Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Nov 15, 2014 11:04:39 GMT -5
As I mentioned in the contraction discussion, one of the most compelling arguments for me in favor of contraction (which I oppose, overall) has been that it would reduce the need to scrape the bottom of the barrel when filling out rosters. We're stretched as thin as can be when it comes to trying to fill out rosters with starters. There are 5x30=150 starting pitchers at any given time (give or take) in MLB and 8x30=240 +14 DHs = 254 hitters starting on a given day, then teams in our league necessarily have to start non-starters, since we have 9x30=270 starting lineup positions and 6x30=180 starting pitcher positions (if you include P). We expect all teams to be competitive, but for every team that starts a SP in the P position or has one in reserve on the bench, it inevitably takes one away from another team and forces them to start someone who doesn't start regularly.
One way to relieve this strain would be to lessen the number of starting spots. While I don't see a logical way to do that with our lineups (aside from removing Util, which I think would be a bad decision), I think it's very feasible to do with pitching, in the form of reducing the pitching staff to 4 SPs, 4 RPs, and 1 P. This would still be a five-man rotation if you include P, but it would penalize teams less for only being able to find 4 SPs instead of 5, because they would no longer regularly be up against teams with 6 SPs. Not only that, but for what its worth this would also even out the numbers for pitching and hitting, as it would mean 9 hitters in the lineup and 9 active pitchers in the staff (instead of the current configuration of 9 hitters and 11 pitchers, which arguably puts too much emphasis on pitching, especially when typical MLB teams have 13 or 14 hitters and 11 or 12 pitchers on the active roster). But if that's not that important to you, we could also make it 4 SPs, 5 RPs, and 1 P, keeping the bullpens at the current size but still reducing the rotations. Or some other configuration (discuss?)
The main drawback would be that it changes the value of players, and it's always tough to change the rules in the middle of the game. The value of mid-rotation and back-end SPs would decline, and some teams have certainly made strategic decisions to focus on these cheaper players instead of targeting #1 and #2 pitchers. So this couldn't happen until 2016, if at all. Thoughts? Please discuss and vote above.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2014 11:06:41 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Nov 15, 2014 11:11:23 GMT -5
Other options:
Remove the P spot altogether. I'm opposed to this though, I like a little flexibility. Add more P spots (something like 3 SPs, 2 RPs, 4 Ps). I'm even more opposed to this though, I think this much flexibility would incentivize hoarding SPs and actually make the problem a lot worse, increasing the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Nov 15, 2014 11:19:42 GMT -5
I'm against this for 1 reason: many teams have already made transactions and built their rosters around the need to fill the current configuration and maintain a full rotation for multiple seasons to come (especially the teams whose minor leagues are heavy on pitching prospects). It's not fair to teams with pitching heavy systems to devalue their entire long-term strategies. There have been clear examples of how "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to find additional contributors can push a team into contention and we should continue to encourage GMs to do their research and find the next wave of contributors.
I'm against this for 1 reason: many teams have already made transactions and built their rosters around the need to fill the current configuration and maintain a full rotation for multiple seasons to come (especially the teams whose minor leagues are heavy on pitching prospects). It's not fair to teams with pitching heavy systems to devalue their entire long-term strategies. There have been clear examples of how "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to find additional contributors can push a team into contention and we should continue to encourage GMs to do their research and find the next wave of contributors.
I'm with you, which is why I wouldn't be willing to implement this right away. However, given that we continue to have teams unable to field complete pitching staffs, and that most of us would probably agree that keeping everyone competitive is one of the biggest problems, if not the single biggest problem, we face in this league, I think it's worth at least considering the impact that it has on those bottom teams. Perhaps some of those who seem like they won't field full lineups in actuality can't field full lineups (and while I certainly would prefer it if those teams at least tried to field active bench players or relievers in those positions, I understand how some of them take the mentality of "why bother?").
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Nov 15, 2014 11:57:43 GMT -5
If you reduce the active number of pitchers on a staff it still does not change behavior--i.e. some GMs will still look to have a bunch of SPs as a hedge against the DL or as trade chips. And some guys are better than that than others. The old saying: "You can never have enough pitching" does carry some weight. I have 10 SPs on my roster now (looking for more) which dovetails into Brian's point about how some GMs have their rosters setup for now and the future. His point about researching for talent also speaks to me.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Nov 15, 2014 12:10:12 GMT -5
Agreed, it's just that right now it's a zero-sum game - any time a GM hedges by taking an extra SP, it leaves another GM one short. GMs will still hedge, but now there'd be thirty more SPs worth of wiggle room.
I'm against this for 1 reason: many teams have already made transactions and built their rosters around the need to fill the current configuration and maintain a full rotation for multiple seasons to come (especially the teams whose minor leagues are heavy on pitching prospects). It's not fair to teams with pitching heavy systems to devalue their entire long-term strategies. There have been clear examples of how "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to find additional contributors can push a team into contention and we should continue to encourage GMs to do their research and find the next wave of contributors.
I'm with you, which is why I wouldn't be willing to implement this right away. However, given that we continue to have teams unable to field complete pitching staffs, and that most of us would probably agree that keeping everyone competitive is one of the biggest problems, if not the single biggest problem, we face in this league, I think it's worth at least considering the impact that it has on those bottom teams. Perhaps some of those who seem like they won't field full lineups in actuality can't field full lineups (and while I certainly would prefer it if those teams at least tried to field active bench players or relievers in those positions, I understand how some of them take the mentality of "why bother?").
Teams that ask "why bother?" need only look at Micah's strong season (top seed in the AL) to understand exactly why they should bother. Injury replacements and minor league callups occur frequently so new options are always becoming available, it isn't hard capped at 150 SP for the entire season and that's it. The teams that succeed are the ones who identify enough depth and future pitching options that their pitching is sustained throughout the season (just like in mlb). There will always be teams that have more depth than others, there will always be teams with nothing but replacement level major league options as well. That's another aspect of realism in this league. You can't have 30 teams at an equal level of talent, there will always be contenders and non-contenders, it's part of the game.
Agreed, it's just that right now it's a zero-sum game - any time a GM hedges by taking an extra SP, it leaves another GM one short. GMs will still hedge, but now there'd be thirty more SPs worth of wiggle room.
There wouldn't be 30 new options, those 30 players are still owned in this league. The difference would be that those fringe guys are worth less to the teams that own them than they currently are.
Using my team as an example, say Medlen comes back to start for the braves but I'm already full with Stras, deGrom, Salazar, Nelson in my SP spots and Parker in my P spot. Medlen's value to me drops from a SP to a bench pitching option but that doesn't make him available to anyone else to use in their lineups. Maybe it means I'm more likely to trade a lower end starter like Rusin or Chatwood if he's healthy, but it's still teams scraping the bottom of the barrel in trades instead of FA.
There wouldn't be 30 new options, those 30 players are still owned in this league. The difference would be that those fringe guys are worth less to the teams that own them than they currently are.
Using my team as an example, say Medlen comes back to start for the braves but I'm already full with Stras, deGrom, Salazar, Nelson in my SP spots and Parker in my P spot. Medlen's value to me drops from a SP to a bench pitching option but that doesn't make him available to anyone else to use in their lineups. Maybe it means I'm more likely to trade a lower end starter like Rusin or Chatwood if he's healthy, but it's still teams scraping the bottom of the barrel in trades instead of FA.
Fair point. It might not make as much of a difference as I'm envisioning. But still, opening up the avenue of scraping the bottom of the barrel with trades instead of as well as FA gives those teams more options, and making those players more available can only help those teams. Also, the fact that they would need one fewer SP helps as well. I don't know, it really might not be a worthwhile change, but I'd be curious to hear from someone who has struggled or is struggling to fill their rotation to see if they think something like this would alleviate some of the strain.
Post by Micah (White Sox GM) on Nov 17, 2014 11:57:59 GMT -5
My first thought was that it doesn't need to be changed, then I saw the point about 9 hitters and 9 pitchers being even and I think that makes some sense. I really don't have a big opinion either way, though, so I haven't yet voted.
I like Brian's point about always being other SPs available besides the 150 that begin on MLB rosters because of injuries and rotation changes. I have at least 5 SPs that may or may not be in a major league rotation next year, and the success of my season may depend on whether they are or not, but I guess that's part of identifying players ahead of time that may help.
Post by Rob (Rockies GM) on Nov 22, 2014 9:56:32 GMT -5
I'm in favor of reducing SP by one. You still have the option of a 5th SP at the P spot, or you can strategize to try and reduce your ratio stats by installing a low-WHIP/ERA RP there instead. For the folks who love (and have mined enough talent) the extra SP's, you have time to trade them to me.
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Nov 23, 2014 11:42:06 GMT -5
I'm against it. First, I think too much time has passed to change the positions and second, I don't think it will improve the league. Like someone else said, the teams that don't fill spots will still not likely fill spots and those that use all the P spots will continue to do so as it is what they do. Nothing will really change for the benefit of the league.
