never rat on your friends, and always keep your mouth shut

Thursday, January 26, 2006

keeping the stats

probably an open question, and i don't think anyone is going to begrudge any minor tinkering. though if pete rammed through a 'no saves' position, the guy who traded for brad lidge might be a little peeved about the whole situation...

4 comments:

carter said...

i think that stats should be pretty flexible. but, to avoid andy's lidge hypo, why don't we create broad categories of stats, which are unchangeable, and then we can change the specific stats within those categories.

so, for example, we can say that we want 2 stats that measure power, one for speed, one for on-base ability and one for run-scoring ability. then, in year X, we can have HR, RBI, SB, OBP and R. in year Y, we can change the stats within the broader categories, e.g. TB, isolated power, triples, BB, and R.

this may seem to overcomplicate things. but, if we have stable broad categories, then trading for any particular player is never a bad idea - even if we remove saves, if we have a relief pitcher category, lidge will always be valuable within that category.

the stat debate seems to be more about how we measure things like power, speed, on base ability, etc then whether we measure them at all.
picking broad categories should be easy. then, on a year-by-year basis, we can pick the stats within each category - without f-ing up anyone's roster.

pedrag said...

well, technically, if we decided the stats every off-season before picking our keepers, it would only be a big deal for someone who leveraged their future to trade for brad lidge, in which case, they deserve their fate anyway. but i digress -- carter's idea is a good one that i entirely endorse. it might even be useful for figuring out specific stats. might be easier to make up our minds if we have a skeleton to work from.

Morcy said...

I think the skeleton approach would have been useful before we started the railroad elections. But it continues to be a useful plan.

Furthermore, if you leverage your "future" to get a closer, then it's probably since you're making a run in the season where a closer matters. And you only get him for "cheap" the next season, so even if saves get dropped, all he costs you is a 27th pick as a keeper, and, well, saves was what you needed the year before. Not a guy with tons of value for next year.

almartin said...

perhaps the intracacies of keeping a closer make this a bad example, but think of some other scenario where you leverage shit in pursuit of big HR/RBI numbers, only to have those promptly axed and find yourself with a guy with a .308 OBP. folks could be pissed.