What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

QS instead of Wins? (1 Viewer)

pollardsvision

Footballguy
Thinking about switching our league from Wins to Quality Starts. Not sure why it's taken so long. If, of all people, baseball writers have evolved enough to give a 13-game winner the Cy Young, I have no idea why we should still use Wins for fantasy baseball purposes. It might be the most BS stat in all of sports.

Has anyone tried this in a league?

Does anyone know of any good reason not to make the switch?

I should also note that it's not a viable strategy in our league to load up middle relievers, so that wouldn't be being taken away.

Closers pulling off the ever impressive "I gave up a 2-run bomb to blow the save, but my team came back to give me the win" BS win would be eliminated though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We just added it, but didn't deduct any cats. We took the standard 5x5 and added QS and OPS.

 
Fantasy baseball is an abstraction and always will be. I don't think any particular scoring system can make it more realistic. QS is just as arbitrary a statistic as W. I don't think it'll fundamentally change the way SPs are valued, plus it will remove the vultured wins benefit of drafting middle relievers. W have the advantage of being well known; they're right there in parentheses after the pitcher's name.

 
Fantasy baseball is an abstraction and always will be. I don't think any particular scoring system can make it more realistic. QS is just as arbitrary a statistic as W. I don't think it'll fundamentally change the way SPs are valued, plus it will remove the vultured wins benefit of drafting middle relievers. W have the advantage of being well known; they're right there in parentheses after the pitcher's name.
That's a good reason why W is still a better category than QS. Most serious baseball fans can tell you who won the most games last year without looking it up. Quality starts? Most of us would have to look up that info somewhere.I tried to talk people into using IP instead of W or QS in my first year keeper league. It was a no-go. People are too weirded out by that stat. If you have IP, SV, SO, ERA, and WHIP, people will carry good starting pitchers and closers. Because of ERA and WHIP people won't bother with bad starters just to win the IP category. Oh, of course, I'm talking about head-to-head fantasy baseball here. IP simply doesn't work in rotisserie action.
 
QS is just as arbitrary a statistic as W.
:goodposting: 6 IP, 3 ER is a QS, but 9 IP, 4 ER is not. That's silly. Anyone could spend 30 seconds and make up a more useful version.
Really? I've always assumed that if a pitcher went 6+ innings and finished the game with an ERA under 4.50 that it qualified at a QS.
Yep. I learned that when Roy Halladay didn't get a quality start for this
Yep. No more than 3ER allowed, regardless of how many innings. Which is stupid, of course.
 
QS is just as arbitrary a statistic as W.
:pickle: 6 IP, 3 ER is a QS, but 9 IP, 4 ER is not. That's silly. Anyone could spend 30 seconds and make up a more useful version.
The 9 IP, 4 ER thing does suck. I wish there was a way to adjust it using the very simple solution (make it sub 4.50 ERA instead of 3 runs), but there's no way to do that.Despite it's one flaw, I just don't see how someone can say it's just as arbitrary as Wins. QS is clearly a better judge of a pitcher's performance. QS has one minor flaw. W's is a category in which Phil Hughes was 50% more valuable than Felix Hernandez last year.
 
QS has one minor flaw. W's is a category in which Phil Hughes was 50% more valuable than Felix Hernandez last year.
Who cares if Hughes was more valuable than Felix in wins? That's the only stat he was better. It's a trade off - like every other position. Do I want Adam Dunn for his power and rbi's or Carl Crawford for his average, and steals? Do you want Felix for the era, whip, and strikeout ratios? Or do you want Hughes for the wins? It's all about balance. I toyed with the idea of going with QS and while there's nothing wrong with going with either, I realized it's an incredibly overrated 'stat'. I'm sticking with wins. There's something fun about adding a random factor in H2H leagues. I remember a few times last year I won or lost the week because some stupid RP snagged a fluke win. It's maddening when it happens against you but I view it all as part of the fun.
 
QS has one minor flaw. W's is a category in which Phil Hughes was 50% more valuable than Felix Hernandez last year.
Who cares if Hughes was more valuable than Felix in wins? That's the only stat he was better. It's a trade off - like every other position. Do I want Adam Dunn for his power and rbi's or Carl Crawford for his average, and steals? Do you want Felix for the era, whip, and strikeout ratios? Or do you want Hughes for the wins? It's all about balance. I toyed with the idea of going with QS and while there's nothing wrong with going with either, I realized it's an incredibly overrated 'stat'.

I'm sticking with wins. There's something fun about adding a random factor in H2H leagues. I remember a few times last year I won or lost the week because some stupid RP snagged a fluke win. It's maddening when it happens against you but I view it all as part of the fun.
The problem with that analogy is that there is absolutely no skill that Phil Hughes has that would help him win more games than Felix.Team and park factors play a part in every category, but there's always a skill attached to why one would do better than another (except for saves, which of course is bull####). Adam Dunn hits more HRs than Carl Crawford because he has more power. Crawford steals more bases because he's faster. Phil Hughes wins more games than Felix because.....????....he plays for a better team?

W and QS attempt to measure the same thing. The guys who get a ton of QSs will also generally get a ton of Ws. QS just cuts out a ton of BS (while adding in a tiny bit).

I agree that getting rid of W's would cut down on the fun that comes from the randomness. That's certainly a big part of fantasy (though more of a football thing).

I do worry that going to QS is essentially making ERA count twice. Not a huge concern though. A starting pitcher's job is incredibly simple. Get alot of outs without giving up many runs. Doubling up on stats the measure that doesn't seem like a big problem.

 
QS has one minor flaw. W's is a category in which Phil Hughes was 50% more valuable than Felix Hernandez last year.
Who cares if Hughes was more valuable than Felix in wins? That's the only stat he was better. It's a trade off - like every other position. Do I want Adam Dunn for his power and rbi's or Carl Crawford for his average, and steals? Do you want Felix for the era, whip, and strikeout ratios? Or do you want Hughes for the wins? It's all about balance. I toyed with the idea of going with QS and while there's nothing wrong with going with either, I realized it's an incredibly overrated 'stat'. I'm sticking with wins. There's something fun about adding a random factor in H2H leagues. I remember a few times last year I won or lost the week because some stupid RP snagged a fluke win. It's maddening when it happens against you but I view it all as part of the fun.
:goodposting:
 
QS has one minor flaw. W's is a category in which Phil Hughes was 50% more valuable than Felix Hernandez last year.
Who cares if Hughes was more valuable than Felix in wins? That's the only stat he was better. It's a trade off - like every other position. Do I want Adam Dunn for his power and rbi's or Carl Crawford for his average, and steals? Do you want Felix for the era, whip, and strikeout ratios? Or do you want Hughes for the wins? It's all about balance. I toyed with the idea of going with QS and while there's nothing wrong with going with either, I realized it's an incredibly overrated 'stat'.

I'm sticking with wins. There's something fun about adding a random factor in H2H leagues. I remember a few times last year I won or lost the week because some stupid RP snagged a fluke win. It's maddening when it happens against you but I view it all as part of the fun.
The problem with that analogy is that there is absolutely no skill that Phil Hughes has that would help him win more games than Felix.Team and park factors play a part in every category, but there's always a skill attached to why one would do better than another (except for saves, which of course is bull####). Adam Dunn hits more HRs than Carl Crawford because he has more power. Crawford steals more bases because he's faster. Phil Hughes wins more games than Felix because.....????....he plays for a better team?

W and QS attempt to measure the same thing. The guys who get a ton of QSs will also generally get a ton of Ws. QS just cuts out a ton of BS (while adding in a tiny bit).

I agree that getting rid of W's would cut down on the fun that comes from the randomness. That's certainly a big part of fantasy (though more of a football thing).

I do worry that going to QS is essentially making ERA count twice. Not a huge concern though. A starting pitcher's job is incredibly simple. Get alot of outs without giving up many runs. Doubling up on stats the measure that doesn't seem like a big problem.
I know you said team and park factors play a role but I think you're underestimating just how big a role they play.What of players like ARod who rack up the rbi's? While there is no doubt he's incredibly talented do you think he would do as well if he played for the Royals? I think Crawford will score gobs of runs this year. Not because he's insanely talented but due to the fact he's surrounded by some obscene talent. Having Adrian Gonzalez and company behind you is a lot more terrifying than having the Oakland A's trying to drive you in.

Felix Hernandez pitched in the same division as Oakland, Anaheim, and Texas. Texas could crush it but the other two were pathetic offenses. Hughes pitched in the same division as Baltimore, Toronto, Boston, and Tampa. That's a lot harder to go against.

The Seattle ballpark is very friendly towards pitchers. They also have a very good defense. Greinke had a down year but he surely wasn't helped by the crap gloves behind him.

Clayton Richard had a 3.15 era pitching at home in Petco. He had a 4.41 era on the road. Was there a huge difference in talent when he was away? Or was it due to the fact he didn't have a very friendly stadium to pitch in?

All players are affected by their teams.

 
'Good said:
QS is just as arbitrary a statistic as W.
Yeah, not really.
:goodposting: one is based partly on luck, the other isnt. our league is voting to make the switch. we switched from avg to obp many years ago. i find myself chasing wins at the end of every season. maybe because i always have good skills guys on bad teams. last year i was chasing the guy who had tyler clippard early in the season because he thought he was going to steal the closing job. :wall:eta - another positive is that you can have two SP's on your team facing each other and both still get the QS
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Felix Hernandez pitched in the same division as Oakland, Anaheim, and Texas. Texas could crush it but the other two were pathetic offenses. Hughes pitched in the same division as Baltimore, Toronto, Boston, and Tampa. That's a lot harder to go against.
Felix was 3-0 with a 0.35 ERA against the Yankees. He was 1-0 with a 1.23 ERA against Boston. 0-1 with a 1.13 ERA against Toronto. I'm not so sure the division he played in had anything to do with his phenomenal year.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top