Pitcher Pounding, your opinion needed

[dave_1861]

Would you consider it pounding if a owner played a pitcher one day then dropped him for another who was pitching the next day and then dropped that player for another the day following? League i am in we set a weekly transaction limit of three per week because we had one owner last year who would add/drop 10 + players a week either to use for single starts or to just keep other owners from picking them up for that week. Pretty underhanded if you ask me.


Anyhow i proposed to the league that if a owner wants to add a player to their roster that that player must stay on their roster for the entire week/scoring period. This way if they wanted to pickup three different pitchers off the wire to start then they would have to drop three different players from their roster, does this sound fair?

[Howie]

Instead of doing that, why dont you just implement a maximum number of roster moves that can be made. 40 is good. This will prevent "pounding."

[Bud Light]

Once you start a league, I don't think it's a very good precedence to change the rules. You need to think of this stuff before the season starts. The guy is playing by the rules that you created (if you're the commish) and if you change them then all of a sudden you're the one who's doing something a little underhanded. I guess it all depends on the situation of course. If you and 11 of your buddies are Red Sox fans and that 1 guy is a Yankee fan, then go ahead and change the rules

[Ender]

Your idea has merit. We moved to weekly transactions in our league to stop it. Limiting transactions doesnt fully fix it since you can still grab pitchers if K's are close etc.

In general I find weekly transactions superior for H2H since it fixes all kinds of lame strats. Like last week my first 3 starters did great but I knew there was no way I could win K's or W's, in a daily transaction league I'd be able to just bench the rest of my starters and take ERA and WHIP, starts like that shouldn't have any place in H2H in my opinion.

For Roto I like daliy transactions a lot more though.

[chadlincoln]

It's called churning. Lots of threads on it here:

http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/foru ... ht=cycling

[thehat]

Any league without either a transaction or IP limit is a joke IMO.

[Big Game JLo]

Any league without either a transaction or IP limit is a joke IMO.

[san76er]

I think sticking with 3 transactions per week the way they are now is the right thing to do. 3 is a good number; it's not too many and it's not too few. Personally, my favorite part of fantasy baseball is being able to pick up and drop players whenever I want, even everyday if I feel like it. I enjoy all of the "lame strategies" that make fantasy baseball different from other fantasy sports. So I don't like transaction limits of any kind. But what I really don't like is when people mess with the rules after the season has started. I think you would do best to stick with the rules you have because there's really nothing wrong with them. Save your "transaction proposal" for next year's league. That's what I would say if I was in your league.

If you feel like what he's doing gives him an unfair advantage.....Then you should do it too. Make a trade or two to improve your talent at the expense of depth. And keep one or two spots on your roster specifically for dropping and adding players at will.

[Madison]

Any league without either a transaction or IP limit is a joke IMO.

Careful guys, I got crushed for saying the exact same thing:

http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=192976&highlight=cycling

Haven't changed my stance on it a single bit, just letting you guys know what you're getting yourselves into. Lol.

[5]

I really don't care for the pounding/churning...takes away from the skill of the game.

Personally, I prefer weekly lineups. If teams wanna load up on two start guys, it will backfire brutally at times.