90M Question:

What about catcher's throwing arm?

"NOTE: This league will require more innings than normal leagues at this cap. Please draft accordingly to avoid skewing the results of the tournament. I am reserving the right to send your team back for you to redo if I believe it will cause harm to overall competitive balance."

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply install a minimum-IP rule? I assume that's basically what this statement above is for...

Posted by schwarze on 5/27/2018 1:18:00 PM (view original):
90M Question:

What about catcher's throwing arm?

There is no restriction on catcher's arm rating.

Round 2, $110m using our $255 players: no DH?

Posted by doctorcc on 5/27/2018 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Round 2, $110m using our $255 players: no DH?

All rules, including No DH, are the same for both leagues.

Posted by schwarze on 5/27/2018 1:00:00 PM (view original):
You should probably confirm that they aren't going to make a salary change before the round 1 final roster deadline. That would be a disaster if that happened.

Good call. I’ll confirm with them. If they can’t give a definitive answer then I’ll require Round 2 rosters to be submitted in tandem with Round 1 rosters.

Posted by schwarze on 5/27/2018 1:28:00 PM (view original):
"NOTE: This league will require more innings than normal leagues at this cap. Please draft accordingly to avoid skewing the results of the tournament. I am reserving the right to send your team back for you to redo if I believe it will cause harm to overall competitive balance."

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply install a minimum-IP rule? I assume that's basically what this statement above is for...

An IP minimum would account for the case of drafting too few innings, but the real issue is number of innings + quality of those innings. You can meet a reasonably set IP minimum but still find yourself in the fatigue death spiral.

I only plan to veto anything in extreme cases where the death spiral is a virtual certainty.

Question about the $100M theme: If the cloned player picked played for two plus different teams in a given year and you roster that season, does that mean that any player that was a teammate of the cloned player at some point in the year is eligible?

e.g. 2016 Rich Hill played for LAD and OAK.

Posted by justinlee_24 on 5/27/2018 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Question about the $100M theme: If the cloned player picked played for two plus different teams in a given year and you roster that season, does that mean that any player that was a teammate of the cloned player at some point in the year is eligible?

e.g. 2016 Rich Hill played for LAD and OAK.

No, you would need to pick. Whichever version of Hill you use is the roster you’d have access to.

"You must twist each of the 25 players to a unique season."

Does this mean, after twisting, every player on our roster must come from a different season?

Posted by Jtpsops on 5/27/2018 8:25:00 PM (view original):
"You must twist each of the 25 players to a unique season."

Does this mean, after twisting, every player on our roster must come from a different season?

Yes. You will be using 25 different seasons, with one player coming from each season.

Posted by ozomatli on 5/27/2018 5:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by schwarze on 5/27/2018 1:28:00 PM (view original):
"NOTE: This league will require more innings than normal leagues at this cap. Please draft accordingly to avoid skewing the results of the tournament. I am reserving the right to send your team back for you to redo if I believe it will cause harm to overall competitive balance."

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply install a minimum-IP rule? I assume that's basically what this statement above is for...

An IP minimum would account for the case of drafting too few innings, but the real issue is number of innings + quality of those innings. You can meet a reasonably set IP minimum but still find yourself in the fatigue death spiral.

I only plan to veto anything in extreme cases where the death spiral is a virtual certainty.

Lower quality pitchers are allotted more pitches per innings so we won't necessarily get fewer innings out of them. A number of other factors have an impact on IP needed so I agree that a flat minimum would not be the same for every team.

For the $90M theme, do fielding restrictions apply to pitchers as well?

Posted by Jtpsops on 5/29/2018 12:16:00 PM (view original):
For the $90M theme, do fielding restrictions apply to pitchers as well?

No, as mentioned in the description.

Wow...I'm blind today :)