Hi -- I have long been a sucker for the 2 start week, or what I'll label here as the "folly" of the 2 start week.
Get this ... I had 13 starts set up for the period (#7) that just ended. This pitching squad went out and pitched 77.1 innings (which is a lot, and was of course expected). Where it gets interesting is this, on that 77.1 IP:
-- ERA for the period: 3.491 (happy)
-- WHIP for the period: 1.164 (happy)
-- Wins: 1 (brutal!!!!!!!!!!!)
For all of you magazine writers and experts, I would love to see some research in next year's magazines and annual books on the folly (and yes, I guess "upside") of the 2 start week. We all fall for it (present company most definitely included), but as I get more experience playing fantasy baseball, I am increasingly suspicious of 2 start weeks. But look what I did -- I ran them all out there last week, chasing the wins (which didn't work out, did it) and I guess the K's (got a fair number of those)...
It seems to me that the "data" for such research would be both rich and present given the NFBC's many leagues, and weekly lineup format. I guess what I'm getting at would be some research which empirically shows how often the "2 start week" actually tends to work out. Or pushes it in logical directions, like home/road 2 starts vs. all home 2 starts vs. all road 2 starts etc. etc. Lots of directions this could go...
Thoughts?
The Folly of the 2 Start Week...
The Folly of the 2 Start Week...
"Past Peformance Does Not Guarantee Future Returns"
-
Edwards Kings
- Posts: 5917
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:00 pm
- Location: Duluth, Georgia
The Folly of the 2 Start Week...
Originally posted by TTBoy:
Hi -- I have long been a sucker for the 2 start week, or what I'll label here as the "folly" of the 2 start week.
Get this ... I had 13 starts set up for the period (#7) that just ended. This pitching squad went out and pitched 77.1 innings (which is a lot, and was of course expected). Where it gets interesting is this, on that 77.1 IP:
-- ERA for the period: 3.491 (happy)
-- WHIP for the period: 1.164 (happy)
-- Wins: 1 (brutal!!!!!!!!!!!)
For all of you magazine writers and experts, I would love to see some research in next year's magazines and annual books on the folly (and yes, I guess "upside") of the 2 start week. We all fall for it (present company most definitely included), but as I get more experience playing fantasy baseball, I am increasingly suspicious of 2 start weeks. But look what I did -- I ran them all out there last week, chasing the wins (which didn't work out, did it) and I guess the K's (got a fair number of those)...
It seems to me that the "data" for such research would be both rich and present given the NFBC's many leagues, and weekly lineup format. I guess what I'm getting at would be some research which empirically shows how often the "2 start week" actually tends to work out. Or pushes it in logical directions, like home/road 2 starts vs. all home 2 starts vs. all road 2 starts etc. etc. Lots of directions this could go...
Thoughts? I feel your pain, but I think the logic used to debunk the two-start week is false. You had, overall, good starts the MLB teams they represented "SHOULD" have won, but didn't. I do not know what teams they were, but if they were second tier, or struggling, then just be glad to get the solid ERA/WHIP/K's. If they were from some of the better teams, then that is bad luck, not poor or misplaced strategy.
No matter what, you cannot predict wins. What you can do is give yourself the opportunity for wins. The more starts you get (i.e. the two start week), the more CHANCE you have for wins. It is a simple as that.
I do not have my numbers in front of me, but I have posted in the past the historical win rate per game started over the past few years. In the NFBC, assuming again, seven starters per team times fifteen teams is 105 pitchers. Those should represent the better starters (i.e. the top three in each rotation and the number fours in some rotations). Not exact, but directionally correct.
Let's say for the purpose of argument that these better starters average wins in 40% of their starts (or 30 to 34 starts for 12 to 13 wins each). Again, not exact science, but in the ballpark. Seven starters averaging 30 to 34 starts will get you 84 to 91 wins. I generally target about 100 wins on a season to get 12+ points in my league for that category. Kick in a few from my closers, and I am close. Use two start weeks as much as possible and I increase the number of starts, thereby increasing my chances at wins (and K's) and maybe I can assure my target or even better.
So, giving yourself a CHANCE at wins is, to me, what the two start week is all about. But as you saw last week, nothing is assured.
Hi -- I have long been a sucker for the 2 start week, or what I'll label here as the "folly" of the 2 start week.
Get this ... I had 13 starts set up for the period (#7) that just ended. This pitching squad went out and pitched 77.1 innings (which is a lot, and was of course expected). Where it gets interesting is this, on that 77.1 IP:
-- ERA for the period: 3.491 (happy)
-- WHIP for the period: 1.164 (happy)
-- Wins: 1 (brutal!!!!!!!!!!!)
For all of you magazine writers and experts, I would love to see some research in next year's magazines and annual books on the folly (and yes, I guess "upside") of the 2 start week. We all fall for it (present company most definitely included), but as I get more experience playing fantasy baseball, I am increasingly suspicious of 2 start weeks. But look what I did -- I ran them all out there last week, chasing the wins (which didn't work out, did it) and I guess the K's (got a fair number of those)...
It seems to me that the "data" for such research would be both rich and present given the NFBC's many leagues, and weekly lineup format. I guess what I'm getting at would be some research which empirically shows how often the "2 start week" actually tends to work out. Or pushes it in logical directions, like home/road 2 starts vs. all home 2 starts vs. all road 2 starts etc. etc. Lots of directions this could go...
Thoughts? I feel your pain, but I think the logic used to debunk the two-start week is false. You had, overall, good starts the MLB teams they represented "SHOULD" have won, but didn't. I do not know what teams they were, but if they were second tier, or struggling, then just be glad to get the solid ERA/WHIP/K's. If they were from some of the better teams, then that is bad luck, not poor or misplaced strategy.
No matter what, you cannot predict wins. What you can do is give yourself the opportunity for wins. The more starts you get (i.e. the two start week), the more CHANCE you have for wins. It is a simple as that.
I do not have my numbers in front of me, but I have posted in the past the historical win rate per game started over the past few years. In the NFBC, assuming again, seven starters per team times fifteen teams is 105 pitchers. Those should represent the better starters (i.e. the top three in each rotation and the number fours in some rotations). Not exact, but directionally correct.
Let's say for the purpose of argument that these better starters average wins in 40% of their starts (or 30 to 34 starts for 12 to 13 wins each). Again, not exact science, but in the ballpark. Seven starters averaging 30 to 34 starts will get you 84 to 91 wins. I generally target about 100 wins on a season to get 12+ points in my league for that category. Kick in a few from my closers, and I am close. Use two start weeks as much as possible and I increase the number of starts, thereby increasing my chances at wins (and K's) and maybe I can assure my target or even better.
So, giving yourself a CHANCE at wins is, to me, what the two start week is all about. But as you saw last week, nothing is assured.
Baseball is a slow, boring, complex, cerebral game that doesn't lend itself to histrionics. You 'take in' a baseball game, something odd to say about a football or basketball game, with the clock running and the bodies flying.
Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer
The Folly of the 2 Start Week...
You're right Wayne -- I guess I couldn't believe my (bad) luck on the wins last week. Good points made above.
"Past Peformance Does Not Guarantee Future Returns"
-
Edwards Kings
- Posts: 5917
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:00 pm
- Location: Duluth, Georgia
The Folly of the 2 Start Week...
Bad luck follows us all. I had Doug Davis pitch today, leave with something like a 100 run lead, and did not get the win. I had Wandy Rodriguez pitch today. 0.000 ERA on six unearned runs. No win there!
Sometimes this game just sux.
Sometimes this game just sux.
Baseball is a slow, boring, complex, cerebral game that doesn't lend itself to histrionics. You 'take in' a baseball game, something odd to say about a football or basketball game, with the clock running and the bodies flying.
Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer