Edited League, Strategy Suggestions!

[fezzik]

SP's have a lot of inherent value...it's going to be difficult to address streaming. 10 transactions for an entire season is very small, but that actually might work. It would have to be something pretty tiny, because if you put it at 25 or 30 a manager could just be very selective (making 15 or so transactions throughout the year) and be able to stream in the playoffs. If people just decide "streaming is bad" and nobody does it (of if there is a max inning limit), then elite SP's who pitch a lot of innings have a ton of value. If people stream pitchers then elite SP's have less value (assume it's a league with daily changes). I never like having IP as a category...and having both W's and QS seems redundant.

As far as hitters go, guys with high averages and lots of plate appearances would get a little boost...

[JTWood]

I wouldn't put a weekly limit on the transactions. You're already keeping the total low at 25, which is what you want right?

Don't want to punish a guy that has a bad injury week, too.

[evilempire2]

60 or 80 works fine. 40 would also work and be a little closer to what you are wanting to do. w a 25 or 26 week season, you see how even 80 would not allow too much streaming(80/25=3.something). you can also limit transactions per week(i know yahoo has this now), to accomplish what you are wanting w/o limiting total yearly totals
or you can do net QS instead of QS to limit streaming

and i must add, adding IP and QS really reduces the value of RP. you just added 2 SP cats w/o adding a RP cat. i would think about that(my suggestion would to remove Ip and add holds as i like holds, but thats just me)

that is actually the way i had it. i wanted to give non-closers some value. but the people in my league felt that your not looking to draft non-closers unless there aren't any left.

which makes me wonder, should be looking to draft two good close somewhere int he middle rounds? 10-15? and just stick with that?

[JTWood]

MRs are even more erratic and unpredictable than closers.

I don't believe you'd ever be able to justify taking them that early.

[4Pack]

10 isn't bad for a contract league, since you're committed to those players.

I'd say 25 would be appropriate for a redraft league.

does 25 moves, with a limit of 3 per week sound reasonable?

or better yet unlimited moves with a limit on the # per week?

Our league had a 3 move per week...and 30 move limit last season...and it did not take long for us to realize that 30 moves were not enough. It was upped to 50...and that seemed to work well for the most part. But even then...their were a couple managers who did not do so well at the draft that reached the 50 mark in August (and that is without streaming pitchers).

[AcidRock23]

One guy in our football league has suggested putting a low # of transactions and then a fee of some sort, just a buck or something like that, for 'bonus' transactions. That seems like a pretty decent idea but it takes like 600 emails just to discuss when the draft will be so we haven't implemented that just yet. I'd like to do something like that w/ baseball, toss the extra dough in the pot, if the pickup will give you the title, no cost at all but it would cut down on the ridiculous churning that goes on.

[evilempire2]

MRs are even more erratic and unpredictable than closers.

I don't believe you'd ever be able to justify taking them that early.

i was talking about closers, because Holds is no longer a category MRs have really low value, if any at all in my league.

[evilempire2]

40 moves for the year no weekly limit-hopefully that will prevent ppl streaming starters.