-
Have some SP depth, but need an RP, anyone dealing?
Pandaman on
March 23, 2019 4:37 PM
-
After reading ALL of the comments from the past two days .... I agree that the 1500/5 would be negative and that we should revert back to the "no playoff" format from last year. At the end of the season, let's re-vote on the playoff format and other changes to allow the new owners to have a voice.
-
Sounds good.
Unrelated, any experience w NFBC leagues here?
-
Thanks everyone for the conversation - I believe we should move forward with NO playoffs for this season and retain league settings as they were last season. My rationale is based on 2 primary factors: 1) Artificial caps are not something I have interest in managing/policing 2) The league sentiment on playoffs/no playoffs was fairly split; moreover, that decision was made with 3-4 now-former owners involved, so it makes most sense to go back to no playoffs to mitigate these newfound concerns.
-
Agreed. I think playoffs needs to get scrapped for a year
-
Pretty sure this needs to be resolved by midnight and it seeme like no one would have much of an issue with taking away the playoffs, while a few of us would be quite displeased with 1500/5...
-
So what is the final vote count here and verdict?
-
All I'm saying is that the impact will 100% be negative, not that the impact will be super drastic. However, I do know for a fact we risk creating a dynamic where the best teams are those who best understand the 1500/5 loophole and are best able to exploit it. I've been there before. I’ll bet this and other subtle negative trends are occurring in plenty of those leagues without the owners having caught on. It's an oversight and I hope we are able to get Niv to address it for next season.
-
That’s fine but it seems like it did play out last year in some leagues without some of the issues you guys are foreseeing, so I think 100% is overstating the impact...
Pandaman on
March 19, 2019 12:36 PM
-
I'm seeing a lot of "the season's about to start" "let's see how it plays out" etc. But here's the bottom line: Pooch, Amateurs, and I know exactly how 1500/5 will play out and it will 100% be a negative. This is all the result of an oversight on Niv's part, and it's an oversight we should steer clear of, rather than buy into. By removing the playoffs we return to the status quo and ensure a great year like year's past and give Niv a chance to address this for next off-season
-
The Naturals's trade block has been updated!
Prison Mike on
March 19, 2019 11:51 AM
-
We think we should revert back to no playoffs and keep the caps the way they are. Changing the caps is a huge difference for in-season strategy. Last year 1st place came down to well executed managing of that 1500 cap. Having 1500 over 5 months completely gets rid of any strategy of managing innings and changing the cap to a self regulated 1250 doesn't seem like a viable/sustainable option.
Coke Hamels on
March 19, 2019 11:28 AM
-
Would love to hear from any and all of Pooch and Tooch, The Naturals, Situational Lefties, and The Old Fashioned's for your perspective on innings/games caps and/or ditching playoffs for this season.
-
As the biggest proponent of the playoff in this league, even I have to say removing the playoffs is absolutely the better option than going 1500/5 with the playoffs. 1500/5 is a fundamental change to the balance, strategy, and roster building of the league. Removing playoffs is simply altering the way the final month of the season goes down, but has no deeper impact, and is therefore the far better option. So if we don't do 1250/5, we should do away with the playoffs and keep the 1500/6.
-
Personally I hear the arguments for both sides, but I think its too hard to change right before the season. Also we don't how making the adjustments will really play out. I say leave it as is and revisit next offseason
Pandaman on
March 18, 2019 9:50 PM
-
I am fine with whatever. Kind of like the playoff idea but am ok with just points too.
-
My votes are for either 1250 limit or no playoffs like we have done the past 2 seasons. If enough people want the playoffs, all these issues should be worked out in offseason prior to arbitration and keepers etc. there is no advantage to 1250, your elite pitchers are only pitching 5 months not 6. It is the same as 1500 percentage wise.
-
Is there a way Rebels could lock a team's pitcher slots once said team reaches 1250 IP?
-
I'd be open to the all points format as well and do away with H2H playoffs. My only fear with the self-imposed usage caps is there's no way for us to manage it should a team go over the cap and make the playoffs, at least as far as I know.
-
And 1250 means aces can eat a higher % of innings
-
A. I’m down with all points.
B. I think 1250 gives an edge if (1) Sept baseball is different and (2) more innings pitched = more risk of injury. In theory it reduces the odds of needing replacements. Is it significant? Probably not but I think it’s something.
-
While I'm hesitant to introduce ANOTHER option in a world where we're trying to narrow down, but it does seem that one way to address the situation is by moving back to an all-points, no playoffs format. I know the league interest was fairly split previously, would be curious to know if this current discussion changes anybody's perspective on that topic.
-
Buncha Fn Amateurs's trade block has been updated!
-
How does 1250 give advantage to elite? Trying to understand that. 1250 in 5 months is the same as 1500 in 6 months. Wouldn’t the advantage be the same regardless meaning there is no advantage. The only advantage is 1500 in 5 months, because you have changed the rules and are rewarding maximizing innings pitched over quality of innings pitched.
-
I'll agree pure points is better and said I preferred that when this idea was posed. That said the rules were known, or could be. Folks just chose not to know. That's on all of us.
Every system gives someone an edge. The 1250 system helps teams with elite depth (Kluber-Scherzer-Sale). Maybe the ability to go over helps some compete. Maybe it triggers streaming wars. Could it be bad? Yes. Could be good? Yes. Guessing daily limits and keeper ability blunts streaming and means minimal impact.
-
Agreed w Amateurs. Since we all conducted the offseason under the assumption of 1500/6, the only way to keep it fair and ensure teams aren't getting advantages or disadvantages they are not even in control of, is to keep that ratio the same at 1250/5. 1500/5 is almost like not having an innings limit. While there likely won't be much streaming, there'll be a difference in how players are valued and ultimately how our teams are valued. And owners would have handled the offseason differently.
-
It’s bad enough we are taking almost all skill out of a points league by having head to head playoffs and leaving everything to luck you have over a short period of time, now we have changed the bar on rules to give advantages? And the saying you show have known the rules isn’t correct. The rules of innings pitched were not clear obviously since we had to ask. I read 1500 for mlb season which is 6 months not 5.
-
Basically the rules weren’t even known prior to the auction. We had to ask about how the innings would work. Again we have essentially changed the rules after the draft/auction by having the innings for 5 months instead of 6. There is an advantage gained here that should not be the case. The only fair way would be to do the 1250.
-
I am torn but I think vote for the status quo. The more I think about it Someone gets an edge in all universes. 1500/162 helps deeper teams. 1250/135 helps teams with the elites. Injuries can F all of the expectations up. Rules existed so we should have asked before the draft. Let the buyer beware.
-
I vote leaving as is as well. Risk of teams going over and having to figure out how to roll back points is not worth the headache in my opinion.
-
I vote just leave it as it is.
-
1500IP/5mo*** gives a heavy advantage to deeper pitching staffs, not 6! Sorry!
-
Everything would have to be monitored and enforced manually - those settings are built in to the site.
-
I think a cap on all players is complicating this - since position players only have 1 slot, there isn't really much room to take advantage of it. That's why catcher is the only position that truly NEEDS to be capped. So to simply this, it's a yes or no question to: Do we want an in-house 1250IP cap and 135GP cap for catchers? Mathematically, 1500IP/6mo gives a heavy advantage to deeper pitching staffs and disadvantage to offense-first teams and 1250IP/5mo does solve that imbalance impeccably.
-
How easy is it to implement a cap on all players? Is it a setting?
-
I would say we leave everything the way it is, play this season under the current rules, restrictions, caps, etc. and change it at years end, if need be. I am all sorts of confused (not really) but definitely wondering why this is being discussed 2 days prior to first pitch? Is this something that was just now figured out or..I mean, Niv even said he hasn't heard of any complaints from the streaming. I guess I just don't see the necessary motives to make a pretty big change, but that's just me.
-
I'm fine with the inning cap since it eliminates streaming but don't see the need for the games cap for position players.
-
If people are in favor of imposing our own caps on pitching, then we need to do it on every position, not just catcher. So far from the responses it seems we have Notorious and Amateurs in favor of caps, and Green and Dream in favor of making no changes. What do other league members think?
-
If I have to play devil's advocate, I suppose I'd say that if everyone completed the auction under the same impression about innings cap & season length - regardless of whether it was correct or not - then relative valuation wouldn't necessarily change, right? So you would have changed your valuation...but so would I...and we would have netted out at roughly the same place we're in today.
-
We just need to define this now before season starts in 2 days.
-
I agree about catcher too. Good catch pun intended.
-
I agree about catcher too. Good catch pun intended.
-
We'd also need a "fair play" rule to reduce the catcher GP max to 135 if we follow this path.
-
That's the argument for instituting a 1250 IP "fair play" regular season max for us to abide by.
-
I think at this point you have to have a 1250 innings max since we already had the auction. And seems like no one knew 1500 was for 5 months.
-
I don’t think the issue is streaming per say. But we had an auction and keepers based on 1500 over 6 months not 5. Like I said before, starting pitchers should have been valued differently. At least me personally, I would have drafted/valued players. Meaning carrying more starting pitchers and allotting more budget for this and less for other areas. Feels like a drastic change for a league standpoint, but maybe it’s just me.
-
I'm fine with it how Niv described it. I think it just means more starts as a whole. Streaming bad pitchers will still have a pretty negative effect on your total points.
-
If we are concerned about streaming (thereby losing quality in favor of quantity of innings), we could consider instituting an in-house 1250 IP max for the 5-month regular season. This would correlate to a full season 1500 IP max. Welcome thoughts from fellow owners.
-
Us: "If so, what’s to stop owners from streaming SPs without a true innings max during the regular season?"
Niv: "I don’t know, you guys should try it! I imagine if more than 3 owners are trying to stream in a single league, in-season auctions will become pretty competitive and it’ll be hard to actually pull off this strategy. I received no feedback in 2018 that streaming was an issue in hybrid regular-season / playoff formats, but maybe that will change this season."
-
Hey all, got an answer from Niv (https://community.ottoneu.com/t/2019-baseball-playoff-options/4796/12?u=pallenikje)
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages