Kodiak wrote:Just concerned that if your league is too deep that you could have the same problem. It's always a challenge as league commissioner to (1) find 10 guys who want to play, and (2) find 10 guys who will make an effort to follow their teams and set their lineups down the stretch.
I have to disagree with the above. An 18 team AL / NL is not deep. You are using about 60% of the players. You are leaving a lot of players in the Free Agent pool. I have played in an NL Only league for 17 years. We have 11 fantasy teams. Even that leaves plenty of players in the free agent pool. If you want to play with only All-Stars then you can have a ten team mixed league, but it does not take much knowledge about baseball to win.
Kodiak wrote:To be honest, an 18-team league that drafts 23 rounds sounds way too deep. My leagues usually have 10 teams and we draft 22 rounds. That setup has worked well for us. Our teams can safely assume that every closer and SP1-SP3 will be taken on draft day. But if you draft an SP1 and he goes down with an injury, you have options; you could pick up an SP4 somewhere. And if you don't like the C you drafted, you could have options elsewhere too.
I joined a 16-team fantasy football league this year and it was a nightmare. We drafted like 25 rounds. By the end of it, I was looking through player profiles of people who were considering retirement. When I had a RB go down for the season, there was no one on the waiver wire. That turned me off real fast and I didn't follow it much for the rest of the year.
Just concerned that if your league is too deep that you could have the same problem. It's always a challenge as league commissioner to (1) find 10 guys who want to play, and (2) find 10 guys who will make an effort to follow their teams and set their lineups down the stretch.
You should see my 20-team fantasy football league lol. You would think it would be a disaster, but it was by far the most enjoyable league I played in. Got quite a few accolades from fantasy football veterans on the settings and commissioning for the first time. I can usually make big leagues interesting and workable. If you have too deep a waiver wire it somewhat devalues the draft IMO.
The roster sizes are sort of in between: it's shallower than the single-league leagues I've been in, but much deeper than many mixed leagues are.
I don't like Sho and CG in modern baseball. They're too rare now in this era of pitch counting, and there's a lot of overlap in the two categories anyhow. Last year over half of all CG were SHO (and, by definition, a SHO is a CG). So I'd drop those two categories. But I do like that you have a lot of cumulative categories. Wins and QS likely overlap a lot, too, but they are a lot more common than SHO/CG.
There's also a lot of overlap on offense, too. Hits/Avg and TB/Slg seem like obvious duplication, and since you're also counting walks, OPS is perhaps overkill, too. I get wanting to stress counting stats over ratios (that's good for fantasy, IMO). So maybe you just dump Avg and Slg as separate categories and keep OPS. Or you could go with wOBA instead of OPS, which would better reflect offensive output.
What do you do if there aren't enough innings? Does that automatically cost you the percentage categories?
I like the X-factor of SHO and CG, I believe it makes the league more fun. It raises the value of some of the elite pitchers and workhorse types. I think it also rewards pitchers for pitching a brilliant game.
Certainly counting SHO/CG gives extra value to workhorse pitchers. And if this were 1977, I'd like them as categories, because a lot of pitchers still threw CGs and shutouts.
I tend not to like it now because they're so rare as to be almost random, especially in H2H. There were just 69 shutouts in all of MLB last year, and only 128 CG during the 26 week season. That's an average of under 3 SHO, and about 5 CG per week for all of MLB. Now let's assume all pitchers who throw one are active in somebody's lineup. With 18 fantasy teams, most teams have 0 in each category each week, so the categories tie. And while it's not so likely, some of the time you get a shutout you'll still tie because your opponent gets one, too.
Of course if you and your league's owners like it, go for it. It does make results more random, but for many people increased luck makes it more fun.
I honestly dont like the setup. Way too many redundant stats. Theres TB, slugging, HR, and OPS all 4 of those arent needed.
With the pitching categories I agree that CG and shutouts need to go. Just too random and it isnt always on the pitcher. A pitcher could throw 8 innings with 1 hit and that hit being a homer but the coach chooses to go with a closer rather than let him finish the game. Youre more banking on a coaches decision than the pitchers performance.
With the IP, W, QS, and Outs categories youre just asking for people to throw a ton of pitchers every week. With your 80 acquisition limit for the season guys are going to stream 2 times per week and not get penalized that much with the only categories that they could get hurt by are ERA and WHIP. A team with 10 SP and 2 relievers is going to win W, QS, IP, and Outs every week just based on quantity not quality.
And the obvious one is the categories arent even.
It needs to be cut down to 6x6 if you ask me 7x7 as a max.
You want to try to have the same number of ration and counting categories on each side.
Maybe something like R/RBI/SB/OBP/SLG/H/HR QS/SV/K/ERA/WHIP/IP/ Cant honestly think of a 7th category that I actually like. Maybe holds, walks, TB, or HR.
I would prefer R/RBI/NSB/OBP/SLG/HR QS/NSV/K/ERA/WHIP/IP
With an IP max rather than a minimum or a games started max.
Just my .02 everyone likes different setups so play whatever you and youre league like.