So a couple people in my league have been streaming pitchers and some other people think it might be a tad unsportsmanlike. I personally don't have a problem with it but I think that an added category (QS) this year might make it a little unfair. In our pitching categories we use ERA, WHIP, Wins, Strikeouts, and QS. Obviously streaming pitchers doesn't help with ERA and WHIP but it does help in the other three making it uneven. Meaning you could completely punt ERA and WHIP and just try and get as many starts per week to win QS, wins, and strikeouts. Is my league flawed?
As commish, I feel it's probably too late too change the rules but I do wish that I added a maximum moves made number to my settings at the beginning of the year. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Do I have my league set up so that the number of pitchers used trumps the quality of a staff?
Our league felt streaming was unfair and went against the spirit of the type of league we wanted. We also wanted to stop the battle of who could stay up to 12:00 am and add the best matchups for the next day. It was getting ridiculous. The transactions board was filled with three to four add/drops of pitchers by three to four managers each day.
Just use a max IP or max start/week rule next year. Our league didn't want to limit overall moves, so we adopted a 12 starts/week rule. 10 starts/week is a good number too. We would use max IP but Yahoo doesn't let you for a H2H league.
TheGhost wrote:So a couple people in my league have been streaming pitchers and some other people think it might be a tad unsportsmanlike. I personally don't have a problem with it but I think that an added category (QS) this year might make it a little unfair. In our pitching categories we use ERA, WHIP, Wins, Strikeouts, and QS. Obviously streaming pitchers doesn't help with ERA and WHIP but it does help in the other three making it uneven. Meaning you could completely punt ERA and WHIP and just try and get as many starts per week to win QS, wins, and strikeouts. Is my league flawed?
As commish, I feel it's probably too late too change the rules but I do wish that I added a maximum moves made number to my settings at the beginning of the year. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Do I have my league set up so that the number of pitchers used trumps the quality of a staff?
Too late to change the rules. You'll just have to endure streaming and figure out how to beat it. For example, if you have the best staff to start with, then stream yourself to add volume to it. GOOD ERA + BAD ERA still will beat CRAP STREAMING ERA right?
TheGhost wrote:Obviously streaming pitchers doesn't help with ERA and WHIP but it does help in the other three making it uneven. Meaning you could completely punt ERA and WHIP and just try and get as many starts per week to win QS, wins, and strikeouts. Is my league flawed?
Yes.
TheGhost wrote:As commish, I feel it's probably too late too change the rules but I do wish that I added a maximum moves made number to my settings at the beginning of the year. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Do I have my league set up so that the number of pitchers used trumps the quality of a staff?
I would just say that you're instituting a moves limit for the rest of the year. Compliance is optional. But anyone who doesn't comply will not be invited back next year.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
TheGhost wrote:Obviously streaming pitchers doesn't help with ERA and WHIP but it does help in the other three making it uneven. Meaning you could completely punt ERA and WHIP and just try and get as many starts per week to win QS, wins, and strikeouts. Is my league flawed?
Yes.
TheGhost wrote:As commish, I feel it's probably too late too change the rules but I do wish that I added a maximum moves made number to my settings at the beginning of the year. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Do I have my league set up so that the number of pitchers used trumps the quality of a staff?
I would just say that you're instituting a moves limit for the rest of the year. Compliance is optional. But anyone who doesn't comply will not be invited back next year.
That doesn't sound so optional to me. "Comply or we will kill you. It's your choice." That's not cool at all.
TheGhost wrote:Obviously streaming pitchers doesn't help with ERA and WHIP but it does help in the other three making it uneven. Meaning you could completely punt ERA and WHIP and just try and get as many starts per week to win QS, wins, and strikeouts. Is my league flawed?
Yes.
TheGhost wrote:As commish, I feel it's probably too late too change the rules but I do wish that I added a maximum moves made number to my settings at the beginning of the year. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Do I have my league set up so that the number of pitchers used trumps the quality of a staff?
I would just say that you're instituting a moves limit for the rest of the year. Compliance is optional. But anyone who doesn't comply will not be invited back next year.
That doesn't sound so optional to me. "Comply or we will kill you. It's your choice." That's not cool at all.
It allows anyone who really wants to hold onto this idea to do so. But it also lets it be known that there are consequences to actions and someone who is going to hang onto a loophole just because it was overlooked before the season is invited to try their "skills" elsewhere. To be honest, I view it as perfectly fair.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias wrote:I would just say that you're instituting a moves limit for the rest of the year. Compliance is optional. But anyone who doesn't comply will not be invited back next year.
That doesn't sound so optional to me. "Comply or we will kill you. It's your choice." That's not cool at all.
It allows anyone who really wants to hold onto this idea to do so. But it also lets it be known that there are consequences to actions and someone who is going to hang onto a loophole just because it was overlooked before the season is invited to try their "skills" elsewhere. To be honest, I view it as perfectly fair.
I'll remember that next time someone points a gun at my head and orders me to do something. "I'm sure he thinks he's being fair to me. What a guy."
noseeum wrote:I'll remember that next time someone points a gun at my head and orders me to do something. "I'm sure he thinks he's being fair to me. What a guy."
Oh, c'mon. No need for melodrama.
There's value equivalence in my idea. You have the choice: you can (at least somewhat) ruin everyone else's season at the cost of your own future ones. Or you can let everyone enjoy them all. Maybe I'm inflating things a little bit... I guess it depends upon how strongly the OP's leaguemates feel about it. If it's just "a tad unsportsmanlike" then probably the answer is live with it and fix in the off-season. But there are some leagues where people get really upset about it and in those, "this season for next" seems like a fair deal.
Besides, your metaphor doesn't really work functionally. "Your money or your life" is giving you the option of giving up one of two things, both of which already belong to you. In this example, you have no vested interest in being invited back to the league next year, even if it's something that you may expect to happen. So it's the extension of new value (next season invite) for a behavior change on your part (not streaming in this one).
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
noseeum wrote:I'll remember that next time someone points a gun at my head and orders me to do something. "I'm sure he thinks he's being fair to me. What a guy."
Oh, c'mon. No need for melodrama.
There's value equivalence in my idea. You have the choice: you can (at least somewhat) ruin everyone else's season at the cost of your own future ones. Or you can let everyone enjoy them all. Maybe I'm inflating things a little bit... I guess it depends upon how strongly the OP's leaguemates feel about it. If it's just "a tad unsportsmanlike" then probably the answer is live with it and fix in the off-season. But there are some leagues where people get really upset about it and in those, "this season for next" seems like a fair deal.
Besides, your metaphor doesn't really work functionally. "Your money or your life" is giving you the option of giving up one of two things, both of which already belong to you. In this example, you have no vested interest in being invited back to the league next year, even if it's something that you may expect to happen. So it's the extension of new value (next season invite) for a behavior change on your part (not streaming in this one).
If I'm in a league, and it's continuing next year, and I'm not invited, I got kicked out. So I don't know what the heck you're talking about with this extension of value stuff. It's a real stretch.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by TheGhost » Tue May 06, 2008 11:37 am 
