[USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux

[Andy Klein]

Starting again with the caveat that this is not an end-of-the world issue,
I'm taking one more swing at this.

It seems we have a clear majority in favor of including holds in some
fashion in our scoring system in 2020.  I propose a vote on one of two
alternatives.

A.  Holds + Saves
B  Holds + 2XSaves

In the past, we haven't changed rules unless we have a strong majority in
favor.  Commissioners ... can we vote and see where we stand?  Knowing the
outcome could have an impact on bidding this year.

-Andy

PS:  I vote for option A - Saves + Holds. :)

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:33 PM Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com> wrote:

> In the end, this is not a huge issue to me, regardless of whether we stick
> with S, go to S+H or 2S+H.  But it's kind of interesting, and I enjoy
> procrastinating during the lunch hour by looking at it!
>
> I suppose you could find odd comparisons either way, but I still like S+H
> better.  Doubling the value of saves retains the huge value gap between 9th
> inning pitchers and others, and does much less to reduce the dynamic that
> encourages our artificial chasing of the "closer carousel."  So, to me,
> it's not just the relative rankings in the spreadsheets that Frank
> created.  It's the gap.  Here's one example.  When you double the value of
> saves, Shane Greene collects twice as many counting points as stronger
> pitchers like Colome, Robertson, and Betances.  With S+H, Greene still
> ranks higher, getting the "bump" for being a 9th inning guy.  But the gap
> is much narrower.  That's a much better outcome in my view.
>
> As for some odd names showing up high in the S+H rankings (Alvarado, Roe,
> Trivino), that just reflects our longstanding bias.  They are "no-names" to
> us because our scoring system doesn't place any value on what they do even
> though they are good pitchers.
>
> -Andy
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:57 PM springkerb--- via Announce <
> announce at usml.net> wrote:
>
>> Not so slight.  In the Luby comparison, Alvarado jumps from 10th to 3rd.
>> Roe jumps from 14th to 6th.  And a bunch of nobodies after about #20 go
>> from the obscurity they deserve to real value.
>>
>> Mark K
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Blocker, Mark B. <mblocker at sidley.com>
>> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>> Cc: springkerb at aol.com <springkerb at aol.com>
>> Sent: Tue, Feb 12, 2019 11:49 am
>> Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>>
>> Point taken.  “Substantial value”?  Seems the likely impact is slight
>> decrease in value of closers and slight increase in value of some middle
>> relievers.
>>
>> *MARK B. BLOCKER*
>>
>>
>>
>> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 312 853 6097
>> mblocker at sidley.com
>>
>> *From:* Announce <announce-bounces at usml.net> *On Behalf Of *springkerb---
>> via Announce
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:44 AM
>> *To:* announce at usml.net
>> *Cc:* springkerb at aol.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>>
>> To Jim's point re multiple holds being available per game, the main thing
>> I was trying to do w/ my approach is to value both holds and saves equally, *relative
>> to the number of saves and holds available*.  The ratio was pretty close
>> to 2:1 last year (actually about 2.1:1).  So if we go to a 2:1 ratio, then
>> we'd be valuing all available holds and all available saves approximately
>> equally.  I think if you look at Buddha's comparison, the most obvious and
>> questionable shifts in value involve middle relievers that aren't
>> particularly good pitchers but get a lot of appearances in the sixth or
>> seventh inning--e.g., Chaz Roe.  To me, those guys are greatly overvalued
>> by a 1:1 ratio.  Particularly when you get down to the guys below about the
>> top 20, the 1:1 ratio gives substantial value to some guys who just aren't
>> very good pitchers.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Barrett <chicagojab at gmail.com>
>> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>> Sent: Tue, Feb 12, 2019 10:59 am
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>> That’s assuming that everyone’s goal is to value saves and holds equally
>> important.  From my perspective, I’d like to recognize holds as having some
>> value but I still view saves more important for several reasons. Like it or
>> not but saves are an official statistic of MLB but I don’t believe holds
>> are. Only 1 save can be given out in a game whereas more than 1 hold can be
>> given.  Baseball is a tradition bound game more than most sports and the
>> save and closer has the tradition behind it whereas holds do not. If we all
>> want to go total saber, we’d get rid of Wins and BA too. So in sum if we
>> make a change, I’m in favor of weighting saves more heavily. And no on
>> future requests to have a WAR  or OPS+ category! :-)
>>
>> Jim
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2019, at 9:49 AM, Blocker, Mark B. via Announce <
>> announce at usml.net> wrote:
>> Want to give this more thought, but I think I agree with John’s point
>> that 2x saves puts too much emphasis on saves and defeats our goal of
>> treating holds as equally important.
>>
>> Also, here are the options Onroto currently allows.  I believe the math
>> on option two works out the same as what some have proposed on a relative
>> basis:
>>
>> HOSV (Holds + Saves)
>>
>> SAVES2 (Saves + Holds / 2)
>>
>> *MARK B. BLOCKER*
>>
>>
>>
>> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 312 853 6097
>> mblocker at sidley.com
>>
>> *From:* Announce <announce-bounces at usml.net> *On Behalf Of *Bill
>> Strotman via Announce
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:37 AM
>> *To:* USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>> *Cc:* Bill Strotman <bbuddhas at aol.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>>
>> Who cares what’s most realistic.   It’s fantasy sports
>>
>> We give same weighting to SB as dingers.   That’s wrong.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2019, at 9:14 AM, Frank Luby via Announce <announce at usml.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Good points, Mark.
>>
>> This version re-sorts the right-hand data to make Mark's points clear.
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019, 8:54:09 AM CST, springkerb <
>> springkerb at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> To me, the 2x saves version does a better job of identifying pitchers who
>> can reliably hold a lead--which I think is what we're trying to measure
>> here.  For example, the version that values saves and holds equally says
>> that Jose Alvarado is third in the league.  He's a good reliever, but I
>> don't think he was more reliablelast year than Trienen or Chapman.
>> Similarly, the equally weighted version says the Chaz Roe (Chaz Roe?) was
>> the sixth most reliable holder of leads in the AL.  That's nuts.
>>
>> In general, major league managers use their best relievers later in the
>> games, and that makes sense, since holding a lead gets more valuable later
>> in the game.  A clean ninth inning improves the team's likelihood of
>> winning more when there are fewer innings left to play.  So, at least to my
>> eye, the 2x approach does a better job of rewarding better relievers.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: JOHN FRUIT <jtfruit at msn.com>
>> Date: 2/12/19 5:19 AM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>, Frank Luby <
>> zachfehsvater at yahoo.com>, Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>
>> Cc: springkerb <springkerb at aol.com>
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>>
>> What's apparent is that the 2x saves method seems to put even more
>> statistical emphasis on the saves category, kinda defeating the purpose.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: springkerb via Announce <announce at usml.net>
>> Date: 2/11/19 10:15 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: Frank Luby <zachfehsvater at yahoo.com>, Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>,
>> USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>> Cc: springkerb <springkerb at aol.com>
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>>
>> Cool.  It's an interesting comparison.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Frank Luby <zachfehsvater at yahoo.com>
>> Date: 2/11/19 10:02 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>, USML Announcements <
>> announce at usml.net>
>> Cc: springkerb <springkerb at aol.com>
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>>
>> To throw some data into this discussion, here are the top 50 relievers in
>> the AL last season ranked by the SV+HLD method and the 2xSV+HLD, in a side
>> by side comparison ...
>>
>> On Monday, February 11, 2019, 9:44:36 PM CST, springkerb via Announce <
>> announce at usml.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'd like you to reconsider the ratio.  There are about twice as many
>> holds as saves. Weighting them equally would actually make the 7th and 8th
>> inning guys more valuable than closers, which just doesn't seem right.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2/11/19 7:33 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>> Cc: springkerb <springkerb at aol.com>
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>>
>> Nope ... we talked about it, but never voted on it.  I'm actually
>> advocating Saves + Holds, not 2XSaves + Holds.  I'm fine with 2020
>> implementation.  I'll wait another day and then make a formal proposal.
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 7:02 PM springkerb via Announce <
>> announce at usml.net> wrote:
>>
>> See my other email.  Thought thiswas a done deal for this year.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2/11/19 4:16 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>>
>> That's four quick positive responses.  Eager to hear others ... and
>> whether people would generally prefer to implement in 2020.
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:01 PM JOHN FRUIT <jtfruit at msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, Josh Hader struck out like 50 Cubs in 10+ innings of work and had
>> nary a save.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Frank Luby via Announce <announce at usml.net>
>> Date: 2/11/19 3:38 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>> Cc: Frank Luby <zachfehsvater at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>>
>> What’s a closer ...?
>>
>> Seriously though, I’m with Andy. Gives a purpose and a strategy to those
>> many many pitchers I refer to as DNH guys (as in “do no harm”).
>>
>> I would be fine with immediate implementation.
>>
>> - Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Feb 11, 2019, at 3:25 PM, Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I proposed this last spring and received a distinctly unenthusiastic
>> response.  But I am re-proposing that we move to Saves + Holds as a
>> category instead of just Saves.  That better reflects the reality of MLB
>> pitching value today.  It also would end what is, IMHO, an inordinate focus
>> on playing the "closer carousel" in our league.
>> >
>> > I would be up for doing this immediately -- and I say that as someone
>> who will otherwise retain a closer.  But I suppose the typical way of doing
>> this would be to make it effective next season.
>> >
>> > Last year, we agreed to implement the change if we voted to do so by
>> mid-season.  But the proposal died for lack of interest.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > -Andy
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Announce mailing list
>> > Announce at usml.net
>> > http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Announce mailing list
>> Announce at usml.net
>> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Announce mailing list
>> Announce at usml.net
>> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Announce mailing list
>> Announce at usml.net
>> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Announce mailing list
>> Announce at usml.net
>> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Announce mailing list
>> Announce at usml.net
>> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
>> privileged or confidential.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
>> attachments and notify us
>> immediately.
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Announce mailing list
>> Announce at usml.net
>> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=ToyZfFH73sB4zV8xM1H-sKUtPOVSJIBAU3LCDqSbv5w&s=jbFpf849NXQuYxK6C3vMvaeVLxS5rkSa5-gu-bpJzDk&e=>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Announce mailing list
>> Announce at usml.net
>> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=ToyZfFH73sB4zV8xM1H-sKUtPOVSJIBAU3LCDqSbv5w&s=jbFpf849NXQuYxK6C3vMvaeVLxS5rkSa5-gu-bpJzDk&e=>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Announce mailing list
>> Announce at usml.net
>> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20190303/2c8b1fd5/attachment-0001.html>