## What to do with a commissioner who won't face facts

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

### What to do with a commissioner who won't face facts

I have a friend who is the commissioner of our 12-team, 5x5 roto league. Now, he's set a GP limit of 163 per position and no IP limit.

No IP limit was strange to me (what with 1250 being the norm), so I spoke with him. After much conversation, we agreed on a system in which he would add up all the pitchers currently on teams plus the top 25 FA's, add 100 IP (just for good measure) divide the # by the total amount of pitchers, and multiply by 12 (team number).

The number he got was roughly 1241 IP. Naturally, this should mean that, like I originally had said, that 1250 is fair. Instead, he makes it 1400.

I thought, "What? We agreed on this!" So, I spoke with him again. He asks me, "Are you going to cheat?" I say, "Probably not". Then he says, "Then why does it matter?"

Looking closer, I see that his personal pitcher's totals add up to just under 1400 IP last season. So, it's for his own personal good.

Can you help me make this guy face the facts? As many replies as possible will help. I'm going to print this thread out and show it to him. Thanks a lot.
DK
Hall of Fame Hero

Posts: 9077
(Past Year: -456)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

### Re: What to do with a commissioner who won't face facts

DK wrote:I have a friend who is the commissioner of our 12-team, 5x5 roto league. Now, he's set a GP limit of 163 per position and no IP limit.

No IP limit was strange to me (what with 1250 being the norm), so I spoke with him. After much conversation, we agreed on a system in which he would add up all the pitchers currently on teams plus the top 25 FA's, add 100 IP (just for good measure) divide the # by the total amount of pitchers, and multiply by 12 (team number).

The number he got was roughly 1241 IP. Naturally, this should mean that, like I originally had said, that 1250 is fair. Instead, he makes it 1400.

I thought, "What? We agreed on this!" So, I spoke with him again. He asks me, "Are you going to cheat?" I say, "Probably not". Then he says, "Then why does it matter?"

Looking closer, I see that his personal pitcher's totals add up to just under 1400 IP last season. So, it's for his own personal good.

Can you help me make this guy face the facts? As many replies as possible will help. I'm going to print this thread out and show it to him. Thanks a lot.

In my league we use 1450. This is based on what actual MLB clubs typically reach. The reasoning is that if you have a 162 game limit for each position player, then your IP should also reflect an actual seasons worth of IP.

However, from your description, it sounds as if your commish's decisions are unprincipled. You and he agreed upon a formula for determining an IP limit. If he wants to deviate from this formula he ought to consult with other league members first. Does he offer any argument justifying his decision? I'm not sure what he meant when he asked if you were going to cheat. How could you cheat on an IP limit?
"The game has a cleanness. If you do a good job, the numbers say so. You don't have to ask anyone or play politics. You don't have to wait for the reviews." - Sandy Koufax
ramble2
General Manager

Posts: 2941
(Past Year: -6)
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Salt Lake City

### Re: What to do with a commissioner who won't face facts

ramble2 wrote:
DK wrote:I have a friend who is the commissioner of our 12-team, 5x5 roto league. Now, he's set a GP limit of 163 per position and no IP limit.

No IP limit was strange to me (what with 1250 being the norm), so I spoke with him. After much conversation, we agreed on a system in which he would add up all the pitchers currently on teams plus the top 25 FA's, add 100 IP (just for good measure) divide the # by the total amount of pitchers, and multiply by 12 (team number).

The number he got was roughly 1241 IP. Naturally, this should mean that, like I originally had said, that 1250 is fair. Instead, he makes it 1400.

I thought, "What? We agreed on this!" So, I spoke with him again. He asks me, "Are you going to cheat?" I say, "Probably not". Then he says, "Then why does it matter?"

Looking closer, I see that his personal pitcher's totals add up to just under 1400 IP last season. So, it's for his own personal good.

Can you help me make this guy face the facts? As many replies as possible will help. I'm going to print this thread out and show it to him. Thanks a lot.

In my league we use 1450. This is based on what actual MLB clubs typically reach. The reasoning is that if you have a 162 game limit for each position player, then your IP should also reflect an actual seasons worth of IP.

However, from your description, it sounds as if your commish's decisions are unprincipled. You and he agreed upon a formula for determining an IP limit. If he wants to deviate from this formula he ought to consult with other league members first. Does he offer any argument justifying his decision? I'm not sure what he meant when he asked if you were going to cheat. How could you cheat on an IP limit?

Well, by cheating, it's the add-drop method where you pick up whoever's starting against X team (IE Detroit, even though with their latest surge...). The other league members are not what you'd call great baseball minds. We're two of the only four who truly know what we're talking about, the others freeload off us. (It's a work league, by next year they'll all be gods at this).
DK
Hall of Fame Hero

Posts: 9077
(Past Year: -456)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

He gains no advantage by setting it at 1250 or 1400. I don't think it matters what his inning total is from last season.

1400 is a solid number, 1250 is a bit low IMO.
Guest

Home Cafe: Football
Friendliness:

...and what the hell is the extra game for??? 163 games??? wtf?
Guest

Home Cafe: Football
Friendliness:

If he's changing the rules after the first game it's cheating.
Payne Dailey
Major League Manager

Posts: 1365
(Past Year: -6)
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: stealing home

Payne Dailey wrote:If he's changing the rules after the first game it's cheating.

Agreed. Not a single league parameter should be changed after the draft, unless it's mandated by a league vote...not a majority vote, but a unanimous vote.
Ajax
College Coach

Posts: 189
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

### Re: What to do with a commissioner who won't face facts

DK wrote:
ramble2 wrote:
DK wrote:I have a friend who is the commissioner of our 12-team, 5x5 roto league. Now, he's set a GP limit of 163 per position and no IP limit.

No IP limit was strange to me (what with 1250 being the norm), so I spoke with him. After much conversation, we agreed on a system in which he would add up all the pitchers currently on teams plus the top 25 FA's, add 100 IP (just for good measure) divide the # by the total amount of pitchers, and multiply by 12 (team number).

The number he got was roughly 1241 IP. Naturally, this should mean that, like I originally had said, that 1250 is fair. Instead, he makes it 1400.

I thought, "What? We agreed on this!" So, I spoke with him again. He asks me, "Are you going to cheat?" I say, "Probably not". Then he says, "Then why does it matter?"

Looking closer, I see that his personal pitcher's totals add up to just under 1400 IP last season. So, it's for his own personal good.

Can you help me make this guy face the facts? As many replies as possible will help. I'm going to print this thread out and show it to him. Thanks a lot.

In my league we use 1450. This is based on what actual MLB clubs typically reach. The reasoning is that if you have a 162 game limit for each position player, then your IP should also reflect an actual seasons worth of IP.

However, from your description, it sounds as if your commish's decisions are unprincipled. You and he agreed upon a formula for determining an IP limit. If he wants to deviate from this formula he ought to consult with other league members first. Does he offer any argument justifying his decision? I'm not sure what he meant when he asked if you were going to cheat. How could you cheat on an IP limit?

Well, by cheating, it's the add-drop method where you pick up whoever's starting against X team (IE Detroit, even though with their latest surge...). The other league members are not what you'd call great baseball minds. We're two of the only four who truly know what we're talking about, the others freeload off us. (It's a work league, by next year they'll all be gods at this).

I guess I still don't see how this is cheating, unless of course it's a league rule (or courtesy) that you aren't allowed to spot start. After all, you are allowed to pick up and drop players, aren't you? If you have a max IP, why should it matter how you use those innings? Why not simply institute a max number of roster changes. I can understand why you'd want to avoid this if there were no IP limit, but not if there is an IP limit. Again, if it's merely a means by which to level the playing field, I think I get it, but still don't see it as cheating - more like poor sportsmanship.

I'm not sure that picking spot starts is even that good a strategy. Most of the pitchers available for spot starts aren't good enough to be on someone's roster already. I had one guy in my league last year who tried this strategy and it didn't work very well.

Overall, though, I agree with the general tone of this thread. Changing rules midstream is poor form.
"The game has a cleanness. If you do a good job, the numbers say so. You don't have to ask anyone or play politics. You don't have to wait for the reviews." - Sandy Koufax
ramble2
General Manager

Posts: 2941
(Past Year: -6)
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Salt Lake City

I don't really see the need for an IP limit, at least in roto leagues personally. Yes, you can spot start, and yes you can load up on starters to try and win Ks and wins. But, chances are, by doing that you are going to be using alot of weaker starters, which means your ERA and WHIP will suffer. What you gain in Ks and Ws, you lose in ERA and WHIP pretty much, so what difference does it really make?

IMO, the best way to handle that type of problem might be to set a transactions limit instead of an IP limit. That would prevent constant waiver churning, although I have never seen it become that much of a problem in roto format as opposed to h2h.
jdh
General Manager

Posts: 2760
Joined: 5 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Halifax, NS