I thought this was a problem for many years. This year 5 relievers earned more points than Santana. I think the current formula over values era and undervalues quality innings pitched.
my proposal will be to set the era for A calcualtions at 4.00 each year. this year it was 4.519 and increase the value for ip by 20 %. This has the effect of closing the gap between sp and relievers. Please post any ideas here before I submit the final proposal to Tom.
The new A formula would be:
( (ip x1.2) + app) divided by 10 + ( (era 4.00 - player era) x 10 )
ex Johan Santana 34 s 233 ip era 2.77
current rule 34+233 divided by 10= 27.7 + 4.519-2.77 X 10=17.29 for a total of 44.99 points
proposal 233 x 1.2= 280+34 div 10= 31.4 + 4.00-2.77 X 10= 12.3 for a total of 43.7 points
dennys reyes 66 gm 51 ip era 0.89 hardly a superstar player
current- 66 + 51 div 10= 12.7 + 4.519-0.89 X 10= 35.29 total = 47.99
A contract
proposal 51 X 1.2= 61+66 div 10= 12.7 + 4.00-0.89 X 10= 31.1 for a total of 43.8
Not an A contract
this doesn't solve the issue completely but it does balance it better. any ideas are very welcome. Stars earned for previous Arba seasons would still apply. This would apply to mlb06/Arba07
I think there has been a slight tendency for low inning, fantastic ERA relievers to get A status, but the # of problematic A contracts has really been pretty low over the years.
The rule you propose appears to be overkill as it means even a starting pitcher who throws 220 IP in 34 GS with a ERA a full run under league average will get 0 stars. (264 + 34)/10 + (4.00-3.519) = 34.96. I'm sorry, but that is a player who needs to be compensated as an A player if he does it even two consecutive years, much less 3. This year, only 10 pitchers qualified for ERA title and had an ERA under 3.50. You would think that would make them A candidates just for that, but your proposal means they might not even get a single star, since only 6 of them had more than 220.0 IP (and one more had 220.0 exactly).
If we can safely assume a reliever will probably max out around 85 IP and 75 appearance, it will take an ERA below 2.10 to get even one star for a fulltime reliever. I see that there are only 12 pitchers in the majors who had an ERA under 2.10. Only 5 of them had more than 70 IP. They are extremely rare and valuable and also merit getting star status.
Thus, under your proposal the balance between hitters going A and pitchers going A will be greatly upset.
Second, if this has been a problem for many years, then it could have been addressed as a proposal for the upcoming ML season, not as a rule affecting the upcoming ARBA season, after we know the effect of the rule on our salaries this year. At the very least, this matter could have been brought to our attention this summer, long before A players were calculated. I'm resigned to eating Otsuka as an A player, whether he is deserving or no. I haven't spoken to whomever owns Reyes. WHOMEVER it is who happens to have Nathan, Papelbon, and Ryan might need to resign himself to that same fate.
So, I suggest the rule leave ERA differential as Composite-Player. I further suggest the formula be:
(IP + G)/.9 + .9 x (ERA differential) This will reduce the starter-reliever imbalance.
Full time starter with 220 IP in 34 gs and 3.50 era gets 37.393 points Reliever with 85 IP and 75 g and 2.10 ERA gets 39.55 points
Furthermore, I submit that a star should be earned for 30 points, two stars for 35, and 3 for 40. A full time starter who has under league average ERA really should be recognized as being 1/3 of the way to an A contract. A full time, sub 2.00 ERA reliever deserves the A, because they have that much value. Playoff teams regularly pull starting pitchers with ERAs under 3.50 for ace relievers with ERAs under 2.50 for a reason--the relievers are better. They deserve compensation despite the lower number of innings.
Finally, I submit that any change to the method of calculating A players should be made before the end of the year, so the change should take effect for ARBA 2008.
In fairness to Keith, I need to point out two things:
(1) Keith was concerned about making this proposal because he didn't want people to think that he was just trying to complain about his guys going A. I encouraged him to make a proposal of some kind, because I have felt that the A rule for pitchers has been broken for a while, but have been too lazy to do anything about it. Whether his rule is the right way to go or not, I did essentially ask him to make a proposal of some kind.
(2) When I was initially talking to Keith, he asked whether a rule that was passed in this offseason would apply to these calculations for this upcoming season, and I told them that while I would want to consider it further, my initial thought was that it would. That may not be the right decision, and I'm happy to hear from people on that, but he did have a basis for suggesting that it would be effective to the upcoming season.
I will further add in fairness to Keith, that my rough calculations show Ryan and Nathan still would obtain A status if the measurement is only made applicable to current and not past seasons.
I have an idea about how to make the formula more fair to relievers--we come up with a system that includes only IP, GS and ERA difference. Appearances (other than starts) are meaningless in our rules.
So you would use the same formula less non-starts?
I think the current formula overweights relievers over start. That is my basis for changing the formula. I am open to any ideas. I don't have a problem paying Nathan/Ryan. They are superstars and merit that kind of pay level. I don't think 1 year reliever spikes should be compensated with A contracts.
Something, I don't know. I am just concerned that your proposal raises the bar so high for pitchers that we might only have 4-5 pitchers make A status in any decade.
Hopefully we can come up with a change that everyone can support. I agree that the group to target is relievers with freakishly low ERAs. The fact is that the Strat value of these guys almost never justifies an A contract...with the occasional exception of top closers. Also, the inherent unpredictability of relievers often results in a team being stuck paying big money to someone who has become completely worthless before the contract has even expired. Nen and Dotel are 2 examples from my recent history. You may be on the right track in taking games relieved out of the equation as that clearly has no value under current ARBA rules.
Okay, so someone who has the time and desire to work on the formula replace reliever games with saves. Then you get starters and closers as quality players that could merit "A" status but the middle relievers with great ERA's don't fit in the equation.
Closers with a lot of saves but really bad ERA's (ie: Lidge and others) should get no stars under this rule.
Lots of luck coming up with the right blend of numbers to make this work. Maybe we just create a third equation that fits relievers (closers) only instead of trying to make one pitching rule fit all.
I think we are starting to see why this is something that should be evaluated and debated long before the end of the year. I don't have time to come up with something suitable by tomorrow night, as I have a hearing out of town in the morning.
