VOTE 1
No scheduled Friday games
Starting this year MLB
is scheduling teams off on Friday throughout the season. While this
has happened on a one off basis in previous years for a variety of
reasons, this is the first time it is built into the MLB schedule.
Being that our league is based on all teams playing Fri-Sun, this
needs to be addressed.
Breakdown of no Friday games:
On Fri 4/5, 10 teams are off. For all 10 teams, the team they play
Sat/Sun, they also play Thu. The rest of the season there is 4 weeks
with 2 teams off Friday (4/12, 5/3, 6/28, 8/23), 2 weeks with 4
teams off Friday (7/5, 8/2). In all these weeks the team they play
Sat/Sun IS NOT the team they play
on Thu. There is also one instance of two teams off Fri, but also
off on Thu as well (Bos/NYY 6/28)
Our current rule is that we use the Thu game in place of Fri, as in
all cases the team they played Sat/Sun, was the team they played
Thu. That would work for the Fri 4/5 scenario.
But for the other weeks we have to decide how to handle. One answer is
to keep same rule, use the Thursday game, no matter who the opponent is.
In the case of no Thursday game, a sub would be used. (pitching staff
sub rule still applies). One concern here is you are taking away from
weekday games available. Another issue is teams would have to set
weekend lineup for these players before the Thursday game starts, not on
Friday. Neither issue was a concern when it happened once or twice a
year, but something to consider with this many no game Fridays.
Another option is just use a sub for a no Friday game. This would not be
a great option on the week of 4/5 due to 10 teams off, but could work on
other weeks. This option would keep the weekday games available and make
it easy as far as weekend lineups go, but losing a top player on a
Friday because of the schedule could be a concern.
While the focus is on games available, both options offer a variation of
using all available games.
VOTE 1
A) Use Thursday game in place of off day Friday, no matter who the
opponent. If no Thursday game, a DNP is given and sub used.
B) Players get a DNP and use a sub on no game Friday, with the
exception of week 4/5 where Thursday game against same weekend opponent
is used.
The next few votes involve pitching staffs. The game of baseball has
changed quite a bit in recent years. As well our league has gone from 16
teams to the current 12 teams. Last year was the first year EVER in the
history of baseball that there was more strikeouts than hits. The
dynamics of baseball has changed significantly, from shifts on players,
to very few starters going more than 6 or 7 innings, it has impacted the
staffs and scoring overall. As well the weather and postponements has
impacted how we score pitching staffs on a more regular basis.
VOTE 2
1 or 2 pitching staffs on rosters
When our league was 16 teams, having 2 pitching staffs was not a
consideration. But now that we are at 12 teams, it has been asked why
not go with 2 staffs per team?
Each team having two staffs would eliminate the need for the current
staff sub rule, a subject that has been a concern for owners for years.
Currently we use a weekday average of all games in place of a weekend
rain out. While we have tweaked that sub rule over the years, it still
has created a perceived scenario of rewarding a team twice for a good
weekday, and penalizing a team twice for a bad weekday when those scores
are also used on the weekend, sometimes more than once. By going with 2
staffs it would eliminate the need for that.
In addition it would allow a team to manage their lineup mid-season with
an option of who to start during the week and again on the weekend. If
you have a top staff, but they have a tough match up against a high
scoring team on either part of the week, you would have an option of
using the second staff just for that part of the week. That is not
something teams currently have, they just have to hope for the least
possible damage.
The other side of this issue would be a significant reduction of free
agent staffs. Since going to 12 teams the last two years, there has been
12 and 7 total staff transactions in each season. While that may not
seem significant, if you needed to make a staff move you would only have
6 teams to choose from. As with all positions, pitching staffs exceed
expectations as well as significantly under perform. If we went with 2
staffs, and both under perform, you are left with just 6 choices to
improve. This would be a difficult task.
How would 2 staffs affect rule vote 1? We would still use Thursday game
if voted in, so this would allow you to use your best staff the whole
week if desired. If dnp/sub option is voted in, then 2 staffs would
handle the sub rule.
VOTE 2
A) increase to two pitching staffs on rosters
B) keep it at 1 pitching staff on roster
Vote 3
Pitching Staff scoring
Pitching staff scoring continues to go up every year for a variety of
baseball reasons. The top staffs have been outscoring position players
by a significant amount in recent years. The top staffs are scoring 100+
more than almost all position players. Staffs regularly score 35+ points
in a week, giving teams a huge advantage over a staff that has a bad
weekend match up or has a bad game on the weekend. While teams should be
rewarded for having a top staff, should they be nearly 100-200 points
better than any position player? The concern expressed by owners is
pitching staff scoring has increased at such a high rate compared to
position players, it is putting to much value in a single position. If
you draft a staff(s) and they lose a top starter or two to injury, you
will often struggle just to remain competitive against the top high
scoring staffs.
The other side has several issues to consider. Last year 10 staffs
scored 315 or more points. That leaves just 2 teams with lower tier
staffs. Teams that invest in a staff early should be rewarded for that
draft philosophy. Having a top scoring staff is still no guarantee of
success, i.e. a playoff spot. It is hard for a single player or staff to
carry a fantasy baseball team, even when staffs score at the high rate.
A balanced and healthy roster is what usually is successful. While we
are trying to react to recent trends in pitching, there is no guarantee
year to year. Baseball is a cyclical game, if offense bounces back it
could quickly turn things heavy the other way.
When considering what to potentially adjust on the scoring system I
factored in a few things:
Average ERA is 4.14. So using four runs as league average
Average WHIP/HBP is 1.3, which means 12 hits/walks/hbp is league average
Average strikeouts per game is 8.5, so using 8 strikeouts as league
average
I have adjusted the scoring system with those league averages in mind,
rewarding performance above league average. Last year there was just 11
total games with more than 18 strikeouts, just one more than 20. The
most common strikeout games were between 12-14. So I adjusted the
strikeout scoring with those numbers in mind, increasing the minimum,
while rewarding the higher less frequent numbers.
Here is the proposed changes to the scoring system:
|
2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned Runs |
Pts |
H+BB+HBP |
Pts |
Strikeouts |
Pts |
|
0 |
5 |
0 |
7 |
22+ |
6 |
|
1 |
4 |
1-2 |
6 |
19-21 |
5 |
|
2 |
3 |
3-4 |
5 |
16-18 |
4 |
|
3 |
2 |
5-6 |
4 |
13-15 |
3 |
|
4 |
1 |
7-8 |
3 |
10-12 |
2 |
|
5 |
0 |
9-10 |
2 |
7-9 |
1 |
|
6-7 |
-1 |
11-12 |
1 |
|
|
|
8-9 |
-2 |
13 |
0 |
|
|
|
10-11 |
-3 |
14+15 |
-1 |
|
|
|
12+ |
-4 |
16+17 |
-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
18+19 |
-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
20+up |
-4 |
|
|
|
2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earned Runs |
Pts |
H+BB+HBP |
Pts |
Strikeouts |
Pts |
|
0 |
4 |
0 |
7 |
21+ |
7 |
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
6 |
19-20 |
6 |
|
2 |
2 |
2-3 |
5 |
17-18 |
5 |
|
3 |
1 |
4-5 |
4 |
15-16 |
4 |
|
4 |
0 |
6-7 |
3 |
13-14 |
3 |
|
5-6 |
-1 |
8-9 |
2 |
11-12 |
2 |
|
7-8 |
-2 |
10-11 |
1 |
9-10 |
1 |
|
9-10 |
-3 |
12 |
0 |
|
|
|
11+ |
-4 |
13-14 |
-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
15-16 |
-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
17-18 |
-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
19+ |
-4 |
|
|
VOTE 3
A) Keep old scoring system
B) Change to new scoring system
Vote 4
Complete game scoring
The complete game has become a thing of the past.
Here is a breakdown of total complete games in recent years:
2015 104
2016 83
2017 59
2018 42
We currently give 3 points for a complete game.
The proposal has been made to change change that to 5 points. That will
reward the few pitchers for that ever more rare stat. The
other side is we already discussed trying to lower scoring, why add to
it? The rebuttal is if it happens just 40 times a year, increased
scoring is minimal, but again rewarding that superb performance.
VOTE 4
A) Keep complete game at 3 points
B) Change complete game to 5
points
Vote 5
Complete game in a weather shortened game
As weather has become a bigger factor in recent
years for a variety of reasons, shortened games of less than 9 innings
have occurred more often. We currently follow the MLB rule and consider
a game less than 9 innings still a complete game if the starter finished
the game. This even applies to games of just 5 or 6 innings. Owners
don't feel it is right to award a 5 or 6 inning game with a complete
game bonus.
The proposal is to require a pitcher to pitch at
least 7 innings to qualify for the complete game bonus. This would
eliminate the 6 inning or less complete games. The opposing view is we
should stick with how MLB scores it.
VOTE 5
A) Keep complete game rule as
is
B) Change complete game rule
to 7 inning minimum
That is this year's rule vote. Again ONE VOTE per teams. Please send
your vote in by this weekend.
Any questions let me know
Thanks
Jeff