[USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux

Tue Feb 12 12:00:53 EST 2019

But they're not equally important. When a team gets a save, that team always wins.  When a team gets a hold, they may or may not win.  They're both important, but not equally so.Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

P.ImprintUniqueID {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
LI.ImprintUniqueID {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.ImprintUniqueID {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
TABLE.ImprintUniqueIDTable {
	MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.Section1 {
	page: Section1
}

<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:Helvetica;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
	{mso-style-name:msonormal;
	mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
	color:#1F497D;
	font-weight:normal;
	font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
-->

-------- Original message --------From: "Blocker, Mark B. via Announce" <announce at usml.net> Date: 2/12/19  9:49 AM  (GMT-06:00) To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net> Cc: "Blocker, Mark B." <mblocker at sidley.com> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20190212/4c74cbb9/attachment.html>