POLL: Let's vote on how we want to adjust pitching scoring.

[Canada8999]

MLB teams play 162 games per year, across what I think is a 27 week season (please edit the numbers if this one is wrong).  They average just under 9 IP / game, since the bottom of the 9th is often skipped (outweighs extra innings by a lot I guess), but let's use 9 for now.

162 games * 9 IP / game / 27 weeks = 54 IP / week

60 IP would already give our teams about one extra start per week over their MLB counterparts.

[Canada8999]

I think limiting the number of innings too much is equally harmful. This is fantasy baseball after all and some odd scenarios are possible. What happens if a team has its 5 rotation starters pitching twice in the same week?  That team would be screwed because the following two weeks they would have only 5 starts a piece and won't even be able to capitalize the one week were they would have the advantage.

65 is probably way too small. 75 or 80 sound more reasonable. 8 starts at 7 innings a pop is 56. Plus some 20 innings in relief leads to 76 IP.

Only having 5 starts in one week is a realistic number, so as long as the limit is low enough not having the extra starts won't hurt.  FGM managers will have the benefit of picking and choosing their matchups if they know they have 10 starts to pick from.

[Colby]

This is why I think 70 IP is a happy medium.

[guak2005]

What I mean to say is that with such a low innings limit, we will have weeks when we do not meet the maximum and we won't be able to compensate with the weeks in which more innings are pitched. 5 starts in one week is not enough if each SP throws only 5 innings and your RPs have a lazy week in which they throw only 5-10IP. That means you have a 35 to 40 IP week.  Or what happens when you have a pair of weeks in which three or four of your starters are injured - as often happens? In the long run you may end up pitching less than the actual MLB average of IP per week. I think it is better to have an ample amount of IP. Another option would be to limit the amount of IPs for the whole season instead of on a weekly basis. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is pitcher streaming by those teams who have 10, 12 starters every week. It is much better to limit the amount of pitchers used every week than to limit the amount of innings per week to such a small number.

[bravesfan4]

What I mean to say is that with such a low innings limit, we will have weeks when we do not meet the maximum and we won't be able to compensate with the weeks in which more innings are pitched. 5 starts in one week is not enough if each SP throws only 5 innings and your RPs have a lazy week in which they throw only 5-10IP. That means you have a 35 to 40 IP week.  Or what happens when you have a pair of weeks in which three or four of your starters are injured - as often happens? In the long run you may end up pitching less than the actual MLB average of IP per week. I think it is better to have an ample amount of IP. Another option would be to limit the amount of IPs for the whole season instead of on a weekly basis. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is pitcher streaming by those teams who have 10, 12 starters every week. It is much better to limit the amount of pitchers used every week than to limit the amount of innings per week to such a small number.

very well said Daniel

[Needle Juice]

What I mean to say is that with such a low innings limit, we will have weeks when we do not meet the maximum and we won't be able to compensate with the weeks in which more innings are pitched. 5 starts in one week is not enough if each SP throws only 5 innings and your RPs have a lazy week in which they throw only 5-10IP. That means you have a 35 to 40 IP week.  Or what happens when you have a pair of weeks in which three or four of your starters are injured - as often happens? In the long run you may end up pitching less than the actual MLB average of IP per week. I think it is better to have an ample amount of IP. Another option would be to limit the amount of IPs for the whole season instead of on a weekly basis. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is pitcher streaming by those teams who have 10, 12 starters every week. It is much better to limit the amount of pitchers used every week than to limit the amount of innings per week to such a small number.

This is a very good explanation.  If we move the cap too low, it begins to affect the league in other ways. 

[molinator]

What I mean to say is that with such a low innings limit, we will have weeks when we do not meet the maximum and we won't be able to compensate with the weeks in which more innings are pitched. 5 starts in one week is not enough if each SP throws only 5 innings and your RPs have a lazy week in which they throw only 5-10IP. That means you have a 35 to 40 IP week.  Or what happens when you have a pair of weeks in which three or four of your starters are injured - as often happens? In the long run you may end up pitching less than the actual MLB average of IP per week. I think it is better to have an ample amount of IP. Another option would be to limit the amount of IPs for the whole season instead of on a weekly basis. I think the problem that needs to be addressed is pitcher streaming by those teams who have 10, 12 starters every week. It is much better to limit the amount of pitchers used every week than to limit the amount of innings per week to such a small number.

 :iatp:

[bravesfan4]

This is why I think 70 IP is a happy medium.

%100 agreed

[Canada8999]

I agree with you Daniel - can we have a GS limit instead of an IP limit?

[Canada8999]

The reason for an IP limit is to keep teams from streaming 8 to 10 mediocre or even bad SP's that will dominate a team with a solid 5 man rotation.  Another way to combat this is with our revised pitching scoring system...

Currently, it's pretty rare to have a negative start from an SP (while it's common place for batters).  However, if GM's had to be concerned for an SP getting blown up and putting up a big negative score, the streaming might stop naturally as you'd be forced to be selective with your starts.