Minimum team IP for season

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Guys, I think we need some number here. Not that people are going to stream pitchers since we're 1) on a salary cap, and 2) on a weekly lineup deadline, not daily. But, in the interest of utilizing our pitching roster positions fairly, let's come up with a number to start with.

I don't necessarily think there should be a penalty this first year if someone doesn't reach the minimum IP for a team, but it'll help us gauge where we should probably be moving forward into 2014 and beyond. For 2014 and future years, we could adopt one of the following Fantrax options for this matter:
1) All pitching stats, depending on the scoring category whose minimum has not been met, are lost for the entire season, OR
2) All averaged pitching stats (e.g., ERA, WHIP, etc.), depending on the scoring category whose minimum has not been met, are lost for the entire season.
Again, no penalty for this year because it's our first season and I want to take all 15 teams total IP at the end of the year and average those to see what a good number might be to use in 2014. If we were to adopt one of these policies, I'd probably lean toward number 2, just the ratio stats because those can easily be maneuvered in your favor by throwing as many RPs, especially set up guys, as you can.

We have to keep in mind that our weekly lineup will have 4 SPs, 4 RPs, and 2 any P's. So I'm thinking that in a situation where a team might have 4 SPs with only 1 start (which could be conservatively 20 IP) and the other 6 spots as RPs, each getting 1.5 IP during the week, that's another 9 IP. Total IP for that week could be 29 or 30. Multiply that by 25 weeks and it's about 750 IP. Like I said, this is very conservative and a low estimate, but that's where I came up with 750 as my low option. Most teams will usually be 35-40 IP a week, possibly more. I read something last night then Ben passed along to me from Hardball Times that suggested using 1,000, but for our league and roster setup, that may be a bit high.

[bxm701]

If we go with 1000, that pretty standard it seems.

Regardless, if we're playing for money in year 1, all rules should be in effect - everyone will be trying to meet the same goals. I feel strongly about that one.

I'd much rather make it lower than not enforce it for a year but I think given the P slots we have 1000 will be more than reasonable.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

OK Ben, good explanation. I am certainly open to having this rule in effect for Year 1 too. If 1,000 is your number then vote for it!

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

I am of the opinion that there are many different ways to construct a roster and attempt to win. Therefore, I don't think that too much restriction should be put on how people attempt to win different categories. If you go hard with relievers to win the ratio categories, then you sacrifice in Wins and Ks. Yes, there needs to be a minimum, but I am voting for 750 because I think owners should be able to dictate their own strategy.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

I totally agree with you Drew, just went 800 myself, which again is VERY conservative and it will probably be a lot more for most of us. It is true that if you load up on RPs in a week to improve your ratio categories, then you are most likely sacrificing some Wins and Ks.

[Deleted]

I agree with Drew. In 6x6 there's a few ways to handle your pitching staff. Maybe we should have a rule how each player on our 25 man roster must be on a major league team's 25 man roster (giving a week's flexibility).

[bxm701]

Disagree with Drew (and all those who support him!!!) hehe...

You're right - there are many ways to win. And yes, if you just fill up on middle relievers, you sacrifice in Ks and Wins.

The problem though is you can seriously kill the value of SPs if a minimum is too low (or non-existent). Say it's a generic auction, if there's no minimum for pitchers, I'm just going to load up on the top MR guys (who come extremely cheap), forego starting pitching and outspend you all on offence. Is that what we really want?

I'm not saying it needs to be 1000 (I do think it should be), but I definitely think we should stay away from the lower end in these votes....

[Deleted]

Completly disagree with Drew. I'd feel different if this was a 5x5 but it's a 6x6.

Why are we 6x6? OBP & BA quite frankly are redundant. I assume it's too add value to RP who are not closers, but if this was a 5x5 you wouldn't see anyone bother with an all RP staff which is what the minimums are meant to stop.

I personally think we should have 5 mandatory SP spots not 4. Think of how much SP cost as compared to RP. If someone just ditches starters and goes all closers and setup they can win 4 catagories plus think of all the $$$ they'll save on SP they can then load up on hitters.

As for innings min look at it this way. Even if you filled 8 pitching spots with RP & MR and had 1 stud SP you could still hit 800-900 innings easily.

[bxm701]

Then why do I only see 1 vote for 1000 limit mr. Steve......!

[Deleted]

I picked 900 and then thought more about it.

In the end I think switching to 5 SP spots would do more to prevent this than anything else.

I agree with Drew in the sense that everyone should be able to manage their teams how they see fit, however the fact were 6x6 lends itself to strategies that IMO go against the spirit of what were trying to create here.

[Deleted]

Could we switch to 5 SP/3 RP/2 P or 5 SP/5 P?

[bxm701]

I don't understand why we're trying to find alternate ways to fix a problem which the vote thats already up can clearly fix.

Not trying to be an ass, but if people would just vote with this issue in mind, the problem would be fixed.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

The fact that the league is Roto means that if you punt 2 categories, you can't win. Head to head is much different. Just pointing that out. I understand the reasoning as it relates to budgeting, but middle relievers are far more volatile than starters on the whole, so it doesn't seem like a strategy likely to be employed unless we all start deciding to trade our elite closers and setup men to one team. That said, with 4 SP spots and 2 P spots, 850 is reasonably attainable. Going any higher than 900 completely takes away roster strategy and makes the league simply plug and play.

[bxm701]

Disagree again.

You can definitely win by punting 2 cats IN A 6 x 6 LEAGUE.

Remember, wins and Ks are 1/12th of your total points now, not 1/10th like in 5x5 - not to mention the duplication between hr, avg and ops which adds value to hitters (as some hitters can be 6 cat guys, no pitchers can. 6x6 with no to low IP limits absolutely kills starting pitching.

If you think that's fine that's one thing, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think it's the case.

[Deleted]

you cannot win by punting two categories in a 6x6 roto. you're thinking of head to head.

[bxm701]

I've never played head to head in my life, but OK.

[Deleted]

Again I gotta agree with Ben. I played in a 6x6 league last year. It was a daily transaction league which I hated. For most of the year I played with 1 SP and all the rest were RP. I didn't make a transaction from may - aug and ended up finishing 4th.

If you focus on high K RP you'll finish high enough there to make the strategy worthwile. Keep in mind you are dominating 4 cats in pitching for less money than it should take to get that many points. Then your taking all that extra $$ and spending it on all the top hitters and since you can outspend everyone it isn't hard.

Were all looking for an edge if you don't close these types of loopholes now they will be exploited.

[bxm701]

Help us not exploit you guys

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Just reading all of this now. Maybe the vote should have been 850, 900, 950, 1000? I could also go 5 SP, 4 RP, 1 P.

The current 4/4/2 formation comes from my cohort Andrew here who helped me set up the configuration almost a month ago when this league was just an idea. That 4/4/2 I believe is based off his 30 team league.

I just want majority in agreement here.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

I'll go with whatever the league wants to do. With the number of SP I have, I am clearly not going for the RP route anyway. 1000 is certainly too much. Like I said, 850 is fine, 900 would be the highest minimum that I could see being anywhere near fair.

[Deleted]

Are we keeping the 4/4/2?

[Deleted]

I don't think so, I think were switching to 5 SP 4RP 1 Swing but I don't think Scotts made a final ruling yet.

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

We should definitely keep the 4/4/2. Only one swing gives no flexibility in the way you change your roster week to week. Takes all the strategy out of the game. I'd rather have a higher IP limit than change that.

[Deleted]

Then make it 5 3 2 then. I belive requiring 5 SP makes having an innings min moot. I'd rather that then some made up number of innings people have to hit.

[bxm701]

I still think higher innings min is better than changing the roster slots but with that said, neither of the winning votes are high enough. At this point, whatever commish wants to do...