Best roster settings for 1shallow league....

[misterf]

We are several years into a keeper league, and there is a debate whether or not we should change some of our roster settings. Please help me out:

It's a 10-team, standard 5x5 roto, keeper league (keep 10 players per season...no restrictions).


There are 2 issues up for debate:

#1: How many 'Utility' spots should we use: 1 or 2:

#2: What should our max innings be for our pitching staffs: 1250 or 1350?


What do you guys think about these two issues in a shallow, 10-team league? To me, the answer to both questions is obvious, but the debate is getting ugly. I am looking for you to give me more ammo to use in the debate.....or for you guys to help me see the light.


For the sake of full disclosure, the following starting roster spots are locked in and not subject to change (at least not this season): C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 3xOF, 5xSP, 3xRP.


Thanks in advance......of course, WHIR


-MrF


p.s. you don't need to mention how restrictive and limiting it is to have only 3 RP spots with no generic "P" spots....I have been arguing that issue in vain for 4 years now.

[bigmck]

You are using 18 players per team times 10 teams. A total of 180 players. I assume you are using both the AL and NL. You are using 24% of the available players. With so many quality free agents available you need to expand both your league and your roster spots. The number of total innings is the least of your worries for a quality league.

[mkultra]

Agreed, even the "classic" fantasy setup is much deeper than your roster. I'd definitely add the following spots in 2013:

- 2nd Catcher spot
- MI and CI
- 2 more OF
- Another pitcher slot

[bigmck]

Your league would be using about the right about of players if you used only the NL or the AL. Using both leagues just puts too many players in the FA pool.

[Kimbos Beard]

As the other posters said you need to shrink the FA pool, how you do that is up to you. At the minimum you need to add a second Util. I would suggest at least considering going the MI,CI 5 OF route.

To me when you have a huge FA pool it diminishes the league, everyone has stars on the team and it takes away from alot of the strategy involved in the game.

Mine: viewtopic.php?t=440394

[misterf]

Thanks guys.....you're preaching to the choir. I didn't set up the league (I took over as commish mid-stream in this league), and all changes require a vote, so my power is limited.

Our roster size per team is 26 players (i failed to include the "bench spots" when I listed our roster positions)......so we don't really have a problem with too much talent on the waiver wire....but we did have a problem with too much talent stuck on our benches.

But I was ultimately able to get the league to agree to adding the 2nd utility spot (and the additional innings), but that was like pulling teeth. I guess people just don't like change.....no matter how logical it is. But thanks for confirming that I was not crazy.

In a perfect world, I would like to add a 4th OF, a CI and an MI (anything beyond that and I feel like you are forced to play too many players that just plain stink)...plus a few extra innings to the limit. But I am not going to hold my breath. At least the extra 'util' gives us a little extra depth and flexibility.


Thanks again,

MrF

[bigmck]

Thanks guys.....you're preaching to the choir. I didn't set up the league (I took over as commish mid-stream in this league), and all changes require a vote, so my power is limited.

Our roster size per team is 26 players (i failed to include the "bench spots" when I listed our roster positions)......so we don't really have a problem with too much talent on the waiver wire....but we did have a problem with too much talent stuck on our benches.
Thanks again,

MrF

Yes you do have too many FA. You are using 24% of the MLB players. Until you realize that, the league will never be competitive where the best Owner wins. Anyone can pick an All-Star team and that is what every team in your league is.

[misterf]

yeah, I officially regret posting a question this board.