|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 14, 2011 11:22:20 GMT -5
The thought was that are designations of:
- 5 SP - 3 RP - 1 P
limits an owners ability to formulate different approaches to shaping their roster. By forcing them to choose some SPs or RPs would mean that they could not use a strategy of all RP's or SP's
Please post your thoughts on this subject here.
|
|
|
Post by harashil on Jan 14, 2011 12:34:17 GMT -5
I don't think we should change pitching to just 9Ps. Otherwise, we should change the batting to 9Us. However, I do think we can make a change since normally the 3rd RP (old rules) wasn't always a quality player. I would like to see having 7Ps and 2 RPs to give the team owner flexibility, but on the other hand this would force teams to use at a minumum 2 relief pitchers. If a team owner decides to start 3 RPs (or more) that would be his option, but no more that 7 SPs could be started at one time.
|
|
|
Post by Maestro on Jan 14, 2011 21:18:15 GMT -5
The standard Yahoo game has 7 pitchers SP,SP, RP,RP,P,P,P and owners compete for one RP category, "Saves". Hence an owner can use as many as 5 Pitchers on any day to get a "Save". This creates a game of strategy and rewards skill over luck. Our YEL game has 9 pitchers SP,SP,SP,SP,SP,RP,RP,P,P and we compete for two RP categories "Saves" and "Holds". In order to win both categories, we must roster exactly 2 closers and 2 set-up relievers. With one more category, we roster one less RP. With 30 ML teams, there are 30 closers and 30 set-up guys available at all times and our 14 teams can be assured that we each have two of each. This is anti-competitive and makes these two categories luck dependent.
We don't need to go to a 9 "P" format, but we do need to add space for at least two more relievers. Why not just convert two or three of the "SP" designations to "P" designations? The more we promote skill over luck, the better our game.
|
|
|
Post by chows on Jan 15, 2011 7:39:53 GMT -5
I like maestro's thinking on this
|
|
|
Post by eulogy7 on Jan 15, 2011 13:36:29 GMT -5
In agreement as well on maestro's suggestion of adding 2 more RP spots. I would be most in favor of keeping the current number of SP spots and adding two RP spots rather than converting SP spots to RP spots if possible.
|
|
|
Post by 25alive on Jan 15, 2011 22:59:41 GMT -5
I would suggest 3SP-3RP-3P and like the overall concept
|
|
|
Post by bigdawg94 on Jan 16, 2011 10:39:41 GMT -5
I like the suggestions but why not 9 P? This would still allow you to use them however you want and not be stuck in any one way, either RP or SP. IF you don't want to use any closers or set up you don't have to and you can then set your team daily the way you want to and not the way you are told you have to comply with a certain guideline. This gives you the leeway to make your roster spots whatever you want and then if you lose a category it is your fault and not because you were told you had to have this many of that or this many of another.
|
|
|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 16, 2011 16:12:56 GMT -5
I like the idea of 3SP - 3RP - 3P
It stills gives a good deal of owner freedom while not allowing the complete dismissal of either the starting pitchers or relief pitchers.
Major League teams compete with both, so I think we should have some set roster spots for each and then allow the owner the freedom for some.
A 3 SP - 3RP - 3P roster would do this.
|
|
|
Post by harashil on Jan 17, 2011 14:44:58 GMT -5
Maybe we should decide what pitching catagories (scoring) we want first. If we know the catagories, we can decide how we should split the pitching classifications.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2011 13:19:46 GMT -5
I think the 9 spots should be broke down evenly:
3 SP 3 RP 3 P
OR possibly:
4 SP 3 RP 2 P
Just roll w/2 All Purpose "P" spots instead of one and cut back from 5 SPs to 4
|
|