Pitching Matchup Tool Ratings

[Snider]

Ray - I clicked on the pitcher matchup tool ratings under the teams icon and the ratings all seem low to me. Ther ewas only one pitcher in green with a rating above 2 - Rich Hill not Kershaw and many more pitchers in red that are negative. Are they correct?? Thank you.

[RAY@HQ]

Big red explanation in the Matchups column today. We'll have a full article on the changes soon, prob next week.

[Snider]

Sorry Ray I don't see what you are referring to. Can you help further?

[Snider]

I see it. Sorry

[Brew Crew]

Everybody is red

[RAY@HQ]

Right. We need to redo the color coding. See explanation in today's Matchups column.

[Posada Adventure]

I always have said, why not roll out this tool when it's completely done? So misleading. Every yr we hear how the tool needs a month to populate this yrs stats to be more effective. I don't understand rolling it out early with misleading ratings. Sorry

[UDDave]

Ray, have we transitioned to 2016 data for the SP matchup report? Thanks!

[RAY@HQ]

Yes, we did it yesterday (Sunday). Was noted in the comments of yesterday's Matchup column.

You'll see a much livelier distribution of ratings now, due to smaller sample sizes. Need to be a little careful with them still, but nice to have current data again. Thanks for your patience.

[bolton wanderers]

I looked at the 8-day view there were a total of three strong start/green SP - Quitana v DET, Hill v MIA and JoFer v LAD. It seems there have been even greater impact on strong starts than PQSDom starts due to the PQS reconfiguration. And no shortage of strong sits even discounting the new SPs as strong sits.

I knew that there would be less based on the criteria staying the same but the formula for PQS changing but not to the degree I have observed (without actually tracking it):

Ratings of +1 or better are strong start candidates; ratings of -0.99 to +0.99 are risk/reward options; ratings below -0.99 are strong "sit" candidates.

Has there already been some thing written on this or perhaps a future research piece or just pitching is a crapshoot. I guess I expected a ~20/50/30 strong/mix/sit breakdown (extra on sit due to spot starts that won't go many IP, rookie SP, ...)

Still love the tool (and alluded in another post) would love to see a weekly companion article to the daily match-up report for weekly lineups that account for 1 vice 2 starts. Again love the stuff - and like an addict now want more - LOL. Maybe on Saturdays as some leagues are Sun-Sat and most are Mon-Sun. Thanks again!!!

[bolton wanderers]

FWIW I just found the ESPN site using the criteria belowhttp://www.espn.com/fantasy/baseball/story/_/page/FLBForecaster160902/fantasy-baseball-forecaster-sept-5-11

Projected starting pitchers, Sept. 5-11
P: The starting pitcher's projected Bill James game score, accounting for past history (three years' worth as well as past 21 days), opponent and ballpark. A 50 is typically deemed a "quality start" by this measure, while a 70 is considered a dominant start.

The distribution was:

1 7x
21 6x
113 5x
59 4x

So 1 dominant starts (Scherzer), 134 quality starts and 59 that are neither. I assume quality start isn't 6 or + IP, <= 3 ER.

It seems the definition of strong start and dominant start are just too stringent for fantasy purposes to/for me. It seems 10 years ago a half of the starting pitchers choices (yes, it was generally 12 or 15 T ML) were easy "must starts" and only that last slot was a toss up.

Not sure what I am asking here, other than it seems the "must start" pitchers don't seem to be being picked by score alone (and I guess where the Daily matchup article is helpful for context). Thanks for letting me rant : )

[RAY@HQ]

Still love the tool (and alluded in another post) would love to see a weekly companion article to the daily match-up report for weekly lineups that account for 1 vice 2 starts. Again love the stuff - and like an addict now want more - LOL. Maybe on Saturdays as some leagues are Sun-Sat and most are Mon-Sun. Thanks again!!!

Yes, we're going to look at the formula/distribution in the offseason. And we will have a weekly 2-start analysis column in 2017.

[bolton wanderers]

Quality of content + Customer Service + Forum Community make BBHQ a top-notch organization - and not just compared to other fantasy sport sites!!!

Thank you for the quick response, Ray!!!

[JonE]

And we will have a weekly 2-start analysis column in 2017.

I love this idea. I would ask that you try to figure out a way to identify two-start weeks that don't assume a single prevailing stat period. One of my leagues starts the week on Monday, another on Friday. (Then again, if you have data that shows that one paradigm has, say, a 75% share of leagues, that's okay... and please share!)

[RAY@HQ]

I love this idea. I would ask that you try to figure out a way to identify two-start weeks that don't assume a single prevailing stat period. One of my leagues starts the week on Monday, another on Friday. (Then again, if you have data that shows that one paradigm has, say, a 75% share of leagues, that's okay... and please share!)

Yeah, that's the rub. Open to suggestions here. Maybe we'll run a poll here in March as to where the majority sees their deadlines fall. I can imagine writing it in a way that straddles two consecutive days (say, Sunday/Monday transaction deadlines), but covering something like Friday+Monday might be tough. Open to suggestions, though.