Slow Pitch wrote:Well our league requires you to start 5 SP & 4 RPs. Weekly line ups.
Also not as good: this creates value where it doesn't really exist in some relief pitcher who is also qualified as a starter for whatever reason. It only encourages threads like this which is looking for SPs who qualify as RPs; opposite result, but same idea.
In my primary league, I abolished SP/RP distinctions to avoid this tilting of value (although there are nominal IP minimums; 900/yr for 10 pitching spots). But the categories are set up such that no single pitcher, "strategy" dominates other than simply acquiring quality pitching. Nobody streams pitchers and nobody avoid SPs.
Last edited by Matthias on Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
IMHO K/BB is the way to go for the 6th category. For the most part everything previously mentioned is repetitive to some degree with the primary 5 categories, unless you go with a negative category. While the arguement can be made that K's and BB's on their own are covered in some manner with the original 5 categories the correlation between the 2 of them is not. I used K/9 in H2H and basically 9 times out of 10 if you won K's then you won K/9. Made the switch to K/BB last year and will never look back. Just my 2 cents.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:If there is an IP minimum, however, the 1-2 starter strategy and all relievers isn't operable.
Most roto leagues have a fairly nominal IP minimum (if at all, generally it's a maximum). But even so, I dislike IP mins; they seem like a crutch to prop up an unbalanced system.
Actually, I disagree. Why should a team be allowed to win by playing fewer innings? One of the major points I love about baseball is you cannot just sit on a lead. You MUST allow the other team to have their 3 outs. I would argue that every league---if they really want to capture the spirit of baseball-- ought to have a fairly narrow min/max IP window that reflected the reality of what major league teams pitch.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:If there is an IP minimum, however, the 1-2 starter strategy and all relievers isn't operable.
Most roto leagues have a fairly nominal IP minimum (if at all, generally it's a maximum). But even so, I dislike IP mins; they seem like a crutch to prop up an unbalanced system.
Actually, I disagree. Why should a team be allowed to win by playing fewer innings? One of the major points I love about baseball is you cannot just sit on a lead. You MUST allow the other team to have their 3 outs. I would argue that every league---if they really want to capture the spirit of baseball-- ought to have a fairly narrow min/max IP window that reflected the reality of what major league teams pitch.
Your metaphor would be valid if all pitching categories were negative values and the purpose was to see how you could assemble a pitching staff that does the least amount of damage. But in fantasy, many of the pitching categories are desirable in nature so you can create incentives for people to want to stay out there longer. It's not only a matter of doing the least harm but also the possibility to capture the maximum good.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
I do like Losses, but I also like using Wins in spite of a growing dislike against them (in favor of QS). It might hurt "accuracy," but it makes for better entertainment.
My college buddies and I do a 7x7 league, and every year we chose a new 7th category (OBP and L's are the permanent 6th categories). This year we're going SLG for hitters and HR (given up) for pitchers, so there's another one to consider.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Matthias » Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:32 am 
