[USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
Jim Barrett
chicagojab at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 14:01:36 EST 2019
Yes on the first choice
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:03 PM, Jeffrey Winick <jwinick at hwhlegal.com> wrote:
>
> I propose that we hold the following vote:
>
> __Change from Saves only to a calculus that includes holds effective with the 2020 season.
> __No Change
>
> If there is a majority that agrees to make the change, as I expect there will be, then we can have a second vote as between the two alternatives: (i) saves plus holds and (ii) saves plus ½ holds.
>
> What say you commissioner?
>
> Jeffrey H. Winick
> Harris Winick Harris LLP
> 333 West Wacker Drive
> Suite 2060
> Chicago, Illinois 60606
> Tel: 312.662.4600 | Fax: 312.662.4599
> Direct: 312.662.4602 | Cell: 312.841.2817
> www.hwhlegal.com | jwinick at hwhlegal.com
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Announce [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net] On Behalf Of springkerb--- via Announce
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:55 AM
> To: mblocker at sidley.com; announce at usml.net
> Cc: springkerb at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190212/fa7da144/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Announce
mailing list