Forum: base
Page 16187
Subject: RotoGuru Invitational Baseball Challenge

  Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 13:30
Time to start planning for the inaugural RIBC, which will be run similar to the current Hoops Challenge. Before figuring out who to invite, I'd like to start some discussion on the format.

Some things are set:
We'll do a slow draft at the forum. Each manager will be asked to provide a brief rationale for each pick, as was done for basketball. The draft will probably get started sometime in early March.

We'll use Yahoo as the platform. Most people have some familiarity with it, it is stable, and has worked out well for the RIHC.

We'll use a typical roto-scoring format, with rankings in each category. The actual categories are still to be determined.

We'll use players from both major leagues.

We'll have some sort of pitching limits - either starts, or total innings pitched, or both. I'll need to review the Yahoo capabilities. Maybe we'll have some game limits for hitting slots as well, although I don't think those are as critical.

Major items to be determined:
Number of managers
Roster configuration
Statistical categories

Discussion
Selection of managers will be by my invitation. Major factors considered will be GuruPatron status, demonstrated expertise in some form of fantasy baseball, and forum activity. Participants in the RIHC will not be eligible (except for me).

I'd like the player selection to be fairly deep, so there will be some interplay between the number of players on a roster and the number of managers in the league. At a minumum, we'll have 12 teams. But I'd like some feedback from those of you with experience in larger leagues.

Most of my experience is with 5x5 leagues, using W, S, K, ERA, and WHIP for pitching, and R, HR, RBI, SB, and avg for hitting. However, I'd like to be a bit more creative than this, and choose some more meaningful categories (if Yahoo supports them), like slugging pct or on-base pct (or even OPS). There is certainly no magic to 10 total categories, either.

Open for discussion. What are your thoughts?




 
1StLCards
      Leader
      ID: 31010716
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 13:38 		keeper league?
 
2Species
      Leader
      ID: 7724916
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 13:44 		My first-ever rotisserie league experience started in 1994. It is a 16-team mixed AL/NL auction-style league. I too like the idea of more than 12 teams, and in my experience with a 16-team league you still have enough respectable every-day players to field a team that doesn't include the Pirates' 2nd utility infielder.

That league plays all of the standard positions, with a 4th OF, a cornerman (either 1b/3b) and an extra middle infielder (either ss/2b) as well as a DH for 13 hitters. We use 9 pitchers, of which 2 must be relievers. It has it's challenges in fielding a respectable team, but again doesn't make it so bad to have to resort to Neifi Perez as your SS.

I'd say minimum of 14 teams, but 16 is reasonable.
 
3blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 13:53 		Too many categories tends to get annoying, in my own humble opinion. One year we had an innings limit and k/9 was a category, so if you won strikeouts, you got double points. Annoying. I also prefer a starts limit (not sure if Yahoo can do that).

Agreed on the deep pool. I hate when Armando Benitez is available on waivers.
 
4Khahan
      ID: 5044129
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 14:02 		Yahoo can and does support most of the ideas you suggested, Guru. Its rather easy to do when you go in and set it up (when they finally get up an running).
I've done a few 12 team leagues, but nothing more than that and would love an opportunity to expand into deeper leagues.
I agree with BH that (in baseball at least), too many categories gets to be too much. But yahoo offers something like 20 in each for hitting and pitching. If you wanted to expand to a 6x6 or even 7x7 you can find enough categories to do it.
 
5GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 60151121
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 14:12 		I'm going to chime in on Species comments about 16 teams.
I also play in a 16 team mixed AL/NL roto auction League.
2 C
1 1B
1 2B
1 SS
1 3B
1 Corner Infielder
1 Middle Infielder
4 Outfielder
1 Util (Vice DH)

Also 9 pitchers and 2 must be relievers.

2 IR slots, and 4 bench slots.
With strict rules on the IR slots.

I like the larger number of teams.
Really makes you have to work.

Cliff
 
6Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 14:29 		2 catchers per team in a 16 team league? How many catchers are there in MLB that wouldn't be a liability on most teams?
 
7Chuck
      Donor
      ID: 169212110
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 14:35 		GL-- Does the 2 catcher position still have just a 162 game limit? My first year playing in a roto league, that is what we had-- 2 catcher spots, but a total of 162 games allowed between the 2. I'm not sure how easy that is to do in Yahoo, but w/o that, it seems to give more value to catcher relative to other positions.

Personally, I like lots of starting slots and bench spots.

When it comes to IR, I'd rather have just an extra bench spot than an IR w/ strict rules for this reason: Even active managers have to leave town from time to time for a few days or a week. I know I really run into some issues in the summer where I can check in at best once during a few select weeks. Thus, if a guy comes off the DL while I'm gone, I somehow get penalized.

With Yahoo, though, I don't think you can update your line-up if you have a non-IR guy on IR. I know for sure you can't do roster drops and pick-ups. Do they still allow line-up changes? If you're gonna do an IR, I say just make it a rule that no changes to the line-up may be made with a non-IR guy on IR. If that happens, the non-IR guy gets forfeited to the WW.

Even simpler, though, to me, is to just make an extra bench spot or two. This is designed for, but not limited to injured guys.

Slight variance on GL #5:
2 C (Total of 162 games max)
1 1B
1 2B
1 SS
1 3B
1 Corner Infielder
1 Middle Infielder
4 Outfielder
1 Util
5 SPs
2 RPs
2 Ps (starter or reliever)
5 or 6 bench spots
 
8GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 60151121
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 14:35 		2 catchers makes it real interesting on decisions you have to make during the draft.
You can't just sell that position off if you need two.

Cliff
 
9Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 14:57 		It will be non-keeper.

If we have an IR slot, it will be subject to Yahoo rules. If an active player is in the IR slot, you can still make lineup changes, but you cannot add players without emptying the IR slot.

I prefer not having to distinguish between starting pitchers and relievers (for slot purposes). As long as we can have a limit on starts (probably 162, or maybe 180), I think that takes care of itself.

Whether or not we need an IP limit (min or max) probably depends on the categories used. Maybe an overall IP max could serve as a substitute for a limit on starts. Or we could have both.

Let me propose a category setup, and let you suggest alterations:

Pitching:
Wins
Saves
Total strikeouts (not ratio)
WHIP
ERA

Hitting:
Runs
RBI
Steals
Slugging pct
On base pct

Essentially, I take a normal 5x5 config, but replace HR with slugging pct, and replace batting avg with OBP. Each of pitching and hitting has 3 "counting" stats and 2 ratio stats.

Continue...
 
10Khahan
      ID: 5044129
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 15:08 		Instead of using SlG and OBP, why not just use OPS and stick with the standard HR?
 
11KrazyKoalaBears
      Leader
      ID: 517553018
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 15:08 		I was in the RotoTag NL/AL league last year with Teddybears and it was 8-teams for each league (16 total). It was definitely a challenge finding players and that's a good thing, IMO.

For lineup, I would say something like what GoatLocker or Chuck proposed would work well, except the C spot. I don't think Yahoo allows you to specify 162 games between 2 spots, so that would be a problem. Forcing 2 C's for 162 games isn't going to work well at all. I would much rather be forced to find another worthy infielder than a worthy backup C. It was hard enough with just 1 C for AL-only.

Lastly, 5 x 5 is good, IMO. Anything beyond that just seems to start overlapping other categories and double-rewarding like what bh pointed out.

 
12Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 15:11 		Goatlocker 8
You can't just sell that position off if you need two.

Hmm, I disagree. After the top 16 or 18 catchers I really think most become more of a liability than an asset. For example, are Damian Miller's 9 hr and 36 RBI really valuable enough to put his .233 batting average on your roster when you have 12 other slots piling up numbers for you?

I'm not sure if thinning out the most shallow position in the game like that is necessarily good for a league, especially one where 2 of the offensive categories might be averaged stats rather than compiled ones (SLG and OBP). Counting every catcher that had 300 or more at bats in 2003, only 16 had an OBP of .310 or better. Only 21 slugged .360 or better.
 
13Trip
      ID: 13961611
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 15:44 		I don't think that you would be able to enforce the 162 game limit with two catchers. However, if you are going to even get close to it with only one catcher slot, you will need to rotate another one in on a regular basis. The decision to fill out the 162 game limit by carrying another catcher, is a strategical one and should be made by the individual managers. I doubt that even the #6 rated catcher is on the plus side in the ESPN player rate. Forcing each team to carry two catchers can make a good team look very bad.
 
14Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 1629107
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 15:51 		Khahan 10
Using HR and OPS gives added emphasis and value to home runs and lesser value and emphasis to a player's ability to get on base. This results in power hitters becoming more valuable than they currently are, inevitably at the expense of the general value of table setters. I like the categories that Guru suggests in 9 as a well balanced variation from the standard offensive cats.
 
15StLCards
      Leader
      ID: 31010716
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 15:57 		If it is a deep league, say 16, then using mi and ci isn't that feasible to me as the talent pool gets stretched too thin, and just like mith said about catcher, these extra spots start becoming liabilities. Having "multiple position" players can allow you to fill in "off" days and cover injuries and hot streaks, but using them as positions is a problem. Throw in a DH instead and use any player there. How many "mi eligible" players are there in a 16 team league that already have a ss and 2B. Not many that won't hurt you.
 
16Khahan
      ID: 5044129
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 16:41 		Why not just go with a more standard line up:
C
1st
2nd
3rd
SS
OF
OF
OF
Util
Pitcher x 8 or 9.
If you want a little more, add a single Infield Utility slot or a 4th OF.
In a 16+ team league, anything more than that would stretch too thin.
 
17blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 17:15 		I hate two catchers, even in an 8 team league.
 
18Species
      Leader
      ID: 7724916
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 17:56 		I concur with the general consensus of 2 'active' catchers. Make it one active catcher required and a 162-game max in the slot. If you want to spend a bench spot for catching games, you're more than welcome.

Guru's thought of replacing HR with SLG is interesting.......I've never had a league without HR's before. And no BA is interesting, again just because it's such a staple. I like the idea of OBP being involved.

Regarding 16-team leagues having both MI and CI slots: There would be a need for 48 middle and corner infielders. 30 teams each have 2, so there are 60 available playing players for those required 48 slots. Is that really so thin??

4 OF's X 16 = 64 OF's vs. 30 X 3 = 90 active OF's. Again more than enough to cover it.
 
19Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 18:04 		For sake of discussion...

In the AL, there are 14 teams, each with 9 starting hitters. (I realize that some slots are platoons, and some are rather weak, but bear with me...) In the NL, there are 16 teams with 8 starting hitters each. That produces a total pool of 254 "starting quality" hitters.

Now consider the following roster config:
C-1B-2B-3B-SS-OF-OF-OF-OF-1B/3B-2B/SS-DH

12 active hitting spots, 16 teams, 192 total starters. Add in a few potential bench slots, and you'd come close to using up all of this pool.

That's pretty deep, but is it too deep?
 
20blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 18:23 		Not too deep. I think that's what the consensus in this thread was looking for. Wes Helms becomes a staple. That's fine with me. And remember, in those platoons, you get more than one player... David Bell, Placido Polanco, and Chase Utley are all "starting quality" and share 2 positions.
 
21Toral
      Sustainer
      ID: 2111201313
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 18:57 		Looks good. The categories make sense as "unusual" 5x5's go.
 
22GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 60151121
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 19:50 		I don't think it is too deep.
I like it.
Also, the 5x5 categories work fine for me too.
OBP brings walks into play which makes some players more valuable than they would be in a typical 5x5.

Cliff
 
23Farn
      Sustainer
      ID: 451044109
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 20:03 		Doesn't look too deep at all Guru. I think it provides a challenge that most roto leagues don't offer, especially considering the quality of managers involved.

As for 2 catchers I would be against that. There just isn't enough to go around. Heck, for some teams I can't even tell you who they are starting behind the plate this year. And one of the league's best hitting catchers is about to land in Detroit so his stats may plummett too. I would say go with 1 and limit to 162 games. The problem this raises is I am not sure Yahoo allows you to limit just one position by games. So you would need to limit all the positions to 162 games I believe.

I could handle a 2nd utility or a 4th OF as well. It would really stretch things a bit thin but it might reward managers who do research to find that diamond. Bench could be a real problem though. It might be better off to leave the bench at 2 or 3 players because there might not be more than enough to around if you make it more.

I would suggest a limit on IP's for a total team. I don't think Yahoo allows you to limit starts for a pitcher so I think innings is the only way to go.

Maybe I should bring it up in advance because it can be a problem with early drafts: sometimes Yahoo doesn't have every player listed in its data base early on. Would this league allow a manager to draft a player (probably a minor leaguer) who isn't in the Yahoo database? Just something to be prepared for in advance.
 
24Stuck in the Sixties
      ID: 240262420
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 20:36 		I think the deeper the league is, the better. At some
point, acuity in selection will pay off for those willing to
do the research. I think it's important to cap innings
pitched. 900 has worked well in two of the leagues I
played in last season.

don
 
25StLCards
      ID: 28758920
      Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 23:52 		Personally I like HR's. The reason is simple. It is easy to calculate and figure out where you are at. example - it is near the end, I am 2 HR's down to the leader. I know I need to outscore him by 2HR's to tie and 3 to pass him. With SLG pct I might have 0.8923 and he has 0.8928. Do I really know what I need to catch him? Not without a lot of calculations. Takes a lot of the fun out of day to day stats following IMO.
 
26grEEr
      ID: 191022221
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 00:01 		can I get in on this leauge?
 
27Chuck
      Donor
      ID: 169212110
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 00:38 		The deeper the league is, doesn't that put more importance on the counting stats? In other words, in a really deep league, it might be beneficial to leave a couple of empties if they do not count significantly toward the counting stats, and only hurts the ratio stats.

I guess you could make a minimum requirement at every position, as well. But if a league is going to be really deep, Joe McEwing is not going to help much in the counting stats, but can hurt the average stats. Thus, with a deep league, counting is a better determinate of the strongest team. With 6 counting, and 4 average, maybe it's not a big deal. Or maybe it's late on a Friday, and I should stop thinking.
 
28ChicagoTRS
      ID: 155592811
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 03:48 		Note: I do not believe you can limit the number of pitching starts in Yahoo! They do allow an IP max limit but no minimum limit.
 
29Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 09:16 		We haven't talked much about pitching roster slots yet.

I mentioned a preference for generic pitching slots, rather than distinguishing between SP and RP. Does anyone have a compelling counterargument?

Looking at the eligible pool, assume there are 3 "worthy" starters on each team. Some have more, but some have less. Add in one closer per team and one worthwhile setup man per team, and you get a pool of 150 to choose from. With a 16 team league, that would be 9 active pitching slots.

If we use 9 slots, and if starts is not a stat that can be limited, then what is the proper max for innings pitched? (I'm assuming it should be limited.)

Here are a couple of rationales:
Look at actual stats, most teams throw about 1450 IP over the course of a season. So that should probably be the upper limit.

If we have a slightly reduced roster size, maybe a lower number is appropriate. Of course, with a few bench spots, you could probnably carry 11-12 pitchers and simply bench the non-starters on any given day.

If you assume that 5 active pitching slots will be starters who average 6 IP/G, and 4 will be relievers who average 80 IP per season, then you have a total IP of 1292.

Once again, there will be some tension between bulking up on IP to improve counting stats (mostly wins and Ks, as save will be difficult to meaningfully augment simply by pitching more innings), probably to the detriment of ERA and WHIP.

So I guess I'm leaning to something in the 1300-1450 range. Maybe 1350. Is that too high? OR should we go all the way to 1450? What is the downside of setting the limit on the high side? It seem to me that it rewards those managers who are capable of finding a full staff of viable pitchers, and reducing the impact that a couple of dominant pitchers can have on a team.
 
30Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 09:25 		Assuming that we have 9 active pitching slots, and 12 active hitting slots (as outlined in [19] ), we have a total of 21 active slots. I think we should have at least 3 bench slots plus a DL slot. Or, if we opted to exclude the DL slot, simply have 4 bench slots. That has the natural appeal of a total of 25 total roster slots, the same as a real ML team.

I still haven't decided whether a game limit on hitters is needed. With this configuration and a limited bench, I don't think a limit on hitter games is really necessary.
 
31GoatLocker
      Sustainer
      ID: 60151121
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 09:55 		If you go with total roster slots of 25 I don't think you need to do a game limit on hitter games.
Like the 9 pitchers, 12 active hitters, and 4 bench slot makeup.

Also, I believe that 1450 works just fine on Pitcher innings under that format.

Not sure about a minimum number of innings to keep somebody from loading up on closers.

In the past I've usually played in leagues with a minimum, but think my mind set is changing and that owners should be given more control of who they want to draft pitching wise.

This also supports having 9 pitching slots with no designations as to whether they are starters or relievers.

So, guess I like 9 P.

Cliff

 
32Khahan
      ID: 5044129
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 10:38 		With an innings limit for pitchers:
The past 2 years I've run leagues with 8 pitching slots and 1400 innings pitched.
Maybe 1 person will hit the innings pitched limit. The rest are within 100 usually.
So if you bump the pitching limit to 1400 that should work out to right about on target for most people.
 
33Slackjawed Yokel
      Sustainer
      ID: 52347519
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 15:55 		I say set it up like an actual team. Limit the hitters to 162 games, and the pitchers to 1450 innings. This is roughly the same as the number of innings an actual team would pitch in a regular season. And there probably need not be designated SP and RP slots; leave this up to the managers.

I'm not sure if any consensus was reached on the hitter positions, but I'd prefer having a single utility infielder and outfielder than a middle infielder and corner infielder and outfielder. Also, I play in leagues where we always tend to have RF,LF,CF instead of simply three outfielders. Although I'm not sure I always like that, it does tend to lead to more trading.
 
34KrazyKoalaBears
      Leader
      ID: 517553018
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 15:59 		I really like the idea of RF, CF, and LF. That adds a lot more strategy to the game without over-complicating matters.
 
35wazaaap_guy
      ID: 30172020
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 16:17 		i would just like to express my interest to join, as Ive never played in a league with the guru before. im a very active manager and have played in a ton of gurupie leagues throughout the years, including the chatroom tools, wpfb, and the current gurukeepers and lucky13 leagues, and usually fare well. i read up on prospects a lot so i dont't think id have trouble filling a roster in a deep league such as this.
 
36Peter N.
      Donor
      ID: 257161713
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 16:44 		I think the deeper the league, the better. 16 teams sounds pretty good.

I'm definitely interested.....
 
37blue hen
      ID: 4300290
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 19:00 		Just want to say that I agree with post 25.
 
38Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 217351118
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 19:27 		One issue that inevitably comes up is whether managers should be allowed to draft players that aren't in the Yahoo database.
 
39KrazyKoalaBears
      Leader
      ID: 517553018
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 19:47 		MITH, the rule I've used in the past with regard to drafting unlisted players is that they're fair game for the draft. If someone drafts an unlisted player, they have full rights to that player as long as they leave an open roster spot for that player until they are available. If the manager fills that spot, the drafted player becomes fair game for all managers (prevents the manager from essentially having a free draft pick for that player). If the manager leaves the spot open, they are the only one allowed to pick the drafted player up. The commish has the ability to enforce this if need be.

Yes, it does take a bit of baby-sitting to start the season, but I've found that it adds a bit more interesting angle as people have to determine whether or not they want to let that "hidden gme" that's not listed make it through the draft or not. I've also never experienced any problems with this in any leagues I've been a commish of. If you have a good group of managers, like what I would expect for this league, they'll self-enforce it.

Lastly, you don't run into issues like Dominik Hasek in hockey where he wasn't listed for early drafts and essentially the last person that drafted got two 1st round draft picks because they had waiver priority to pick up Hasek as soon as he was listed.

 
40Rogue Nine
      Leader
      ID: 2624472
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 20:16 		Two years ago I was in a very active 16-team league which had a 1500 IP limit, and nobody came close. Not that I think thats a problem really, just that I don't think anyone will actually reach even 1400.

As far as catagories, I definitely like OBP replacing AVG, just to finally see walks have meaning. Nothing worse then watching your guy go up to bat and walk. Its good for HIS team, but does nothing for you... Not sure where I'd stand on SLG/HR. In principle I like SLG, since just like walks it would bring some meaning to 2B and 3B. With just HR, an infield single equals a gap-blasting triple. But StlCards brings up a good point in 25, as ratio catagories are hard to track. I don't think having both is an option either, as that seriously destroys the value of speedy-leadoff types. Juan Pierre's 1 HR and .373 SLG turn him into a goat pretty quickly if both are catagories. If the scoring was expanded to 6x6 then maybe both could be included.

I'd be very interested in getting into one more quality guru roto league, especially one that isn't a keeper league. I especially like the 'rationale posting' for each pick. Should make for some good conversation.
Credential-wise I did pretty average last year in GB20, but won it all in WPFB and finished respectable in TSN Ultimate. I should be pretty fair competition if you'll have me.
 
41wiggs
      Donor
      ID: 4991311
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 20:19 		i would love to get in too. Sounds like a great league.
 
42Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 217351118
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 21:59 		KKB 39
Agree with all.
 
43Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 23:28 		An alternative to slugging pct would be to count total bases. Simplifies anaylsis, but still gives partial credit for triples and doubles.

We'll have to see what options Yahoo offers.
 
44blue hen
      ID: 4300290
      Sun, Feb 01, 2004, 04:00 		I'm sure they offer total bases and I LOVE that idea.
 
45Rogue Nine
      Leader
      ID: 2624472
      Sun, Feb 01, 2004, 08:39 		Agreed, and Yahoo does have TB as a catagory. So Runs, RBI's, SB's, TB's and OBP. Looks solid.

The nice thing about Yahoo is that it will let you search players by the catagories your league uses. So if you have TB's, before the draft starts the FA list will have all the players sortable by runs, rbi's, TB's, etc. So nobody will have to look to far to find TB data. At least that was the way it was last year...
 
46khahan
      ID: 313111819
      Sun, Feb 01, 2004, 09:11 		Total bases (I assume instead of HR), seems like a pretty good compromise here. Will be very interesting to see a league with some of the base scoring categories changed up.
 
47Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 217351118
      Sun, Feb 01, 2004, 09:44 		Not sure what I think of the Total Bases idea as a measure of power stats. I'd have to look further into this, as it changes the value of a number of traditionally high draft picks. Sosa and Bonds fail to make the top 25, falling behind the likes of Jay Payton and Dmitri Young.
MLB Top 25 HR     MLB Top 25 Slugging     MLB Top 25 Total Bases  
J. Thome, Phi 47   B. Bonds, SF 0.749   A. Pujols, StL 394
A. Rodriguez, Tex 47   A. Pujols, StL 0.667   V. Wells, Tor 373
B. Bonds, SF 45   T. Helton, Col 0.63   T. Helton, Col 367
R. Sexson, Mil 45   J. Edmonds, StL 0.617   A. Rodriguez, Tex 364
J. Lopez, Atl 43   G. Sheffield, Atl 0.604   A. Soriano, NYY 358
A. Pujols, StL 43   A. Rodriguez, Tex 0.6   A. Huff, TB 353
F. Thomas, CWS 42   C. Delgado, Tor 0.593   G. Sheffield, Atl 348
C. Delgado, Tor 42   D. Ortiz, Bos 0.592   G. Anderson, Ana 345
J. Giambi, NYY 41   M. Ramirez, Bos 0.587   N. Garciaparra, Bos 345
S. Sosa 40   T. Nixon, Bos 0.578   C. Delgado, Tor 338
G. Sheffield, Atl 39   J. Thome, Phi 0.573   M. Ramirez, Bos 334
J. Bagwell, Hou 39   R. Hidalgo, Hou 0.572   B. Boone, Sea 333
J. Edmonds, StL 39   J. Guillen, Oak/Cin 0.569   R. Sexson, Mil 332
R. Palmeiro, Tex 38   F. Thomas, CWS 0.562   J. Thome, Phi 331
A. Soriano, NYY 38   A. Huff, TB 0.555   M. Ordonez, CWS 331
M. Ramirez, Bos 37   S. Sosa, ChC 0.553   P. Wilson, Col 322
A. Jones, Atl 36   V. Wells, Tor 0.55   J. Bagwell, Hou 317
P. Wilson, Col 36   R. Sexson, Mil 0.548   J. Lopez, Atl 314
B. Boone, Sea 35   M. Ordonez, CWS 0.546   C. Lee, CWS 311
A. Huff, TB 34   G. Anderson, Ana 0.541   L. Gonzalez, Ari 308
V. Wells, Tor 33   G. Jenkins, Mil 0.538   J. Payton, Col 307
M. Lowell, Fla 32   D. Young, Det 0.537   A. Jones, Atl 305
R. Sanders, Pit 31   P. Wilson, Col 0.537   D. Young, Det 302
J. Burnitz, LA/NYM 31   B. Boone, Sea 0.535   E. Chavez, Oak 302
 
48khahan
      ID: 313111819
      Sun, Feb 01, 2004, 09:58 		changes the value of a number of traditionally high draft picks.
Well, any change to the traditional 5x5 stats has some kind of effect on high draft picks, even going from BA to OBP.
Looking at your chart I see that some of these changes are more drastic than most would think, but a league with 'changes' isn't so bad. I'd look forward to a different game.
 
49Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 217351118
      Sun, Feb 01, 2004, 10:06 		Yeah, I guess it's a matter of taste. Looking at this small sample, I think I like slugging best. I'd have to look at a much larger model to decide for sure.
 
50Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Feb 01, 2004, 13:42 		A better power alternative might even be "total extra bases", but I doubt if that is available. Essentially, it would be defined as total bases minus total hits.

Bonds, of course, is hurt by his high number of walks. But then, that helps him a lot in OBP.

 
51Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Sun, Feb 01, 2004, 14:21 		I don't remember Yahoo having a games started limit for pitchers but could be I've just never been in a league that used it. Got to have a max innings as it adds a great deal of strategy--esp. important when an owner has no closers and kicks that cat and loads up on W/K and even WHIP at times. I'm also not a fan of slugging % but I absolutely love OBP. A guy that draws a walk regularly can be huge--esp when he can steal a base and score a run too. I never knew how much diff. OBP was until we used that in our 20 team league. Also can take away the power hitters that can't get on base or reward the guys like say Piazza who can.
 
52blue hen
      ID: 331038201
      Sun, Feb 01, 2004, 17:22 		Bonds also had too few plate appearances. He even falls short of Pujols in RC.
 
53 Caper
      Donor
      ID: 1535108
      Mon, Feb 02, 2004, 08:14 		I would be interested in joining this league, if a slot were available.
 
54Ref
      Donor
      ID: 539581218
      Mon, Feb 02, 2004, 11:30 		I like having the OF rather than a specific OF position if I were voting.
 
55Chuck
      Donor
      ID: 169212110
      Mon, Feb 02, 2004, 12:11 		LF/CF/RF would add a bit of a twist to the game for sure. I have a personal preference of just "OF", but I see where having left/center/right would give a distinct advantage to those who are willing to do the research. If you are going for "reality" here, that might be the path to go. It would certainly make some people work through their draft sheets for sure.
 
56Species
      Leader
      ID: 7724916
      Mon, Feb 02, 2004, 14:45 		I wholeheartedly support KKB's suggestion in post 39. LOVE it.

The Hasek example was a good one, but Guru can remember in our first Keeper League year (that *I* won! ;-) I had to draft last......but Ichiro was a "rookie" that year and not in the draft database, so I purposely held off drafting my 2nd good OF knowing I'd have Ichiro off of waivers.

LF/CF/RF is okay, as long as Yahoo can sort by that and we can see position eligibility before the draft. The only "problem" there is making up lost games if you have a short bench of 4 like has seemed to have been proposed.

I'm more into HR and OBP myself. I don't like how Total Bases skews things.
 
57ProudestMonkey
      ID: 39136219
      Mon, Feb 02, 2004, 21:07 		Major factors considered will be GuruPatron status, demonstrated expertise in some form of fantasy baseball, and forum activity.

I'd love to throw my name into the ring:
-I'm a donor, but I'm on my wife's computer right now.
-Can't prove baseball experience, but I've played the TSN game for ~3-4 years and I joined a competitive 4x4 roto league last season. I can provide a reference from the commissioner if that would help!
-I've mostly been a lurker around here, but I've been following the boards for 3+ years. I'd post regularly as part of the league.
 
58smartone @work
      Donor
      ID: 29452720
      Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 15:16 		Total Bases is a great idea

Would love to join the league ... I'm working on a pretty heavy applications for a roto-baseball league (I have developed a similar one during this year's Guru-qualifier Hoops and it seems to help a lot) and it would be a great place to test its effectiveness
 
59Slackjawed Yokel
      Sustainer
      ID: 52347519
      Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 22:24 		it hasn't gotten you to the top yet, smartone ;-)

and I'd also like to be considered, guru
 
60smartone @work
      Donor
      ID: 29452720
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 11:01 		Slackjawed Yokel, your previous post was just in time... ;-)

 
61Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 12:35 		I've been working on the list of invitees. I've now got it down to a "short list" of only 52 names. Ugh...

Obviously, a lot of good candidates will not get invited. Please don't take it personally!

I'm sure that all invitees will be GuruPatrons. (All of those on my short list so far are, so that seems like an easily satisfied criteria.) In addition, I would like to have some international representation. If you are a GuruPatron who lives outside the U.S. and you are interested, please speak up now. I already have several possible international candidates identified, but I may have overlooked someone obvious - or not realized a foreign connection for someone.
 
62Chuck
      Donor
      ID: 169212110
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 13:18 		Uhh... I live in Northern Minnesota. We're practically our own country up here... :-)
 
63Toral
      Sustainer
      ID: 2111201313
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 15:03 		Je vis en dehors des Etats-Unis. Loin, loin parti, dans une nation appelée le "Canada". Nous parlons même une langue étrangère !

Toral
 
64deepsnapper
      ID: 2110582311
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 15:14 		If it comes down to BA vs OBP category, I prefer the former. THey don't award the triple crown for OBP. ;)

Sandbox uses game limits on pitchers, but I don't recall it in Yahoo.

Baseball feva anyone?
 
65blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 710321114
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 16:20 		Two leaguemates from West Hartford, Connecticut? Hmm...
 
66R9
      Leader
      ID: 2624472
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 16:33 		Canadian here as well. Just for the record though, we're not all transaction freaks like Toral. ;)
 
67ProudestMonkey
      ID: 4310361717
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 18:14 		I'm moving to Belgium at the end of this month. I'll be living there for 6-12 months and then I'll live in Germany for another 6 months.
 
68Caper
      Donor
      ID: 1535108
      Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:44 		I am Canadian as well
 
69Caper
      Donor
      ID: 1535108
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 08:24 		For the record, I would love to play if there is a spot. If there isn't, no problem. I certainly take more from this site than I give.
 
70Toral
      Sustainer
      ID: 2111201313
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 12:58 		You know, with 52 names, you could have 3 14-team leagues (assuming 10 or so don't accept the invite): Guru RIBC Majors, Guru RIBC AAA, and Guru RIBC AA, all drafting at the same time with explanations, with the bottom two or three Majors teams being "relegated" to Guru AAA next year, and replaced by the top 2 or 3 teams from there. A way to assuage the hurt feelings of those who don't make the first cut ;) (Or maybe not.)

Toral
 
71wiggs
      Donor
      ID: 4991311
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 13:04 		great idea toral.
 
72Tree
      Donor
      ID: 599393013
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 13:05 		Toral - i've always thought an idea of relegation in a long-term fantasy league would be cool. obviously, a keeper-style league wouldn't work with that many teams, but dang, that rocks.
 
73Farn
      Sustainer
      ID: 451044109
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 13:05 		re #70.

We have that going for hoops. Just one extra league but its going fine right now.
 
74GolfFreak
      Sustainer
      ID: 1730209
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 13:07 		Sounds sweet.
 
75 wiggs
      Donor
      ID: 4991311
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 13:17 		Guru, if you are going to do torals idea, I would be willing to head up one of the league. Just let me know.
 
76wiggs
      Donor
      ID: 4991311
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 13:24 		farn 73

actually dont we have 2 other leagues for hoops? You and I arent in the same league are we?
 
77smartone @work
      Donor
      ID: 29452720
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 14:21 		yep, there are the Farn Qualifiers League and the Stuck Qualifiers League though I am not sure if it was "officialy" determined how many teams will qualify to next year's RIHC from each division.
 
78Farn
      Sustainer
      ID: 451044109
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 14:22 		it was never official. Guru runs the main league. Our leagues were just set up at as a way to get everyone involved and if Guru thinks somebody is worthy from one of our leagues he is welcome to take them for next year.
 
79Mike D
      Sustainer
      ID: 41831612
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 16:06 		smartone, nice links. Damn I had a nice draft. Why'd I trade all those guys?
 
80JeffG
      Sustainer
      ID: 1584348
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 17:17 		Just throwing in my 2 cents based on my Yahoo experience since I have been in Yahoo ROTO baseball leagues with collegues the last 4 years, and am set to play with them again this year - not that I was one of the 50 names anyway ;)

- My league does OBP and SLG instead of AVG but this gives us 6 offensive categories. Can't give up homers! SLG took care of our debate about using total bases as a stat. These categories give you another reason to stay up and root for walks and extra base hits at 1 AM with the Satelite dish. 6x5 does not skew things to much towards the good hitting teams.

- Yahoo has the 'commish' set an inning limit for pitchers, but you get all the stats for the day you cross the inning threshold. The last 2 years, I held one inning back while all my opponents crossed the threshold mid-September, then wait for a good day, and fill my team with everybody availible who is starting that day filling all of my active pitcher spots. You can get 50 extra innings out of this strategy, good for a few extra wins and lots of K's which can make the difference, I actually moved from 4th to 2nd overall on the two seaons ago doing this. Informed all of my competitors about it last year. We have a real low inning limit (1200), this year I am proposing that being raised higher to lessen the benefits this loophole and to force teams to use a larger group of starters. With a low limit, you can sit your starters against poor match ups, or to give your stud a few more of the innings your team has to use. If the innings total is low, closers give you better WHIP and ERA and burn less innings, while you can be selective with when to start your starters. Another argument that a higher innings threshold puts more relevence to your entire pitching staff.

- When a player is not listed on Yahoo!, it is a first-come-first-serve as to who picks that player up when Yahoo decides to add them. It benefits the guy who can get on the comp at 7AM eastern time. Many I know have emailed Yahoo! asking that it be changed to a waiver priority, hope they do.

- I would almost like to see the catcher position abolished, but would suggest considering having a lower games limit on that position if only we had the ability to limit games by position. There is little incentive to put your second catcher in on days your #1 catcher is off since your backup catcher can drain your average categories. Again, just adds to the strategy of the draft and maintaining a team.

- We have never used the LF CF RF approach, but it sounds more challenging, especially with a large league like you guys are going to have.

- You need a mix of counting stats and ratio stats (as Guru put it) and more of the counting than the ratio. Otherwise someone with good early ratio categories plays too conservative with starts which kind of defeats the simulation of a season.

Can't think of any other Yahoo quirks. Just be sure you draft early and in the forum, because these have always been big helps to me seeing how others approach the process when I am prepping for my draft. Of course, if my office league ever falls through, this forum would be the first place I looked for another one.
 
81 Matt S
      ID: 34945140
      Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 22:52 		Hey all. I'd be interested in taking part as well. I like the deep leagues, and some of the category changes would be interesting as well. The promotion/relegation idea sounds pretty cool. Maybe the top and bottom 3 or 4 teams move?

I'm currently living in New Zealand and will be travelling through Thailand for much of April and May before returning to Canada in June. I'm sure I'll still be able to keep half an eye on my team while away though. Internet cafes-a-plenty everywhere you go now.

Let me know...
Matt S
 
82KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 7121616
      Sun, Feb 08, 2004, 23:46 		Just wanted to raise my hand as being interested in the league in case I wasn't on the short list.
 
83Peter N.
      ID: 51122220
      Thu, Feb 12, 2004, 19:43 		I don't like the idea of replacing SLG% or HRs with Total Bases. Between HR and SLG%, I lean more towards SLG%(gives value to doubles and triples). I also like OBP over BA.(gives value to walks).

As far as inning maximums and minimums, I'd say 1400IP would be more than enough. I'd even suggest something closer to 1350IP. I also believe there needs to be a minimum IP number.

With regard to starting pitchers and closers, I don't believe there needs to be designation between SPs and RPs. However, I do think having to draft a LF, CF, and a RF instead of just 3 OFs would add an interesting wrinkle of strategy.

Just a few thoughts......
 
84 Stamati
      ID: 42012716
      Thu, Feb 12, 2004, 20:43 		I'm also interested...I've been in fantasy sports for 5 years now (including basketball, 1 year in hockey and baseball), and have played in 4 winners league...Baseball is my forte, so i'm really hoping i get an invitation from the best of the best and a chance to compete and see where i stand. It would really be an honor to receive a formal email inviting me to such a league; i've been waiting for so long...oh joy!!
 
85Peter N.
      Donor
      ID: 257161713
      Thu, Feb 12, 2004, 21:00 		Forgot to mention. In regard to post 19, I don't think that is too deep at all. I like it. I also think 9 pitcher slots and a 4 deep bench would work well.
 
86 Stamati
      ID: 42012716
      Thu, Feb 12, 2004, 21:16 		OH international....3 to 4 months a year i live in symi a small Greek island in the aegean....that's pretty cool, considering Orioles owner Peter Angelos has created a Baseball Team for the 2004 Olympics to represent Greece...I will definently catch that, but i didn't know this was a criteria people...
 
87smartone
      Donor
      ID: 29452720
      Fri, Feb 20, 2004, 18:16 		what do you guys think of using less traditional categories such as Net Wins (W-L); Net SB (SB-CS) and Net Saves (Sv-BS)? Moreover (or, alternatively), why not to make it a 6x6 league by adding a Loss category and a power hitting category?

This will require more work in the draft preparations, as most cheetsheets are geared towards the traditional 5x5 leagues.
 
88Baldwin
      ID: 560191911
      Fri, Feb 20, 2004, 22:42 		I would love to participate.

Ask the old timers in the Political Guru Yahoo League if I am a strong manager.