RedHopeful wrote:Having teams make difficult decisions/gambles on who to start would put pitching on par with hitting.
I believe this supports my argument though (relating to the IP limit anyway).
Say, for a second, we had a ridiculous IP limit of 100 innings. Wouldn't we all be doing everything we can to make sure we make the most of those 100 innings (as compared to our competition)? We would limit our bad outings. We would play only strong matchups. We would evaluate whether we need QS or whether we're way behind on Holds and need holds to land where we need to be in the rankings. If you feel you need to gamble to catch up, that's fine. But you have limited IP's to take that risk.
Mathmatically it is what it is. The greater we increase the IP's, the greater we do two things. 1) Expand the "quantity" race versus a quality race (in 4 of the 6 cats) ---- mind you, it's already a quantity race in those cats, but now the quantity just increases, but more importantly it 2) lessens the impact of bad decisions or gambles that don't work out.
Regarding increasing the "P" slot by one: I actually do believe 13 pitchers will make a difference in our ability to do in-season strategizing. I also believe increasing it one more "P" slot encourages the quantity race vs quality race IMO. By thinning out the waiver wire pool, we're certainly making the draft that much more important (vs in-season flexibility). Which, I guess is fine. Both involve some form of strategy one could argue.
Anyway, you all know me and that I'm fine with whatever direction the league takes. And I remain pleased with keeping Chris Davis and Domonic Brown for 3 more years.