Quincy Varnish wrote: ↑01 Aug 2024 08:06 am
Cool Papa Con wrote: ↑01 Aug 2024 07:35 am
I’m against it.
I’ve been actively divesting my Pitching Staff of Starting Pitchers to mitigate the Innings limit since the start of July and have kept lesser players to be the back up Catcher, simply because they offered role flexibility.
I do think 5 Bench Spots and 4 IL is the sweet spot. Same with the positions, with one difference maybe converting two ‘P’ to designated ‘RP’
Agree about the RP slots, but maybe we’d do 2 RP & 4 P… would bump total pitching spots to 11, same as current offense.
For next year…
Maybe up the IP number to 1600. I kind of enjoyed the aspect of having more SP going during the week, but got so far ahead w/Innings that I dedicated 5 Roles to Relief Pitching before the Start of August.
The innings limit is already 150 IP higher than the default, and probably too high when we have quite a few well below it. The average ML team comes in a tick below 1450 every year.
You were rostering too many SPs.
Finally, I would suggest dropping the $300 budget to $200. 10 members of the league haven’t spent 1/2 their allotment, and the two that would have surpassed the amount were the two who likely understood the system the best early on.
I think we had a few people that didn’t quite have a handle on how the FAB system worked from the beginning. Next time around… I suppose it could be lowered, but I don’t see the point.
I’ll admit to losing out on a lot of guys early on because I didn’t understand the long game for the dollar amount and have been slow to react to the FA cost. That said, I’ve made the 5th most moves and (obviously some from trades) and have only spent $60. That’s a whole lot of others who either had a similar experience as to me, where they didn’t understand the system or were slow to adapt.
Yep… we didn’t have much runway heading into the season, and I could have done a better job getting everyone up to speed.
Reducing the Budget will likely make for a more fair system across the board because the Waiver will play a larger role with bids being tighter, and not so spread out where you see bids of $15 beating out other competitive bids if $10, $6, $5, $4, $2, $1
Not sure it would make it more “fair” so much as it would make it more of a challenge. The default is $100, and that often gets blown through too early on. Anyway… this is a debate to be had in January, when there’s nothing else to discuss
I agree with some of your points.
I (personally) found the Starting Pitching I was rolling out earlier more enjoyable, because it immersed me more into the season as I followed more games due to the amount of chances one of my Starters might be pitching in a given day. To focus my flex position on the randomness of a Relief outing is kind of boring.
Since there are 15 Teams in the league, I might only see 2 Starters at a max/per day; which meant 5-6 Days of the week had some Starter being rolled out.
I mostly used the 5 SP spots as “in case I forget” type spots, then dedicated two ‘P’ to Relievers for the same reason.
IDK, maybe I allowed myself to be mislead by all the Pitching Slots. In hindsight, 5 Starting Pitcher Slots feels excessive in conjunction w/5 flexible pitching slots. Knowing that I am projected for a surplus of 106 Innings, I don’t know that I understand how many Starters I should have been rolling at any point.
As for the fairness aspect of the bidding, it goes back to the waiver. I had a Top 2 Waiver for months. It only benefited me on an nothingburger July bid for someone that neither I nor the other person felt required putting a $1/300 towards.
In the past and even at the MLB level, to have a Top Waiver came with some certainty you’d get an available player. Looking back at my prior FAB offers, I viewed $3-5 as a big offer w/some high-level certainty I might actually acquire the player. In July, $5 or nothing became the minimum and even then I saw bids of $10 fall short.
With a lower budget allotment, bids of $10 and up are a lot less frequent because they’re more risky w/the percentage being substantially more. This means more bids within the $1-4 range and therefore the Waiver playing a bigger factor in a team actually acquiring a highly sought player.
I also think it encourages more trading, because the reliance to spend budget becomes more conservative while remaining highly competitive and if someone misses out on a particular player, they may seek to trade with the person who won the bid.
Other than that, the Waiver is fairly useless with the wild swings in budgetary spending that saw $3 winning contested bids in April and now $10 bids not in July
