Rules Suggestion

[HotCorner]

As the commish, I want to limit the number of starter pitchers a team uses in a week to help decrease the number of transactions and avoid teams picking up starters at the end of the week. However I'm not sure what is the best method.

• IP cap
• # of starts per week cap
• other

Our draft is Sunday and I want to have the new rule in place prior to the draft.

Thoughts?

[mlbfan30]

Why do you want to limit transactions. If someone has a method of using waivers to fill in that last spot then whats the problem?

Are you talking about someone getting like 5 SP at the end of the week to try and win? That means they would be picking up mostly bad pitchers, and would be releasing possibly better players for other teams to pick up. I don't see the point for this.

But since you want to... You should have no caps on IP/starts. You would have to place a transactions cap. Maybe 50 for the year or something. That way it gives players freedom to use their strategy, but they need to incorporate the cap and pace themselves. By putting a limit on starts or IP, your essentially limiting varying strategies, which is bad.

[Johnny Footstool]

I'd say cap the number of starts at 6 or 7 per week.

Churning pitchers is a favorite tool of weaker fantasy players. Using a cap forces them to try to be selective and make good decisions.

[mlbfan30]

I'd say cap the number of starts at 6 or 7 per week.

Churning pitchers is a favorite tool of weaker fantasy players. Using a cap forces them to try to be selective and make good decisions.

Actually "pitch and ditch" is used by some of the best fantasy players in tout wars. It's a very good and successful strategy if used correctly. Looking at matchups and being able to predict good starts by "bad" pitchers based on who they face, batter matchups, ballpark, etc. But if someone just picks up anyone at random hoping for more wins, then they will likely hurt themselves in ERA and WHIP. By limiting the supply of pitchers by capping starts, wouldn't that making teams be less selective because they have less options?

[Johnny Footstool]

Actually "pitch and ditch" is used by some of the best fantasy players in tout wars. It's a very good and successful strategy if used correctly. Looking at matchups and being able to predict good starts by "bad" pitchers based on who they face, batter matchups, ballpark, etc. But if someone just picks up anyone at random hoping for more wins, then they will likely hurt themselves in ERA and WHIP. By limiting the supply of pitchers by capping starts, wouldn't that making teams be less selective because they have less options?

With fewer options, you would have to be more selective. For example, if you've only got 1 start left, do you start Chris Young at Colorado, or do you go with Derek Lowe at home vs. the Mets?

[mlbfan30]

With fewer options, you would have to be more selective. For example, if you've only got 1 start left, do you start Chris Young at Colorado, or do you go with Derek Lowe at home vs. the Mets?

Or do you pick up Kason Gabbard at Safeco off the waivers. Selective - characterized by very careful or fastidious selection. More options means more selective. I can choose 1 spot from 2 pitchers or 3 pitchers. You'd be more selective from the 3 pitcher selection since there is more to choose from. In your case Young is a flyball pitcher, so he's probably do bad. Lowe has a career 8.78 ERA against the Mets. The best choice is to use waivers to get Gabbard. Limiting starts limit strategy since it limits variance. If you one of those big government people who want them to regulate the way you eat/sleep/drink, then I guess limit starts. That way every week the same amount of starts are used and it decreases any sort personal freedom in the league.

[Johnny Footstool]

Or do you pick up Kason Gabbard at Safeco off the waivers. Selective - characterized by very careful or fastidious selection. More options means more selective. I can choose 1 spot from 2 pitchers or 3 pitchers. You'd be more selective from the 3 pitcher selection since there is more to choose from. In your case Young is a flyball pitcher, so he's probably do bad. Lowe has a career 8.78 ERA against the Mets. The best choice is to use waivers to get Gabbard. Limiting starts limit strategy since it limits variance. If you one of those big government people who want them to regulate the way you eat/sleep/drink, then I guess limit starts. That way every week the same amount of starts are used and it decreases any sort personal freedom in the league.

We're not talking about limiting the pool of pitchers you can draw from. We're talking about limiting your own scoring opportunities.

Limiting starts doesn't limit variance -- it makes the choice more difficult. The variance is still there. The pool of available pitchers is the same regardless of how many spots you have. In an unlimited league, you could pick up Young, Lowe, Gabbard, and whoever else was starting that day, and start them all, thereby diminshing the impact each individual performance has on your overall score. With a limited league, you'd have to settle on one and hope you made a good decision.

Fewer limitations means you can be *less* selective, because the impact of each choice is lessened.

I see limitations as challenges that lead to more careful decision making, as opposed to a free-for-all that tends to reward quantity over quality.

[mlbfan30]

We're not talking about limiting the pool of pitchers you can draw from. We're talking about limiting your own scoring opportunities.

Limiting starts doesn't limit variance -- it makes the choice more difficult. The variance is still there. The pool of available pitchers is the same regardless of how many spots you have. In an unlimited league, you could pick up Young, Lowe, Gabbard, and whoever else was starting that day, and start them all, thereby diminshing the impact each individual performance has on your overall score. With a limited league, you'd have to settle on one and hope you made a good decision.

Fewer limitations means you can be *less* selective, because the impact of each choice is lessened.

I see limitations as challenges that lead to more careful decision making, as opposed to a free-for-all that tends to reward quantity over quality.

And quantity over quality can be bad. You might get more Wins, but ERA and WHIP might go up. Leagues shouldn't have a cap to say you can't use quantity. Each person should decide their own method. If that's limiting pitchers, fine. If it's using more pitchers, fine. But a league that says, "you can't use more pitchers" just isn't as good to play in. I want to decide my own strategy and not have the league enforce one for me.

I guess if you play in an inferior league and are an inferior player, the commish should tell you how to play. But I play in strong leagues where strategies are encouraged.

[jmcclain19]

IP cap is usually good to have. In one of my leagues we have one and about mid-Sept everyone is just crunched to make sure they haven't gone over it. Because like me most have 10-11 pitchers for 9 slots and rotate them all season.

It mostly forces the smart owners to pick up the Scott Shields/Scott Linebrink/Heath Bell types who are dominant relievers with Ks but won't hurt you with IP.

In my head to head league this year we instituted a weekly set roster rule rather than a daily. Seems the top 3 guys last year just had a pitcher churn and that didn't seem quite right. I figured if everyone had the roster set for the week it forces a little more planning, and doesn't slant things to the guys who don't work but rather surf the net all day, which a few in my league do. Seemed every major rookie in our league was picked up the day of when ESPN put them online and that just makes for some bitterness in the league.

[mlbfan30]

Way to go ahead and Punish the ACTIVE managers. They are still going to win no matter what the setting are because they will adapt for the league settings. If all 12 teams were active last year, then maybe there would be some competition. They are now going to just search for pitching before each week starts and look for matchups. Personally, I HATE weekly changes because of injuries. There are many times when a big or small day-to-day type injury kills your team and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Johnny Footstool]

And quantity over quality can be bad. You might get more Wins, but ERA and WHIP might go up. Leagues shouldn't have a cap to say you can't use quantity. Each person should decide their own method. If that's limiting pitchers, fine. If it's using more pitchers, fine. But a league that says, "you can't use more pitchers" just isn't as good to play in. I want to decide my own strategy and not have the league enforce one for me.

I guess if you play in an inferior league and are an inferior player, the commish should tell you how to play. But I play in strong leagues where strategies are encouraged.

I've played in a number of "open" leagues, and honestly, they're very easy to win. All you have to do is get up earlier than the other owners and make halfway decent judgements about that day's starting pitchers.

A "strong" player is able to assess the rules and determine the best way to win. If quantity is OK, then the most active managers (i.e. the managers who can log in and make roster changes earliest and most often) have the best shot of winning. If getting up at 5:15 a.m. and picking that day's pitchers off the waiver wire is the best strategy, then I'll pass. I prefer leagues that require more than simply getting up earlier than your opponent.