|
Post by Philadelphia Phillies (Paul) on May 21, 2018 21:04:10 GMT -8
I suggest eliminating the relief appearance minimum. Secondarily, a reduction to 6 appearances.
As most of us know already, not fielding a full (or almost full) 6 relievers tends to hurt in several categories. Only in rare instances would this be a benefit to a team.
I bring this suggestion because I had 3 active, healthy relievers last week combine for 4 appearances. While most of us - myself included - believe 2-3 appearances a week is common/safe for most quality relievers, this is not always the case. My 3 that combined for 4 appearances were Brad Peacock, Hector Rondon, and Dan Winkler. While none may inspire a flurry of trade interest, all are solid-good relievers that can provide good ratios, Ks, and the occasional wins and/or holds, and are generally well-regarded by their respective teams.
For full context, I had a fourth reliever appear 3 times making 7 total appearances. I did not have 2 other relievers, instead, I had 2 RP-eligible starters. Given the lack of Peacock/Rondon/Winkler's usage last week, it's conceivable that a full slate of 6 relievers might still have shorted me from the 10-appearance minimum.
In general, I think the flexibility of dual-eligible pitchers is an advantage that can be used per matchup. But the RP minimum mitigates that advantage, making it negligible in my case, last week. I am also using one of my active SP slots to try and hold onto a Rule 5 draftee - once 13 matchups are complete, which varies based on matchups, he'll be relegated to my bench. My dual-eligible starters are integral to remaining competitive while attempting to retain Rule 5 rights, again, allowing for weekly flexibility.
In summary, I think the RP minimum does more harm than good regarding overall strategy/approach on a week-to-week basis.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on May 22, 2018 8:00:07 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I disagree. If it needed to be reduced, I could understand seeing it reduced to 9 appearances. But overall I don't see the urgency in it, and in the real world, for example, let's take the Huston Astros who, in my opinion, has the best Starting Rotation (i think most of baseball agrees with that) and, although I didn't check, who's starters probably go the deepest in games (thus limiting Relief appearances more than other teams). In the last 7 Days, the Astros bullpen had 14 Relief appearances. Now they did have 8 RP in the pen, not 6 Like us, so if we remove they're 2 less performing RP from those numbers (Sipp and Smith) and the Astros had 11 Relief appearances. And for perspective, Verlander pitched 9 innings, Morton and McCullers pitched 7 and Cole and Keuchel pitched 5. So as a Unit, the Astro's rotation in the past 7 days averaged 7 innings per start, 1 more than needed for a QS.
Now as for dual eligibility being an advantage.....I also disagree. MLB rotations typically have 5SP......not 6 or 7. The only week I missed my bullpen scoring requirements was when one of my RP got injured and I was being greedy by having a guy who was Starting games sitting in my bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on May 22, 2018 11:15:13 GMT -8
Wouldn’t it be easier to just have a minimum innings limit instead a starts/relief appearances? This would allow us to plan without being concerned whether a pitcher had SP or RP eligibility. For the past several weeks, one of my starters (Buehler) has forced me to play short one reliever just so I could hit my 4 starts. Even though everyone knows Buehler is a SP, he only had RP until this week. Now, tonight I begin the same process with Stewart. If we just had 9 P slots, it would be easier to fill the spots. If the Dodgers can start these guys, then I should be able to.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Phillies (Paul) on May 22, 2018 21:42:17 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I disagree. If it needed to be reduced, I could understand seeing it reduced to 9 appearances. But overall I don't see the urgency in it, and in the real world, for example, let's take the Huston Astros who, in my opinion, has the best Starting Rotation (i think most of baseball agrees with that) and, although I didn't check, who's starters probably go the deepest in games (thus limiting Relief appearances more than other teams). In the last 7 Days, the Astros bullpen had 14 Relief appearances. Now they did have 8 RP in the pen, not 6 Like us, so if we remove they're 2 less performing RP from those numbers (Sipp and Smith) and the Astros had 11 Relief appearances. And for perspective, Verlander pitched 9 innings, Morton and McCullers pitched 7 and Cole and Keuchel pitched 5. So as a Unit, the Astro's rotation in the past 7 days averaged 7 innings per start, 1 more than needed for a QS. Now as for dual eligibility being an advantage.....I also disagree. MLB rotations typically have 5SP......not 6 or 7. The only week I missed my bullpen scoring requirements was when one of my RP got injured and I was being greedy by having a guy who was Starting games sitting in my bullpen. I get why used the real-life Astros as a comp. Our situation differs in that our rotation usage and bullpen usage are independent of each other - unless someone owns 5 starters from the same team plus 6 relievers from that very same team. While we try to mimic MLB rules, MLB teams don't operate under any usage rules, making our player usage rules - I think - incomparable to MLB teams' player usage, hence why I hope we re-evaluate the RP minimum to find a happy medium that allows us to still promote competition on as level a playing field as possible. In my original post, I gave my team's example to illustrate that even good bullpen arms aren't guaranteed x amount of appearances in a week depending on how their team does. To use your example, I would need to own 6 (or even 4) Astros relievers, then I would have a shot at meeting 9 or 10 appearances consistently. Just some food for thought. I'm not gonna lose sleep if next season I still have to meet 10 RP appearances - it's just another obstacle to overcome in a league that already has many variables. But, yes, I would prefer eliminating (or reducing) the RP minimum.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on May 23, 2018 8:26:25 GMT -8
Unfortunately, I disagree. If it needed to be reduced, I could understand seeing it reduced to 9 appearances. But overall I don't see the urgency in it, and in the real world, for example, let's take the Huston Astros who, in my opinion, has the best Starting Rotation (i think most of baseball agrees with that) and, although I didn't check, who's starters probably go the deepest in games (thus limiting Relief appearances more than other teams). In the last 7 Days, the Astros bullpen had 14 Relief appearances. Now they did have 8 RP in the pen, not 6 Like us, so if we remove they're 2 less performing RP from those numbers (Sipp and Smith) and the Astros had 11 Relief appearances. And for perspective, Verlander pitched 9 innings, Morton and McCullers pitched 7 and Cole and Keuchel pitched 5. So as a Unit, the Astro's rotation in the past 7 days averaged 7 innings per start, 1 more than needed for a QS. Now as for dual eligibility being an advantage.....I also disagree. MLB rotations typically have 5SP......not 6 or 7. The only week I missed my bullpen scoring requirements was when one of my RP got injured and I was being greedy by having a guy who was Starting games sitting in my bullpen. I get why used the real-life Astros as a comp. Our situation differs in that our rotation usage and bullpen usage are independent of each other - unless someone owns 5 starters from the same team plus 6 relievers from that very same team. While we try to mimic MLB rules, MLB teams don't operate under any usage rules, making our player usage rules - I think - incomparable to MLB teams' player usage, hence why I hope we re-evaluate the RP minimum to find a happy medium that allows us to still promote competition on as level a playing field as possible. In my original post, I gave my team's example to illustrate that even good bullpen arms aren't guaranteed x amount of appearances in a week depending on how their team does. To use your example, I would need to own 6 (or even 4) Astros relievers, then I would have a shot at meeting 9 or 10 appearances consistently. Just some food for thought. I'm not gonna lose sleep if next season I still have to meet 10 RP appearances - it's just another obstacle to overcome in a league that already has many variables. But, yes, I would prefer eliminating (or reducing) the RP minimum. "Our situation differs in that our rotation usage and bullpen usage are independent of each other" - Agree "While we try to mimic MLB rules, MLB teams don't operate under any usage rules" - Agree in a sense, our rules should imitate the current state of the game being played right now. Hence why the league is called "Juiced Ball League" because right now the game of baseball is being played in a High HomeRun / High Strikeout era. "making our player usage rules - I think - incomparable to MLB teams' player usage" - I can see why you may think that. But, respectfully, let's look at some numbers of some MLB teams. The Following are the number of Relief appearances made by each MLB Team's best 6 RP in the past 7 Days (best as in I'm using the fantasy overall score calculated by JBL's tracked stats, which could be argued as the wrong way to evaluate players, but that's a different discussion entirely) ARI - 17 ATL - 14 BAL - 18 BOS - 13 (Who only used 6 RP) CHC - 15 CHW - 16 CIN - 14 CLE - 10 COL - 13 DET - 18 HOU - 10 KC - 13 LAA - 14 LAD - 19 MIA - 16 MIL - 16 MIN - 16 NYM - 16 NYY - 11 OAK - 15 PHI - 18 PIT - 14 SD - 15 SFG - 16 SEA - 16 STL - 14 TB - 11 TEX - 12 TOR - 15 WAS - 11 So I never like math, but I believe the average of those numbers is 14.5 relief appearances per team. Now full disclosure, if a pitcher started a game in those 7 days they were disqualified from the above numbers. So let's get some context, The MLB has 30 Teams.....JBL has 24. The vast majority of MLB teams have a bullpen larger than 6 pitchers, so there are more guys competing for appearances. Yet they're top 6 still made 10 or more. Now I understand that maybe if an MLB team decides to convert one of your RP into an SP or ask them to make a spot start, that could make things difficult..... in which case I can see the requirement reduced to 9. But 10 or 9 seems perfectly reasonable in the light of a 14.5 average.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Phillies (Paul) on May 23, 2018 19:42:32 GMT -8
I love the use of numbers to back your argument, Matt.
I never disputed MLB teams would have trouble using their best-6 relievers 9+ times a week. My point about the rotation and bullpen usage being independent of each other was meant to also include - through relativity - that any single team's rotation or any single team's bullpen isn't comparable to any JBL team's rotation or bullpen. I tried - not very well, it seems - to make that point later when I mentioned that I used my team as an example of good relievers not getting guaranteed appearances by naming 4 guys from 3 different teams.
What I'm trying to say is that because we own players from various teams, our JBL teams' bullpen usage isn't easily compared to any given MLB team's bullpen usage due to the simple fact that we have a collection of players from various teams - making our fantasy bullpen usage a more highly volatile number than MLB team bullpen usage. This same point applies to virtually every other aspect of a fantasy team - meaning, an entire fantasy team lineup can't be fairly compared to any MLB team lineup, or rotation for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on May 24, 2018 4:34:38 GMT -8
No no, I hear ya. My counterpoint is just that if your drawing guys from a league (MLB) with more teams, and those teams average 14.5 appearances a week, and not one of them consistently makes less than 10 appearances.......Is 10 relief appearances that unreasonable of a number as a minimum? ....... my opinion is no. But my opinion is also that 9 is also a reasonable number as well.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Phillies (Paul) on May 24, 2018 6:06:55 GMT -8
I'm not sure I'd call it unreasonable either. I think of it more as a nuisance.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I also don't want to lose sight of a typical MLB team's 8-man bullpen only consisting of 3-4 high leverage relievers. High leverage guys are the only desirable fantasy relievers - rarely do we want the mop-up guy, long man, or LOOGY. So, using the high side number of 4 high-leverage, here's what I'm looking at:
120 desirable RPs for our 24 teams = per team average of 5
Throw in a random, non-desirable guy that may see 3 appearances or 0 appearances in a given week, we have our 6 active RP slots. This guy's a wildcard, though, so I won't use him for calculations.
Over the course of a 162-game season, 60 appearances is roughly average for a desirable RP - over 26 weeks that averages out to about 2.3 appearances per week for desirable RPs. That makes 11.5 average appearances per week.
I'm not a statistician, so I couldn't realistically tell you the appropriate margin of error for this type of calculation. However, if we're talking about 5 guys, I think it's more than reasonable to use 5 appearances for those collective 5 RPs as a margin of error. The low side would put us right at 6.5 appearances.
If we go ahead and throw in a .5 appearance for the 6th guy, let's call it 7 appearances on the low side of any given week.
All of this assumes we have 6 healthy RP to slot in. And since we can't simply drop guys, coupled with the fact that we must outbid others for the services of a player, "picking up a guy" probably shouldn't be as non-chalantly thrown around as it can be in non-contract leagues - making it more troublesome for those in a roster/salary crunch to replace injured relievers if they only have 7 or 8 on their 40-man. Not to mention the risk of one's lower-tier relievers being sent down since relievers get shuttled back and forth to the minors more often than utility bats.
In the end, I think 6 is the most reasonable minimum expectation - not that 9 or 10 is unreasonable, just not as reasonable as 6.
My preference is still to eliminate the RP minimum. Any team that only chooses to carry 1 or 2 elite relievers risks losing out on 2 aggregate pitching categories while only marginally helping the ratio cats. And if that same team happens to fill the other RP slots with RP-eligible starters, they're now risking ratios for a shot at improving in QS. I feel like it's a self-managing item, as far as RP usage is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on May 24, 2018 7:19:23 GMT -8
I guess that's were we differs, I love the depth of our league, and by that note, the depth of our rotations.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jun 8, 2018 8:04:26 GMT -8
After seeing several teams be harmed by this rule, and in my own self-interest to reduce the number of things the commissioner needs to check in on during a week, I am in agreement with Paul's proposal to completely eliminate the RP appearances minimum. I do not believe that this opens up the door for any scoring advantage through fielding a less-than-full lineup, as today's relievers typically boast stronger ratio-based stats than starting pitchers.
I'd like to do this effective next scoring period in order to prevent any further teams losing category wins due to injury or unpredictable usage patterns. I don't typically like to make mid-season rule changes, but think this is a pretty necessary one.
Please let me know if you have any major objections to this proposal due to consequences that I have so far failed to consider.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 9:00:37 GMT -8
Considering we are required to start 5 RP on rosters anyway, this rule changes works.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Jun 8, 2018 18:27:25 GMT -8
Lol other than the fact I singed RP to contracts based on needing depth to follow the rules. And that this pretty much eliminates any chance of me competing because I based my strategy on having a good RP core which is now useless against someone who can role out "RPs" who are actually starting games. And the obvious reason's I already stated in this thread......and the fact that this league will instantly loose half its appeal to me and I will then ask myself the question "Why am I here".........then no...no problems at all. (Yes large amounts of sarcasm intended)
And in my humble opinion....that's a pretty large change to make mid season.
And right during a draft that I put a lot of work into for this league that at this point.....probably wouldn't matter much to me anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 19:37:12 GMT -8
I have no skin in the game vis-a-vis RP atm (and I've had a couple of guys hurt there too) but I agree with the principle of the above in not changing a minimums rule when people have planned for it in a cap league and think that's one instance where you'd need a unanimous or near-unanimous vote to do a midseason change. Personally I think you should just add the injury forgiveness codicil the way it was added for SP and be done with it till the offseason.
That said I differ in it being a big deal in terms of actual gameplay cause I just don't see where it's A) particularly advantageous to having a bunch of RP that can start games or B) how you can even plan for that when it applies to only a small percentage of pitchers in a given year. For A, you not only have more volume RP categories (SV/HLD compared to QS for starters) but IMO it's easier to do well in ratios if you have good relievers over bad SP unless you somehow have this dominant stable of starters that will still do well in ratios - and even then you're completely punting two categories if you go with the starters and more SP philosophy. For B, it increases the value of the dual eligibles but again, how many guys in the offseason are you really gonna looking at and saying well I'd rather use mediocre pitcher X who happens to be RP eligible hoping to get a QS as opposed to a reliever who'll help ratios more and be more of a sure bet to get holds or saves?
Of course on the other end though there's the whole tank aspect...it's easier to bag games without a game minimum if you use bad SP/middle relievers to hit roster requirements in RP spot and just sit any quality short relievers you have.
I'm shocked this is actually an issue for multiple teams though. Relievers should be the easiest position to fill, unlike SP and position players (which don't have ratios) you can easily get enough waiver wire guys for six starting RP spots and hit the minimum most weeks barring injury, rainout or fluke lack of usage - and you should get the same injury forgiveness you now get for SP. The only way I could see it being a consistent issue is if you're completely capped out and you had no depth at RP to start with, which IMO is on you. I was pretty well capped out till recently, had injuries and still managed to hit the minimum there so far. And I'm one that got scolded on the importance of depth in SP when I had 6 to start the season, signed two other guys during the season and am down to 3 now in June.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Phillies (Paul) on Jun 8, 2018 23:02:30 GMT -8
While I, selfishly, would welcome the change immediately, I don't think it's fair to the league to implement such a change mid-season. Good owners manage their teams to the settings of each league, and clearly, we have good owners that do this. I feel like this is a setting that is best changed once our season concludes so that we have the entire offseason to make adjustments.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Jun 9, 2018 4:47:50 GMT -8
I agree to Hasan's idea of a vote. And I agree with Paul, me and Paul went back and forth on this and now it sounds like both of us felt we would't have to really deal with this till the off-season.
Having RP eligible pitchers that start games mean that they pitch way more innings than other RP, which means they're ratios especially if they are good (and they tipically don't have the bad RP start games) have a greater positive impact on ERA, K/9, WHIP.
And I would plan for such an event by paying way more for FA's I speculate could start games, And sign them in bulk. Cause they may not start for long. (Ex. Right now under such a rule I would be stiffly competing with you for Blaine Hardy in FA)
But all that being said its not my league
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jun 9, 2018 8:58:58 GMT -8
Thank you guys for the feedback! I must have missed the potential change in roster construction incentives - is the thought that eliminating this relief appearance minimum would place more value in the strategy of slotting RP-ellibile starting pitchers into your RP slots? I'm not sure I'd agree with that but it certainly is far from predictable. I agree that this change shouldn't be made mid-season then, I completely overlooked this dynamic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 9:10:55 GMT -8
If you really want to crunch numbers, so far 20 RP's have made 5+ starts (though one is Sergio Romo so really it's 19) and 69 RP's have had at least one start. Of those however, only 25 RP have turned in at least one quality start, and only 26 have an ERA under 4 ergo being a positive in terms of ratios. Considering those guys are mostly owned and started anyway draw your own conclusions how much it would affect game play, I think it would affect offseason roster construction - re: FA's like Liriano having an exaggerated value in the offseason - more than actual in-season gameplay.
I don't think people that load up on 11-12 SP's because they're RP eligible will gain a special advantage unless they happen to load up on the good ones and don't care about SV/Holds but it just makes it that much harder for everyone else to find enough SP's to hit those minimums when the marginal dual eligible guys invariably will get overvalued.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2018 9:12:58 GMT -8
If we rid of the minimum requirements for relief pitchers, it will dramatically increase the value of starting pitching. With how hard it is to acquire a starting pitcher right now, it would be terribly difficult to acquire quality starting pitching. Relief pitchers are even easier to acquire, which is half of what I do in this league, but I don't think the value influx would be the point of this rule, but it would happen. People who have relievers locked up in the long term would be screwed.
A vote would be good. It's just the value of players would change.
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Indians (Cody) on Jun 9, 2018 9:27:14 GMT -8
Wouldn’t it be easier to just have a minimum innings limit instead a starts/relief appearances? This would allow us to plan without being concerned whether a pitcher had SP or RP eligibility. For the past several weeks, one of my starters (Buehler) has forced me to play short one reliever just so I could hit my 4 starts. Even though everyone knows Buehler is a SP, he only had RP until this week. Now, tonight I begin the same process with Stewart. If we just had 9 P slots, it would be easier to fill the spots. If the Dodgers can start these guys, then I should be able to. I think we need to look at an overall innings limit. I like having SP and RP positions still, so teams can't just go all RP and dominate ratios. But doing this would allow teams that have bad SP or RP injuries to still get thier limit. If that many of your pitchers are hurt and you can't hit a reasonable innings limit then tough luck, you wouldn't be winning anyways. I STRONGLY think that no drastic rule changes that can affect a managers strategy should be made in-season. Teams have invested heavily in SP and/or RP to hit the appearance minimums.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Jun 9, 2018 11:10:18 GMT -8
I just need to know whether the rule is gonna come into efect next scoring period or not cause I need to adjust my roster accordingly
Preferably by Monday morning
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Mariners (Robin) on Jun 9, 2018 11:21:44 GMT -8
The point of using RP eligible pitchers that are actually starting games will only increase your chance of getting more QS and decrease chance of SV and Holds. This offseason I planned on going with all Starting pitchers in my lineup(including the RP spots) and just try and pitch as many innings I could while hoping my ratios would not be affected by one clunker start. Once I realized the RP minimum I had to pivot and change strategy. While I am not opposed to REDUCING appearances from 10 to 8 midseason possibly, I CANT get on board with a midseason change to eliminate the rule completely.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Mariners (Robin) on Jun 9, 2018 11:24:57 GMT -8
Wouldn’t it be easier to just have a minimum innings limit instead a starts/relief appearances? This would allow us to plan without being concerned whether a pitcher had SP or RP eligibility. For the past several weeks, one of my starters (Buehler) has forced me to play short one reliever just so I could hit my 4 starts. Even though everyone knows Buehler is a SP, he only had RP until this week. Now, tonight I begin the same process with Stewart. If we just had 9 P slots, it would be easier to fill the spots. If the Dodgers can start these guys, then I should be able to. I think we need to look at an overall innings limit. I like having SP and RP positions still, so teams can't just go all RP and dominate ratios. But doing this would allow teams that have bad SP or RP injuries to still get thier limit. If that many of your pitchers are hurt and you can't hit a reasonable innings limit then tough luck, you wouldn't be winning anyways. I STRONGLY think that no drastic rule changes that can affect a managers strategy should be made in-season. Teams have invested heavily in SP and/or RP to hit the appearance minimums. im thinking you mean a innings MIN. cody
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jun 9, 2018 16:34:00 GMT -8
I just need to know whether the rule is gonna come into efect next scoring period or not cause I need to adjust my roster accordingly Preferably by Monday morning I will not be changing the rule mid-season due to the feedback
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Indians (Cody) on Jun 10, 2018 3:41:19 GMT -8
Yes I did mean minimum. Thx
|
|