RMF: RIBC 2005 - preseason discussion [RotoGuru Baseball Forum]

RotoGuru Baseball Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread	Self-edit this thread

Subject: RIBC 2005 - preseason discussion

Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Sun, Feb 13, 2005, 21:00

Here are the sixteen managers for the 2005 RotoGuru Invitational Baseball Challenge:

Athletics_Guy
Bmd
Chris
darkside
Guru
holt
jumpball
KrazyKoalaBears
Matt S
Peter N.
Ref
rockafellerskank
slackjawed yokel
Species
Toral
youngroman

We need to review the league rules prior to the draft to determine whether any changes are warranted. I'll copy in the league rules from last year's thread. In reviewing these rules, please take a look at last season's RIBC Retrospective thread.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Feb 13, 2005, 21:01

Here is a cut & paste from the last year's Yahoo league settings.

Max Teams: 16
Scoring Type: Rotisserie
Player Universe: All baseball
Max Moves: No maximum
Max Trades: No maximum
Trade Reject Time: 2
Trade End Date: August 29, 2004
Waiver Time: 2 days
Can't Cut List Provider: None
Trade Review: League Votes
Post Draft Players: Follow Waiver Rules
Max Games Played: No maximum
Max Innings Pitched: 1350
Weekly Deadline: Daily - Tomorrow
Start Scoring on: Tuesday, Mar 30
Roster Positions: C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, CI, MI, OF, OF, OF, OF, Util, SP, RP, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, BN, BN, BN, BN
Stat Categories: R, RBI, SB, OBP, SLG, W, SV, K, ERA, WHIP

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Feb 13, 2005, 21:08

For trade review, I suggest we follow the RIHC process:

1. When a trade is announced, all managers have 24 hours to submit a protest. Protests must be submitted via email to the Commissioner (me), or posted in this RIBC discussion thread in this forum.

2. If less than 4 managers protest the trade, then the trade is approved and the Commissioner will approve the trade ASAP.

3. If 4 or more managers protest, then a vote will be held over the next 24 hours. A total of 8 votes will be required to overturn a trade.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Feb 13, 2005, 21:16

I'd like to use the Kafenatid draft software for our draft. KKB, I assume this will be available?

Last year, we started the draft on March 1, and finished on March 22. A few picks were made before the official start time.

I suspect we can complete it this year in a slightly shorter time frame, as the draft software seems to keep things moving along better. Opening day is April 3rd, so we need to ensure enough time to complete a few days prior to that. We should probably start no later than March 14th, although perhaps March 10-11 is a safer time to get started.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sun, Feb 13, 2005, 21:26

I'd like to propose a small tweak in the roster positions. The proposal would be to eliminate the MI and CI positions and add a Util position and a bench position.

Rationale: Activity was hampered by some due to the problems with the lack of MI. Then trading for them was a problem as most didn't have an extra on their bench to swap. Add in the injured players that took up bench spots and even if the trade partners weren't discussing MIs, it was often difficult to get things done. This is not only about trading to make both teams better, but if your MI is hurt, you are down a spot as you didn't have room to drop anyone to pick up another player to take his spot. Also, you were forced at times to play inferior MIs when you'd rather have them on the bench. The extra Util spot would allow you to use a spot you'd have with an extra MI or CI and the extra bench spot would allow for flexibility in making a trade or flexibility in replacing that injured player.

youngroman
ID: 298482214
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 04:16

some of my thoughts:

overall the setup is ok. there is always a lack of talent in one of the roster positions (currently C, 2B, SS). that is what makes each draft different, because in every draft I particapte in I end up with a different position that I haven't covered in time.

one thing I thought of at the end of last season was if it would help to reduce the maximum games played for hitters. this would also reduce the effect Ref mentioned that you have to play scrap MI's.
I found myself often enough filling in some mediocre players to fill the void of a player who had no game scheduled that day.

rockafellerskank
ID: 180352016
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 08:04

I'm on my way out of town for 4 days. I'll only have limited access until then. I'll try to chip in some thouhts late tonight. On first glance, I'd say I'm flexible on the set up, but might suggest a DL spot.

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 09:31

Personally, I would like to cap the hitters just like we cap the pitchers. Either cap both, or don't cap any, IMHO. Other than that, I'm fine with the setup.

Guru, On the Clock is certainly still available.

darkside
Dude
ID: 3590317
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 09:42

I'm fine with all the rules. If I had to make a suggestion, it would be to somehow incorporate a DL. Not sure what would be done w/ the bench, but a DL would be nice to have.

I'd prefer to start the draft on a Monday so we can have a whole week to see if we need to work the weekends at all...if we start Mar. 10-11 I'm guessing we'd feel obliged to have normal on the clock rules (but I haven't paid attention to KKB's software, so am unsure if that changes things at all) on the weekend?

darkside
Dude
ID: 3590317
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 09:43

Oh yeah, I'm not opposed to capping the hitters. I guess if I had to vote I'd vote for capping, but wasn't displeased last year.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 11:09

I might suggest an innings pitched minimum.

I have no issue with extra CI. Just an additional part of the challenge. If you don't want to fill with a mediocre 3rd MI, then draft 3 you like and sacrifice elsewhere.

blue hen
ID: 331038201
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 11:13

Obviously my vote doesn't count this year, but I think DL slots are asking for trouble. All it does is allows for more rulebending, hoping that you have the slot for the guy you need at the right time. As was mentioned above, I'd rather have the extra bench slot.

I really fell into a hole when my unproductive MIs got hurt. I didn't think it'd be so bad but it really cost me the 50 or 60 runs and RBIs I could have gotten out of those slots. A lower cap would have saved that terrible sinking feeling (but not my season).

KKB, can you offer up On The Clock for AAA? I've never used it but always been curious.

JeffG
Leader
ID: 1584348
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 11:24

Just my 2 cents since we'd want the AAA and Qual divisions all playing under the same rules.

I like the DL and think 1 DL slot should be added. No more. 4 bench slots is thin when a player goes down considering our large starting lineup size. I am not aware of how this can be exploited into a loophole (post 11 inference). If one of your players goes on the DL, Yahoo lets you put that player on a DL slot and allows you to pick up and add 1 more player. When your DL player comes off the MLB DL, you can leave him there inactive on your roster if you like, but Yahoo does not allow you to make any roster moves if you have a player on DL that is not in the real thing.

I'd prefer max games for position players. Even if it is set to 155, I don't think it will have that great an impact, but it seems consistent with max innings.

For this league config, I like the CI and MI. Like catcher, there is not alot of depth and it does add to the strategies at draft time, for trade consideration, and regular season roster maintanence.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 11:33

Last year, we opted for the 4th bench slot in lieu of having a DL slot.

I'm not opposed to consolidating the MI/CI slots into a Util and a bench. Perhaps the utility slot should be a general IF slot. If we went this way, then I'd definitely be opposed to adding a DL slot.

I am in favor of adding a pitching minimum. It should probably be at least 800 IP.

I think there are valid reasons to have a max limit for pitching without having one for hitting. With no pitching limit, pitcher innings could be significantly elevated. But it is difficult to get hitting slots much over 162 games.

By leaving hitter games uncapped, teams with strong benches have a modest benefit, and managers are also modestly rewarded for actively managing hitting slots.

Khahan
ID: 2884979
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 11:53

Like BH, I realize my vote doesn't count for much, but we do want all the leagues to be the same.
Why change the roster line ups from last year though?
Having the CI and MI slot together made this league tougher for me. I think having those 2 positions in (as opposed to a generic Util slot) rewards good drafters and rewards players who are active and pay attention to the waiver wire and FA list.
Yes, an injury could potentially make it tough to recover...but its a level playing field. All managers have that danger.

blue hen
ID: 331038201
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 11:58

What I'd really like to add 3B to the MI position. Because 95 percent of CI slots are filled with first basemen. Basically, make the existing CI slot a Util and make the MI a 2b/ss/3b slot. That's what I'd like to see.

Agreed with Guru on hitter limits. Retract what I said before.

blue hen
ID: 331038201
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 11:59

Oh and no one's mentioned it so I assume everyone's happy, but definitely keep the categories as is.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 12:07

I suspect that Yahoo (or whatever game site we use) won't offer the option to expand the definition of MI to include 3B.

BTW, I'm also not opposed to leaving the lineup configuration the same as last year. It was challenging, but not unfair.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 12:20

I am opposed to a DL spot. Teams can actually protect a player for the entire year if that's their only injury. Takes away the strategy and in effect adds an extra player spot. That is where my proposal of eliminating the CI/MI spot and creating a Util/bench slot would help. This helps those who have a stud hurt for an extended period of time but can't drop him. Gives them flexibility to trade. The extra Util slot gives them added flexibility. Generally, I don't mind the MI and CI positions, but with 16 teams deep, in my experience, it gave everyone less flexibility and trade talks were next to impossible as no one seemed to have an extra position of what the other one needed.

Guru
ID: 91401411
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 12:40

I think we'll bring a few of these issues to a vote. Before starting that process, let's try to get all potential issues on the table.

Chris
ID: 4708114
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 15:01

I kind of liked things the way they were last year. The challenge was in trying to fill every position well in such a deep league. MI is a traditionally weak position, but it's all relative. Everybody has a weak MI, so if he gets hurt, your replacement is obviously going to look weak, but in actuality, by comparison, it's not much different than any other position.

I think anything that makes us take a deeper look into the league and try to get use out of players that most other leagues don't use can only be a good thing.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 15:22

It's not just the MI and CI issue. But in my mind, my proposal would solve not only those but the short bench, the injuries and the lack of flexibility it can cause.

Matt S en Mexico
ID: 251291414
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 15:29

I would like to see things stay the same as well. If anything, I´d like to see an extra Util slot added. But not at the expense of a MI/CI slot. I will wait for the vote however.

Matt S

Eugene
ID: 49531112
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 15:48

Can i get in this league? Im as good as anyone in here

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 15:56

Eugene - you don't seem to be paying attention - again.

You get into this league by finishing in the top half of it last year, or by finishing in one of the top spots in a qualifying league.

If you want to get5 into this league, then you first need to get into a qualifying league and play your way in. There is a AAA league forming now, but unless you were in a qualifying league last year, you don't meet the criteria for that one either. Several AA qualifying leagues will be formed shortly, I'm sure, and they will be open to anyone. Join one of those and work your way into the RIBC.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 15:57

Problem is Matt is that if you add yet another 16 players to the squads, it's going to be even tougher with such precise roster requirements. I'm not saying it wasn't good last year, just saying this would make it even better. Ask any of the guys that were so hamstrung because their lack of bench that they couldn't do anything but fall down the standings. Everyone in here had some form of success last year. You may not have seen a couple of the issues as your team may have had everything in good shape last year. For instance, I was in 2nd place until the Hairston debacle then I fall almost all the way to the bottom, before making a run the last two weeks to get back up to 9th. I've seen it when my team had no problems and had a ton of problems--that's why I'm pushing for this. But whatever the league decides is fine by me.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 16:03

Also, we had so many pitchers (which is a good thing) that many of us hit the pitching IP max early. We may want to take a look at raising that too. Having played a year, I def. will know how to adjust my drafting depending on how the rules are set up.

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 16:14

blue hen, KKB, can you offer up On The Clock for AAA? I've never used it but always been curious.

As long as someone pays for it, AAA can use it. It's as easy as that.

As for not capping hitters, that's fine, but I agree with Ref in 28 that we may want to boost the IP limit a bit.

youngroman
ID: 298482214
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 16:29

I don't think that the bench is too short. there are always one or two open pitcher spots because of matchups so lets add an additional pitcher to play with and you end up with a roster of

2 C, 2 1B, 2 2B, 2 3B, 2 SS, 5 OF, 7 SP, 3 RP

for a total of 25 players where every position is covered by 2 players.

I don't want to raise the IP limit because raising it completly removes the RP-strategy. we could remove one P slot to add a util or bench to use for hitting-depth

Khahan
ID: 2884979
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 16:41

YR, there's a bit of aproblem with that roster set up. There are 16 teams. Each team is required to have 2 2nd basemen. 16 x 2 = 32.
There are only 30 MLB teams.

youngroman
ID: 298482214
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 17:05

Khahan - the same can be said about all other positions too. when you count in the players that are eligible for multiple positions you get this numbers:
C - 33
1B - 37
2B - 35
3B - 38
SS - 35
OF - 97
CI - 75
MI - 70

so it could work. but the key is to be one of the few managers where you end up with such a "perfect" roster.

last year I didn't have a roster like this at the start of the season, but ended up with one at mid-season.

Toral
ID: 22731114
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 17:12

I'm just waiting for the vote on the drop MI and add DL ideas (against;for) as the points I would make on these issues have been brought up.

I don't like a hitters' cap because I enjoy churning the bottom of my roster, when the quality of my marginal players allows it, to maximize production. But to help those who like the idea come up with a concrete number, I have one to suggest : 162. The symmetry of it with MLB is nice; those who very actively make pick-ups on days when most teams have days off etc. will max out at at least a position or two (most likely OF or 1B or UT) because there are IIRC about 180 playing days in the season. (I've played in a league using that number and I maxed out on a couple positions before the end of the season.)

For ideas for those who want the pitching max, you could just add 50 to raise it to 1400. Or for symmetry, choose 1458 (162 x 9) ;)

Toral

beastiemiked
ID: 4310501610
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 17:16

I think everything went smoothly last year and I see no reason to change it.

Chris
ID: 4708114
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 17:20

I like the innings limit at 1350 because it allows for more pitcher rotation. I like having to choose matchups as opposed to just starting your pitcher whenever he goes. Adds more strategy. In RQL #2, the top 2 teams finished about 50-100 IP short of the innings limit. There were 2 or 3 teams that hit the cap in early September, but that was the minority.

Khahan
ID: 2884979
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 17:52

YR, I'm aware that it works for all positions, I just didn't think it would be necessary to document that. Thought it was kind of redundant.
As for players available at multiple positions, there is one thing wrong with your figures: You are counting the same player twice.
The whole point is, to have 2 spots at each position requires 32 players eligible at that position. There are only 30 teams meaning only 30 regular players max.
Take Pedro Feliz for example. If you use him at 1st, there is effectively 29 SS available now.

youngroman
ID: 298482214
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 18:08

Khahan - add the designated hitters that are eligible at other positions and you get a total of 160 infielders. it could work for all, but it will only work for a few. I am sure that a few starters will not be picked up because they simply suck and some bench players could get 300+ at bats and be worth a spot.

BZ
ID: 59171020
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 18:36

I wish the players in my league were this mature...

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 19:13

I see no issues with 1350 IP - everyone should have realized 5 SP's X 200 IP left you 350 IP for 4 other pitchers. Get 3 relievers at 70 IP/g average and you have 110 IP for "spot" starts so you can play matchups. The Anti-Tigers strategy required you to plan like 3 days in $&@(-ing advance last year, which ticked me off as managers started picking up starters vs. DET.

I want the minimum IP put to vote when Guru puts all of these together. 800 IP is fine.

I see no reason to change positions...but if we did eliminate MI and make CI a "Util" slot - let it be a Utility IF only and not an extra DH.

While the short bench made it a challenge, and that's fine, I would definitely like to see another bench spot....I think it adds to speculative roster pickups and helps cover for injuries. It may increase trading activity as well.

Slackjawed Yokel
Leader
ID: 052347519
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 20:01

Ok, this may be a little out of left field, but bear with me. The goal of this setup would be to help spur more trading and waiver wire activity:

eliminate the bench and have a single DL slot. We could add an IF and Util slot and two P to the existing setup to increase the depth (and allow for maxing out IP). Technically, I think you could bench players but it would mean you have an empty slot.

When everybody counts, you may be forced to drop a slumping player. Injuries and roster imbalance would lead to trades. This may be an excessive change to something that wasn't really broken, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Filthy Rich
ID: 35119816
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 20:44

I think with the current setup, injuries can handcuff a team pretty bad. But I personally like it that way, because it is more realistic, like how a team in the majors with injury problems will also become handcuffed. The best part last year for me was the challenge of fighting through the injuries.

As for the MI, I think the setup of this league is perfect for having an MI slot. By having 2 percentage hitting categories, it adds strategy of whether or not to start a guy who has a chance to gain you some counting stats, but at the same time can hamper your percantage stats. In a league with just one percentage category, it is less of a risk to have a chance at adding to the counting stats so you would usually take the chance with starting a marginal player. While in this league, you have to decide whether to start a marginal player to have potential to gain in 3 cats but possibly drop in the other 2 cats, or else play it safe and go with the DNP. I think it adds another aspect to managing besides drafting/trading/free agency which gives another way to gain/lose ground.

Athletics Guy
ID: 391271017
Mon, Feb 14, 2005, 21:26

I like the league setup just the way it is for the same reasons Chris, Toral, and Filthy Rich have mentioned. Small bench, lack of a DL spot, ability to squeeze in extra games for your hitters on any given day-I love that stuff. It makes managing a team more challenging and a lot funner.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 00:15

No way Slack! lol That's nuts.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 00:31

Species, you gotta think outside the box. Doesn't say how far out of the box you can or can't be though! ;) I like Yokel's thinking a lot. I talked with others in the league last year about my proposal and they seemed to agree. Wondering where all those people are now? Or maybe they had the problems I was mentioning that every team is susceptible to. It's easy to say leave it like it is as most of the people in this league did well with the setup from last year. But you gotta remember, that you're drafting a whole new team and you could be saddled with those issues this year with little wiggle room to fix it.

darkside
Dude
ID: 3590317
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 08:25

I'm with Species on IP....leave it at 1350. IMO, it definitely makes choosing pitchers much more difficult and adds another element to the strategy.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 10:26

The problem with the IP limit is that it makes several of the positions unplayable, since there are only so mnay closers or MR that play often enough to do much for you. You can always find a starter it seems. I actually suggested the 1350 as it correlates with our G20 league, but what I didn't take in account was all the pitching positions we have here as opposed to G20.

This is a very good league with good managers and IMM with a couple tweaks it will be made even better.

darkside
Dude
ID: 3590317
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 11:06

I don't feel it makes them unplayable, but rather forces you to choose matchups and situations. I had all pitching positions filled and usually used 1 or 2 of my bench spots for pitchers and still didn't exceed the IP limit (about 8 IP shy, I believe). But, I also benched my guys a fair amount if I didn't like who they were throwing against.

Doing that I won the ratios and SO and did very well in wins and saves.

I feel it makes us use our innings smarter, but that's me.

rockafellerskank
ID: 180352016
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 15:18

Getting back to the DL issue, I'd really like one, but perhaps a concession is that only a player can go from ACT to DL. In other words, this would prevent otehrwise healthy teams from picking up DL guys to "stash" for future use (or prevention of going to competitors).

So, if you don't own the guy at the time of DL placement you can't get him unless you are willing to bench him and take up an active roster spot. Just an idea.

Matt S en Mexico
ID: 54141515
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 16:19

Isn't part of the strategy when a player gets injured, to decide whether it is worth it for you to keep him until he's healthy, or to throw him on the waiver wire? I made a couple great pickups last year on players who were prematurely thrown on the WW due to injury.

The fact of the matter is, a DL slot will add another 16 players, as everybody will find a way to use (abuse?) it eventually.

I like how this league is so deep, which makes it very challenging. I don't think we should make any ammendments that serve to make it 'easier' to manage your team. Just my thoughts...

Matt S

Chris
ID: 4708114
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 17:08

In going back to an earlier point that Ref made about injuries handcuffing you to the point where you're hamstrung and drop in the standings...

My infield consisted of:

C: Piazza - 33 games missed(3rd pick)
1B: Delgado - 34 games missed(2nd pick)
2b: Vidro - 52 games missed(4th pick)
SS: Reyes - 109 games missed(5th pick)
3B: Koskie - 44 games missed(8th pick)
MI: Kennedy - 18 games missed(11-12th pick?)
CI: Durazo - 20 games missed(14th pick?)

Obviously I had to make adjustments on the fly to compensate, and I'll grant you that I was lucky with quite a few picks(Dunn missed 1 game, Hafner in the 24th round covered for Delgado when he was hurt), but you can see my middle infield was absolutely ravaged, and it didn't stop me from being a part of this league this year.

I'm sure there are many people with similar stories, but the main point is that injuries are a part of the game(as in real life), and trying to compensate for those injuries(either via trade, WW, or your bench that you drafted) makes it more fun.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 17:27

It's very difficult to trade as is and the WW doesn't offer much typically. Point is, if you get some bad breaks, you're screwed as there isn't a lot of wiggle room to give someone a position/cat of need and also get back something you need. So a couple bad breaks and your team could be relegated to the bottom of the standings for the season. I was hit by some very key injuries last year that effectively knocked me out (dropped from 2nd to 14th late in the season) and there were no trade partners to be found. Smartone and I were very close but just needed another bench or util player to get it done. So I was forced to give a try-out to every FA player I could find on a daily basis. Some just sank and sank and never could get out of the hole. I'd rather be a good manager and strategist than just a good drafter that got lucky with a very limited amount of injuries to non-key players. Drafting your team and simply plugging our bench players in on days-off doesn't take a very savvy manager IMM.

Khahan
ID: 2884979
Tue, Feb 15, 2005, 18:35

Ref, I was hit by a number of key injuries and worked the waiver wire and trades aggressively to recover.
My round 1 and 3 picks went down with injuries (Prior and Vernon Wells). In addition, I lost Trot Nixon, Jon Leiber, (and either Hoffman or Nen) and Scott Eyre to injuries.
That's 6 players, 5 of which I would say would be players with good value lost to injury. Plus I had Jeter and his 0-32 beginning to the season and wasted a draft slot on Edwin Jackson who didn't even play.
No, I'm not playing in the RIBC this year. But I was able to earn a top 5 finish, nonetheless.

But let's face it: Anybody could have lost 5 or 6 players to injuries. We never know who's going to be injured until its too late. I agree, the trading was difficult, but it was doable.
And the waiver wire offered a lot of options, even in a league as deep as these.

Peter N.@TTU library
ID: 31101621
Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 22:07

Sorry for chiming in late.

I am opposed to the DL slot for reasons mentioned in post 19. I also would like to keep the CI and MI. This was the first league I've played in that had a CI and MI and I thought it was a challenging twist. I would not like to see that get eliniminated. Also, I think there needs to be a pitching innings minimum. One last thing, I do not see a good enough reason for capping hitters and pitchers so I would be against that.

Looking forward to repeating as champion! ;-)

Best of luck this year to all,
Pete

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 12:22

I'm trying to assemble a short list of issues to put to a vote. The purpose of this post is to suggest what those issues should be, and how they should be framed. Don't start voting yet. I'm looking only for feedback as to whether this is a good list, and if the options are appropriately stipulated.

Issue 1: Roster configuration
A. same as last year
B. replace CI and MI slots with an IF and Util slot

Issue 2: DL slot
A. No DL slot
B. Include one DL slot, subject to standard Yahoo rules
C. Include one DL slot, but do not allow players to be picked up and then immediately placed in a DL slot. (Require FA/waiver pickups to stay on active roster for a minimum of 10 days)

Issue 3: Max IP
A. leave at 1350
B. increase
C. decrease

Issue 4: Min IP
A. no minimum (same as last year)
B. 800 IP minimum
C. include minimum higher than 800
D. include minimum, but lower than 800

Issue 5: Max GP for hitters
A. no max (same as last year)
B. max 162 per position
C. max per position, higher than 162

Is this a complete enough list, and are the choices sufficient? I tried to include issues and choices for which interest was expressed above, and exclude issues that didn't seem to be of much interest (or were otherwise unworkable).

Again - don't start voting. Just let me know if you think the issue list should be expanded or if other options should be explicitly provided.

darkside
Dude
ID: 3590317
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 13:43

Given what I've read and my own personal opinions, I think this is a good list of voting options. I see no need for changes/additions.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 4111103112
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 14:38

Will the voting be open for Qualifier leagues as well since we'll be playing with the same ruleset most likely?

If not, I don't mind just following whatever you guys decide.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 15:34

On Issue 1: I am really for the option of a Util and bench player instead of the MI and CI. (Not that you would have guessed).

I like the concept of last year, but in practice, I think this will improve our enjoyment even more. Doubt if I have the support though. (Remember you can't change your mind once the season starts!) ;)

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 15:41

Looks like a good list to me.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 15:41

Good catch. I meant to say IF and bench, but I could add the Util and bench option as well.

I think just to keep things a bit more contained, I'll just have RIBC managers vote. QL managers are welcome (and encouraged) to express opinions.

rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 15:54

List looks good to me.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 16:04

List looks fine.

Toral
ID: 22731114
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 16:05

Supporters of a max for hitters may prefer (see post 13) a max lower than 162, rather than higher.

Otherwise the list looks good.

Toral

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 16:07

I can't think of a valid reason for a hitter max below 162. No reason to draft someone and then perhaps not be able to use him all season.

Toral
ID: 22731114
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 16:10

That's fine. I don't like a hitter max at all myself.

Toral

Toral
ID: 22731114
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 16:12

Although I guess someone might point out that you could choose a group of pitchers that couldn't be used every appearance all season, as they would go up against the max.

Toral

JeffG
Leader
ID: 1584348
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 16:19

Only 4 players (Tejada, Matsui, Pierre and Finley) played all 162 games last season. I just arbitrarily threw 155 out there in post 13 with my point being even if it is set lower than a full season, I do not think the impact would be significant over a full season.

An argument for setting a max games limit per position is to keep the fantasy teams relatively even in games played since there are 180 or so calendar days in a 162 game season so you are more likely to accrue stats for your declared starter. Keeps the 'counting stats' relatively comparable (although managing a team keeping the 'average stats' in mind counter balance this somewhat)

The argument against a max games cap is to reward teams with productive benches (and active managers) who can contribute on days the regular position player has an off day.

Probably over the course of a season, the differences either way are negligable.

JeffG
Leader
ID: 1584348
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 16:36

Regarding the items up for a vote. Issue 2: In post 39, a proposal was made to not add a DL slot but include one more bench spot.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 17:06

I like the best team to win, not the best starters. Hence, I like more than 162 (or unlimited) and another bench spot as said before. A Util allows the better team as it comes from any position. Also, gives flexibility to trade to a team that has something he can more afford to give up w/o crippling his own team. There are an abundance of starting pitchers that play a lot and that's why I agree with those that wish for the max innings to be upped--esp. with all the pitching slots we have. I guess yet another proposal could be to turn a pitching slot into a bench slot--just a thought.

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 19:22

There are an abundance of starting pitchers that play a lot and that's why I agree with those that wish for the max innings to be upped

You say that as if there are an abundance of starting pitchers worth starting. The fact is that the pickings for pitchers worth starting on the free agent list were just as slim as the pickings for position players last year. At least IMHO.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 20:38

I disagree KKB. I never really had a problem finding a pitcher off the WW worth taking a chance on late in the year--even in the 20 team league that many of us in here also play in. Sometimes they worked, sometimes they didn't. Only problem was that I had to stop doing it early in this league as my innings were used up.

Peter N.
ID: 511531817
Sat, Feb 19, 2005, 12:56

List looks good.

Matt S en Mexico
ID: 241451911
Sat, Feb 19, 2005, 13:00

Agreed.

holt
ID: 201431910
Sun, Feb 20, 2005, 04:28

looks fine to me.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 10:10

Here is the list of issues for voting. Only the 16 RIBC managers may vote.

Issue 1: Roster configuration
A. same as last year
B. add a bench slot by [indicate your preference(s)]:
(1) replacing CI and MI slots with an IF and bench slot
(2) replacing CI and MI slot with Util and bench slot
(3) replacing one pitcher slot with a bench slot

Issue 2: DL slot
A. No DL slot
B. Include one DL slot, subject to standard Yahoo rules
C. Include one DL slot, but do not allow players to be picked up and then immediately placed in a DL slot. (Require FA/waiver pickups to stay on active roster for a minimum of 10 days)

Issue 3: Max IP
A. leave at 1350
B. increase
C. decrease

Issue 4: Min IP
A. no minimum (same as last year)
B. 800 IP minimum
C. include minimum higher than 800
D. include minimum, but lower than 800

Issue 5: Max GP for hitters
A. no max (same as last year)
B. max 162 per position
C. max per position, higher than 162

The polls are open!

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 10:15

Issue 1
B - 1

Issue 2
C

Issue 3
B

Issue 4
C (nobody was below 850 last season, so a minimum of 800 is kind of pointless, IMHO)

Issue 5
B

holt
ID: 1411218
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 10:34

1-A
2-C
3-A
4-B
5-A

rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 10:39

1-A
2-C
3-A
4-A
5-B

rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 10:50

I have a clarification question on 2C. We are talking only about a 10 day min to go from active to DL, right? There is still nothing wrong with picking up Joe Blow pitcher to start one game, then releasing him, correct?

youngroman
ID: 221118186
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 11:26

1A (its all about draft-strategy, 5B or C will help staying with 1A)
2A (for me the bench is deep enough)
3A (makes setup man and middle relievers with good % and/or K-ratios more valuable)
4A (everyone should be near the maximum to get the most points out of his pitchers, you can't throw away W and SO)
5B (I would be fine with everything)

Toral
ID: 22731114
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 11:43

1 A
2 B
3 B
4 B
5 B

Toral

jumpball
ID: 161432110
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 11:43

1-A
2-B
3-A
4-A
5-B

Since I haven't chimed in yet, let me do it now.

I very much enjoyed the challenge of the roster last year, and i'd like to keep working with that challenge this year.

I would like to have a DL slot (Yahoo! standard). Often times last year, I had 3 or 4 top guys on the DL which normally meant that I couldn't field a complete roster. One slot won't fix that but will keep the manager that gets hammered above water for a little longer.

I think 1350 is a good number for 9 pitchers -- any higher and we'll have to rotate starters. I don't think we should be giving more advantages to the managers that can check their team every day (that's not me, BTW) than they already have.

I don't see the need for a min IP. The Wins and Strikeouts categories should take care of that.

Having no max for position players was ok, but I will vote for a 162 game cap, only to balance the games at each position.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 11:55

Issue 1: B2
Issue 2: A (If you want a DL slot, then one of the alternatives in B in issue #1 would be a great alternative. I don't get the argument of those who don't want to change anything and then want to add a DL which can be taken advantage of. We can all use a DL perhaps, but why not a bench spot instead, but I digress).
Issue 3: B
Issue 4: C
Issue 5: A

rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 12:00

We can all use a DL perhaps, but why not a bench spot instead

The logic is (from my POV) that a BENCH spot will take up 16 extra players becuase we will all fill out or rosters. A DL spot will only take an extra player id there is a legit need for it. It's a 'special circumstance' slot. Also, it will be temporary as you will have to move the player when he is ready to play. A bench spot is a permananet addition to the rosters.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 12:29

rfs, I understand your rationale, but here are my issues with that. 1. You really can't police that with Yahoo, except to see it and tell someone after the fact and then getting them back into the lineup and drop the extra player. 2. Why should you get the benefit of an extra player because one of your players got hurt? I submit that having that additional bench spot (instead of one of the active spots) will make a spot for an injury and/or allow strategy to keep him/move him or be able to make a trade for his position/stat.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 12:53

rfs[78] - yes, the 10 day limit would only apply to guys who you want to put on the DL. We have a similar rule in RIHC. An additional qualification is that if a player appears in a game after you pick him up, and then gets hurt, you can put him on the DL as soon as he is declared DL-eligible by Yahoo.

The limitation is simply to preclude the ability to use a DL spot (instead of a bench slot) to warehouse an already injured player that was not previously on your roster.

You can always drop any player without limitation (other than dumping quality players for antagonastic purposes).

Athletics Guy
ID: 391271017
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 13:09

1-A
2-A
3-A
4-B
5-A

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 13:21

What prompted the suggestion of a minimum for IP was a situation that cropped up last year.

One manager had only relievers active at the start of the season. As fate would have it, Tom Gordon threw one "3 up, 3 down" inning on the second day of the season to give his team an ERA of 0.00 and a WHIP of 0.00. He then suggested that he could essentially secure an average pitching result by locking up 16 ranking points in those 2 categories, for 35 total pitching points (16+16+1+1+1). He could then focus entirely on hitters for the balance of the season, trading away his decent pitchers to upgrade hitters. With an average pitching result and a bunch of upgraded hitters, a good overall standing was plausible.

While he did not pursue this tactic, we thought that a minimum IP requirement would eliminate its viability.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 13:33

Not in RIBC, but do agree with the min.
I have been in leagues with no min and have seen people lock up all their pitching spots with relievers and run just that strategy.

Really more preventative maintenance than anything.

Cliff

darkside
Dude
ID: 3590317
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 14:01

1 - A
2 - C
3 - A
4 - B
5 - B

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 15:25

I don't see the need for a min IP. The Wins and Strikeouts categories should take care of that.

History would suggest otherwise...

Macabee Tel-Aviv
W: 1
SV: 16
K: 1
ERA: 8
WHIP: 9.5

Finished in 4 place thanks to...

R: 15
RBI: 15
SB: 13.5
OBP: 14
SLG: 16

So, no, W and K do not make a minimum unnecessary.

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 16:31

1 - B1
2 - C
3 - A
4 - B
5 - B

Matt S en Mexico
ID: 281252116
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 17:30

1. A
2. A
3. A
4. B
5. A

Matt S

Peter N.
ID: 211562116
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 18:01

1 - A
2 - A
3 - A
4 - B
5 - A

Slackjawed Yokel
Leader
ID: 052347519
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 18:48

1 - B1
2 - A
3 - A
4 - B
5 - A

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 20:00

13 have voted. We are waiting for BMD and Chris, and then me. I figured I'd go last.

We are also waiting for BMD and Chris to register for the league at Yahoo.

jumpball
ID: 161432110
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 20:45

I miss this great banter! :-(

I'd like to change my vote from 4-A to 4-C.
75% of 1300 is 975 -- I think a min should be closer to that number. (70% is 910, BTW)

I'll also change from 2-B to 2-C if I don't have to police the other 15 managers.

jb

beastiemiked
ID: 262411016
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 21:08

1-5. A

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 22:16

With 2 votes remaining, three questions are decided.

1. Same roster configuration (10-4)
3. Max IP remains at 1350 (11-3)
4. Min IP will be 800 (3-8-3)

The other two issues are very close.
2. DL: 7 have voted to have no DL slot. 7 have voted to have a DL slot, with most opting for the limitation I described.

5. Max hitter GP: 7 have voted for no max, and 7 have voted for a max of 162.

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Mon, Feb 21, 2005, 23:17

Gee, I wonder how well BMD did last year. ;)

100

Chris
ID: 4708114
Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 17:31

1-5: A

101

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 19:27

I'll vote A, A, A, B, B

This means that:
1. Same roster configuration as last year (12-4)
2. No DL (9-7)
3. Max IP reamins at 1350 (13-3)
4. Min IP is 800 (4-9-3)
5. Hitter GP max ties 8-8.
Since we voted down the DL, I'm going to decree that we go with a 162 game limit. Although a "no limit" rule emphasizes bench contributions, it also emphasizes lack of injuries. Going to a 162 game limit for hitters at least keeps injury-free teams from getting excessive advantage from that aspect.

Draft Type: Offline Draft

Max Teams: 16

Scoring Type: Rotisserie

Player Universe: All baseball

Max Moves: No maximum

Max Trades: No maximum

Trade Reject Time: 1

Trade End Date: August 28, 2005

Waiver Time: 2 days

Can't Cut List Provider: None

Trade Review: Commissioner

Post Draft Players: Follow Waiver Rules

Max Games Played: 162

Max Innings Pitched: 1350

Weekly Deadline: Daily - Tomorrow

Start Scoring on: Sunday, Apr 3

Roster Positions: C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, CI, MI, OF, OF, OF, OF, Util, SP, RP, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, BN, BN, BN, BN

Stat Categories: R, RBI, SB, OBP, SLG, W, SV, K, ERA, WHIP

Minimum IP: 800 (will be monitored oustside of Yahoo)

102

holt
ID: 1411218
Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 20:41

awesome. when do we determine draft order?

103

Matt S en Mexico
ID: 31272222
Tue, Feb 22, 2005, 23:59

It would be great to get the draft order done now, so I can start planning my draft.

Speaking of which, have we decided a date to start yet?

I will likely be travelling from here, on the east coast of Mexico, through Belize, Guat, and the other side of Mexico, proceeding up the west coast to my home in Vancouver. I would like to start my trek as soon after the 20th as possible. I will have internet access daily, and will be able to leave queues easily until about the 29th. The earlier we start, the better for me. However, I understand that picking after ST is well underway is much easier. What ever the group thinks is fine by me.

I would also like to ask if there is anybody from one of the other leagues, that would like to assist in taking queues from me. I want to be sure that I'm not holding up the draft, as I hate it when that happens! :) Drop me a line if you've got some free time to help me out.

Bring on the season!
Matt S

104

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 08:36

First, we will have a single round to choose our draft order.

I will accept a set of the numbers 1-16, randomly ordered, from two different league managers. Please send them to me via email. Once I receive them, I'll post the order for selecting our draft pick sequence.

I haven't yet settled on a date to start the actual draft. The latest potential start date is March 14, and if we wait until then, we will need to continue at a pretty diligent pace, including weekends. If we start earlier, we may be able to relax the clock on weekends, assuming we are making sufficient progress.

The advantage of starting earlier is ability to move at a slower overall pace. The advantage of a later start is that we have a few more games of spring training to review, and a few more days for players to get injured prior to our drafting them.

What's the consensus?

105

darkside
Dude
ID: 3590317
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 08:59

I'd prefer earlier. Sometimes I think all ST does is work to confuse me cause I see guys like Enrique Wilson hitting .500 and think, hey, maybe THIS is the year he'll hit above .220.

106

rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 09:00

I'd pick middle ground... 3/7.

107

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 09:11

I have received two set of numbers.

The first set (from darkside) was applied to an alphabetical list of managers. The manager list was resequenced in that order.
(4, 14, 10, 1, 3, 7, 5, 12, 11, 2, 15, 9, 6, 16, 8, 13)

The second set (from rfs) was then lined up vs. that list to assign the pick order.
(2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15)

Here is the resulting order:

1 rockafellerskank
2 darkside
3 Chris
4 Peter N.
5 Matt S
6 Guru
7 KrazyKoalaBears
8 Athletics_Guy
9 youngroman
10 jumpball
11 Bmd
12 slackjawed yokel
13 Ref
14 holt
15 Species
16 Toral

(It's rather curious that the two guys who sent me numbers ended up 1 and 2!)

Remember, this is not the ultimate draft order. This is the order in which we select our draft order. The draft will snake, so whoever decides to pick first will also pick 32nd, 33rd, 64th, etc.

rockafellerskank - go ahead and select your position.

108

rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 09:13

Hmmm. My randon set wasn't so "random" I'll post my draft choice shortly. I think I know where I want to be, just need to think it through one last time.

109

rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 09:24

rfs will pick 4th

110

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 09:29

I downloaded the Yahoo player listings for hitters over the weekend. The purpose was to generate a list of position eligibilties. The resulting list is in the following spreadsheet: Hitters-021905.xls

Feel free to download it if you wish. I will not be updating this as new players or positions are added. But this should give you a head start.

111

darkside
Dude
ID: 3590317
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 10:01

I'll pick 1st.

112

Toral
ID: 22731114
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 12:39

That order for picking draft picks is great because I hate making decisions ;)

I would prefer an earlier draft. March 7 or even earlier. I don't want to be rushed at the end.

Toral

113

Khahan
ID: 2884979
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 13:24

Question for you guru. Do you care if managers have teams in multiple tiers?
For example, I am in AAA. It looks like there are 13 or 14 managers in a AA league and they need 16 to be official.
Do you mind if I enter a team in AA as well or would you prefer we have 1 team per tier and that is it?

114

Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 13:38

ROFL.......while I don't mind making decisions, I guess the first decision of the year will be amongst the easiest!

I'm really getting screwed lately with this randomness -- I got the short straw in G20 too! :(

115

Khahan
ID: 2884979
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 13:58

I got the short straw in G20 too! :(

From what I hear, you should be used to short things, Species!

:)

Its a joke.

116

KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 14:11

RE: Draft start date

March 7 sounds good to me.

117

Peter N.
ID: 341142313
Wed, Feb 23, 2005, 14:14

March 7th start sounds good to me as well. Don't want to be rushing before the season starts.