I request that the following rule change be voted on:
change the formula to calculate A pitchers to:
[(IP x 120%) + GS +SV]/10 + comp ERA/.9
stars earned in 04/05 will still apply under the old rule
some thoughts behind this proposal:
1) by taking the game app out and replacing with saves, the likelihood of a middle reliever going A is about zero
2) over the last 3 seasons only 6 sp have earned A status. I feel this is low as quality sp have great value. The best way to measure sp IMHO is to increase the IP in the formula.
3) as posted in sec 7 of the ARBA rules. The first order of business in any ARBA season is rule change proposals. Any gm is good standing may propose a rule change. Ken please correct me if I am wrong, never has a rule change adopted by a majority of the gms voting not gone into effect for the up coming season.
some generic examples:
I will define a quality sp as 30+ starts and 220+ ip
a 33 start 220 ip sp with a mlb avg era will earn 29.7 points which is 0 stars
this sp would need to have an era .6 below mlb avg (3.90 for 06 season) to earn 1 star. 1.2 below mlb avg (3.30) for 2 stars and 1.70 below mlb avg (2.80) to earn 3 starts.
it would take 3 consecutive very good years, 1 great year plus 1 good year or 1 Santanaesqe yr to earn a A salary
quality closer will be defined as 70 ip and 40 saves
The above closer with an ERA of 3.00 would earn 26 points which is 0 stars
to earn 1 star would require an era of 2.00, 1.40 for 2 stars and 0.90 or better for 3 stars
The star closers like Rivera and Nathan will still go A but guys like Latroy Hawkins will not.
Before anyone again accuses me of doing this for my own selfish interest, both Gdp's closer Ryan and Hdt's closer Nathan earn A salaries with this formula.
I want to thank everyone's input for helping come up with this formula. I would have not got there on my own.
I'm going to test this formula versus previous year's pitchers, but please tell me that you mean to multiply ERA differential by 9 and that the formula as shown, which divides ERA differential by .9 is a typo.
As the formula is written, I vote against. Early results indicate this formula (even assuming I was right about the formula containing a typo and assuming we actually multiply ERA differential by 9) won't generate hardly any A closers. Nathan comes up with 1 star for 2004 and 1 star for 2006, although I admit I'm using 4.519 composite ERA for both years. In fact, Mariano Rivera would be the only person who came up with A status among relievers.
The chart below may be hard to read due to formatting problems, but it shows we would have the following A players: Oswalt, Carpenter, Johnson, Clemens, Rivera, Santana, and Zambrano. I'm guessing there may be a starting pitcher or two that isn't on our current A list who would have made it.
The upshot is that the formula appears to be OK for starting pitchers, but makes it damn near impossible for a reliever to ever become an A player. I respectfully suggest changing the formula to 1.2IP + GS + 2Sv
Removing the starting pitchers, and if the formula was in effect the last 3 years and assuming ML ERA of 4.519, the results become
The A list loses Otsuka, but gives him a star for 30+ saves and a 2.11 era. It loses Reyes and barely loses BJRyan, despite a 1.37 ERA and 38 saves. It almost loses K-Rod. It keeps guys with the single unbelievable year that comes with lots of saves and low ERA, e.g. Papelbon and Benitez.
Thus we would have 6 A starting pitchers (maybe a couple of more in there somewhere) and 6 A closers. That's compared to the 17 likely A hitters (assuming Wells and Tejada get another 1 rating but Wright doesn't).
So, I'll go along with it, if the formula counts 2 times saves. Otherwise, I'd prefer to keep the once a year weird middle reliever who goes A and let the owner choose to pay or put him on a C and reap the cash.
Having looked at ERA leaders 2004-2006, it would appear that Keith's formula, had it been in effect from 2004 on would have also made the following pitchers go A in addition to the ones noted above.
Ryan and F Rod would not qualify for A under the new formula because they haven't been closers for the last 3 seasons. Set up guys will not earn stars. They were set up men in 04. Ryan only had 3 saves in 04 and F Rod 12. The only guys that are fair to judge under this formula are closers for the last 3 seasons.
Ryan earns 2 stars for 06 and goes A because we keep the old formula for stars in 04/05.
So here is the correct formula
[ ( ip X 120%) + GS + SV]/10 + comp era X 9
doubling the saves would add 4 points to every fulltime closer which is almost another star. I think that is too much.
I think a fair case could be made for each of those sp that they should be A. They are/were Cy Young candidates.
Is this or any formula perfect in capturing every player who should be an A. I don't think that is possible but this is much closer than what we are currently using. I do think Halladay and Willis are much more deserving than A Benitez and D Reyes
Keith, I think you are really trying to address a problem in the rules, but I think your formula does more harm than good. Do you really mean to try to tell us that Mariano Rivera is the only closer who should have qualified as an A player over the last 3 years? Your response ignores the most damning criticism of your formula--Joe Nathan, he who averaged 70.1 IP, a 1.96 ERA and 41 saves over the last 3 years wouldn't go A. That is clearly wrong.
My version, doubling saves, doesn't raise the bar too high. It adds a few more relievers into A status, but it doesn't make all full time closers A, and wouldn't even make very good but not lights out guys go A.
For example, Trevor Hoffman still comes in at only 39 points, netting only one star, even though he had 46 saves and a 2.14 ERA. Chad Cordero's awesome 2005 won't make him an A under my proposal. Bob Wickman's AL leading 45 saves and 2.47 ERA in 2005 wouldn't even get 1 star.
There have been 25 pitchers who recorded 20 saves or more in 2006 and 25 who did it in 2005. Those guys are already at a premium due to Strat rules making non-closers tired in close games in the ninth. Having less than 1/4 of those guys go A seems appropriate. Having twice as many starting pitchers go A as relievers seems appropriate.
Having only 1 reliever go A over the last 3 years seems completely inadequate.
I don't have any more time to discuss this until tonight, so I will again suggest that my counterproposal of altering the formula to be
(1.2*IP + GS + 2*Sv)/10 + ERA differential * 9.
I just can't support a proposal that makes it almost impossible for even the best 3 or 4 closers in baseball to go A.
Jumping away from the focus on formulas for a moment, let me point out that all the obsessing over A contracts is somewhat overblown. I freely admit being guilty of this when my players have surprised me by going A, particularly when they fall quickly from that lofty peak. However, when you look at how much money some merely adequate players have gone for in the C auctions recently...$400K for an A1 is a mere pittance. Given how much unused money there is around the league, it would probably be better to err on the side of more superstars going A rather than less...no matter how annoying that can be. I wouldn't mind setting the bar a little higher for relievers given their extreme unpredictability from year to year and even trying to match their stats within a season due to relatively low IP. Hopefully we can find a solution that will satisfy everyone...but something that nobody will totally hate may be our best hope.
I see your point. If you 2X saves closers will earn approxiamtely the same points as the current system:
70 ip X 120 %= additional 1.4 points
40 saves X 2= 80 vs 70 app is an additional 1 pt
90% of comp era 4.50-2.00= -2.25points
a net of +.25 to the 2.00 era 40 sv 70 ip closer, my proposal has a -3.75 to the same pitcher relative to current formula. I don't want to increase the closer points. I will meet you in the middle and revise to saves X 1.5. This will approximate actual app without having to use app and bring the middle relievers into the mix. Our mythical 70 ip 40 sav 2.00 era closer would now earn 1.75 fewer points than the current system.
the net effects will be:
more quality sp earning A, no middle relievers going A and a slight reduction in closers.
I hate that 1 yr guys like Benitez and Papelbon will be A but nothing is perfect.
Nathan would now earn 2 stars in 04 and 06, the same as the current rule
I will agree and support that for this year. I haven't run any numbers, but I'm guessing that formula would have created about 4 A relievers, if applied to the last 3 years' of stats.
I kind of think we should make more A players than that, but it's good enough for now.
