|
|
Post by FBL LEAGUE MANAGER on Nov 2, 2015 21:10:26 GMT
If you vote yes, you will be voting for the elimination of using starting pitchers from the RP slots. Regardless of the eligibility of the pitcher (SP,RP or RP) if the pitcher is scheduled to be a starting pitcher he can not be used in a RP slot.
If you vote no, you will be voting to continue the rules as they are currently set. This means if a pitcher is SP,RP or RP and makes a start for his major league team, you can use that pitcher in a RP slot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafael on Nov 4, 2015 20:43:25 GMT
We voted on this last year as well, but now we have another year to further validate the points I made back then. I was able to defeat Team Baumann in 2015 finals by using 4 SP/RP guys; I was down in strikeouts and wins entering the second week, but by having four extra starters putting up stats, I made up the difference. I've clearly used the SP/RPs to my advantage, but for the sake of league competition, I believe it's best if we limit their use. I'm not saying you can't have a SP/RP guy, but perhaps we can limit it to one or two, tops. WIthout limiting the amount of starts a team can make per week, we'll have many matchups where one team can lose probable saves but gain probable wins and strikeouts. It's a 2-for-1 trade that can be exploited.
|
|
ramos
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by ramos on Nov 5, 2015 1:47:14 GMT
Teams have built whether or not they value closers based on keeping space available for RP eligible starters. Changing this rule changes the way teams are philosophically built.
If we eliminate this, the 30 closers become that much more valuable. The league would then need 50 RPs needed for basic starting lineups let alone any RP we want on our bench.
Drastically changing the value of closers without doing something to offset that would give some teams an extreme advantage and others a massive disadvantage. If we go forward with this, I suggest we change the SV category to Saves + Holds in order to make all 50 RP valuable and give each owner a change to catch up to those with multiple closers.
|
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Nov 6, 2015 6:59:01 GMT
We've already had a vote to change the saves category to saves + holds, and it didn't pass. It can be proposed and voted on again. The problem isn't the value of closers; the problem is there's a very real statistical benefit to adding multiple pitching starts from the relief pitcher positions, especially when we don't limit the amount of pitching starts a team is allowed to make. Again, I used 4 SP/RP in the finals, and was able to win by sheer volume of stats.
The one statement from Ramos's posting above I agree with is that a team's way of choosing their keepers and/or building their roster will be affected by whether or not a SP/RP pitcher will be allowed to be used. That's why it would be unfair to vote against allowing them next year. That's why Alex Wood had value this year, and why Kris Medlen was such a hot commodity in the famous 'R.A. Dickey' draft year. I'm in favor of limiting the number of SP a team can put in the RP slots. If anyone wants to make the conference call, I'll be happy to expound.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monse on Nov 9, 2015 12:36:22 GMT
Keep it simple. Avoid making rules that require oversight from league managers. If ESPN has the option, if it is fail safe, then propose the change. Otherwise, it becomes a headache. Refer to Injury Replacement Rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baumann on Nov 9, 2015 20:25:14 GMT
Have to agree with Monse (and Ramos) on this one. We should keep it simple and mechanical. Avoid the human element. Also, I think it allows for more strategy. As someone who was I guess "victimized" by the possibility to have multiple SPs as RPs, I think it was totally legit and strategic to exploit this possibility--it makes the game more interesting. And what Team Riera did, anyone could have done as well, so it's fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafael_ on Nov 10, 2015 9:43:53 GMT
I proposed this vote again in spite of the fact that I used it to my advantage. I believe it's in the best interest of the league to put a cap on the number of SP/RP a team can use. I agree it's a strategy and it makes things more interesting. I'll let you guys decide. I believe a maximum of 1 or 2 guys would balance things out.
|
|
ramos
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by ramos on Nov 10, 2015 14:47:34 GMT
I think the heart of the issue here is that we believe that there are too many RP slots on active rosters. If we did not need 50 RP eligible players to complete our rosters, this would have far less of an impact.
Again, if we limit the RP slots, we enhance the value of previously owned closers. We are in a Catch 22 unless we leave everything the way it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Nov 10, 2015 17:53:11 GMT
The heart of the issue, at least in the eyes of the person who proposed this change, isn't that we have too many RP slots. I think there's a nice balance of SP and RP, 5 and 5. The issue is that with the recent increase of MLB teams that are using their pitchers as starters and relievers, now we have a large number of eligible SP/RP guys. The issue becomes a stats/math one: relievers have a great statistical advantage over starters in just one category- saves. Even if he has a higher k/9 rate, over a long season, starters get more total k's. Starting pitchers have a greater statistical advantage in two categories - wins and strikeouts, because they'll be in a position to get a win, and have the certainty of pitching. Of course, relievers may get wins and starters may not get wins or strikeouts, but the stats and probabilities are evident. And it's easier to say "okay, i'm going to forget about saves and go for wins and strikeouts" and then using SP/RP guys instead of relievers. This is a rule change suggestion, to change it to limit the amount of SP/RP guys allowed on the active lineup, because I feel it's best for the league. The rationale of having 5 SP slots and 5 RP slots was to place equal value on the contributions a starter and reliever have. Now we're tilting it in favor of one side. If you agree, I applaud your courage to vote yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horta on Nov 18, 2015 2:30:25 GMT
My vote to keep the rule as we currently have it w/ no changes...
|
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Nov 18, 2015 7:05:25 GMT
Post-call thoughts: I think we should at least consider the possibility of limiting the amount of total starts a team can make per week, but that said, as long as everyone understands the pros and cons, this is a strategy a team can choose to apply or ignore.
|
|
