First lookat 2016 the pitchers

Devenski 4 starts 44 relief 108 IP
Phelps 5 starts 59 relief 87 IP
Lugo 8 starts 9 relief 64 IP

108 innings, 87 innings and even 64 innings are way more than what Logan Verrett 47 innings and Bret Anderson 35 innings had.

Innings DO matter and there is no way a guy with 100 plus innings or even 80 plus or 60 plus will be left out of the main set.

I agree with Radagast. Devenski with 43 relief appearances and Phelps with 59 relief appearances are locks for the online game. Lugo is more in doubt and wouldn't surprise me either way.

When setting a value for pitchers, do you factor in fielding, WP, and BK? If so- how?

From another post

1) NERP defense adjuster for pitchers

The worst fielder among pitchers avaiable in ATG is Frank Bertainia. His fielding rating is 5e51. The NERP value of his defense is +1.09. On the opposite hand, the Glavines of ATG world (1e0) have a NERP fielding value of -0.17. Everything else is in between.

To put that in a formula is kinda complicated, because some errors are added to hits, but if you want it, here it is

A) 2*(ROUNDUP(1.5*(range-1);0)/20)+errors/54*2*ROUNDUP(1.5*(range-1);0)/20+errors/54*2*(20-(roundup(1.5*(range-1);0)))/20.

B) Anything in excess of 2 of this sum must be put in another column.

C)Then you take the sum (in A) X 0.56 + the excess (in B) X 0.31 minus 0.17.

BK and WP have a slightly greater range. The worse ratings are found in Dave Stewart and Ontiverious (curiously, both Oakland As members of the 1988) with balks and wp at 17 apiece. The net NERP adjustment is + 2.09 for these two pitchers. You have to consider though that WP happen twice as frequently than BK, so for example David Cone's 1988 card (BK=17 WP=9) has roughly the same NERP adjustment on this regard compared to Nolan Ryan's 1986 card (BK=0; WP=17)--both at 1.4. 1990's Dave Stewart (BK=0, WP=6) has a NERP adjustment of 0.5. In fact, these are roughly estimates...in theory you should adjust these ratings for the on-base presence (a pitcher with a WP of 8 will allow more wild pitches than a pitcher with a WP of 6 that allows half the on-base).

Holding too is affected by the level of on-base, so in theory it too should be influenced by how much on-base a pitcher will allow. I'm less on solid grounds on how to adjust NERP for holds in ATG, but my rule of thumb is to adjust the NERP by adding +1 for the very bad holders (+5 and above) and by substracting -0.15 to the best holders (-6):
+5 and above +1
+4....0.92
+3....0.83
+2....0.66
+1...0.51
0...0.38
-1...0.26
-2...0.15
-3...0.07
-4...0
-5...-0.1
-6...-0.15

What this post doesn't say is that the NERP adjustments described above (eg. +/- 2NERP) are based on 216 PA. So you have to multiply any value you get based on 216 PA for the course of a full season.

The NERP value for say for one BK and one WP is 0.29.

For recall, the NERP formula is roughly the same as: 0.47*1B +0.78*2B + 1.09*3B + 1.42*HR + 0.33*(WALK+HBP).

I also make a further adjustment to account for the fact that cards are based on plate appearences (be it 108 PA for one card only or 216 PAs when considering both offense and defense) whereas our REAL interest in valueing pitching is based on outs.

In other words, what we are REALLY interested is in how much my pitching will give before I get 27 outs----and NOT how much my pitch will give before my opponent reach its 27th plate appearences.

The net result when you go from NERP based on PA to NERP based on outs is that pitchers who allow a lot of on-base are penalized somewhat.

Thank you for the exceptional response to my question MARCPELLETIER, I appreciate it. Your point regarding the use of 27 outs rather than 27 PA's as a base has made me rethink my approach to evaluating pitchers. Using a base of per 27 outs gives a more accurate depiction of how we should expect a given pitcher to perform over many innings.

I looked through the Gamelog for Devenski and either missed the fifth game or stopped looking when I found the four referenced earlier...My bad.

I appreciate you sharing your hard work.. Here are some random thoughts or questions.

I am a little surprised that Andrew Miller is a R1 as opposed to R2. While I know the playoffs do not count, I was thinking Miller still worked two innings at least enough during the regular season to get the R2. The man can obviously do two innings no problem...

I am also a little surprised Dan Otero is getting the R2 but I won't complain because I am an Indians fan and this was my dream season.

I am not looking at the numbers but I thought Jake Arrieta and Carlos Carrasco would be priced a little higher. I am not in any keeper leagues and I don't remember those guys exact stats.

Do the asterisks after some of the names mean LHP? If so you might have missed some guys.

Again, thanks for sharing your work!

RB - the R2 v R1 rating is almsot entirely a function of IP vs. appearances. If the pitcher had more IP than appearances they get a shot at an R2. If less IP than appearances will always be an R1. While both Miller & Otero had more IP than appearances, Otero had significantly more while Miller's IP were just slightly higher than apps, so in that sense their ratings were pretty predictable.

Marc, how do you account for the difference in your ratings between PA and outs? I'm still using the basic formula you gave me years ago, and I think it works better for hitters than pitchers. Maybe it's because it's a small sample for pitchers. But it makes sense to me that it's 27 outs we're looking for rather than PA. So how do I adjust for that? Thanks.

Marc, how do you account for the difference in your ratings between PA and outs? I'm still using the basic formula you gave me years ago, and I think it works better for hitters than pitchers. Maybe it's because it's a small sample for pitchers. But it makes sense to me that it's 27 outs we're looking for rather than PA. So how do I adjust for that? Thanks.

The method works best if you calculate the ratings on 216 chances, rather than 108. Basically, I calcute how many singles, doubles, homeruns, gbA, etc are expected for 216 chances (I assume an average hitter to account for the 108 offensive chances and an average defense for the 28 non-pitching defense). When I have all my numbers, I calculate two things, first the NERP-equivalent value of the pitcher, and second the number of innings the pitcher will get during the 216 chances---to illustrate, an average pitcher who allows a .333 on-base (thus, will get 144 outs, or 48 innings) and is expected to get 6 double-plays (6 extra outs, or 2 innings) will get on average 50 innings out of 216 chances. A very good pitcher might get 55 innings. So next step is to adjust the NERP-value of all pitchers on 50 innings. So the NERP of the excellent pitcher will be divided by 55 and multiply by 50, it's almost a 10% reduction. I also produce an adjustment as explained in the box above for pitcher's defense and running game.

If you try to adjust NERP on 108 PA, the impact is too big, and you cannot simply divide by two, but you could work something around

Thanks, Marc, as always, for your insight and help!

Devenski 4 starts 44 relief 108 IP
Phelps 5 starts 59 relief 87 IP
Lugo 8 starts 9 relief 64 IP


Blanton 4 starts 32 relief last year and got starter status


I'd guess they all get starter status. Lugo for sure. and all are in regular set. too many innings to be unleashed

Devenski RP only

Phelps RP only

Lugo unleashed

Not surprised