Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The world's politest fantasy league returns.

Update - Feb 21st:
Existing Owners, please reply to me ASAP if you haven't let me know if you'll be returning. I want to get this years ownership list finalised this weekend, and I really don't want to drop anyone without hearing from them. Even if you're not coming back just drop me a line to let me know, thanks to all owners who have responded, there are five I'm still waiting to hear from.

Update2 :
I forgot that Opening Day is officially March 25th. Therefore I don't think yahoo is going to let us draft on March 27th. Let's schedule March 20th at 9pm as our preferred draft time. We'll have to shorten the trading window a little. I'll post an updated timetable at the weekend.


Welcome to Year Six of the Batter's Box Fantasy League.

Who's With Us?

Last week, I emailed all of last year's managers about returning for 2007. If you did not receive it, please send email to bbfl at gwynprice dot com with the following information:

Team Name:
Your name:
Email address:
WILL / WILL NOT be playing this year:

I am still waiting to hear from 18 owners or prospective owners. Please get in touch ASAP! I'm going to have to start assuming people aren't returning if I haven't heard in the next few days.

BBFL Preseason Schedule


Rule proposals and discussion will run from now until next Sunday. If we have complete team ownership by then, the schedule will run as follows:

Feb 14 through Mar 2: Ownership/roster decsions
Feb 18 through Feb 25: Rule proposals and discussion
Feb 25 through Mar 2: Rule voting
Mar 2 through Mar 16: Off-Season Trading Window
Mar 16: Announce Keepers
Mar 20: Deadline to change keepers
Mar 27: Draft.

The moment we get a leagueís ownership finalized, I will begin emailing owners to match owners with orphaned rosters. In essence, demoted teams choose first (in order of 2007 finish), then promoted teams, then owners promoted via attrition. Owners who do not respond promptly will be passed over and may have rosters assigned to them. See the BBFL constitution for details.

Regarding the trading window, Alomar and Barfield owners may have players they must relinquish now per the three-year rule. Iíll post a list in the near future (I emailed 2007 final rosters last week). Keep this in mind when developing a trading strategy.

Rule Proposal Guidelines

1. One owner proposes a rule change or an addition/adjustment to a current rule.
2. Someone seconds the proposal.
3. The proposal is added to the list. If two or more proposals seem contradictory, I may combine them into a single multiple-choice question at the time of voting (as an example from 2004, we wouldn't have wanted separate proposals on how many teams to relegate). We'll just see how they develop.
4. Before you submit a proposal, please review the constitution to make sure youíre not covering old ground.

Remember, BBFL rules canít contradict Yahoo. For example, in 2005 the BBFL voted to require 100 or more at-bats to qualify for offensive wins (similar to the 25-inning minimum). I later discovered that Yahoo provided no way to implement that rule, so out it went. Rule changes on in-game play (for example, statistical categories) will take effect this year, but structural changes involving ownership (for example, the ordering system for placing orphaned rosters with new owners) will not take effect until 2009. Put another way, no new rule may take effect before Opening Day.

Also, if a proposed rule would create onerous administrative duties for the commissioner, the commissioner reserves the right to complain incessantly until the ruleís proponents give up.

Advancement / Relegation


Per league rules, the three lowest-ranked teams in the Alomar and Barfield divisions move down, and the top three teams (in the standings or playoffs, depending on the circumstances) in Barfield and Carter move up. Here are the switches for 2006:

Eastern Shore Birds, Schroedingerís Bat, 1 Tool Wonders and Baseball North (attrition) advanced to Alomar.
Pohnpei Papayas, Thunderbirds and Reykjavik Fish Candy were relegated to Barfield.
Trembling Wilburys, Garth Iorg Gremlins, New Jeresy Stratuses and Yastremskis (attrition) advanced to Barfield.
Bodells Bashers, team junior felix and Angry Gnomes were relegated to Carter.

Draft Day

During the past three years, every division has held its draft on the Thursday prior to Opening Day. This year, that will be March 27th. Weíve typically drafted at about 9pm EST, rather late for you Easterners but necessary to accommodate those out west.

Waiting List

Interested in playing? Join the waiting list. Last yearís waiting list has 8 names outstanding, and it does carry over, but plenty of people decline or donít respond. I send out 5 invitations last week and have only had one response, so we may well have a few openings. If you'd like to be added please email bbfl at gwynprice dot com, with:
Your Name
Your box Id
Your Team Name
BBFL 2008 | 35 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
williams_5 - Monday, February 18 2008 @ 04:03 PM EST (#180133) #
Just wondering, how do we know if you've received our confirmation email?
Jdog - Monday, February 18 2008 @ 04:52 PM EST (#180134) #
Im wondering if there is anywhere we can see our rosters from last season (Barfield Division).
Ryan C - Monday, February 18 2008 @ 07:14 PM EST (#180136) #
If you log into your yahoo fantasy sports account and go to your profile, you should be able to see what your roster was at the end of last year.
Gwyn - Monday, February 18 2008 @ 09:41 PM EST (#180138) #
williams5 - I got your reply, there will be another email on its way next week, oncea few more replies are in and the leagues are full.

Jdog - the final season rosters should have been attached to the email I sent out last week, if you didn;t get the attachment drop me a line at the email in the thread and I'll send you a copy

Noah - Monday, February 18 2008 @ 10:24 PM EST (#180139) #

gwyn, Im having some email problems in the account you sent the email to.  I replied with my new address, if you got it can you just send me a quick email so that I know it got through ok?

thanks!

ChicagoJaysFan - Tuesday, February 19 2008 @ 03:13 AM EST (#180143) #
This sounds like a great idea and I'd be interested in joining the waiting list, but had a couple of questions:
  1. Are there any fees and / or prizes?  I'd prefer the free league that is just for the honor.
  2. What has the commitment level throughout the season been like in the past.  I've been in other leagues where only the top 2 or 3 owners stay interested beyond the first half and it gets frustrating.
Thanks.

Gwyn - Tuesday, February 19 2008 @ 09:36 AM EST (#180146) #
We use the yahoo premium service, so there are fees to pay for that, bit its only six odd dollars a year per team, there are no prizes.  The commitment level is great, and we don't invite back owners who bale on their teams.
Pistol - Tuesday, February 19 2008 @ 03:42 PM EST (#180163) #
As a former participant in BBFL I can vouch for the commitment level.  The difficulty level is also very high.  I've been in $200 leagues that were cake to win.  This free league is tough to crack the playoffs.
Ben - Wednesday, February 20 2008 @ 01:17 AM EST (#180170) #
Am I allowed to propose rules yet?  If so here goes...

First is to increase keeper number to either 6 or 7 players.  I think that increasing the keeper count would make the draft even more important but at the same time would allow owners to take more risks both in the draft and in their keepers.  If someone has a hot prospect that they wish to keep such as Evan Longoria or something this would allow them to hang on to them while at the same time keeping their regular five guys. 

Secondly, and also vaguely in the hot prospect theme, I'd like to increase keeper years to either 4 or 5.  This would alllow owners who drafted young players in a risky investment more time to pay out.  However, I would add that people currently in their third year who have to traded or let go (like A-Rod on my team unfortunately), still have to be traded or let go, they dont get an extra year or two extension.

Both these proposals are kind of geared towards owner loyalty towards younger players who may not have panned out completely and while some may feel five keepers at three years is rather standard, I love following certain players and would love to keep them on my team as long as possible.

Jdog - Wednesday, February 20 2008 @ 10:22 AM EST (#180175) #

So your saying you drafted Alex Gordon last year?

I like the idea of 7 keepers, but it would have to be transitioned in at the beginning of next year. At the end of last year people were making roster moves assuming they could only keep 5 guys, so they may have traded their 5th, 6th and 7th best players for a marginal improvement on their 5th keeper. So I second his proposal, it needs a year of transition to come into effect

 

 

 

3RunHomer - Wednesday, February 20 2008 @ 03:19 PM EST (#180187) #

We use the yahoo premium service, so there are fees to pay for that, bit its only six odd dollars a year per team, there are no prizes.

Actually, there are prizes. As the proud winner of a "League Champ 2007, Yahoo Sports Fantasy Baseball" t-shirt, I can attest to that. My Eastern Shore Birds surprisingly won the Barfield division regular season (I got a shirt even though I finished 3rd in the playoffs).

Jonny German - Wednesday, February 20 2008 @ 04:24 PM EST (#180188) #
Both these proposals are kind of geared towards owner loyalty towards younger players who may not have panned out completely and while some may feel five keepers at three years is rather standard, I love following certain players and would love to keep them on my team as long as possible.
 
I'm not in favour of more keepers, as it would emphasize the disadvantage of some teams to start of the season. If your keepers are relatively weak, you have less chance to make up for it in the draft. If you finished badly last season (and if so, chances are that your keepers are relatively weak), then your high pick in the first open round is less valuable.
 
Another reason I'm not in favour of more keepers, and the reason I'm also not in favour of longer contracts, is they de-emphasize the need to make trades. Trades are interesting.
 
If you have an unusual affection for a guy who is by rights a 9th rounder, there's nothing stopping you from re-drafting him in the 7th round for 5 consecutive years.
Jonny German - Wednesday, February 20 2008 @ 04:32 PM EST (#180189) #

1) I propose we limit the maximum number of transactions per team per season.

2)  I propose we vote on the following thresholds:

a) 60

b) 80

c) 100

The rationale behind having a transactions cap was discussed here.

HaloBrad - Wednesday, February 20 2008 @ 10:18 PM EST (#180194) #
Look at my transaction totals and you will know my bias. Still, I believe my feelings about any movement to limit transactions have justification:
First, the quantity of transactions clearly does not make a championship caliber team; see the Chatsworth Halos as a prime example!
Further, in a league this deep with savvy owners, the bottom of a team's roster is usually stocked with borderline players who sit on the bench unless injury requires their activity. Therefore, I love checking the free agent lists daily to see how I can both improve my team as well as make my perusal of the box scores more entertaining.
Most importantly, there are an equal number of catagories that require higher averages as there are that require higher totals. I feel it is at least as valid to try to increase the latter by picking up pitchers on the days they start and other players whose teams are playing on "travel" days as it is to stand pat on the former by sitting players later in the week once a team has achieved good averages in these catagories.
Lastly, why "punish" owners who enjoy the game (both fantasy and reality) and who chose to grasp at a chance to pick up a young player unexpectedly getting time or a veteran flashing some of his old magic.
I am not or probably never will be at the top of this league but I love trying to compete with you guys with a team on the field of play. 

Brad/Chatsworth Halos
Skills - Thursday, February 21 2008 @ 10:10 AM EST (#180197) #

Jonny, I agree with the first part of your post, expressing how increasing the number of keepers may tend to stabilize the league in that it will be easier for good teams to stay that way. However, I don't know that adding 1 or 2 keepers to a roster of 25 will cause that to happen to a substantial extent. Managers might be inclined to be gun-shy because in making a mid-season trade they might be forced to trade away next season's keepers for immediate help. I think this only goes to show that increasing the number of keepers will increase the degree of risk in trades, in that as in real life, trying to "win now" might require mortgaging away the future. In this sense, more keepers may actually end up destabilizing the league from season to season and encouraging teams without a great chance of winning in any one season to exact a higher price from trade partners making that final push.

I do not agree that more (6 or 7) keepers necessarily means fewer trades. In the past I have found it difficult to make trades specifically because each team only has 5 keepers. The low number gives each manager a disincentive to trade during the season, because they know that it is silly to trade, off the top of my head, A-Rod for Cano (slow start) and McGowan (no proven track record), two players with substantial value now, but who had a great deal less toward the beginning of last season. If the manager already had 4 keepers, they wouldn't be able to keep both Cano and McGowan. With more keepers, the trade (or one like it) makes more sense. Managers may choose from a wider array of strategies and trades may actually be encouraged because instead of concentrating value in only 5 players, it makes sense to spread it out amongst 7.

Ryan C - Thursday, February 21 2008 @ 05:55 PM EST (#180213) #
If the manager already had 4 keepers, they wouldn't be able to keep both Cano and McGowan. With more keepers, the trade (or one like it) makes more sense.

But only in the specific situation where the team has exactly the same number of great players as keepers allowed.  If the team in question had either 4 or 6 great players, then it's not an issue to make a two-for-one that involves one of their keepers.  I'm against increasing the number of keepers because it decreases the importance of the draft.  Even if it might increase the amount of in-season player movement, it absolutely decreases the amount of off-season player movement.  And of course the more keepers you have the more difficult it is for the crummy teams to get better.

As for capping transactions, I'm kind of torn.  I hate streaming so anything that prevents that is a fine idea.  But on the other hand I love taking chances on waiver wire pickups to fill out my bench and fringe spots and enjoy switching up these players often.
Jonny German - Thursday, February 21 2008 @ 09:11 PM EST (#180218) #
I hate streaming so anything that prevents that is a fine idea.  But on the other hand I love taking chances on waiver wire pickups to fill out my bench and fringe spots and enjoy switching up these players often.

Check out the link I provided above. You'll find that even at the lowest total I suggested (60 moves per season) this really is just an anti-streaming move, it would only affect a handful of owners.
seeyou - Thursday, February 21 2008 @ 11:30 PM EST (#180220) #

Iíd like to add my two cents to the transaction cap debate.  Iíll start by admitting that I am an owner who tends to be very active on the waiver wire (I believe my Superstars topped out around 100 transactions last year), so take from that what you will.   I generally agree with most of what HaloBrad said above: that a transaction cap tends to just punish the most dedicated owners.

However, I did dislike all the streaming that went on last year, especially in the playoffs.  A championship should not be decided by an owner getting a lucky start out of the Kip Wells or Robinson Tejadas of this world in the last week of year.  But I think there are ways to avoid streaming without a transaction cap.  For example, the fantasy basketball league I play in each year had a new rule this year where your roster is frozen at the start of each fantasy week.  You can still make as many roster changes as you want throughout the week, but you canít use the new players until the following week.  This would also force teams to choose at the start of each week which players they want to have active for that week, and which ones they want on the bench, which has additional positive/negative consequences that should be considered.  Iíve cursed the rule the couple of weeks that Iíve forgotten to make roster changes before the freeze takes effect, or had a player go down with an injury on a Tuesday, but overall itís made things a lot fairer in the league.

I think a change like that prevents streaming more effectively, while not punishing the owners who choose to actively scout player activity throughout the year.

Skills - Friday, February 22 2008 @ 08:57 AM EST (#180227) #

I really don't see how changing to weekly roster freezes is a better way to approach the problem than a transaction cap. As seeyou mentioned, it creates the problem of screwing owners who miss the roster  freeze deadline. In addition, this is Fantasy Baseball, not Fantasy Football, and daily transactions is an aspect of the former that I'd prefer not to forego, especially because injuries happen every day of the week, and a dedicated owner should be allowed to respond accordingly.

The whole point of a transaction cap is not to stifle manager "dedication." The truth is that up to a point, unless your strategy is streaming pitchers, there are only so many transactions worth making. I have been a dedicated owner for the past 3 seasons and I probably end up with (approximately) 60 or so transactions per year. I certainly do not begrudge those owners who make more transactions. It is an owner's prerogative to improve his team at any time if possible. However, it seems the only point to a transaction cap is to prevent one or two owners from monopolizing unowned players or abusing a technicality in the rules to violate the general spirit of the league.

Having a transaction cap would cause the league to come to a general agreement on what degree of streaming is permissible and would force those owners who prefer to stream to conserve their transactions, as least to an extent. Once the rule is in place, there can be no disputes about whether streaming is fair or not. The transaction cap will govern the fairness of a managers transaction making practices.

3RunHomer - Friday, February 22 2008 @ 09:10 AM EST (#180228) #
FYI - Yahoo does allow drafts after opening day. Some leagues prefer it -- the rosters are set. But March 20 is good too.
Gwyn - Friday, February 22 2008 @ 10:15 AM EST (#180230) #
3RunHomer - thanks for the information.  I tried to create the first of our leagues last night (the process didn't go well yahoo - took my money but didn't create the league), I got as far through the process as selecting a draft date and all dates after the 24th were 'greyed out' in the selection box.
Jonny German - Friday, February 22 2008 @ 10:16 AM EST (#180231) #
Thanks Skills, you articulated that better than I have. Just a reminder, per the BBFL constitution someone needs to officially second my proposal in order for us to have a vote on it.

David Goodwin - Friday, February 22 2008 @ 11:58 AM EST (#180236) #
I second Jonny's rule change proposal.
Skills - Friday, February 22 2008 @ 04:14 PM EST (#180240) #

it absolutely decreases the amount of off-season player movement.  And of course the more keepers you have the more difficult it is for the crummy teams to get better

Ryan C, could you explain why it absolutely decreases the amount of off-season player movement (I'm not being facetious, I'm just not sure I see it)?

I do agree that the best reason against increasing the number of keepers is that it might doom bad teams. I also agree that more keepers decreases the importance of the draft.

However, I think it's possibly that increasing the number of keepers, by increasing flexibility and perhaps the number of trades during season, simply shifts the onus on owners to improve their teams through trade instead of the draft.  In other words, the strategy changes (slightly, as we're only talking about a 1-2 keeper increase) to one that demands improvement via trade, in-season roster pickup, or waiver wire instead of draft. The ability to improve is not necessarily removed. This is especially true, because I think it's possible to underestimate the amount of value that arises during the season, AFTER the draft. A wise manager, whose team may suck, knows that he/she should take greater risks and hold guys on his roster that he ordinarily would not (McGowan is a good example), in the hope that they become a keeper or have trade value by the end of the season.

I think it comes down to a matter of taste. Do you find it more interesting to live or die by trades or  by drafts. I'm not sure that either one is harder than the other, but I think the good owner wins out either way. The degree of permanency of any team's roster (and thus the fate of a bad team to remain bad) is directly linked to that owners ability to find value. I don't see that this fact changes substantially if the number of keepers is increased from 5 to 7.

3RunHomer - Friday, February 22 2008 @ 05:45 PM EST (#180242) #

3RunHomer - thanks for the information.  I tried to create the first of our leagues last night (the process didn't go well yahoo - took my money but didn't create the league), I got as far through the process as selecting a draft date and all dates after the 24th were 'greyed out' in the selection box.

Ha ... I figured Yahoo wouldn't switch to the "take your money, give you nothing" strategy until after being swallowed up by Microsoft.

Maybe they don't open up more dates until the first batch begins to fill. It states right there on the front page that "Live drafts are available until April 11."

Gwyn - Friday, February 22 2008 @ 08:50 PM EST (#180244) #

Maybe they don't open up more dates until the first batch begins to fill. It states right there on the front page that "Live drafts are available until April 11."

It turns out we have to have the draft complete before we can start to count stats from games.  So if we want the games in Japan to count we have to draft before the 25th.

ANationalAcrobat - Saturday, February 23 2008 @ 12:05 AM EST (#180248) #
The advancement/relegation system is confusing to me. I'm assuming that if Team A keeps Alex Rios then gets kicked up to the Alomar Division, it is then possible for the Alomar Division to have two teams with Alex Rios. He could then be traded to Team A, giving that team's owner the same player twice. Am I interpreting the league's constitution correctly?

3RunHomer - Saturday, February 23 2008 @ 07:38 AM EST (#180249) #

I'd like to make another rule change proposal: Replace "innings pitched" with "holds".

The holds stat gives value to a new group of pitchers -- middle relief. Holds leaders from 2007 include Brandon Lyon, Heath Bell, Derrick Turnbow, Jon Rauch, Jonathan Broxton, Rafael Betancourt, and Scot Shields. These are talented players who are undervalued in the existing BBFL scoring system.

The innings pitched stat is mostly to blame for the streaming problem. Replacing it takes away half of the incentive for streaming.

I think this change would result in more realistic pitching staffs consisting of starters, middle relief and closers, instead of just starters and closers. What do you think? Would anyone like to second the proposal?

koanhead - Saturday, February 23 2008 @ 12:06 PM EST (#180250) #
I'm against a transaction cap on general principle. In any league I've ever played in, a constantly churning waiver wire has seemed to be a strong indicator of league health. (I stress that that's a correlation I've noticed; I don't claim it to be a cause.)

I will second 3RunHomer's proposal to replace Innings Pitched with Holds, as I also believe we place too little value here in the BBFL on the work of middle relievers. As a guy who has practiced streaming because of a predilection for gambling too much on high risk/high reward starters in the draft  and getting snakebit, I can tell you that adoption of this rule change proposal would cut way down on my personal turnover of pitchers.

But if people are deadset on keeping Innings Pitched, I'll also offer a variation on 3RunHomer's proposal: let's replace ERA with Holds.

Schroedinger's Bat
dp - Sunday, February 24 2008 @ 11:47 AM EST (#180266) #
I played in a league with holds one year, and it was terrible.  The hold as a stat sucks- it is beyond meaningless, and borders on completely random.

I'm against a transaction limit, even though I recognize lack of transaction cap makes me extremely unproductive at work for good portions of the season.  In my experience, and maybe I just suck at it as evidenced by my place in the standings, but it can burn you just as often as it can help you.

I'm for bumping up the keeper number to 6, and bumping up the keeper years to 4.  Fair implementation will be difficult- people have been making acquisitions with the old rules in mind, so how do you adjust for this?  I recognize trades are great, but so is having a franchise player or two as the core of your team.  And I'm not just saying that because I've got Justin Upton and Evan Longoria on my otherwise crappy team.
Geoff - Sunday, February 24 2008 @ 02:51 PM EST (#180275) #
Likewise, I say the hold is a dopey stat and want no part of it.  I appreciate the push to make fantasy rosters a more complete match to the make-up of real-life rosters, but holds do not make sense. Good relievers provide valuable stats in ERA and possibly Ks regardless of some measurement of 'holds'. Most of last year's top Holds guys were in the NL. Here are stats for NL holds leaders in 2007:

RK  PLAYER          TEAM    GP      IP         H      R     ER     BB    SO     W      L   HLD  SV  ERA
1    Brandon Lyon      ARI    73     74.0     70     25     22     22     40      6     4     35     2     2.68
2    Heath Bell           SDG    81     93.2     60     21     21     30   102      6     4     34     2     2.02
3    Derrick Turnbow   MIL   77     68.0     44     36     35     46     84     4     5     33     1     4.63
      Jon Rauch           WAS    88     87.1     75     37     35     21     71     8     4     33     4     3.61
5    Jonathan BroxtonLAD    83     82.0     69     30     26     25     99     4     4     32     2     2.85
6    Tony Pena          ARI      75      85.1     63     36     31     31     63     5     4     30     2     3.27
7    Ryan Franklin      STL     69      80.0     70      28     27     11     44     4     4     25     1     3.04
8    Bob Howry          CHC     78     81.1     76     31      30     19     72     6     7     22     8     3.32
     J.C. Romero        PHI       51     36.1     15      5        5     25     31     1     2     22     0     1.24
     Aaron Heilman    NYM      81     86.0     72     36      29     20     63     7     7     22     1     3.03

I'd suggest that a number of these guys were valuable to fantasy teams without holds becoming relevant. Heath Bell and Jon Broxton already gave you great ERA and K numbers. And Franklin, Heilman, Lyon, Pena all gave you good ERA numbers. Howry and Rauch looked to be closer for awhile and had good K totals. The only guy who might switch from irrelevant to fantasy leagues to relevant is Turnbow, who's still a very good K artist with some bad luck.

What bothers me about using holds is how the guys outside of the top 10 would become relevant. In 2006, for instance, the #10 guy in MLB in holds was Arthur Rhodes, with 23 holds in 45.2 innings, 30 BB, 48K, 0 W, 5 L, 4 SV and a 5.32 ERA. That year, Scott Schoeneweis tied Jose Mesa for #18 in holds with 19, having racked up 18 of them in Toronto to the tune of a 6.51 ERA.

In short, Holds are a horrible performance statistic. The worst, IMHO. Unpredictable, unreliable and unworthy of notice.
R Billie - Monday, February 25 2008 @ 12:11 PM EST (#180305) #

It's possible for a pitcher to get a hold WITHOUT RECORDING A SINGLE OUT.  At least with a save you know the pitcher had to record the last out of the game without giving up the lead.  With a win you know the pitcher had to record the last out of an inning with a lead.

With a hold a pitcher can come in, give up 3 baserunners, an earned run, get no-one out, and as long as another pitcher bails him out before his team gives up the lead, he still gets a hold.  The stat just makes little sense.

I think the value of middle relievers comes from the good ratios and occasional extra wins and saves they can provide.  Saves are already a somewhat random commodity grab.  I don't holds add much.

Incidentally, I don't think it matters if we draft after the season starts, particularly if it's just two days after.  Everyone will be drafting knowing the final rosters and you can either choose for stats to be back-dated to opening day or to count starting from the draft.  I kind of prefer drafting on the 27th myself.

Gwyn - Monday, February 25 2008 @ 02:08 PM EST (#180309) #
Incidentally, I don't think it matters if we draft after the season starts, particularly if it's just two days after.  Everyone will be drafting knowing the final rosters and you can either choose for stats to be back-dated to opening day or to count starting from the draft.  I kind of prefer drafting on the 27th myself.

Yahoo wont let us backdate stats.  Theres this note on the screen where you set the draft time for the league:

"Note: The first day of regular season games is Tuesday, Mar 25. Your draft must be completed at least one day prior to the date on which your league wishes to start scoring."

Otherwise Id prefer to draft on the 27th too.
Geoff - Monday, February 25 2008 @ 02:08 PM EST (#180310) #
I remain very confused about the hold stat, and Schoeneweis's 2006 season intrigues me as to how he could be measured to have any positive result to his Jays season.

Specifically, let's look at his game on May 24, 2006:

Top of the 7th, Devil Rays Batting, Behind 5-7, Scott Schoeneweis facing 2-3-4
Scott Schoeneweis replaces Ty Taubenheim pitching
--- 2 C Crawford Single to LF (Line Drive)
O 1-- 4 J Gomes Groundout: P-1B; Crawford to 2B
-2- A Huff Crawford Steals 3B
--3 6 " " Walk
Jason Frasor replaces Scott Schoeneweis pitching
RO 1-3 1 T Wigginton Flyball: CF/Sacrifice Fly; Crawford Scores; Huff to 2B
RR -2- 1 T Hall Home Run (Fly Ball to LF); Huff Scores
O --- 7 D Hollins Flyball: RF
3 runs, 2 hits, 0 errors, 0 LOB. Devil Rays 8, Blue Jays 7.

So Scott comes in, allows two baserunners and gets one out. Both baserunnners come around to score to tie the game.
Scott still gets a hold. Why? because the pitcher who follows him doesn't have to hold the lead for him to get a save. Doesn't matter if Scott's earned runs tie the game.

Apparently, there is no standard definition for a hold as it is not an official MLB stat. STATS Inc.'s definition requires a pitcher to record at least one out to gain a hold. SportsTracker does not have this requirement. source

If I were to invent the hold as a useful statistic, at least one recorded out would be mandatory and no more than one earned run or unearned run should be allowed by the pitcher, nor more than one inherited runner allowed to score, in a case where the pitcher's team had a lead of no more than three runs and that lead was not surrendered, in order for the pitcher to qualify for a hold.

So if the pitcher has a lead of two runs and gets one out but allows two baserunners, and those baserunners come around to score, the pitcher gets no hold (in contradiction to the game cited above). If the pitcher has a three run lead and allows two baserunners and those baserunners come around to score, but the lead is maintained, he won't get a hold because allowed more than one earned run (life is tough for relievers).

But if a pitcher comes in with a three run lead and walks the bases loaded, then strikes out one guy and a superior reliever comes in and strikes out a guy, gives up a walk and strikes out another hitter to set things up for the closer with a two run lead, both set-up relievers gain a hold. If it was a one-run lead, no hold for anybody, because the game would be tied.

Until the hold can be hammered out properly, keep the hold on hold.
R Billie - Monday, February 25 2008 @ 02:33 PM EST (#180311) #

"Note: The first day of regular season games is Tuesday, Mar 25. Your draft must be completed at least one day prior to the date on which your league wishes to start scoring."

My mistake then.  I suspect that's a change as I do seem to remember at least one league where the draft was done afterwards and stats counted retroactively.

BBFL 2008 | 35 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.