, come to find out, that wasn’t the case in 2009. The team with the most closers would’ve finished 45 pts out of first place (close though). The team with the 2nd most saves (Tillman) would’ve finished in 6th place, and the team with the 3rd most saves (101) would’ve finished in 5th place.
To me, this is great rule change. We’ll rightfully award teams that spend the most on relievers and penalize teams that either punt the category all together, or don’t spend much on it. On top of that, closers who make the minimum, or have only a few years of service time will become extremely valuable placing more emphasis on drafting well or identifying Free Agents with “closer” ability.
Thanks for the duplicate copy of the adjusted standings. Nothing new here. We still see a team lose -6.5 and one gain 6.
“The team with the most closers would’ve finished 45 pts out of first place (close though).”
– This has zero math relevance to the new rule. There are 12 other categories that count towards the standings. Just because AG’s team sucked in the other has nothing do with how the new standings look. At the end of the day AG picked up 6 points. That would have been the case if he finished 1st or 8th.
“We’ll rightfully award teams that spend the most on relievers and penalize teams that either punt the category all together, or don’t spend much on it.”
- First off, money spent on the each position is irrelevant. Here’s why: DMB spent the least amount of money on pitching in 09 but had the 3rd most pitching points. conversely, tillman spent the most money on pitching and finished 6th in pitching points.
-Secondly, you say “penalize” teams that don’t spend much money on it, but in the same sentence you said “The two teams that had 400k closers, Tillman and WTNY, scored well in the pts per $$ spent.”
Can you please explain what the hell you are talking about?
So I assume you’re off the kick that said, “how can teams compete without having two closers?” At least we proved that statement wrong quickly.
“At the end of the day AG picked up 6 points.”
- And he was forced to spend for those points, looks like the majority of us voted on the perfect rule.
“DMB spent the least amount of money on pitching in 09 but had the 3rd most pitching points.”
- Ah ya, you punted a category and choose not to spend on closer’s, who cost the most money. Pretty obvious why you spent the least, is it not?
“‘penalize’ teams that don’t spend much money on it,”
- I guess I wasn’t clear. But if you punt SV’s, it allows you to save money and spend it elsewhere. There’s no penalty for that because under the old rule, it would only cost you 1-2 points when adding your totals in HD’s and SV’s. The majority who voted for this new rule believe that teams shouldn’t punt one of two reliever categories. Two different philosophies.
There are way too man holes in your argument to comment on them all, so I’ll hit the important one’s.
First off, AG wasn’t forced to spend his money anywhere. He chose to spend his money on closers. And as your numbers show, he wasn’t very cost effective doing it as Tillman was able to pay almost 8M less while only sacrificing 2 points.
Funny how soxin7 spent less money on relievers than me, but was still 9 points behind me in the pitching categories. You continue to make ridiculous statements that carry no merit.
In response to teams unable to compete without having two closers. And i’ll be nice. With the few amount of valuable Closers in SOT, and the fact that teams own multiple closers, It’s mathematically impossible for every team compete in Saves. There aren’t enough quality closers to go around. We had one team carry 3 closers in 2009. So tell me how every team can compete?
So no matter what the rule is, the fact that a one team in SOT punts or comes in last in Saves, depending on the view point, is never going to change. There just isn’t enough Saves to go around.
“as Tillman was able to pay almost 8M less while only sacrificing 2 points.”
- Exactly, the value of having a 400k closer (Aardsma). Nice job Tillman.
“We had one team carry 3 closers in 2009. So tell me how every team can compete?”
- Um….who cares? Seriously, do you even know what you’re arguing or talking about at this point, because if so, it would be nice if you clued others in. You know, the rest of us dummies.
“So no matter what the rule is, the fact that one team in SOT punts or comes in last in Saves, depending on the view point, is never going to change.”
- Reading comprehension never was your thing, but it just so happens that the majority of us voted against the punting policy, and thanks to the new rule, punting one of the two categories set aside for relievers will actually penalize a team going forward.
- “Depending on your point of view” – this is my favorite line of the day so far from you. Somehow you’re unable to distinguish between a team going into the season saying, “I’m not going to have any closers on my team and therefore won’t be trying to accumulate points in the SV category” vs “My team batting average sucked this year, and I ended up in last place.” If you can’t understand the difference between those two scenarios, it’s highly unlikely that we’ll ever see eye to eye in this debate.
Truly amazing! That’s all I can say. I”m going to edit the entry in Wikipedia under “snake oil salesman” to have a picture of you. It’s only fitting.
Wow, you’re tilting bigtime right now, huh. I’m sorry if we hurt your feelings by first voting in favor of a rule that you’re against, and then laughing at your Human Genome Project calculation of Holds vs Saves that did manage to prove one thing…nothing. But while I enjoy a good debate, even I understand that when we vote on a rule at the Winter Meetings, if it doesn’t go my way, it comes off as sore-loserish to lobby for a rule change 24 hours later. Hey, you don’t win them all, it’s okay pal.
Not at all. Just impossible to have a debate with someone when they can’t comprehend Math. First, you said you didn’t think this rule would affect the standings that much. You were wrong. Then, you tell me the league doesn’t want a category that teams will punt. As it turns out your rule does nothing to change that. Teams will still punt Saves in 2011. Just like they have done in 4 of the 6 SOT seasons. I know your brain can’t comprehend the numbers, but ask someone who can. Lastly, the only reason why I posted something was because yourself and I assume the rest of league didn’t quite understand the impact on the Standings this rule is going to have.
So let’s all be adults here. I know Pat and Peter mentioned they may no longer be in favor of the rule. I’m not sure if that is the case, but as a league we should vote on it to make sure.
It’s not about jamming a rule through at the end of the meeting without discussing or knowing the ramifications. If your so confident your “perfect rule” would still pass then why are you against another vote? It’s about getting the rule right for SOT.
Little breakdown for you:
Teams who have punted Saves:
TRC – 2005
Tillman – 2005
Balco Bunch – 2006 (21 behind 7th place) borderline
DMB – 2007
DMB – 2008
DMB – 2009
Soxin7 – 2009
Teams who have punted Holds:
Soxin7 – 2006
JM – 2008
101 – 2009
So now that “you and rest of the league” have voted against punting a category, how are we doing to address the problem we have with the two teams who have punted Holds over the past two seasons? Oh wait. We’re not. Or are we? Seems like your argument changes with the wind. Sometimes it’s to make saves more valuable than holds, and other times it’s to penalize those teams who punt categories. And the best one of all, we want to change a rule because Nathan and Rivera aren’t owned. Have you figured out yet that Nathan and Rivera still won’t be owned next year?
I’m already sensing a trend here with DMB and this ‘ not enough closers to go around’ – He had this same stance about catchers a few years ago. Which i think was a pretty bad rule change. Harder is better for the league IMO.
Coincidence DMB never really had good closers/catchers?
I think its clear people want some more value for closers. 1.0 vs .50 seems relatively simple right?
Will Hunting, do you have a blackboard around where you can disprove this?
I agree, Pete. I would be for making it 1.0 vs .50. I know I have been against the whole thing but this would be better than what was voted on. This way we just reduce the value of the Hold
Don’t remember consciously punting saves in ’05 just looking at the saves totals that year might explain why we only had 8 saves. 2005 top 3 teams had over 100 saves next closest 73(also note the first year of holds were introduced to SOT).
2006 top 4 saves 83,79,72,56.
2007 top 4 87,79,71,66.
2008 86,85,77,69.
2009 90,75,57,49 the most notable drop in the top 4 also note quality starts were introduced.
The save is struggling, yes some closers are high priced but the introduction of some other stats have played a role. Punting a category and sucking in one are totally different
I hear ya Richie. Teams who have cheap productive closers are always going to perform well. The save category is cyclical in nature. Either it’s a young cheap stud who produces for many years, or a mid salary guy who contributes for a couple years then suddenly stops performing or get’s hurt. The nature of the beast with relievers. They just don’t last that long.
I vote A.
Can’s wait to hear which rule ‘Will Hunting’ will want to “re-vote” on next, got to say though, that’s probably the best nickname I’ve heard since league inception. Before you waste everyone’s time in the future, can you please be certain that you’ve got enough votes to make it worthwhile and you come up with a formula that doesn’t look like HD + SV/.008 (Joba * 3.14) = I have no clue what I’m trying to do? I’d like the last week of my life back please.
THAT. JUST. HAPPENED.
Just wait until I start talking about Standard Deviation.
Geek
Crap!