changing 40 man roster to 25 man active roster

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

I would like to discuss the idea of changing the current 40-man roster with 10-man exempt list.

I propose keeping the 10-man exempt list, but having a 25-man active roster.

We have 30 teams in this league. MLB has 30 teams. Each MLB team has a roster of 25 active players. Of those 25, 12 or 13 are pitchers. Of those 12 or 13, 5 are starting pitchers. At any given time, there are roughly 150 starting pitchers. Of these 150, I would say 10 or so are usually available as free agents in our league (they are very bad pitchers). So we have 140 starters available to pick from for our 30 teams. That is roughly 4.667 starters per team. The 12 teams that made the playoffs have about 8 starters per team or about 100 starters. That leaves 18 other teams to spread the remaining 40 or 50. This is because of the current rules we have in place. These same playoff teams have many relief pitchers as well.

In order for this league to promote parity and give each team a chance to compete, I think we need to change the rules of our rosters. I propose we adopt a 25-man active roster that may contain up to 13 pitchers. We would still carry 50 players. I think this would help place less emphasis on acquiring as much pitching as possible and help to spread the finite amount of pitching to all 30 fantasy teams.

We also have the option of putting a cap on maximum games played per position per matchup. Fantrax will allow us to set up players as SP and RP. We could then turn on the cap of 6 or 7 games played for SP and 15 or 16 games played for RP. Every week any stats generated beyond the games played cap would not count in that matchup.

Let us know what you think.
Any other ideas or comments will be appreciated.

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I like this as well because it creates a scenario where bad teams, especially those under new ownership are struggling to acquire enough pitching to hit the innings limit because there is no pitching available.

I would be more in favor of game caps because they promote quality over quantity, though I would cap it a bit higher than your suggestion. Another option is to limit the number of relief pitcher starting spots, this forces teams that carry a ton of relievers to pick and choose who they want to start rather than having a full stock of relievers to go with their one starter for the day.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I'm in favor of this - was there a decision on something like this implemented?

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

As long as we still carry 50 I'm not opposed to this, but how do we track moves to and from the 25 man roster? Are moves unlimited as long as they're on the 40 man? If that's the case then you're just making paperwork. If it's not the case the we'd need to track and count moves and block moves if the limit is exceeeded. Can we get some more detail on how that would work?

I'm torn on the pitching cap. I'd vote against it, but I see the reasoning.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I don't want any particular cap like roster restrictions, but a 25 man roster would be the best solution. Teams can still stockpile if they want and take advantage of two-start-a-week pitchers if they so choose (or conversely limit their offense). It might fix some of the problems with roster disparities while allowing teams to still carry whoever they want. The only issue I see here is monitoring (which is a concern).

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Agreed to no pitching cap. I think that idea has been largely rejected. The 25 man roster has more legs to run.

We would have to do something like:

1) Track Options (which would suck)
2) Declare and lock a 25 man roster every Sunday (maybe Fantrax has such a feature)
3) Some other idea that keeps work minimalized

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Real MLB teams never have more than 5 SP's with a long reliever as a back up on their active roster...

Why switch it to a 25 instead of 40 man roster, when all you have to do is limit the active roster to 5 SP's at any given time?...if you want 10 sps in your minor leagues great, but none of them can have MLB games pitched anyways...but if you pull one up from the minors after he pitches in the majors, then 1 gets put on IR or booted from the team.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Not a good comparison. It's a competitive disadvantage to have more starting pitchers in the majors. Fewer starts for better guys. It's an advantage here.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Dec 11, 2013 23:06:14 GMT -8 Nationals GM (Preston - Old) said:

Not a good comparison. It's a competitive disadvantage to have more starting pitchers in the majors. Fewer starts for better guys. It's an advantage here.

Or not if you are a counting stats kinda guy! That's why there should be no cap. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just gotta know how to get creative with what you got, part of the fun.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

Totally agree with cubs. I'm not against caps in principle, but they do limit choices and strategies. Control things too closely and it becomes luck in that those players who don't loose their guys to injury win.

[Deleted]

Dec 9, 2013 11:43:44 GMT -8 Cubs GM (Beau) said:

Agreed to no pitching cap. I think that idea has been largely rejected. The 25 man roster has more legs to run.

We would have to do something like:

1) Track Options (which would suck)
2) Declare and lock a 25 man roster every Sunday (maybe Fantrax has such a feature)
3) Some other idea that keeps work minimalized

I like option 2. We should move to weekly lineup changes instead of daily. That way, you can still have 40 players but you set your 25 man roster for the week. Fixes a LOT of problems, imho.

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

Weekly lineup changes eliminates the option of a platoon. Personally I just acquired the Angels catching duo to counteract them having days off and get more playing time for the position. A weekly locked 25 man roster makes some amount of sense though

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I think a weekly 25 man roster would be interesting. I'm not sure Fantrax has a setting for it, but I like it.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

I did not mean to go weekly if that how it was read. League this big has to be daily for what Indians said; utilizing so many players means you have to do platoons.

I was thinking of an advanced setting where you can lock 25 players like each Sunday and then do daily lineups through the week. Probably does not exist.

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2013 17:52:17 GMT -8 Cubs GM (Beau) said:

I did not mean to go weekly if that how it was read. League this big has to be daily for what Indians said; utilizing so many players means you have to do platoons.

I was thinking of an advanced setting where you can lock 25 players like each Sunday and then do daily lineups through the week. Probably does not exist.

Yeah, I doubt that exists. It's not perfect but weekly lineups is the only way I see to limit people to 25 active players.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I certainly do not want to go to a weekly lineup. I like the 25 man available for daily selection though.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Dec 12, 2013 18:36:09 GMT -8 Former Twins GM (Robin) said:

I certainly do not want to go to a weekly lineup. I like the 25 man available for daily selection though.

I think we have figured out the two are mutually exclusive. Which leaves just staying how we are as the most reasonable option. No tangible reason to change. IMO.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

guys who run SP's for 2 starts rarely fair any better if the categories are proportioned correctly...

Innings-yes
strikeout-yes
era-no
whip-no
w-yes
S-no
H-no

add walks or hits given up or HR's given up and that will solve the too many starts...don't give the advantage to having more starts and it dries up the problem very fast.

Put a catorgory that is a negative for having more starts and just watch what happens, lol.

personally, I could care less...I just want to hit the min innings amount...any team playing me, I WANT them to run as many starts as they can, lol...it only hurts them more often than it helps them.

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2013 18:56:38 GMT -8 Cubs GM (Beau) said:

Dec 12, 2013 18:36:09 GMT -8 Former Twins GM (Robin) said:

I certainly do not want to go to a weekly lineup. I like the 25 man available for daily selection though.

I think we have figured out the two are mutually exclusive. Which leaves just staying how we are as the most reasonable option. No tangible reason to change. IMO.

You could limit the daily roster to 25 starters and bench spots but nothing would stop people from just putting people in the minors when not in use.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

after a bit more experience...this idea is looking really good.

MLB runs 48 percent pitchers on a roster, teams in here can run 60 percent pitchers on roster or higher and do. A team can just stack up pitchers and force teams to give good hitters up for the worst pitchers in the league.

I can see why the turn over rate, takes a couple of seasons to figure out to just grab all the MLB pitching and you can get almost whatever hitters you want by taking advantage of the new owners. As well as get to make fun of them for not getting it.

I am in a very well run Dynasty league with 58 man rosters for a long time now....28 active roster and 30 minor leaguers...you can't pull anyone up from the minors unless an actual DL stint happens (max 5 guys on DL at one time and suprising how many times its full) or you drop someone...they can go back to the minors after the player comes off the DL but if you call someone up for dropping someone, he has to stay up.

You can stock pile pitchers if you want in the minors but you cant use all of them to run 20 starts to someones 5-10 starts.

There is just a system flaw in this league allowing pitchers, especially crappy pitchers to be more valuable than they are.