OK.

Configure your bench any way you want to.

Have all pitchers if you want or all catchers.

Since MLB teams almost always carry 11 pitchers, I figured it would be more realistic to limit the the number of pitchers you have on your team, but it really makes no difference to me.

So, everyone, disregard that whole lengthy post of mine earlier today and configure your bench any way you want to.

It's also realistic to be paid $2 million to manage a baseball team, but we're letting that slide....

"Almost always" means it's not set in stone, right? Is it in the rule book? If Torre wanted 12 or 13 pitchers for some reason, is anyone gonna try to stop him (besides you)?

My main points, basically, are: 1) I don't want to have to worry about who's on my bench since there are no particular position slots for those players, and, 2) having a commish playing God by making what should be my managerial decisions and making changes to my bench for no good reason other than because of "tradition".

That's all.

This is supposed to be a fun game - the more rules there are to follow, and the more things to worry about screwing up, and having someone else effect YOUR team, the less fun it'd probably be.

So thanks.

P.S. And maybe someday someone else will chime in with an opinion as well, so Plaw doesn't just think I'm the only one picking on him.

I've already told PL privately that I thought he was taking the fun out of the game, and that was the main reason I wasn't going to play. I know he means well, and is putting a lot of time into it, but it's supposed to be fun.

Let me get this right before the draft. We have no limit on relief appearances, and we're supposed to get up to 162 games at SP.

Right on relief appearances, and 162 is the maximum number of starts you can have.

Like I said, JG, I don't care, so you're beating a dead horse AFAIC.

If anything, having it the way you suggest will help me, because if Yahoo Basketball is any indication I'll be paying closer attention to all of that stuff than you will.

Have as many pitchers as you want, but remember: A maximum of only 6 SPs and 5 RPs can be in your lineuop on a given day.

Speaking of the draft... I better start doing some research soon. Ah, maybe tomorrow since The Sopranos is tonight.

...unless, of course, my Godfather game comes in early and it could end up being an auto-draft.

You take care of Plaw during the Baseball season, and I'll take care of him during the Hockey season.

j/k Plaw.


Don Cardi

Now if someone can just convince PL to switch the daily active RP's from 5 to the traditional 2.

Well, I think with 5 you MIGHT be able to get 2 out of them each day... maybe. If we only designated 2 RP's, you'd almost never get both playing on any given day, and most days you wouldn't have any RP's at all playing. And besides, most games seem to have at least 3-4 relievers these days anyway... so this time I agree w/ Plaw.

Why does it say "The draft order will be randomly determined approximately 30 minutes before the draft begins", when I log into the league page.

Man, I've got the fifth and 221st picks eh?! I don't even need 14 through 212! You guys are gonna be in deep in trouble cuz I'm gonna have Vladimir Guerrero and er...uh...Johnny Damon...on my squad! Power and speed baby, power and speed... :rolleyes: :p

Hey PL.... Just confirm this now. Once our teams are drafted, they'll be no changing of the scoring system. I'm going to be drafting based on the way you have it set-up. Definitely not how I'll be doing it in other leagues. I don't want any "tweaks", especially to the pitching values, after our teams are picked.

There will not (read: better not) be any "tweaks" to scoring, unless unanimously voted upon, after the draft.

But why? What hole did you find to take advantage of?? Feel free to PM me with that info....

I'll throw out some examples, and let you figure it out.
Take 2 different RP. Take a mediocre/average closer and an average set-up/middle reliever, and see what the numbers come out to in this league. A good example would be Braden Looper vs Dan Wheeler. See what the numbers come out to for an entire season. Wheeler gets about double the points. If you want to go one further, take the arguably #1 closer Mariano Rivera with his 7 wins and 43 saves, and compare it to some of the better set-up men. The numbers will probably surprise you.

Maybe the numbers would surprise me... but wouldn't that mean we don't have the best formula?

I don't know... I still am not really paying much attention... I still have another 15 hours to think about it!

We don't have the best formula. The RP values are off the wall. A "save" has a net value of only 2 points, and a closer is starting the inning off in a -6 hole. Meanwhile, setup men just come into the game, eat up innings, and suck up "hold" points. Top it all off with the 5 RP system we're using, and my draft board looks a lot different than any other one I've ever done. ...but that's fine. We're all playing under the same rules, and I'm ready. Leave it as it is.

Edit: I miscalculated the value of earned runs as -1, but it doesn't really matter.

Here's the flaw in your argument:

Looper was anything but an "average/mediocre" closer.

In fact, he was just about the worst in baseball.

He ranked 29th in points last year among all closers, and the save percentage of the 28 guys ranked ahead of him was 86.2%, while Looper's was 77.8%, which was better than that of only three guys ahead of him on the list of 28.

As far as set-up men vs. closers go, the top 6 RPs in points, and 11 of the top 14 in points were closers, so I don’t see any problem there

In fact, I think it works out about right.

The top closers get more points than the top set-up men, the top set-up men get more points than the mediocre closers, the mediocre closers get more points than the mediocre set-up men, and the mediocre set-up men get more points than the worst closers.

Also, what makes you say that a closer enters the game in a -6 hole?

Rivera had 294 points last year.

The top set-up men were:

Dutscherrer (222)
Linebrink (213)
Politte (2019)
Howry (190)

What's wrong with that?

Rivera had anywhere from about 30% to 50% more points than the top set-up men.

A save should have a net value of only +2.

A closer who doesn't save at least 80% of his opportunities is basically worthless, since the league average is way above that.

If a guy saves 50% of his games, he winds up with a net in the minus column, which is how it should be.

If a guy saves 75% of his games - way below the league average - he winds up with a net of zero, which is about what he's worth, since he's way below the league average.

SPs are different. A SP who goes 12-12 has much more value than a closer who saves 12 games and blows 12 saves, doesn't he?

And how do you figure a closer starts off in a -6 hole?

Because he's starting off with a "save opportunity"?

Well, yeah, but if he does his job that -6 becomes a +2.

He's only stuck with the -6 if he doesn't do his job, in which case he deserves the -6.

It's not like he has to do something special to get rid of the -6.

What I would have done if I had the option of doing so, was assign a negative value to "blown saves".

I would have made a save worth, say +2, and a blown save worth, say, -5.

So a guy like Rivera, who saved 43 of 47 would have wound up with a net of about +66, and a guy like Looper, who saved a putrid 28 of 36, would have been only +16.

But since Yahoo didn't have the option of making "blown saves" a stat category, this was the only way of creating an equation to allow for blown saves.

But if they did, I would have given a blown save a negative value and the effect would have been exactly the same and you couldn't say that a closer enters the game in a -6 hole.

That, I think, is the fallacy in your reasoning/

Aw shucks.

You guys caught me.

I was planning to change the whole thing around depending on who I wound up with in the draft. :rolleyes:

Frankly, I find the implication involved in the idea that you would even suggest the possibility that I might do something like that to be somewhat insulting.

The implication that either I would change something to benefit myself, or that I would be so stupid as to change something after everyone drafted based on the system that was already in place.

If you can give me a logical reason why, other than it's "traditional".

My goal here was realism; bullpens on MLB teams "traditionally" have 5 RPs, don't they?

The "traditionally" you speak of applies to roto and H-T-H leagues, where they have a bench of one corner infielder, one catcher, and one or tw outfielders.

Points only leagues are designed to be "custom" leagues - I don't think that there's anything traditional about any of them.

Here's what I figured:

We have 9 people in the league.

Based on last years stats, if you had the 5th highest point producer at each position, this is how many offensive points you'd have had:
That'a a total of 4263 points on offense

The top 45 SPs totaled 19,474 points, or an average of 361 points each.

So if you had 6 of them

That's a total of 2,166 from your SPs

The top 45 RPs totaled 8,246 points, or an average of 183 points each.

So if you had 5 of them

That's a total of 915 points from your RPs

On a percentage basis, you wind up with this:

So what's wrong with the scoring system?

About 60% of your points come from offense, about 40% from pitching, the very best hitters are worth more than the best SPs, the best SPs are worth more than the next level or "group" of hitters, those hitters are worth more than all but the best SPs, and almost everyone that's gonna get picked in our draft worth more than all but the very best RPs.

#1, there are only a handful of closers that will get nearly as many points as this. And #2, not one of the set-up men you listed was one of the ones I used to check the the formula. Which is good for me. ...Don't even ask who. :p

Waiver Rules

Since no one offered any feedback to the contrary, i think the waiver rule should work as follows:

Until the game actually starts, waiver priority we be determined in the reverse order of the draft.

If someone makes a successful waiver claim, they will then move to the bottom of the priority list and everyone will move up a notch.

Once play actually begins, it will be determined on a daily basis by your position in the standings: Whoever is in last place will have the #1 priority, and so on.

The only exception will be if you make a second claim on the same day. After your first successful claim, everyone rotates, and, assuming you are still last, you don't get your top position back until the next day.

However, your position in the standings will be based on projected points, not actual points, the way I do the standings in basketball.

This prevents someone from deliberately holding back on making up their missing games until the very end of the season, so they can stay in last place based on their actual number of points and keep the #1 waiver priority for the first 20 weeks or so out of 24.

I won't, and i don't know why I'm telling you this, but guys like heilmann and Sosa got a good many of their points because they also started a lot of games.

The top six closers all had more points than any of the true middle relievers.

You undervalued a save (IMO). I've played in dozens of leagues, using all kinds of scoring methods, and a save has always been double the value of a blown save. (Also wins were double the value of loses) With this scoring system, a middle reliever is just as valuable as an average closer.

I don't agree. The top middle relievers are more valuable than the mediocre and poor closers - which I think is how it should be - but the top closers are more valuable than the top middle relievers.

The top 6 RPs and 11 of the top 14 RPs are all closers.

Bradon Looper who had one of the lowest save percentages and was 29th among closers in points, was not an "average" closer.

That doesn't make it right.

Where's the logic?

Scoring that way, a guy who blows 50% of his save opportuniites, which makes him less than useless IMO, winds up with a positive points total, which makes no sense when you consider that the average closer converts more than 80%.

A blown save should really have twice the negative value of a save, so if a guy converts two out of three - which still stinks - his total is zero.

if the league average for converting save opportunities is over 80%, shouldn't a guy who does much worse have a negative value?

So 6 people will have closers thgat are valuable, and the other 39 relief pitchers draft won't be.

I don't have any part time starters on my list, and they all have well over 200 points. Much more than I can say about 2/3 of the closers. ...Miscalculating ER's did change the values more towards the closers. I give you that much.

So 6 people will have closers that are valuable, and the other 39 relief pitchers draft won't be.

I don't have any part time starters on my list, and they all have well over 200 points. Much more than I can say about 2/3 of the closers. ...Miscalculating ER's did change the values more towards the closers. I give you that much. [/b][/quote]Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't understand what you mean by "39 relief pitchers won't be"

Yeah, 39 RPs won't be as valuable as the top 6.

The top 6 RPs are closers, as are 11 of the top 14 and 17 of the top 29.

As I said, the best closers are more valuable than the best set-up men, the bset set-up men are more valuable than the next level of closers, the next level of closers are more valuable than the next level of set-up men, and so on, which I think is how it should be.

Also, I don't know where you're getting your figures from.

There were 12 RPs with more than 200 points last year, and 9 of them were closers, so yeah, those 3 set-up men with more than 200 points have more points than 2/3 of the closers, but there are only three of them. How about the rest of the closers who across the board pretty much have more points than the set-up men?