Poll: Reducing Pitching Staffs

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Final Collective Bargaining Poll (for now):

Our current pitching staffs of 5 SP, 5 RP, and 1 P are problematic because of the scarcity of available SPs. Assuming MLB teams are using 5-man rotations, there are 30 x 5 = 150 pitchers likely to be starting at any given period. Since there are 30 teams in this league, 30 x 5 = 150 open SP spots on Yahoo, which means there are only enough active SP to fill the rotations at any given time, with 0 surplus. Given that teams also use SP in their P slot, and that contenders tend to keep extra SP on the bench in case of injury, this subtracts from the available pool of SP and directly results in there being not enough SP for the remaining teams to fill out their rotations. These teams end up having to rely heavily on spot starters and other bottom of the barrel options.

Reducing pitching staffs to 4 SP, 4 RP, and 1 P alleviates some of this problem, as teams would only be required to field four SP at any given time, though there would still be the option of that fifth SP in the P slot. It would also likely encourage teams with more SP hoarded for depth to let one or two go, redistributing them to teams that need them more.

4 SP, 4 RP, and 1 P also works out nicely because it's nine pitchers total, which would match the nine active hitter positions on a Yahoo roster.

This change has been proposed before, but did not pass. However, it was brought up again (not by me!) in Collective Bargaining and seems to have gained support. I strongly believe this change is in the best interest of the league, and not doing it this way from the start is one of my biggest regrets about the rules. Let's see if we can help fix that perennial struggle and frustration of there not being enough pitchers to go around.

If this passes, it would go into effect for the 2018 season.

[Kevin (Guardians GM)]

If this passes, does the IP limit stay the same or is it adjusted?

[Ben (Rays GM)]

I guess I'd be open to lowering it, but I'm not sure it's necessary - if you're not making it to 25 innings it's probably because you have empty pitching slots or inactive pitchers. Reducing the pitching staff shouldn't affect that.

What do you all think? Keep it at 25? Lower it to 20?

[Micah (White Sox GM)]

How about the deal where you can slot in a starting pitcher as a RP even though he hasn't made a relief appearance in months or even all year? That also takes extra SP out of the available pool. While we are re-working pitching staffs, is there anything we can do about that as well?

[Ben (Rays GM)]

I'm open to suggestions, but I can't think of any way to enforce it.

[Kevin (Rangers GM)]

I say leave the IP the same as it is now.

[Deleted]

How about the deal where you can slot in a starting pitcher as a RP even though he hasn't made a relief appearance in months or even all year? That also takes extra SP out of the available pool. While we are re-working pitching staffs, is there anything we can do about that as well? e here

One method would be to shift to a 6x6 and factor in "holds" as a category. This would require another hitting category, which could be sort of nebulous depending on what it might be. But factoring in holds would force teams to balance out closers and middle relievers. If SP has scarcity, imagine the scarcity of closers for a 30 team league. Also the position is volatile. Teams would have to work harder to mine the RP pool and if they had the rare starter with SP/RP eligibility ( Mike Montgomery would be one for this next year IIRC) , they'd have to balance out the needs of a starter versus the needs to compete for holds and saves together.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

I have to put my foot down against holds as a category. Sorry, it's just one of those categories that I refuse to allow anywhere near my fantasy leagues.

I'm thinking we should reduce the IP minimum to 20. Yes, in theory the fact that we're reducing staffs should make more pitchers available to the teams that don't currently have enough and make 25 more attainable, but there's also a risk - specifically, a team could have four active SPs and five active RPs, which is a team that's being completely compliant with expectations, but if each of those SPs pitches just once in a week that's 24 innings. Add in the relievers at 1-2 innings each and you should get to 30 easily. But if one of the SPs randomly gets injured and another bombs in the first inning, suddenly that team could really struggle to get 25, through no fault of their own. Under the old rules that team might have had another couple pitchers in there to protect them and keep them above 25, but reducing the staffs reduces that wiggle room. Lowering it to 20 gives teams a bit of wiggle room back, and I'm hoping with the other rule changes we're making (as well as certain recent, um, personnel changes) there will be fewer non-compliant teams to worry about anyway, making the IP minimum less crucial.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

At 16-1, this motion passes and the poll is closed.

Thanks everyone for re-considering and being flexible on this one! I really think this is going to make a huge positive difference for the league.

[Max (Tigers GM)]

I'm good for reducing to 20 IP...

[Deleted]

The categories will be:
for hitters - AVG, BB, XBH, HR, SB, PA
for pitchers - ERA, K, IP, QS, SV, WHIP


****

A consideration, I realize the polling has closed.

ERA and WHIP are efficiency metrics. K, IP, QS and Saves are volume metrics.

I thought one of the reasons for the innings ceiling/floor was to prevent someone from leveraging too many elite closers ( I realize this is much harder to achieve in a 30 team league) who naturally generate saves, usually have high K rates per innings pitched, and usually have good ERA and WHIP in general.

Someone with four good closers or have 2-3 and then pull off a few trades, might be able to split the pitching category in half while judiciously benching some of their starters. Against some teams with less roster strength, they might even be able to take K's as well.

Any situation where it might be advantageous to punt ( i.e. IP and QS) since it would still lend at worst a tie in pitching or a 4-2 advantage if they get the K's right might cause general balance issues.

I'm not saying don't lower the innings limit, I am asking if its creating a backdoor to use closers as a leverage point ( i.e. nothing will balance out the scarcity of closers in a 30 team league in this 5x5 format)

Just a general consideration. Thanks.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Please remember that this change doesn't go into effect until the 2018 season. For 2017, you will still need 5 SP, 5 RP, and 1 P, and to meet the 25 IP limit each week.