Innings min

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Eric, you're correct on all counts, so no worries about your head. And that is an idea we're kicking around for next year, but it's just kicking right now.

As to enjoying baseball season, been on that for a while. And I plan to do it for six more months. Then I plan to enjoy the offseason.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Preston, if the rules worked, before I entered the league, there would be no reason to change rules in the off season.

1) Rule changes happened in the off season usually are because plenty of owners didnt like the last rules. (PS..I didn't ask for any of the off season rule changes and I would have voted NO on EVERY OFF SEASON RULE CHANGE, not because the rule didn't need to be fixed but that the proposed fix would not accomplish fixing it, although the long term contract rule change was the best change for the league even though it went against my team rebuilding strategy)

2) Brewers owner left 100 percent because of the new rule changes, said quote "great concept poor execution, its going to be awhile til they get it right" a very good and experience fantasy baseball player

3) I wasn't the one who started up the issue with the tie breaker and of course I can prove my statement I just agreed with the points.

I will bet that this league, before I came in last year, has had rule changes every offseason. I will also bet that there will be at least 2 or more seasons you will have off season rule changes/rule issues before you have an off season of no rule changes, wheither I am in the league or not. When you don't have off season rule changes for 3 years in a row, then you can say its right.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

mistake

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Tl;dr but there's been way too much arguing over this.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Now that I agree on

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

I wouldn't call it arguing. I'd say we've kept the tone set to 'debate' pretty nicely.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Apr 9, 2014 16:09:49 GMT -8 Pirates GM (Hollar) said:

With the cost of elite relievers in this league, is it actually possible for someone to stockpile enough of them for this strategy to work while hitting the minimum of 8 pitchers? It seems unlikely. And I still feel running only relievers can win you three categories, though one (Ks) is very unlikely, while automatically losing you two. This seems like a bad plan.

\

Sorry, didn't answer your question,

been thinking about this, you can definately afford to set it up only if your a good shopper of RP, not saying I am a good one but for fun...lets use my team

Robinson
Frieri
KRod

If Butler, Guilmet, Ames, Otero all come up and close like they did in the minors, it could get ugly for saves and/or holds...their MiLB history suggests they will be 8th inning guys at worst.

I could find some more guys like those 4 and have a wave of young guns come up together who will all get shots at closing or 8th inning roles all at a pretty low cost.

Since SPs are thin throughout the league and say 10 to 15 teams are short SPs...it definately could work against almost half the league.

If I only had 1 or 2 SPS...you can very conceivably try to dominate hitting, saves, holds, and good chances at wins and k's against say 33 percent of the league, fair chance against another 33 percent and really no chance at wins and k's against another 33 percent who have excess SPs...but because of the shortage of SPs and if you one of the teams short SPs, your not going to beat that 33 percent of the league in wins and ks anyway. You make the 30 inning barely and get your era and whip...your only taking a chance at punting 2 out of 12 categories...if your really good in the other 10 categories, you don't need SPs to win now that you allow Saves/Holds to count no matter what. Teams can also do the reverse run high innings with tons of SPs, plan on winning W/Ks, take there chances on ERA/WHIP and ok with punting holds/saves.

a crazy idea just came to me, it would be make a min 25 innings and a max of 40 innings...the min innings was to block teams from stocking up on RP...you have a problem of teams stocking up on SPs...so make a max innings. After 40 innings it stops taking stats. It might be a pretty easy solution actually and might be better and simplier than the 3 I gave you earlier. You couldn't penalize for going over 40, can't predict how long pitchers will be in for, but you could cap it.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

I agree that this this hasn't been so much an argument but rather a discussion. I would like to hear as many opinions as possible on all matters. It is hard to tell if anyone is happy or irritated, or hell i don't know pissed off even, when we don't see or talk to each other in person. As long as it is a friendly debate, I see nothing wrong with talking about anything.

Why is it so wrong to change a rule or two? I would rather get it right, even if it takes forever. I don't want to just copy some other leagues rules. I would like to make this a unique experience. If you want to play under another leagues rules, then go join that league.

With the current rules we have in place, changing the IP and AB minimum penalties allows some teams to compete using a different strategy other than hording starting pitching. This is exactly what we were aiming for. As long as there is some way for every team to be able to compete. Go ahead run a bunch of relievers. The goal was to allow more teams to compete and keep less teams from tanking.

I know that sometimes it can feel like we are yelling at each other when we post something in disagreement. I certainly do not get that vibe from this conversation.

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I want to echo the last part there, which is that this league with H2H and some of the rules changes might be one of the most balanced leagues I have been in. There are only a couple of teams that can't make a run at the playoffs. This rule allows for many avenues of team building, I feel like that brings more balance and allows teams to try and compete every week without a juggernaut team.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

"Why is it so wrong to change a rule or two? I would rather get it right, even if it takes forever. I don't want to just copy some other leagues rules. I would like to make this a unique experience. If you want to play under another leagues rules, then go join that league."

I understand changing a rule but its not hard to change a core rule once and get it right and set it and forget it. Taking forever just says you don't know how to fix the rule.

Fantasy baseball has been around now over 20 years, if you think your making a core rule that has never been seen or used before with how statistics and games are played ...thats a bit closed minded with some ego and pride mixed in there. If it were 20 years ago, you would have a point. It is possible that someone could be coming up with a new approach with contracts, drafting, rosters, etc..the outside the stats part but not how the core is played. Been in leagues with 8 categories all the way to 30 categories

We are talking Tie Breaker and IP min rules, two of the most basic core rules in fantasy baseball since it began....both have been used in EVERY league over the last 20 years. alot of people have tried to twist them every which way imaginable to come up with the best or unique way thats not been used before, good luck in your quest if thats what you want to spend time on.

[Deleted]

In order to limit hoarding of starting pitchers, one thing I've seen done fairly successfully in another league is limit the amount of SP spots in your daily lineup to two and make the rest relief pitcher spots.

Occasionally a guy will get screwed and have three of his better starters throw on the same day and he has to bench one, but the overwhelming majority of the time someone would have three starters go on one day, the worst starter was almost always a bottom of the rotation guy.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I have a problem with that though because we have no control over that. In real life you would be able to position your starters so you could receive all of their contributions. Teams shouldn't be punished if they have three aces that could pitch on the same day.

What about only being able to activate 6 starters a week, or something like that? Or, reducing roster size from something less than 40, which has been discussed. I would argue for 30 or 35 in the first year, see how that goes, then reevaluate. I think we would find 30 to be a productive median that at least gives some benefit to teams whose players happen to play more.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

activate 6 starters? or only run 6 actual starts...if you run 6 starters you could have 10 to 12 starts...all the teams couldn't run 6 starters a week, its the problem already.

6 starts would be great but only if there is a way fantrax can track it, it would be a pain in the ass to have to check each week or deal with it when the rule is broke and it would be if not regulated on fantrax. Always nice to set a rule and forget it.

reducing roster sizes definately works, just limiting the amount of roster spots for pitchers would also work. or you could do both...50/16...40/16...35/14......more effect to limit the roster spots for pitchers since that is the main issue that the rule change needs to address.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I'm against limiting things in general since teams should have the opportunity to build a team as they desire.

An innings max is too restrictive since who knows how many innings a starter will go in a certain contest. Likewise, it wouldn't be fair for a team that happened to have great starters each have two starts a week to not be allowed to capitalize on that.

It seems that if there's any fair way for restriction and mitigating this effect, it should be the ability to activate a certain amount of total players a week, and I suggest 30 as teams still would be given a certain amount of flexibility. If they happen to have more hitters, good for them, if they happen to have more pitchers, good for them. Teams should still be given ample room to implement whatever strategy with their roster they see fit.

If this new suggestion doesn't prove to work, then we tinker again; however, I'm more pro making slower changes as opposed to larger ones and see the results before considering action again. Overall as a whole we have a very successful league whose rules have worked on the whole very well with just a few areas that need improving. Let's not jeopardize all of that with drastic changes.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

"If this new suggestion doesn't prove to work, then we tinker again; however, I'm more pro making slower changes as opposed to larger ones and see the results before considering action again. Overall as a whole we have a very successful league whose rules have worked on the whole very well with just a few areas that need improving. Let's not jeopardize all of that with drastic changes."


^^This^^

[Royals GM (Mac - Retired)]

i have been in the league since the beginning and this league has never been about limitations other than minimums. you pay your money and you build your team YOUR way. i have seen teams who have had abundance of pitching win it as well as fall short. if you are too strong in one category, you will be weak in another.

here is an idea for a tie breaker that should even help up until the championship game

the game is tied 6-6. we take take the combined totals of all the hitting categories other than avg, era and ratio.

so we combine r,hr,rbi,sb,w,svs,holds,and k's to come up with an overall total points.
if tied still, we use ERA
if tied still, we use AVG
if tied still, we use Ratio

this allows teams to build their own way and the tie breakers don't really affect one individual category. era ratio and average are stats that both teams that go heavy on pitching or hitting can benefit from.

thoughts

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

Apr 11, 2014 8:56:25 GMT -8 Former Angels GM (Mike C.) said:

"Why is it so wrong to change a rule or two? I would rather get it right, even if it takes forever. I don't want to just copy some other leagues rules. I would like to make this a unique experience. If you want to play under another leagues rules, then go join that league."

I understand changing a rule but its not hard to change a core rule once and get it right and set it and forget it. Taking forever just says you don't know how to fix the rule.

Fantasy baseball has been around now over 20 years, if you think your making a core rule that has never been seen or used before with how statistics and games are played ...thats a bit closed minded with some ego and pride mixed in there. If it were 20 years ago, you would have a point. It is possible that someone could be coming up with a new approach with contracts, drafting, rosters, etc..the outside the stats part but not how the core is played. Been in leagues with 8 categories all the way to 30 categories

We are talking Tie Breaker and IP min rules, two of the most basic core rules in fantasy baseball since it began....both have been used in EVERY league over the last 20 years. alot of people have tried to twist them every which way imaginable to come up with the best or unique way thats not been used before, good luck in your quest if thats what you want to spend time on.

I am not sure how our system of meeting the minimums rule is so outlandish, twisted, and unique?

For example:

ESPN Scoring Settings for Standard Leagues (Free & Prize Eligible) link: games.espn.go.com/flb/resources/help/content?name=scoring-settings-standard

For H2H play, failure to accumulate the minimum number of innings will result in forfeiture of ERA and WHIP pitching categories for the matchup. If both teams fail to reach the minimum, both will receive ties in these pitching categories. Note that even if the threshold is not met, the other non-average stats DO count (for example "Wins", "Saves" and/or "Strikeouts"). You can view the IP minimums for each matchup on your "H2H Box Score" page.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

the bases of the min innings rule is to not allow a team of relief pitchers...then to turn around and allow Saves and Holds count...absolutely contradicts the base reason of the min inning rule to begin with.

Change the min in to 25 if needed.
Change the amount of Pitchers allowed on a team
whatever but still ban all the pitching categories or at least the 4 rp impact.

But to change a rule that is to block something and then unblock it..I just don't see the logic in that at all. Your giving back 2 categories to those who want to run all RP or what 16 percent of the scoring.

The ESPN one does give back 1 category, at what 10 percent of their scoring.

I thought the intent was to fix the balance of pitching, that change will have no impact on it. If they weren't hitting it before, now at least they get 2 to 4 categories back..why work to get the IP min now. The change was just a change without a purpose. If I am missing what the intent of the IP rule change was about, then I am so wrong it falls into I am a moron category.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

The point of the innings minimum was to not allow teams from winning ERA and WHIP by exclusively playing relievers since relievers generally have lower values of those two statistics. The intention had nothing to do with saves and holds dominance. I am able to throw out at minimum 6 relievers a day with my squad and more or less win those two categories every week.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I very much like the rule as it is now.

1)Teams who don't field enough SP are penalized. Moreover they are penalized in the 2 main categories that they would exploit by starting a roster of RPs which is what everyone is afraid of.

2)Teams that aren't able to field enough SP due to scarcity of starters (real or perceived) are not assured of a loss despite the quality of the rest of their team. They could, despite SP hoarding, build a roster that would allow them to compete. The market for SP will correct itself and problem solved.

That's it for me. Reliever exploitation is discouraged and draconian persecution of SP scarcity meaningfully mitigated. What's not to like? I truly don't understand the continued opposition. Nothing is perfect, but this seems to achieve the goal of the IP limit rule admirably.