Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 20:28:09 GMT -5
Hey guys, now that we've moved over to Fantrax, we're able to utilize A LOT more options and features that CBS didn't offer. One of these is an option to enforce a rule for teams who do not meet the minimum limit of 35 innings pitched per matchup (a rule currently in our constitution). Here is the current rule and punishment for teams who don't meet or exceed 35 IP in a given matchup:
"A. MINIMUM IP of 35 NOT REACHED:
1. Infraction penalty by occurrence (all in the same season):
1st time, GM gets a Warning. This is for the owner who has the unfortunate luck of either having pitchers that don't last past the 4th inning in their games, or injuries.
2nd time, GM gets a $250,000 fine. May be waived if the Commissioners conclude that the offending GM is actively trying to acquire the pitching through FA or imminent trade.
3rd time, GM gets a $500,000 fine.
4th time, GM gets a $1,000,000 fine and the owner will be banned from making the playoffs.
*If the GM's team can't afford the fine, it will be applied to that GM's Cap the following season."
First, I wanted to let everyone know that since we made the change to where the championship in playoffs is a 2 week matchup instead of 1, we are going to change the minimum IP for the period to 70 instead of 35. Since the matchup is twice as long as the normal matchup, this is a necessary rule change and one that I don't think anyone will have any problems with. If anyone does have issues for whatever reason, please let a commissioner (me or Mat) know.
While we're on this topic, I also wanted to suggest a change to the existing punishment for violating this rule (not reaching 35 IP in a week). First, in my opinion, the current punishment for these rules are not nearly enough to discourage teams from breaking this rule in key matchups (if it helps them). You can violate this rule 3 times without any significant repercussions (a warning and small fines are not big deals at all, especially when the fine only impacts the existing season). However, when there wasn't really another way to enforce a punishment on teams who broke this rule (there wasn't an option in CBS), this punishment was kind of our only option. HOWEVER, Fantrax has an option in which the system will automatically enforce a punishment on teams who fail to meet or exceed 35 IP in a given week matchup. If we want, we can set it to where teams who fail to meet this threshold will take automatic losses in the AVEREGED pitching categories (the ones most affected by purposely going under 35 IP) for that given week. In our league, these 2 categories are ERA and WHIP. In other words, if a team ends up with fewer than 35 IP in a week, the team in violation of the rule will automatically take losses for ERA and WHIP. The other scoring categories will be scored as normal. Personally, I don't see any real downside to this rule and think it's a MUCH better way to enforce the rules we have in place. Teams should easily be able to get 35 IP in a week (it's just like 4-5 starts and normal level of appearances by relievers).
Anyways, enough of me rambling. Let me know what y'all think about changing this rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 0:27:25 GMT -5
The other leagues I play in enforce this rule....I like it and am for automatic losses in those 2 categories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 0:40:56 GMT -5
I agree with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Feb 15, 2017 2:20:07 GMT -5
Question-
Is this a solution in search of a problem? Was intentionally evading the 35 inning thing a problem last season?
I mean I have what I consider 5 high end staters- but if 2 or 3 of them get hurt, then what?
This is a 20 team league where getting an in season replacement anything is pretty much impossible. Not a good in season replacement, any in season replacement. Asking an owner to overpay in a trade to get a dirty bandage to cover a smashed pitching staff is brutally unfair.
This is kinda like discussing porn, I can't define it, but I know what it is... beware the unintentional consequences- altering the value of starting pitching...
You guys have good heads on your shoulders, and this is a well run league. Just be careful that you don't accidently change the dynamic of the league. We had an owner with 15 guys on the DL last year. It can and will happen, and putting somebody's feet to fire when they are already living an injury nightmare season bites hard.. what can you tell an owner who has 3 of his 4 starters on the shelf? Sorry buddy, I know your down and everybody knows you need starters, but dont worry somebody will show you mercy?
Please be careful here...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 8:36:54 GMT -5
I guess I have a question- is the automatic losses in place of the fines and playoff ban? That's the way I'm taking it, and if so, I'd rather the 2 automatic losses than being banned from the playoffs after a 4th offense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 8:44:55 GMT -5
I agree with the proposed change in principle and would likely vote in favor if it does come to a vote.
However, I think Stephen brings up a great point with it being such a deep league, automatic losses in those two categories may be too harsh. Perhaps there is some sort of middle ground (increasing the current penalties, automatic loss in only one of those categories, etc.) that would be more finely tuned to the requirements and demands of our league?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 9:09:18 GMT -5
*If the GM's team can't afford the fine, it will be applied to that GM's Cap the following season."
Will this be waived for a new owner?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 9:44:21 GMT -5
@jared - Yes, the proposed rule change would replace the existing punishments for violating this rule. You would not have to pay the fines AND lose the 2 categories (WHIP and ERA) in the given week - it would just be the latter punishment.
@stephen - Good point! I agree that there are situations that could occur that may make reaching the 35 IP more difficult for teams, especially in a league this size and with rosters as deep as they are (SP's aren't readily available on waivers). However, I don't think 35 IP should be very difficult to reach in a given week. Last seasons, I had 8 or 9 SP who were injured or shut down for the year and had to deal with that for about a month and a half (including playoffs). In fact, at one point, I had just 2 healthy SP... Even with that less than ideal situation (and a situation that I think will be extremely rare), I was able to exceed 35 IP each week. In order to ensure I did cross the threshold and it wouldn't be a weekly struggle, I made some super cheap trades to acquire crappy pitchers who could eat up some innings (De La Rosa, Dickey and AJ Griffin). Did I hate dealing for those guys? For sure - it wasn't exciting. But it wasn't that difficult to do. Also, our league currently has 10 pitching spots available in the starting lineup (SP, SP, SP, SP, P, P, P, RP, RP, RP). Even if a team did not have any SP as backups and only had the 10 pitchers to fill in your starting lineup (something that would probably not be smart to do), teams should be able to EASILY pass 35 IP over a 7 day period. Lastly, the minimum 35 IP rule has been in place since the league first began in 2015. While the punishment for not crossing 35 IP would change (if we all vote on it), the rule itself is not changing (teams have always had to have a minimum of 35 IP per week). With that in mind, I think teams should have made an effort to build their teams to comply with this rule.
Also, one last thing - I know it seems harsh to cause a team to lose WHIP and ERA if they violate this rule, I actually think it's less harsh than banning them from playoffs altogether after the 4th violation. Teams can still win even if they do lose WHIP and ERA.
Just my 2 cents! Thanks for chiming in everyone
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 9:45:24 GMT -5
I agree with the proposed change in principle and would likely vote in favor if it does come to a vote. However, I think Stephen brings up a great point with it being such a deep league, automatic losses in those two categories may be too harsh. Perhaps there is some sort of middle ground (increasing the current penalties, automatic loss in only one of those categories, etc.) that would be more finely tuned to the requirements and demands of our league? I can check with Fantrax to see if this is possible, but it appears you can only set it to not score any pitching categories, or not score the averaged categories your league uses (WHIP and ERA in our league). Great suggestion though! I'll look into it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 10:13:56 GMT -5
It spunds good to me
|
|
|
|
Post by GiantsGM (Adam) on Feb 15, 2017 12:03:01 GMT -5
I agree with Stephen. first, because (from what I could tell) no one was actively trying to come under the 35 IP, I think we should be careful implementing 'unnecessary' rules. I totally agree we want to discourage streaming. however, there ARE circumstances where pitchers get injured and a game or two gets postponed, etc. and then we just have a perfect storm where a pitching staff with 8 pitchers sees only 3 or 4 starts and the 35 IP becomes a problem.
i honestly believe just forfeiting the two categories each week that a team doesn't reach the minimum IP is a good enough deterrent that people won't try and stream. I think the fines and threat of missing the playoffs is overboard.
quite simply, if you can beat another team even after forfeiting ERA and WHIP, you probably deserved to win anyway, regardless of how many IP you had for the week.
but I'm with stephen, over-regulation can make for serious, unintended consequences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 12:07:50 GMT -5
I agree with Stephen. first, because (from what I could tell) no one was actively trying to come under the 35 IP, I think we should be careful implementing 'unnecessary' rules. I totally agree we want to discourage streaming. however, there ARE circumstances where pitchers get injured and a game or two gets postponed, etc. and then we just have a perfect storm where a pitching staff with 8 pitchers sees only 3 or 4 starts and the 35 IP becomes a problem. i honestly believe just forfeiting the two categories each week that a team doesn't reach the minimum IP is a good enough deterrent that people won't try and stream. I think the fines and threat of missing the playoffs is overboard. quite simply, if you can beat another team even after forfeiting ERA and WHIP, you probably deserved to win anyway, regardless of how many IP you had for the week. but I'm with stephen, over-regulation can make for serious, unintended consequences. I think you may have gotten the current punishment for violating this rule and the one I'm proposing switched... The current punishment in our constitution (the one I'm trying to change) for not exceeding 35 IP in a week is to be fined and and eventually miss playoffs if it happens enough. I'm proposing that we CHANGE from those fines/missing playoffs to forfeiting the 2 categories INSTEAD (not adding this punishment to existing ones). Are you saying you agree with that idea? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 12:19:06 GMT -5
I'd personally be in favor of the forfeiting the 2 categories instead of the current structure when its time to vote. No biggie to me either way though.
|
|
|
|
Post by GiantsGM (Adam) on Feb 15, 2017 13:02:44 GMT -5
yes, Ryan. Maybe I was unclear when writing, but I think changing the rules as they stand to instead forfeiting those two categories for the specific week you do not reach 35 IP is the correct call. I think that is a more appropriate punishment, and more effectively combats the potential issue of steaming than a fine and potential missing of playoffs
|
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Feb 15, 2017 13:52:54 GMT -5
i like the changes as proposed in missing the innings limit, but there should be "under peer review" and not automatic..
There should always be a common sense bail out. You could have an owner skipping the 35 innings rule, but you can also have an owner in a nearly impossible situation.
I dont have a problem with commishes making a call here. Either you trust the guys in charge, or you don't.
|
|
