More roster analyses coming this weekend

So a few days removed a question. What’s the best record some of you folks have had over one single days worth of 18 games?

To be very precise: we stink.

Posted by daddyzander on 8/29/2019 8:11:00 AM (view original):
So a few days removed a question. What’s the best record some of you folks have had over one single days worth of 18 games?

I've had a few 5-1 days and a few 1-5 days; no 6-0 or 0-6 so far. Since the 5-1 days have slightly exceeded the 1-5 days, I'm giving them credit for me being just over .500 overall. Already in the 'dog days'.

This year so far I think my best is 13-5

Last year I had two 17-1's, I believe

Not sure if this opens a can of worms...but is there an argument that each theme should require a certain minimum number of IP?

We have a team in the 120M that has 1201 IP. Total. They are in a fatigue death spiral. Current winning percentage: .200. And I expect it will only get worse.

Now, on the one hand, this tournament is for serious WIS owners, and I think a decent baseline assumption is we all know what we are doing. So I am loathe to put any requirements on teams that are not directly related to the theme in question. And I would never want to prevent an owner from finding and using an advantage. If an owner can get by with a low number of IP, compared to other teams in the league, he should be rewarded for doing so, not penalized.

On the other hand, I expect we can all agree that at any given cap, if you are WAY short of innings, you not only sabotage your own team (see "Parnell" and "Spider" in the WIS Lingo thread), but you create an unfair advantage for the other 11 teams in your half of the league. Who get to play you and beat up on you 12-14 times. While every other team in the WISC does not get that advantage. Looking at the standings this season, that advantage, however slight, could easily mean the difference between teams being in or out of the cage.

Thoughts?

There’s a 4-44 team in our variable cap theme, currently working on a L32. Drafted a tight 1,233 innings to go to battle against $160M+ lineups.

Posted by contrarian23 on 8/29/2019 6:49:00 PM (view original):
Not sure if this opens a can of worms...but is there an argument that each theme should require a certain minimum number of IP?

We have a team in the 120M that has 1201 IP. Total. They are in a fatigue death spiral. Current winning percentage: .200. And I expect it will only get worse.

Now, on the one hand, this tournament is for serious WIS owners, and I think a decent baseline assumption is we all know what we are doing. So I am loathe to put any requirements on teams that are not directly related to the theme in question. And I would never want to prevent an owner from finding and using an advantage. If an owner can get by with a low number of IP, compared to other teams in the league, he should be rewarded for doing so, not penalized.

On the other hand, I expect we can all agree that at any given cap, if you are WAY short of innings, you not only sabotage your own team (see "Parnell" and "Spider" in the WIS Lingo thread), but you create an unfair advantage for the other 11 teams in your half of the league. Who get to play you and beat up on you 12-14 times. While every other team in the WISC does not get that advantage. Looking at the standings this season, that advantage, however slight, could easily mean the difference between teams being in or out of the cage.

Thoughts?

It also creates extra (unnecessary) fatigue on the hitters of the opposition. I hate when I see I am playing a team with serious pitching fatigue because although I know I'm probably going to get a W, I also know my hitters are going to get an abundance of useless PA and there's nothing I can do about it.

I believe it's the same owner. I was made aware of this a few days ago (thanks tigerrott!). Unfortunately, there's not a ton we can do at this point.

I do see a path where we set some global minimums for PAs and IP, but it's a slippery slope. We would have to be careful not to "coach" at all. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts

Yup same owner, and in the 130M he has 1228 IP.

It is obviously too late to do anything about this now...but maybe in the future, for round 1 only, we do something like:

MIN IP = 1200 + 2.5*(X-70) where X is the league salary cap, in millions.
So a 70M league would have a 1200 IP minimum, 80M would have 1225, 120M would have 1325, etc. Those are pretty conservative minimums, but might prevent the worst cases of fatigue death spiral.

Posted by ozomatli on 8/29/2019 9:30:00 PM (view original):
I believe it's the same owner. I was made aware of this a few days ago (thanks tigerrott!). Unfortunately, there's not a ton we can do at this point.

I do see a path where we set some global minimums for PAs and IP, but it's a slippery slope. We would have to be careful not to "coach" at all. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts

I would think that if an owner had a valid strategic reason for trying to cut IP or PA below a "global minimum," perhaps they would have to provide ozomatli with their explanation in advance for approval. He could have discretion to agree with the reasoning.

It’s a bit tricky though. If turns out you can end up in a fatigue death spiral while drafting 1800 IP/162. Could we legislate against that?

https://www.whatifsports.com/mlb-l/playerstats.asp?teamid=1483838

I agree with the minimum ip requirement (whatever that is) per league. It causes too much havoc when an owner doesn't know what they are doing and creates a team that will lose 130+ games. Can't protect against everything, like in brian's example, but this should be an easy one to guard against.

btw that same owner also has 1201 IP in the 120 mil league. With a DH. That would be tough to manage in a 60 mil league.

Posted by brianjw on 8/29/2019 10:41:00 PM (view original):
It’s a bit tricky though. If turns out you can end up in a fatigue death spiral while drafting 1800 IP/162. Could we legislate against that?

https://www.whatifsports.com/mlb-l/playerstats.asp?teamid=1483838

Agree that it's tricky. Definitely not suggesting that any of us try to predict what the likelihood is that every possible team ends up in trouble. I'm just throwing out for consideration the idea of providing some (very conservative) lower bounds on IP, to prevent a situation where an owner is UNEQUIVOCALLY making a mistake.