The big diference, JG, is that Shields got 7 points for the win, otherwise he only gets 5 points.

In the ESPN game, all of Shields' points would have gone to the Angels pitching staff, so if you had Colon you'd be happy.

This game just rewards the accomplishment of the individual player on a pitching staff, not the staff as a whole.

Again....

Just look at last year’s stats:

The top 25 offensive players ranged from 560 points to 737

The top 25 starting pitchers ranged from 339 points to 630

The top 25 closers ranged from 122 points to 294

The top 25 relievers who were not closers ranged from 112 points to 222.

What looks like it’s wrong with that? The scoring and the relative proportions and everything look OK to me.

If this year proves to be a statistical freak and a bunch a middle relievers get the win in an unusual amount of games and wind up with a lot more points than could have been expected, I can’t help that.

Shields won the first game of the season. For the whole year he may wind up 5-3 or something for a net of +17.

And, as far as what other leagues do and how many points they award for a particular caregory, that means nothing.

Everything has to be looked at and evaluated in the context of the scoring system for the league we are talking about.

They give 5 points for a save. Do they deduct anything for a blown save, which has much more impact on a game than a save with a three run lead does?

Yeah, JL tried to convince me to give 5 points for the save, but I don't remember any other argument as to why we should except "that's the way the other leagues I've been in do it"

Why 7 points for a win? Why not 6 or 5? Why one point for each total base? Why one point for an RBI?

Why anything?

because I attempted to create a scoring system in which the proportion of offense to pitching, and starting pitching to relief pitching seemed to be about "right".

You know, for three years we played the ESPN game, and everyone pretty much agreed that they picked their pitching staff every day based on who the starting pitcher was and paid little attention to that team's bullpen.

Then everyone moaned when a starter went out and pitched 8 great innings, left the game at +25 or something, and watched as the reliever gave up three runs in the 9th, turned the +25 that could have been a +35 with a win into a wasted +13 or so, and said how much better the game would be if you got only the points from your starting pitcher and the relievers didn't count.

Since the SP was the basis for your pick, if he did well, you did well. If he did poorly, so did you.

So I create a scoring system which rewards the achievements of the individual player rather than a whole staff, and because one day one guy gets a lot of points because he happened to get a win, you have doubts about that allready.

If you can't analyze it before the season plays out to figure out if anything is wrong with it, but have to wait until after the games are played so you can apply 20-20 hindsight, something is wrong there.

As I said above, the relative totals for the different categories of players and the proportions look OK to me.

Why don't you look at them and see if they look OK to you?

The only thing that's "screwy" to you is the 7 points that Shields got for the win, which made his total 12.

But a win is a win. Someone on the Angels should get those points, shouldn't they?

Or maybe relievers shouldn't be eligible for "win points" because they don't pitch enough innings or something.

All my baseball life I've complained about the MLB system wherein a pitcher can go 8 great innings and leave with the score tied 0-0 or 1-1, and watch his team score one run in one inning for a reliever and see the reliever get the win, but that's the way MLB does it.

If there was some system whereby the game's official scorer awarded the win to the pitcher who deserved it the most, that would be preferable in my mind, but since there isn't, we're stuck with the system that MLB uses.