Ben (Rays GM)
General Manager
Commissioner Emeritus
Ben
Posts: 6,470
|
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Apr 8, 2012 13:11:45 GMT -5
During the offseason we decided that it was necessary to have a high IP minimum in order to encourage GMs to field more complete teams. We set it at 25 innings. Last year only a couple teams failed to average 25 innings per week, and these were teams who spent a large part of the season with only one or two starting pitchers, something we don't want to see. As such, I feel it is a good thing to have a high minimum. At the same time, however, it is nearly impossible to win the week if you fail to get 25 innings, since you'd automatically lose all six pitching categories (even the ones you might have won). Unless the other team also fails to reach 25, the best you can hope for is to win all 6 hitting categories and tie. Is this too harsh a punishment for teams that only get, say, 22 innings?
Keep in mind that IP, QS, and Ks are categories, meaning a team not fielding a full rotation already has the disadvantage of probably losing these three categories at least.
I'm not going to vote yet - I'd like to hear some discussion and cases for both possibilities first, so please share your thoughts.
|
|
Ben (Rays GM)
General Manager
Commissioner Emeritus
Ben
Posts: 6,470
|
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Apr 8, 2012 13:13:16 GMT -5
Some discussion that has already occurred on the topic: I think 25 is an appropriate number. There are 5 slots for SPs, if each only starts once and they average just 5 IPs, you've already hit the minimum. If someone gets hurt or has a particularly bad start, it only takes 1 IP for the week for each of your relievers to hit the minimum. If a team is unable to get 25 IP for a week, they probably shouldn't be winning, in the same way that a real team that gets all of its pitchers hit hard and pulled early would never win. Move it to 20 IPs...I understand Jesse's point and it is well taken but a couple of rain outs or a long rain delay where the SP doesn't come back could unintentionally mess up someones week pretty bad... My thoughts: As Jesse said, a team that can't get 25 IP probably shouldn't be winning. But is "probably" the key word? A team that doesn't get 25 IP probably won't win even without a minimum, as they are likely to be down IP, Ks, and QS automatically. But, lowering the minimum also might allow teams to change their strategy: instead of wasting resources on fourth, fifth, and sixth starters, they could target three aces, two closers, and spend the rest on hitting, hoping to win the rest of the categories even if they do lose those three. 25 IP forces teams to have pitching depth, while 20 arguably doesn't do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris (Former Cubs GM) on Apr 8, 2012 13:21:59 GMT -5
I like it at 25...but wouldn't really care if it drops to 20.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Apr 8, 2012 13:31:45 GMT -5
I could go either way but may lean toward twenty. With teams as deep as they are there ar3 not many options to pick up if you get a guy or two on dl and that could be the difference between 20 and 25. The point was to make sure teams fielded enough players to compete and win and 20 does accomplish that without hurting teams that may just miss the 25 mark.
|
|
Ben (Rays GM)
General Manager
Commissioner Emeritus
Ben
Posts: 6,470
|
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Apr 8, 2012 13:34:19 GMT -5
If we leave it at 25 and teams are failing to make it, maybe they'll start spending money on one-year deals in free agency to fill their holes. There are teams that have plenty of cap room and plenty of holes, and I just don't understand why these teams aren't filling those holes. They have nothing to lose - you don't save the money by not using it. Finding it completely impossible to win without doing so might force those teams into action.
|
|
angels
Prospect
GM Savvy
Posts: 787
|
Post by angels on Apr 8, 2012 14:18:57 GMT -5
Do we need a minimum. =(
|
|
|
|
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Apr 8, 2012 22:32:55 GMT -5
If we leave it at 25 and teams are failing to make it, maybe they'll start spending money on one-year deals in free agency to fill their holes. There are teams that have plenty of cap room and plenty of holes, and I just don't understand why these teams aren't filling those holes. They have nothing to lose - you don't save the money by not using it. Finding it completely impossible to win without doing so might force those teams into action. Then are we discussing a MLB roster minimum? The Yahoo! minimum IP is one way of addressing that but what about the hitting side of it? Teams that lack a position player(s) don't face any sanction...perhaps Mark's suggestion about no minimums is the way to go... |
|
Ben (Rays GM)
General Manager
Commissioner Emeritus
Ben
Posts: 6,470
|
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Apr 9, 2012 6:37:08 GMT -5
A roster minimum could be something we discuss in the future but seems too drastic to implement right now. For now, 20 IP or 25 IP are the only options, no minimum is not an option.
Why Yahoo doesn't offer an ABs minimum I do not know.
|
|
Ben (Rays GM)
General Manager
Commissioner Emeritus
Ben
Posts: 6,470
|
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Apr 15, 2012 17:16:11 GMT -5
We'll lower it to 20, starting next week. A near-guaranteed loss just seems to harsh for the teams that get between 20 and 25 innings, still a decent total. Chances are those teams won't win anyway due to QS, Ks, and IPs being categories (for what it's worth, on the poll above I voted for 25. If changing votes were allowed, I'd change mine and this poll would be 10-7 in favor of 20 innings, but unfortunately I forgot to check that box).
|
|
Ben (Rays GM)
General Manager
Commissioner Emeritus
Ben
Posts: 6,470
|
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Apr 15, 2012 20:19:48 GMT -5
Perhaps next year we'll bring it up to 25... work our way up to that. So people have a little time to develop/acquire the pitching they need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Apr 15, 2012 23:10:10 GMT -5
I like that idea.
|
|
