1250 IP minimum Topic

llamanunts
Posts: 1498 (0)
Hall of Famer
29 95
Hall of Famer
Way too high.

If you want to play in Petco, you are now required to draft Frank Gilmore, though you will probably never use him. You will not have that $600k+ to spend elsewhere. (Gilmore ~$800k - $200k Highball Wilson or whomever.) You will now be playing with a 24-useful-man roster. You are not allowed to drop Frank Gilmore unless you plan to pick up someone who is capable of being just as crappy for lots of innings. (The food is terrible, but the portions sure are large.)

If I want to play in GABP or Dodger or someplace, I'll just draft exactly the team I would have gone with before.

While I'm sure plenty of thought went into establishing the minimum, I don't think this is a desirable outcome.

10/13/2009 3:53 PM
llamanunts
Posts: 1498 (0)
Hall of Famer
29 95
Hall of Famer
Obvious Jones sez: Maybe the IP floor should have been different for each stadium.
10/13/2009 4:09 PM
Funksteady1
Posts: 165 (0)
Hall of Famer
188 7 4 1
Rookie
Absolutely agreed. Way too high. It's at least 75 more IP than I need in a pitcher's park.

I believe it's taking away from options and strategies. I agree that a minimum is a good thing to prevent certain types of abuse but with a floor that high it just forces me to go into a "comfort" zone , a middle of the road approach that takes away the micro-managing pitching staffs.

It will level strategies too much making the game less interesteing from my perspective.

10/13/2009 4:12 PM
llamanunts
Posts: 1498 (0)
Hall of Famer
29 95
Hall of Famer
Doctor Crazypants sez: Might as well just set a salary floor for teams' pitching. You gotta spend $30 mil. Sure, this is also a blunt instrument. Sure, this is also just plain arbitrary. But consider... um... No, it's just blunt and arbitrary.
10/13/2009 4:13 PM
biglenr
Posts: 1801 (0)
Hall of Famer
431 1
Pro
Gents....

(1) - It applies to every owner. The other 23 teams also have to have 1250 IP. So it doesn't throw off the competitive balance. If you only need 1150, then buy the worst 100 IP guy you can, and spend your money elsewhere.

(2) - This is an interim step... They are going to change the way pitchers fatigue to use PC within games, and IP within season. So it will take pretty much the same amount of IP to play in Coors or Safeco. This is 6 months off, but it is a needed fix.

I'm really behind this change.
10/13/2009 4:25 PM
dtownlove10
Posts: 15 (0)
Hall of Famer
195 1 3 2
Prospect
I won a WS in a 80M league with average AAA with drafting 1035 IP.

Granted it was a LIVE league but it still can be done. I'm not a fan of that new rule.
10/13/2009 4:28 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 290 18
Pro
I used to like to put together teams with 5-man rotations. Around the transaction deadline I'd drop one of the starters, add an elite closer, and spend the rest elevating one of my hitters to elite status. Made the team a playoff monster. Of course, that now won't be possible. Haven't done it in a few years anyway.
10/13/2009 4:32 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
Quote: Originally Posted By biglenr on 10/13/2009

Gents....

(1) - It applies to every owner. The other 23 teams also have to have 1250 IP. So it doesn't throw off the competitive balance. If you only need 1150, then buy the worst 100 IP guy you can, and spend your money elsewhere.
It definitly throws off the competetive balance. Teams in pitchers parks will now win fewer games. Direct cause and effect.

(2) - This is an interim step... They are going to change the way pitchers fatigue to use PC within games, and IP within season. So it will take pretty much the same amount of IP to play in Coors or Safeco. This is 6 months off, but it is a needed fix.
The floor should have been 900. Thats enough to keep noobs from going 2-160 and guarunteeing the wild card coming from their division. There is no other reason to have a floor other than that. Anything over 900 takes away from the strategy ability of owners. You're basically turning chess into checkers, or in other words decomplecting the game and adding more parity.

10/13/2009 4:33 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
I don't think I've ever drafted 1250 innings before. This will be a new and unnecessary experience for me.
10/13/2009 4:34 PM
contrarian23
Posts: 23153 (1)
Hall of Famer
1919 1
Hall of Famer
I'm not sure what the right floor is (I don't think I've ever drafted fewer than 1200 IP so it will have minimal impact on my drafting strategy).

I will say, however, that if this reduces the overwhelming tendency of owners to choose Astrodome, Safeco, Petco compared to neutral or hittersparks, then that is a good thing in my opinion.

Doesn't mean the idea on the whole is a good one.
10/13/2009 4:49 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
Innings you need to pitch unfatigued in parks:

1125 (-3 singles)
1150 (-2 singles)
1175 (-1singles)
1200 (neutral)
1225 (+1 singles)
1250 (+2 singles)
1275 (+3 singles)
10/13/2009 5:14 PM
houseofbayne
Posts: 9657 (16)
Hall of Famer
362 1
Pro
Would those who do not like a minimum IP requirement instead be in favor of putting a price tag on the ballparks? Just curious. It seems unfair that one could draft less IP, less PA's, more quality, and then on top of it play in a ballpark (like Petco or Safeco) that alters outcomes more than any other park. Introducing the great equalizer, minimums for IP and PA's. I think that something needed to be done, although I can't decide on what the definitive answer would be.
10/13/2009 5:15 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 290 18
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By boogerlips on 10/13/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By biglenr on 10/13/2009

Gents....

(1) - It applies to every owner. The other 23 teams also have to have 1250 IP. So it doesn't throw off the competitive balance. If you only need 1150, then buy the worst 100 IP guy you can, and spend your money elsewhere.
It definitly throws off the competetive balance. Teams in pitchers parks will now win fewer games. Direct cause and effect.

(2) - This is an interim step... They are going to change the way pitchers fatigue to use PC within games, and IP within season. So it will take pretty much the same amount of IP to play in Coors or Safeco. This is 6 months off, but it is a needed fix.
The floor should have been 900. Thats enough to keep noobs from going 2-160 and guarunteeing the wild card coming from their division. There is no other reason to have a floor other than that. Anything over 900 takes away from the strategy ability of owners. You're basically turning chess into checkers, or in other words decomplecting the game and adding more parity.

(1) If teams in pitchers parks lose more games, it's because they become more equal to hitters' parks teams. So that doesn't throw off the competitive balance, it restores it where previously it was missing.

(2) I don't think decomplicating is a word. If it is you spelled it wrong. Unless you actually meant the opposite of complecting. Which also isn't a word and almost definitely wouldn't mean what I think you meant to mean... Otherwise I agree with your point and really don't see any reason why a 900 or 1000 IP floor would really interfere with the competitive balance, particularly now that the 6 PA per game fatigue cap minimizes the damage done when Highball or a AAA pitcher starts.
10/13/2009 5:16 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
I would be in favor of a pricetag on ballparks, sure, however I disagree that people who choose pitchers parks have an advantage.

At the 80mil level, it may be fair to charge 100k to alter the single factor one notch in either direction, 200k to alter the doubles factor one notch, 300k (or perhaps 250k), and 400k to alter RF or LF one notch for Hrs. Thats all definitly a tangent though, and probably will never happen...
10/13/2009 5:19 PM
boogerlips
Posts: 3731 (0)
Hall of Famer
205 45
Hall of Famer
I'll explain why pitchers parks don't have an advantage over hitters parks, even though zero of you will understand it, especially if I make a spelling mistake...

When you choose a hitters park (especially with a high portioned offense), there is a much greater deviation in what your win% can be. You can win a lot more games or lose a lot more games than in a pitchers park. Pitchers parks have inherent parity built into their natures. The reason comes from the nature of OBP. Because it is exponential in nature (cencerning scoring runs), a high-end winning owner, will win even more because of his +hits park choice boosting his teams OBP.
Average and below average teams in hitters parks are at a disadvantage because of having to draft more innings/PAs, but playoff bound owners are not.
Several people will now follow my post with examples of how their winningist (misspelled!) team was in a pitchers park, but thats merely because they are easier to comprehend and manipulate, however the principle I stated above is still there. If you know how to handle a hitters park, the advatage you inherit will more than counter what you lose by having to draft more stuff. No doubt about it.
10/13/2009 5:35 PM
1|2|3...8 Next ▸
1250 IP minimum Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.