I think as long as the limit on innings is a fairly high ceiling, I have no problem seeing a cap on it. As mentioned before, it does prevent streaming off the FA. Even in my 10 Team league, we have a lot of FA pitchers who anyone could stream with confidence - guys like Bush, who gets to play against the Rockies, Padres, and Giants a lot, Scott Richmond, Blackburn, etc.
thejusman1 wrote:I think as long as the limit on innings is a fairly high ceiling, I have no problem seeing a cap on it. As mentioned before, it does prevent streaming off the FA. Even in my 10 Team league, we have a lot of FA pitchers who anyone could stream with confidence - guys like Bush, who gets to play against the Rockies, Padres, and Giants a lot, Scott Richmond, Blackburn, etc.
Those are some pretty good names in the FA pool. You make a good point though, in a 10 team league perhaps streaming could be that easy and could present a problem. In larger leagues maybe 12 to 14 teams though it probably would be more unlikely to stream pitchers on a regular basis.
In one of my 12-teamers (albeit a points league), there are decent pitchers on the wire that would not be awful streaming options. In my 16-teamer, there are not stream-worthy SP on the wire.
Either way, the original question was not about what league size makes streaming feasible, it was about why it might make sense to have an innings cap in a roto league. I believe that that question has been answered, and an innings cap has been justified.
While discussing league sizes and streaming could be another topic worth discussion, I hold firm to the idea that a well thought out innings cap certainly can't HURT anything.
Years ago we had a few teams start streaming. Based on how my pitchers did the first couple days of the week (h2h), I would do it when needed. Got to the point where you had to be up at midnight to grab the best available (very competitive league). We unanimously decided to put a moves limit the following year. We have a 65 move limit since then and it works well to stop streaming.
Old topic that I wanted to bring up again instead of starting a new one with smilar questions.
Just looking for any new takes on this issue. I am in a league without limits and someone is probably going to win by using the exact strategy as stated prev in this thread, loading up on hitters and saves and streaming 3-4 spots a day on SP's.
Do most roto leagues use IP limits? The guys saying that all you would be left with is the bottom of the barrel guys is right, but it doesn't matter because those guys will occasionally get wins and will always get a few K's so if you have 3-4 of them going each day it is easy to overtake the rest of the league who is not streaming guys in and out.
Just trying to get a feel as to how many leagues DON'T use IP limits. I would guess that about 80% do.
This is exactly why you need to limit streaming. It can be a winning strategy if the rules are poorly designed and it really isn't what fantasy baseball should be about. The winner should be who is best able to evaluate talent and put together a team.
My league instituted an innings limit after this happened and I thought Yahoo leagues had one by default.
Another option is to put a limit on add/drops. This will force people to make their choices wisely and is more akin to real baseball where teams can't simply pick up multiple players each day.
Anyone know of any good write-ups on this issue? Seems to me that just about every good roto league uses some sort of limit to prevent the strategy already noted of loading up on closers and hitters and streaming SP's. I've seen it work firsthand now yet am still having a hard time convincing guys that we need a limit. Anyone know of any articles that speak directly to this issue? I've been looking around for awhile. Looking for something that speaks to both sides of the issue. Thanks for any help.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by thejusman1 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:51 pm 
