Change league settings?

[Kodiak]

I am commish of a 10-team league on Yahoo and we are in our 8th year. Most of the teams have been the same from year-to-year. I'm interested in making the league more competitive without going up 2 teams to form a 12-team league. Our league settings are as follows:

• 5x5, H2H format
• 40 transaction limit, 20 trades limit, trade deadline of Aug. 8 (Sunday of the last 2x series)
• start C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 3 OF, 1 Util; start 2 SP, 2 RP, 3 P
• 6 bench spots, 2 DL spots

Some ideas I had include:

• increasing transaction limit to 50 (average 2 per week, even through playoffs). Low enough to discourage streaming?
• make trade deadline August 22, two weeks before playoffs start.
• add 1 Util
• add 1 or 2 bench spots
• add 1 or DL spots

Any thoughts? Or should I leave things as they are? I've read that for a 10-team league, drafting 22 rounds (220 players) leaves a lot of talent out there on the waiver wire, and there's not much risk taking.

Gracias,
Kodiak

[bk1998]

The easiest way to curb streaming is to set weekly rosters, IMO. I don't know why more leagues don't view this as a viable option.

When I first considered going from a daily league to weekly, I cringed. Now, I'd never look back.

[Kodiak]

BK — That's an interesting idea, but what if someone (like my star SS) gets injured during a Tuesday game and is on the DL the rest of the week? Is the roster locked so I can't make changes? Also, I kind of like daily changes because the owners that don't follow their team closely enough will inevitably miss a few starting SPs. We're probably only talking about a handful of Ws that get missed, but I know from experience that it just takes one W to miss the playoffs. Thanks for the reply — Kodiak

[Bobbleheadrusty]

See, thats a big part of the appeal of weekly rosters compared to dailies for some people. (not the injury thing). Injuries/benchings/rainouts tend to even out over the course of the season.

I prefer weeklies because sometimes life gets in the way of checking every day. It limits streaming and puts the pressure on people to find the best players, rather then slot in the guy who plays that day. As someone in a couple league with friends with kids its the only fair way to do it, as they aren't forced to check every night to make sure that their players are still healthy/starting the next day.

[bk1998]

BK — That's an interesting idea, but what if someone (like my star SS) gets injured during a Tuesday game and is on the DL the rest of the week? Is the roster locked so I can't make changes? Also, I kind of like daily changes because the owners that don't follow their team closely enough will inevitably miss a few starting SPs. We're probably only talking about a handful of Ws that get missed, but I know from experience that it just takes one W to miss the playoffs. Thanks for the reply — Kodiak

Our rosters do lock on Monday, with no changes until the next week. If a guy goes down, we chalk it up to luck of the draw. All things considered, law of averages balances things out in the long run (unless you like injury prone guys, in which case you're taking on risk).

I'm as hardcore as they come when it comes to watching my roster/league. The advantage you get from being active doesn't go away when you switch to weekly. Hard work still pays off.

It's a radical change for most to consider, but I don't think I'd have it any other way.

[Gaze]

I'm not too sure any of your suggestions would necessarily make the league more competitive. Personally, I've found that keeping roster sizes down keeps some of the owners who have bad starts to the season interested longer because there is still plenty of game changing talent left in free agency. 220 players is already a pretty substantial amount in my book. A 6 player bench might be a bit deep so you might consider swapping a bench spot for another utility player.

[bigmck]

I played in a league last year that was 12-Team NL Only. Each team had 23 active players, 6 bench players and 4 minor leaguers. That is 348 players taken and there are only 400 in the NL. There were only 52 active NL players not taken, not much selection. When a player did come up from the minors, someone had already drafted him. It made for a pretty dull season. Having the right number in the Free Agent pool is key. I like there to be about 65% of active players taken and about 35% in the free agent pool. It makes for a nice mix.

[Kimbos Beard]

I'm not too sure any of your suggestions would necessarily make the league more competitive. Personally, I've found that keeping roster sizes down keeps some of the owners who have bad starts to the season interested longer because there is still plenty of game changing talent left in free agency. 220 players is already a pretty substantial amount in my book. A 6 player bench might be a bit deep so you might consider swapping a bench spot for another utility player.

I fall into this thinking. I've found that keeping roster sizes down makes it a little more fun and provides managers with a few more options. I think with 6 bench players and 2 DL spots your rosters are already pretty deep and don't really need to expand.

I don't know If it will make the league more competitive if you move the transaction limit to 50, but I can tell you that going from 40 - 50 will not allow anyone to start streaming players, so don't worry about that.

I have always had the trade deadline as late as possible or in a rotisserie eliminated it completely. To me trades are probably the most fun part of fantasy baseball and a great way to keep the league competitive and managers interested.

I won't promise that your league will be more competitive, but I think these two ideas that you proposed are good ones.