| 0 |
Subject: TPKL Preseason Discussion
Posted by: Nerfherders
- [347242717] Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 13:37
Hello and welcome to the 10th season of TPKL! I can't believe this is going to be our 10th season.
There are some items I would like to start a discussion on for 2011.
1. New managers. I have already accepted one new manager into the league - Jason Bradbury who is a friend of Patrick's. He seems like a good guy and eager to try this format of fantasy baseball. He will be taking over Kevin's team. We still need one more manager, and I've posted a thread looking for one to take over wiggs' team.
2. Schedule. As I mentioned in the last email, the schedule has to be fairly aggressive because I will be on vacation with limited to no internet access starting on March 19. I'd like to have the draft finished by then. We will be using KKB's new Drafttime website for the draft, which replaces Kafenatid. Hopefully this makes the draft really fast!
But right now I'm still pushing for Feb 28th to be when re-signs, callups, drops for draft picks and prospect drops are due.
3. Rules Changes. My proposed rule change would be to lower the IP limit from 1600 to 1550. I've run the numbers on every team's IP going all the way back to 2002, and the bottom line is very few teams reach 1550 IP, much less 1600, mostly because of injuries and the inablity to cycle through players because of contract hits. I will throw this rule proposal on the group as a poll and see how it goes.
If anyone has any other rules proposals or would like to discuss the one above, post it here! |
| 1 | Code Red
ID: 52235128
Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 17:46
|
I have no problem with reducing it, but if it hasn't been an issue, what is the reasoning behind the change? I know some leagues use a minimum innings pitched to force players into using starting pitching because some managers forego wins by using mostly closers which helps them do better in saves, ERA, and WHIP.
|
| 2 | Goldcoach
ID: 439131016
Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 18:44
|
I will be out of touch til Monday the 21st. I echo Code Red's sentiments. I think a minimum innings pitched would be better than a maximum.
|
| 3 | jseth333
Dude
ID: 24100310
Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 21:50
|
I would be interested in joining if still looking for someone - play as vampireweekend. Thanks.
|
| 4 | Nerfherders
ID: 347242717
Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 17:38
|
There is some validity to having a minimum IP limit, but so far in this league nobody has purposely tried a wholly RP approach. Only 3 teams have ever been below 1200 IP, and in all of those cases it was because of a severe lack of pitching and almost no avenues to fix it. (or no will to fix it). The other problem is how to enforce it. When does someone have to achieve the minimum? Or do their stats count until they haven't achieved it at the end of the year?
The lower maximum cap has more subtle effects than just allowing more teams to reach 'max'. It tightens the counting race for ALL teams, as teams that CAN reach the max don't run away with the counting stats. Part of the problem is that teams just can't get there most of the time, and a lower mark would actually make some of the teams who could get to 1600 have to think about how they will limit IP coming down the stretch. The other part of it is that because this is a dynasty league, teams aren't simply going to release one of their ace starters who go on the shelf for the season, so they end up a pitcher short. Have two or three of those, and you end up with a shortfall of 200 IP or more. They then can't possibly compete in counting stats.
|
| 5 | art for the hall
ID: 19921016
Fri, Feb 18, 2011, 10:07
|
I have reached the max inningas the last couple of years. I think part of the issue is teams give up because they are out of the race, not because they can't reach the max innings. Reducing the innings might allow a team to carry one less sp.
I think we need to address keeping teams active. We don't have many pickups during the season because of contracts. I believe someone made a suggestion a couple of years ago about reducing the contracts at the all-star break to .5 instead of 1. Also allow drops based on half of the contract being paid. A player that was signed for 1 could be dropped after the all-star break for .7d instead of 1.5. A player 4 would be dropped at 3 instead of 6. We have too many teams that are strapped for cap space. I hope this makes sense.
I would also like to change categories from wins to quality starts. Nerf suggest this a couple of years ago, but he didn't get the votes. It wouldn't be a giant change. The logic is the sp can do his job, but if the team never scores runs he doesn't get the w or if someone blows a save his work is in vain.
|
| 6 | beebop
ID: 34030216
Fri, Feb 18, 2011, 15:09
|
Yea, the cap sometimes does feel restricting. I was thinking of something that may help a bit with this. If i am paying a rod $3 a season because of a drop, but then team b picks up a rod, i think either:
a) team b wins a rod at $3 per season(and means i wont be paying anymore)
b) team b wins a rod as normal and again, no more drop hits for arod as he has now been picked up by someone else.
A loophole would be the same team picking the player back up, but obviously the rule would not apply in this circumstance.
I think i have made sense of art's idea. But would this only work for 1 year contracts? It's too early in the morning for me to figure out how it would work on 3 year deals?
I do like QS. Only downside i can see is it reduces the value slightly of relief pitchers. But i am not sure that is a big deal anyway.
This probably sounds a bit dumb, but how about 2 caps? i cap for rostered players and 1 cap for drops? Maybe $20-$30 for a drop limit. Tell me if you like it, or can build on it, or if it just sounds plain dumb.
|
| 7 | Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Fri, Feb 18, 2011, 18:46
|
I'm not sure I would want to tweak the system as much as you are suggesting. I would be willing to consider allowing for the cap hit for releasing a player not to exceed the player's contract value. i.e. a 1-year player could be dropped for $1. A $7 player in the last year of his contract could be dropped for $7.
As for QS, I've proposed that in the past and it failed. I am willing to propose it again. Anything lost by relief wins would be gained by the extra QS, assuming your starting pitchers are actually good.
|
| 8 | art for the hall
ID: 19921016
Fri, Feb 18, 2011, 19:42
|
I don't want my recommendation of mid year pickups to be forgotten.
It sounds like we might have 3 votes for QS. I am also in favor of reducing ip, but also having a minimum. if minimum is not met all of their pitching stats become void. So the highest highest someone could get in a pitching category would be 9.
|
| 9 | Code Red
ID: 451161914
Sat, Feb 19, 2011, 15:16
|
Wow...a lot has happened since I last checked the board. I would also be in favor of QS over wins and having had this discussion with my friend Jason in the past, I am pretty sure he would agree. As for cap issues, I do like the one about cap hits going away if someone else picks up that player. I also like the idea of being able to pick up players after the all-star break for .5. I, again think a minimum innings pitched should be established and am not against reducing the max by 50 innings. I don't think I am in favor of altering the cap hits for dropping players, as some of this would be resolved if we adopt the concept of dropping the hit if that player is picked up. It sounds like we have a lot to discuss. Jason, any chance we could get a look at the draft matrix. There were so many trades last year, I really have no idea what draft picks I have left this year. Thanks.
|
| 10 | Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Sat, Feb 19, 2011, 18:47
|
I might be willing to go with the reduced drops if the deadline was the trade deadline. What I worry about is everyone waiting til the all-star break to drop/pickup and then there's a claims frenzy in early July. It might just be a quality of life thing for me.
I'm think it'll be an either or type of vote. either reduced drops in the second half/August, OR drop cap hits cannot exceed a player's contract value.
I can put that one up plus Yes/No for QS, minimum IP, and 1550 IP max.
If we had a minimum IP, what would it be? 1200?
|
| 11 | Code Red
ID: 451161914
Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 13:51
|
I would like to bring up another issue that I think needs to be addressed, which is the way prospects are acquired. I was looking at the prospects on the last updated contracts from last season to get an idea of prospects available for this draft. When the extension guides came out, many of the prospects I was looking at were suddenly on people's prospect rosters. I don't ever remember getting an opportunity to outbid anyone for any of these prospects. Also, there were a couple of teams that had 11 prospects. One should not be able to claim a prospect unless they have an opening, call someone up as part of the claim, or release another prospect. I think we need to better define the way prospects are chosen to make it more equitable. I think prospects should only be added to rosters during the draft. I am open to other suggestions, but I don't think the current system is working. Anyone else feel this way?
|
| 12 | Code Red
ID: 451161914
Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 13:52
|
As for the minimum innings, what has been our average lowest innings pitched over the past 5 years or so? That might give us an idea of a target number.
|
| 13 | Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 14:44
|
beebop put a claim for four prospects on September 8. It was sent to the league. Nobody is allowed to have more than 10 prospects, but there were a couple cases last year where someone claimed a prospect but didnt tell me who they were dropping. I think Doug currently has an extra so he will have to drop someone.
Prospect rules are a little fast and loose in this league, but it just means you have to pay attention throughout the season.
I am open to any ideas for improving the prospect system, but I do like being able to claim prospects during the season. Perhaps limit prospect claims to one per claim? That way prospects don't get lost in a mass claim.
|
| 14 | art for the hall
ID: 19921016
Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 15:14
|
I like the suggestion of claiming just one prospect at a time. We all get emails of when a claim is made. it is done by prospect waiver priority. Maybe the claim should include who they are dropping?
|
| 15 | Code Red
ID: 441282017
Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 18:28
|
I like the idea of one claim at a time. You should not be able to mass claim all of the new top prospects and hope that enough people don't see the email in time. One at a time would open up a bidding war on that prospect and would make it more equitable.
|
| 16 | Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 14:57
|
Lots of polls to go up this week! I think I will do one a day starting tomorrow.
|
| 17 | beebop
ID: 48122118
Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 19:02
|
How about something to make it easier to call up prospects. I have a couple ideas i havent quite fully completed...
1. If its a callup midseason, have a discount drop on the player you are dropping. Ie; $1 player, maybe the cap hit is only 0.5 instead of the current 1.5?
2. Another thought was a discount on the contract you are giving the prospect. Ie; i want to sign Buster Posey for 4 years, but instead of being 4-4-4-4, i can do it for 2-2-2-2.
I know one of the arguments against is you just have to better manage your contracts. But that argument can be used against any type of proposal really.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
|
| 18 | beebop
ID: 48122118
Tue, Feb 22, 2011, 19:45
|
On a different note, anyone interested in Teixiera? Let me know, send an offer, lets get something done.
|
| 19 | Code Red
ID: 441282017
Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 00:15
|
I might be interested in Teixiera in May when he actually starts hitting.
|
| 20 | beebop
ID: 48122118
Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 01:01
|
Wheres the fun in that?
|
| 21 | Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 01:32
|
Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking.
|
| 22 | beebop
ID: 34030216
Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 06:21
|
I'll also entertain offers for Gonzalez too.
|
| 23 | Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 02:08
|
we're still looking for a manager. If anyone has any ideas.
|
| 24 | BOSSMAN
ID: 162591512
Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 13:25
|
I may have one. Can you tell me which team is available and what thier draft pick status might be? In other words do they have their full compliment of picks or are some traded away?
|
| 25 | Nerfherders
ID: 347242717
Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 14:03
|
The team left is wiggs' team and I believe it has all its draft picks. I'm thinking it's got the 4th pick
|
| 26 | BOSSMAN
ID: 162591512
Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 13:52
|
9.10 Replacement Pick Kenley Jansen - Prospect (LAD)
Sorry for the mistake
|
| 27 | Nerfherders
ID: 347242717
Fri, Mar 11, 2011, 15:14
|
I figured out how to delete picks in the draft, so if it happens again that someone takes a taken prospect, I will delete the pick and inform them to re-pick.
Also, Doug is dropping Martin Perez to make room for prospect pick in 11.01. he will also get an extra pick at the end of the draft
|
| 28 | Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Sat, Mar 12, 2011, 00:46
|
Goldcoach's 12.06 pick Singleton should be a PR, not 1B.
|
| 29 | Goldcoach
ID: 439131016
Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 08:59
|
Re Beancline's 13.06, I think Moustaka is on Code Red's Prospect Roster.
|
| 30 | Nerfherders
ID: 310111515
Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 13:53
|
I emailed Bean to make a reselection.
Nishioka, picked by Art, was meant to be picked as a prospect.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|