Use this thread for general commentary throughout Round 1. With division alignment happening tonight, not to mention being able to view other owners' rosters, figured it was a good time to open this up.

Ozo, I'm curious whether you rejected any of the Coors league pitching staffs. Apologies if you've answered this somewhere else already.

Posted by Donburgh on 8/18/2018 10:21:00 PM (view original):
Ozo, I'm curious whether you rejected any of the Coors league pitching staffs. Apologies if you've answered this somewhere else already.

He wanted to reject mine, but now I'm in his division...so all good now

Posted by Donburgh on 8/18/2018 10:21:00 PM (view original):
Ozo, I'm curious whether you rejected any of the Coors league pitching staffs. Apologies if you've answered this somewhere else already.

No worries. It's a good question. I did not. Some people are definitely going to need to do some creative managing, but I approached it with the mindset that I would only reject if there was no way it could work.

Only one team stood out enough to potentially be flagged based on innings (jbohrman with 1,479) but his pitcher quality was among if not the best across all owners (team WHIP 0.97), so I held off. I am also a bit worried about loyalcanuck (1,502 innings with a higher-end team WHIP of 1.21) but, again, not enough to pull the trigger on a redo (ironically, as he mentioned, we are now in the same division, so it's my own fault if he ends up fatiguing my hitters).

Already lost two 1-run games

Two extra inning games and 901 pitches thrown in all. Finished a little below 800/g last year. I'll be interested to see if my pitching can hold up.

Went 3-3 in the opening round. All three losses were by a score of 3-1.

Posted by ozomatli on 8/18/2018 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Donburgh on 8/18/2018 10:21:00 PM (view original):
Ozo, I'm curious whether you rejected any of the Coors league pitching staffs. Apologies if you've answered this somewhere else already.

No worries. It's a good question. I did not. Some people are definitely going to need to do some creative managing, but I approached it with the mindset that I would only reject if there was no way it could work.

Only one team stood out enough to potentially be flagged based on innings (jbohrman with 1,479) but his pitcher quality was among if not the best across all owners (team WHIP 0.97), so I held off. I am also a bit worried about loyalcanuck (1,502 innings with a higher-end team WHIP of 1.21) but, again, not enough to pull the trigger on a redo (ironically, as he mentioned, we are now in the same division, so it's my own fault if he ends up fatiguing my hitters).

I haven't noticed that WHIP has much effect on innings needed. According to the formula higher WHIP pitchers are allotted more pitches per inning to compensate. So it should balance out in theory. They may lose just a little in big offense leagues because of geometric progression.

Got a schwarze in the first cycle. We're all 1-0. I can't believe it.

1-5 in the first cycle, with the only win a 12-inning game in Coors. I was hoping to make crazy extrapolations from something a bit more positive.

4-8 so far. Trying not to be too discouraged, but it's certainly humbling. Ironically, I have one 2-0 team and it's in the league rated the toughest of the whole tournament.

My Kershaw team has been thoroughly pounded. '15 Kersh gave up 8 runs, with '15 Greinke topping him by allowing 9. I know it's early, but it's also been ugly.

I always feel WISC games are more high-stress than normal games and hyper-analyzed. At least, that's what I find myself doing too much

Posted by ozomatli on 8/19/2018 2:22:00 PM (view original):
I always feel WISC games are more high-stress than normal games and hyper-analyzed. At least, that's what I find myself doing too much

Yep, and I always find myself waiting for results more intensely than usual. . . . .like right now for example. Is it 5pm CST yet?

2-4, 2-4, 2-4. At least we're consistent.

I might not be anticipating these results with excitement for much longer ...