Over the years I've developed an affinity for 14 and 16-team leagues. Was kind of bummed my long-running 14-teamer dropped to 12 this season. Seems small; I don't think I'd want to play with fewer unless it was an AL- or NL-only.
I'm not playing in anything over a 12 teamer this year, but I have a feeling I'd really enjoy playing in deeper leagues. I am gonna give a 20 teamer a go around next year, I believe.
I'm in a 10 team league that starts 10 hitters and 8 pitchers a week. We only have 5 on the bench, so that makes it very interesting. You can't sit on guys very long with such a small bench.
I think 12 is the perfect amount. You don't have a team full of superstars, but you don't have to study Kansas City's 3rd string players either. I don't find any fun in having to start guys who play 3 times a week.
The problem with 8, 9, and even some 10 team leagues is that even if you expand the rosters, you're still top-heavy. The first few rounds snake around much faster than normal and you're left with each team having several more superstars that you normally would. The player pool may be just as keep if you expand the roster, but it doesn't change the fact that teams have more good players than the teams in a larger league.
RugbyD wrote:expand the rosters. for a 10-team, a 20-start, 5-bench, 2-DL roster works great.
This is the way to do it.
In my 10-man roto we have the usual positions plus CI, MI, one extra SP, one extra RP, 5-man bench and 3-DL spots. The FA pool is about the same strength-wise as all my 12-team leagues.
Is there anything fluffier than a cloud? If there is, I don't want to know about it.
broomulack wrote:I think 12 is the perfect amount. You don't have a team full of superstars, but you don't have to study Kansas City's 3rd string players either. I don't find any fun in having to start guys who play 3 times a week.
All depends on what you're looking for. I play in a 9-team NL-only league and I love the fact that you have to know your stuff to compete. You need to know at least the top 4 starters for every NL team. That being said, I wouldn't want any more teams in our league, as it would result in having nothing of worth on the WW and really limit your ability to juggle a roster.
broomulack wrote:I think 12 is the perfect amount. You don't have a team full of superstars, but you don't have to study Kansas City's 3rd string players either. I don't find any fun in having to start guys who play 3 times a week.
All depends on what you're looking for. I play in a 9-team NL-only league and I love the fact that you have to know your stuff to compete. You need to know at least the top 4 starters for every NL team. That being said, I wouldn't want any more teams in our league, as it would result in having nothing of worth on the WW and really limit your ability to juggle a roster.
To me, NL and AL-only leagues are a different animal. I was under the impression that we were discussing mixed leagues.
some people just might not be able to find more than 10 people.
i play in a 12 team H2H with buddies of mine and a 10 team 5x5 on CBS...the 10 team has the top 8 teams seperated by less than 10 points, it's pretty exciting right now. differnt guy in 1st every day it seems like. a few HR or a bad pitching outing will push you up or knock you down a few places in the standings.
it's not so much the size of the league but the quality of the owners
mrkrab2003 wrote:What is the point of being in small leagues like this? Im in one now out of the 3 leagues im in and it is so boring. You could build a team out of the players in the FA pool that would compete.
They should just rename those league to All-Star only leagues (players not owners).
Even in 12 team leagues it gets a little ridiculous. For example I picked up virtually half of my league leading pitching staff off waivers and I virtually never make a trade in those sized leages -don't have to.
Now in my 20 team league H2H Salary Cap league - I'm in first place with a rotation of Nate Robertson, Dave Bush, Vicente Padilla, Scott Kazmir and Denny Bautista (with Zack Greinke and Ben Sheets being unavailable practically all year) and haven't been more than 5 gb at any time of the year. It's that sense of accomplishment that I look for in Fantasy Baseball - not how many 5 star superstuds I can have on my roster and still struggle to finish in the top 3.
When guys go down - it should hurt - BAD and it shouldn't be as easy as claiming an All-Star off waivers or choosing from one of 5 that have been rotting away on a deep roster bench.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by AKhomebrewer » Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:31 am 
