I know this is my paranoia talking.

But I just
think there are Shadow owner accounts.

And those accounts just have no reason to want to put out a competitive team

and and if those guys paid their money, there's just nothing you can do about it.

The problem with said formula is the min IP requirement would be too high in higher cap leagues. Cap the min requirement at 1400 IP regardless of salary cap. And hell, fatigued pitching staffs are still winning in the $70M league rn.

Not sure if you mean each league should have a 1400ip floor but that is obviously too much for lower cap leagues miles. The problem with any of this is that ballparks play such a big role as does how many walks/ks a pitcher got in real life (thus extending their stamina formula wis uses). Not to mention the quality of the pitchers in discussion and the quality of hitters being faced in the league and whether there is a DH or not. That being said, you can't have 1200ip in caps at 120mil and above - all that other stuff won't matter.

Unusinniphobia is the irrational fear of having unused innings left over.
Just buy a cheap low IP pitcher for insurance and if you don't need him that's a good thing.

Final roster analysis thread will be posted later this week

Posted by mildnhazy on 8/31/2019 11:46:00 AM (view original):
Not sure if you mean each league should have a 1400ip floor but that is obviously too much for lower cap leagues miles. The problem with any of this is that ballparks play such a big role as does how many walks/ks a pitcher got in real life (thus extending their stamina formula wis uses). Not to mention the quality of the pitchers in discussion and the quality of hitters being faced in the league and whether there is a DH or not. That being said, you can't have 1200ip in caps at 120mil and above - all that other stuff won't matter.

Cap the min requirement at 1400 is what I said. Meaning the min requirement should never be above 1400 regardless of salary cap.

Under $100M you seldom need 1,400 innings. At $80M or below it is excessive, IMO...

Contrarian23's proposed formula is fair.

IMO the more limits and rules you have the less likely you will get 96 owners. Just saying....

Does anyone know they are going to be placed in a division with an owner who doesn't draft enough IP's? Sometimes **** happens! Like when you out hit the other team 9 to 2 yet you still lose 1-0.

Not that I'm a premier level owner or anything, but I don't think you can legislate out bad choices. One of the great things about this simulation is that you can have multiple strategies be successful in a given theme. If you have to tell people HOW MANY INNINGS to draft, it becomes less what-if and more of how-to.

Granted, it may skew the standings, but we all took the chance and the leagues are randomized (not that I intend to open that can of worms again). Just because one or two owners didn't draft well does NOT mean the rules need to changed... You can't manage to the exceptions, it's true of business and it's true here.

Posted by DoctorKz on 9/3/2019 5:46:00 PM (view original):
Under $100M you seldom need 1,400 innings. At $80M or below it is excessive, IMO...

Contrarian23's proposed formula is fair.

Right.1400 is excessive at $80. What I stated doesn't affect that. The formula at $255M would require a minimum that is too high.

33 more IP than league avg in the $70M theme. My staff is extremely fatigued.

At $70M I have 1,280 plus 2 mops, using Target Field, no sign of fatigue. 7 spot starts in 65 games, although they weren't critical. Krock and Alexander have stayed ready at 98-100% for their next start.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/3/2019 10:37:00 PM (view original):
Not that I'm a premier level owner or anything, but I don't think you can legislate out bad choices. One of the great things about this simulation is that you can have multiple strategies be successful in a given theme. If you have to tell people HOW MANY INNINGS to draft, it becomes less what-if and more of how-to.

Granted, it may skew the standings, but we all took the chance and the leagues are randomized (not that I intend to open that can of worms again). Just because one or two owners didn't draft well does NOT mean the rules need to changed... You can't manage to the exceptions, it's true of business and it's true here.

Have to say I completely disagree with this.

It's not a how to. At all. It's a "if you draft below a certain agreed upon minimum then it is clear you have NO IDEA what you are doing, and we're going to prevent that, for the good of the league and the tournament." That's not a how to.

And businesses absolutely manage to exceptions. All the time. Very effectively. "Unlimited cellular data plans" come with fine print that says they get to throttle your speed above a certain threshold. All you can eat restaurants reserve the right to stop you under any number of circumstances. "Buy one get one free" sales come with defined maximums or other conditions. It is absolutely reasonable to say that you can't do just anything, especially when that "anything" affects 95 other people.

And businesses absolutely manage to exceptions. All the time. Very effectively. "Unlimited cellular data plans" come with fine print that says they get to throttle your speed above a certain threshold. All you can eat restaurants reserve the right to stop you under any number of circumstances. "Buy one get one free" sales come with defined maximums or other conditions. It is absolutely reasonable to
say that you can't do just anything, especially when that "anything" affects 95 other people.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about customer management to the "exception". I'm talking about an internal approach to ONE OR TWO percent that are, for whatever reason, not meeting expectations. You should improve your recruitment and vetting process, not change rules to accommodate. It's not a rules issue... 7 of the bottom 8 people in the table are below .500 in league play. You know they require a .500 season to get into bowl games?

At any point does this seem excessive? I don't see where it causes any serious issues regarding roster space or cost...if it is in place, everyone knows it exists for a reason, is it really a deal breaker? It is the same for all 96 entrants...

MIN IP = 1200 + 2.5*(X-70)

70M 1,200
80M 1,225
90M 1,250
100M 1,275
110M 1,300
120M 1,325
130M 1,350
140M 1,375
150M and above 1,400

An example at $130M, if you are potentially facing $70-75M lineups with less than 1,350, you are begging to get your head handed to you...this is nothing more than a safety net.

This thing should be put in place for all theme leagues, not just WISC, imo...