ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: Colby on September 02, 2010, 09:13:20 AM
-
What should be the weekly starts limit be for starting pitchers in 2011?
-
This is just my opinio. But i am totally against an innings limit. By curving innings it would put a damper on either A. having quality bullpen pitchers or B. Not allow you to have pitchers like Halladay who work late into games. You wouldnt really want to many good SPs. Ive been in leagues with weekly innings and you have no control over it. I was benching all relievers until fri sat and sun, just to make sure i got my sp's innings to get a W. I know that Wins is not a category we use, but i wouldnt want to have to sit CC for his sunday start because my bullpen through more innings than normal. A few weeks ago i played the Dodgers. i had 8 starts from my staff. He had 14!!! Now i know it was total luck that almost all his guys had 2 starts each. but i think if you say 8 starts a week a per team. Then you are ok. Most teams have 5 or 6 starters. and most of the time you have one or two guys making 2 starts. So my vote is to curve the number of sp starts. not the innings
-
Good point... the better idea would be to limit SP starts. I will update the poll. :thumbsup:
-
I understand the necessity to limit innings or starts in regular 12-team leagues with no salary cap. But I think in a 30 team franchise league with so many teams it is unnecessary.
-
I understand the necessity to limit innings or starts in regular 12-team leagues with no salary cap. But I think in a 30 team franchise league with so many teams it is unnecessary.
The trouble is that some teams like the A's, Brewers, Phillies, Angels, and Yankees gained a lot of extra points by acquiring additional pitchers to increase their rotation size to 8-10 pitchers.
-
The trouble is that some teams like the A's, Brewers, Phillies, Angels, and Yankees gained a lot of extra points by acquiring additional pitchers to increase their rotation size to 8-10 pitchers.
Please note that mine were RP elgible and not plugged in and out of daily lineups. Similar, but the RP elgible got me around some of that. Liriano, Morrow, and Sanabia.
-
I being the yankees have enough money to have about 10 sps. however i choose not to. I only have 7. I agree with Colby and that is why i voted for 8 starts per week. Some people have made the argument (on the removal of defense thread) that this league prides itself on being the most realistic league. Well i agree and love that. So how we can be running 14 starts in a week when were trying to be realistic. I also feel that its harder for the lower the salary teams to compete when us big market teams can hord them. On the flip side i understand that if we lower the starts the value for top sps will go up and will eliminate the smaller markets from being able to bid on them. I side of me does say that the change should be for 2012 only because i notice that alot of money was spent last off season on sp's. The money was spent by teams who had the money and who were under the impression that the rule wasnt going to change. So i see both sides. My post was just to explain why i voted to cap the games started. But i do understand the side of some of you who want more or unlimited starts.
-
Good point about making this a rule change for 2012. Corey, you brought a lot of good arguments to the table. The best one is about how unrealistic is to have 8-10+ SP starts in one week for a team.
-
8 is a good number. I see Corey's thinking about the top pitchers going at a higher rate, but that is not the complete picture. As of right now, big market teams can afford to have 10 SPs, but if we vote to have the start limit at 8 then they will no longer have a need for 10 SPs (probably more like 6-7 due to 2-start weeks). Which means that their could be a decline in price for the 2nd and 3rd (and so on) tier pitchers b/c the big market teams will already have their guys. This rule would more than likely create some "bargain" pitchers since the big market teams will no longer want to horde pitchers.
~MTK
-
I'm going to vote 8 here also. Teams simply do not have more than 7 pitchers starting each week. Why wouldn't we want to emulate this in our league? Having a couple extra starts is fine, but to have a team have 14 starts in one week (2 a day!) is way out of whack.
I noticed that 8 teams have voted for 10+ starts, but Daniel is the only one who has decided to speak for this majority. I'm a bit disappointed these voters did not give any explanation to their stand on the matter.
-
I voted 8 also but would agree with 7. With off days, a 5-man rotation will have one pitcher pitch twice in a given week. The 2 additional starts would account for the fact that this is a mixed league with some teams having 2 "aces" on their staff
-
If we are to limit starts because it is more realistic then we should also limit innings to something around 7gamesX9innings=63, maybe 65-70 innings considering extra innings in games. But it is also unrealistic to have teams pitching over 70 innings in a week. Just putting an idea out there.
-
I think an eight start limit is valid. That is where the poll is averaging out to. I don't think if we need an innings limit if there is a starters limit. This appears to be something that not everyone will agree to. I have modified the poll to have a simple YES or NO to the 8-start limit. Please re-vote.... :toth:
-
I disagree with making it effective in 2011, many teams have valued starters with RP eligibility more, and I strongly believe all rules that affect player values should be passed a full year before they are put into effect.
Quick rule changes with significant effect (unless they are not unanimous) are how good leagues fall apart. To that point, and I haven't been able to be around much recently, why did we abolish the Rules Committee?
-
RC was abolished because much of the rules are fairly set in stone. Ben, would you support this change (as well as defense) for 2012?
-
I think something should be put in place to elevate the value of a 'real' RP, so SP/RP pitchers don't dominate the position. Putting in a weekly starts cap is one method, and probably the easiest. Modifying the scoring for RP's could be another approach, but we've thrown those ideas around and they never got much traction (something like adding HLD+SV as a category).
If our only option is to limit starts, then I would vote in favor, but I would personally prefer to find a way to naturally bring the value back to RP's, allowing teams to pick whatever strategy fits them best (part of the fun of fantasy sports). Either way, I'd push for implementing in 2012.
-
Ben - I agree with you... as much as I would love to see these happen for 2011, it isn't completely fair unless there was an overwhelming vote. The SP cap, if approved, would be enacted for the 2012 season.
-
Bad bad bad rule. This league is already hitter biased. Why not just eliminate pitching all together?
-
A lot of teams went after extra pitchers and SP-RP knowing that they can get a few extra starts. They have to pay for this in the form of salary and roster spots. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Plus, having a rotation that includes 3-4 very good pitchers will win out any day.
-
I just see the SP/RP as a loop-hole and very unrealistic. How many pitcher are on MLB rosters that pitch out of the bullpen AND start at least once a week? Maybe raise the number of starts that qualify a pitcher to be a starter?
-
I just see the SP/RP as a loop-hole and very unrealistic. How many pitcher are on MLB rosters that pitch out of the bullpen AND start at least once a week? Maybe raise the number of starts that qualify a pitcher to be a starter?
I like that idea.
-
I just see the SP/RP as a loop-hole and very unrealistic. How many pitcher are on MLB rosters that pitch out of the bullpen AND start at least once a week? Maybe raise the number of starts that qualify a pitcher to be a starter?
Tim Wakefield :rofl:
I like the idea of raising the number of starts to qualify for a position. But what about rookies?
-
If for some reason we do not agree on an SP limit, I think we need to revisit the idea of daily vs. weekly lineup changes - I don't remember where we ended up with the rules, but for some reason I was under the impression that we did not want streaming of pitchers (although I may be making that up).
-
I like that idea.
That would help, but really a lot of this years SP/RP's are pitchers who were RP's last year and converted to SP's this year - we would need to introduce something that changes a players eligibility during the season, which we decided was a bad idea last year (since our owners can control where they play, and we build our rosters without necessarily the flexibility to adjust to such changes)
Maybe we go half way, and have current-season requirements for pitchers, but not hitters?
-
If for some reason we do not agree on an SP limit, I think we need to revisit the idea of daily vs. weekly lineup changes - I don't remember where we ended up with the rules, but for some reason I was under the impression that we did not want streaming of pitchers (although I may be making that up).
If we allowed only weekly changes to the lineup, that would be a limit on starts for pitchers, which is what this question is about. Its just another way of doing it if this gets voted down. Not only this fact, but also that if you had an injury in your lineup you're screwed.
Why are you so hitter biased?
-
If we allowed only weekly changes to the lineup, that would be a limit on starts for pitchers, which is what this question is about. Its just another way of doing it if this gets voted down. Not only this fact, but also that if you had an injury in your lineup you're screwed.
Why are you hitter biased?
-
If we allowed only weekly changes to the lineup, that would be a limit on starts for pitchers, which is what this question is about. Its just another way of doing it if this gets voted down. Not only this fact, but also that if you had an injury in your lineup you're screwed.
Agree with you there, it's definitely a concern of going to weekly lineups. Same thought applies to trades, which are pretty regular in this league. I do weekly lineup changes in my other keeper league and they seem to work very well, but it's roto so the impact is less significant.
Why are you so hitter biased?
Not sure what you mean. I don't think people are upset with 'streaming' of hitters, or playing them out of position (an SP starting in an RP slot), the issue is really only with pitchers.
-
Why is there an issue with pitchers doing it? I mean, if I spend my dollar on pitchers, because there are only so many top hitters, I shouldn't be at a disadvantage. I should be allowed to score as many pitchers as I possible can in one week, if it be my choice.
If this passes, although it doesn't look like it will so far :taco: I believe we should have to re-evaluate scoring. The value for hitters should come wayyyyyy down. Otherwise, I refer to my original post in this topic, getting rid of pitchers all together.
-
It doesn't look like it will pass. Also, weekly lineup changes aren't going to happen because you cannot substitute for injuries mid-week. The most realistic change will be in regards to position eligibility.
-
thank goodness. Weekly lineup changes are just totally ignorant. I agree with joe, on teams that spend money on pitchers should be allowed to use them. I see both sides of the argument.
-
The idea is to match MLB - you cannot stream starters in MLB to gain an advantage, you get 1 per day...
-
But your attempt to match the MLB seriously hinders a major factor of the baseball.
We also cannot call up minor league players when we decide to, we must wait for the MLB to do so. This is another way in which we cannot mimic the MLB.
I mean seriously, there are so many ways that being a hitter should be a better thing...
-
But your attempt to match the MLB seriously hinders a major factor of the baseball.
We also cannot call up minor league players when we decide to, we must wait for the MLB to do so. This is another way in which we cannot mimic the MLB.
I mean seriously, there are so many ways that being a hitter should be a better thing...
Agree to disagree, but I think a majority of the league is against streaming pitchers - we just don't have a good solution yet.
-
Agree to disagree, but I think a majority of the league is against streaming pitchers - we just don't have a good solution yet.
The starts limit has officially not passed. It's time to move our discussions to fixing the eligibility constraints for pitchers (and even hitters).
-
our goal is to make this league as close as possible to the mlb right? My vote is to have a 5-man rotation with one start per day, so in the end a team would have 7 starts per week. thats pretty close to 8. but the only problem is that if one of your pitchers gets hurt, then you have to find a new pitcher and then you have to go through all the rotation hassles. but what do you guys think.
-
Just going to point out again that weekly lineups would solve both this issue and our defensive scoring issues, without shaking up player valuation.
-
Just going to point out again that weekly lineups would solve both this issue and our defensive scoring issues, without shaking up player valuation.
I will support weekly lineups, and I will even accept roster switches for injuries and demotions - not for simply changing a player mid-week.
-
Is that something fantrax will allow, Colb?
-
Is that something fantrax will allow, Colb?
Yep, we just screwed it up in the settings from the get go. I can override any lineup, so even if I missed your public posting of an eligible lineup change, then I can do it retrospectively. I am starting to think that our defensive scoring system is just fine as it is, and new rules for position eligibility (based on minors too), with weekly lineups allowing certain changes per post will really fix all of our small problems. I need some rules set for our position eligibility and then we can move on from all of these discussions on the rules.
-
Just going to point out again that weekly lineups would solve both this issue and our defensive scoring issues, without shaking up player valuation.
how?
-
how?
Weekly lineups and improved eligibility rules will prevent mid-week positional changes and abuse of the defensive scoring system, respectively.
-
I am in favor of a start limit. However at the moment it is not passing. Changing to weekly lineups will limit starts and thus do something the league has voted against. I will vote against weekly lineups for many many reasons. that is one of them. another is in many leagues that i have been in that have weekly lineups, it makes you have less activity. I for one would be less active. i would lose alot of interest in the league. It also tries to make you choose who to play for a week at a time, making you have less need for depth. I have many things against weekly lineups that im gona type all out unless its necessary.
-
I'm for a start limit, not weekly line ups. I understand the reason to have it, so people cannot abuse it by slotting players everywhere. But for me personally, I would want to sit Adam Lind against lefty starters. Going weekly takes away that level of strategy, which I enjoyed last year.
-
I personally agree with the start limit also. I feel as if most/some of the people against it are putting their team's interest above the interest of the league (which is understandable), but I feel like that is a road we don't want to go down.
~MTK
-
Another great reason (dans) why not to do weekly lineups. We still have 9 owners left to vote on the start limit.
-
my issue is with the imposition it places pitching in, in this league. it would place another premium on hitters, who play almost every game. also, it demands less of owners knowledge in regards to pitching. if you are able to start only 5 pitchers, then why would you need to be terribly deep for that roster spot?
weekly lineups are another discussion all together...dan's point and corey's points are sufficient for my argument as well.