VOTE - Weekly IP Limit Threshold

[hank]

85 is reasonable.

[joeshmoe]

I voted for the most but I think it shouldn't be calculated.

[Colby]

60% of the league voted... The majority of those people voted for 85 IP.  The weighted average of the voting leads to 86.11 IP.  One-third of the league supported the 85 IP cap.

 :judge:

The 85 IP weekly limit is official.

[rcankosy]

I am always in favor of change for the good, but I am curious why I was the only one who voted for 65 when this poll was first taken.  It seems as if some people have done a 180 on this.

[Colby]

I am always in favor of change for the good, but I am curious why I was the only one who voted for 65 when this poll was first taken.  It seems as if some people have done a 180 on this.

I voted for 85 IP and want it to be lowered a bit.  A couple of my basic keeper leagues roll with 70 IP which work out very well.

[Paul S.]

I voted for 85IP and am still not convinced that it needs to be lowered.  Lowering the limit only allows people to carry more hitters or prospects.  The EDR will eventually allow us to carry enough prospects.

[Dan Wood]

I voted for 75, but only because I wanted to be cautious. I think 70 is a good number. I think the reason to have a lower inning limit is to stop SP hoarding. Or to maybe have teams keep their players and fill out a roster. I would like to see this league move towards that, where most if not all teams boast competitive rosters on a week to week basis. I think allowing such a high inning limits, enables a contending team to deal a fringy prospect for a fringy pitcher - and or batter - meaning the teams that have good records will just roll over the dismantled teams later on in the season.

As we have seen, many teams who considered themselves out of it, capitalized on the value of their players and dealt them to top teams - myself included. If we lower innings, this might curb this practice, and it also might lower the prices of free agents, since teams will already have players who will play.

I know this is a standard practice in MLB, but my argument is and always has been, that we cannot call up prospects once a starter is dealt. If I deal Narveson, I do not have he power to call up J.D Martin to take his place. MLB GMs do have that luxury. As Daniel mentioned earlier in this post (or another - don't remember) what if injuries strike? Well I am proof positive that you end up being screwed regardless. It really doesn't matter if you get 800 pitching points one week and then your whole staff goes on the mend. Those points don't carry over. If injuries hit, it doesn't matter how many pitchers you have, if you find yourself in that unlucky situation. It would have been great if I had the option to call up Travis Snider from AAA when Adam Lind went on the DL, but I could not. Same holds for pitching and pitchers.

Keeping a lower innings limit allows for GMs to be a little more craftier than throwing starter after starter out there, plus it will increase the value of good to great starting pitchers. One guy could end up being equal to two guys as far as FPG.

Just my two cents, but in a league this size I believe we need to have a lowered inning limits just to maintain, or even equal out the disparity in the league.

[Canada8999]

Keeping a lower innings limit allows for GMs to be a little more craftier than throwing starter after starter out there, plus it will increase the value of good to great starting pitchers. One guy could end up being equal to two guys as far as FPG.

Just my two cents, but in a league this size I believe we need to have a lowered inning limits just to maintain, or even equal out the disparity in the league.

 :iatp: