Posted by skinndogg on 6/19/2020 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Seems like I remember discussing this before. It would have to be part of the theme rules. Min IP and Min PA per theme.

MIN IP:1250
MIN PA: 5100

The sentiment here is good but this isn't the right implementation. Guys who know a ton about how fatigue works like just4me and justinlee_24 can probably make fewer than that work, and deserve to have that as an option. I myself almost never draft that many PAs in low cap leagues, and I get that the actual number isn't important but my point is that the number is different for different owners.

I could theoretically create an indexed value of IP related to ERC#, K/9#, and BB/9# or a system that compares those to defense and park choice when I'm verifying rosters, but that has always seemed like overkill to me.

Maybe the best solution is just to send out a reminder when people begin building teams asking them questions that could make them rethink things if they're borderline.

Posted by skinndogg on 6/19/2020 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/19/2020 3:55:00 PM (view original):
But those minimums could still be hit with a low cap team in the variable theme.

The Min's could change per theme. I'm pretty sure Ozo knows ,within reason, what the bare min. per each theme would need to be.

I know but for the variable theme, it’s tougher. Two teams could each have 1600 IP of drastically different quality. Especially if one team is playing with $60M more.

Unless you think someone's deliberately entering bad teams to sabotage the tournament (and that seems quite unlikely given it costs $75 to enter), let people do what they want. Even if you put minimums, that doesn't guarantee competitiveness; someone could have enough innings but go with too many innings in the rotation, run all their relievers into the ground, and be throwing pitchers in the red almost every game for the last 120 games or so. Plus you're restricting potentially successful low inning strategies.

I like ozo's idea of friendly suggestions when viewing rosters. Won't guarantee anything but should help some people. Others might need to learn the hard way.

Posted by schwarze on 6/19/2020 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by marvin_katko on 6/19/2020 9:45:00 AM (view original):
For those that enjoy car crashes, avalanches, people falling off ladders, etc. I'd highly encourage you to examine my pitching staff in the 90MM league.

That team is quite likely going to lose in excess of 145 games. I wouldn't be surprised if that team ended up 6-156.

Drafting 1208 innings will do that.

If this is going to be a strict result of pitching fatigue, i'm more than happy to help stave off the death spiral and salvage the season. You'll lose 8-12 games resetting, but you'll have a shot at a saved season thereafter? If interested, hit me up...

Posted by ozomatli on 6/19/2020 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by skinndogg on 6/19/2020 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Seems like I remember discussing this before. It would have to be part of the theme rules. Min IP and Min PA per theme.

MIN IP:1250
MIN PA: 5100

The sentiment here is good but this isn't the right implementation. Guys who know a ton about how fatigue works like just4me and justinlee_24 can probably make fewer than that work, and deserve to have that as an option. I myself almost never draft that many PAs in low cap leagues, and I get that the actual number isn't important but my point is that the number is different for different owners.

I could theoretically create an indexed value of IP related to ERC#, K/9#, and BB/9# or a system that compares those to defense and park choice when I'm verifying rosters, but that has always seemed like overkill to me.

Maybe the best solution is just to send out a reminder when people begin building teams asking them questions that could make them rethink things if they're borderline.

Given the right theme rules, at $80m I'm comfortable as low as 1,050, and can push it to about 930 if everything goes right. That said, it's a fine line to walk and I've played this WISC much more conservative than in years past. But as others have addressed, the issue goes beyond just quantity, quality and actual use of innings is just as important. An owner that drafts 1400 but sets and forgets without adjusting settings could end up in a death spiral before game 15 and ruin a season.

The $114m variable cap team is also an example. I've won a number of variable cap leagues with a team significantly below the median and as I mentioned in another thread, one of my WIS highlights is having my $25m team beat a $255m team in one such league. That said, a team at a huge disadvantage is walking a fine line.

In building these teams for these themes, many of us make choices that push these lines and balance our level of comfort as managers. We can go risky in the hopes that if it pays off we don't just move on, but we win. However, if it flops, we flop hard. Or we can play safe and try to build a bunch of teams that will win 85-90 and try to hedge our losses.

In the past of played the high risk high reward path and was met with very little success. This time I tried to play it much safer and take only minor risks. I think disclaimer warnings like schwarze used to do are helpful, but ultimately, it's part of the risk of the tourney so long as everyone still puts forth best effort. Fatigue spirals can be saved, poor constructed teams can be shuffled to maximize when efficacy... that's where the burden lies. The best effort.

The sentiment seems shared enough, but I definitely wouldn't be in favor of a minimum IP/PA. I think something that would have been helpful to me, as someone who had been gone from Wis for 6 years and have almost exclusively played progressives and had very little higher cap experience, maybe having a post with team stats of the previous years winners. It wouldnt need to have full rosters, but simply "top 5 variable cap teams total IP/PA", "top 5 80m theme total IP/PA", Etc.

It would simply act as a guide for others to look and say "I drafted 1300ip, last year's top 5 all had 1400ip, maybe I should add a few more innings"

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/18/2020 2:58:00 PM (view original):
$80M team: 0-0 game into the 12th...we score two, they score three to walk off.

$90M team: 5-5 game into the 11th...we score one, they score two to walk off.

$110M team: loses again to fall to 6-17 since a 5-1 start.

Not our best cycle.

This extra inning stuff is starting to annoy me. 4-4 game in the 10th...I score 4, and they score 5 to walk it off, including homers from Lajoie and Lyons, both with 7 RL homers in 500 IP.

my bullpen issues in general are starting to annoy me. I've got studs in most my leagues, yet innings 7-9 I typically give up 2-5 runs every game it feels like

Probably guaranteeing myself a Mauch tomorrow, but I just finished off a (new best) 16-2 day with a pm2 Schwarze.

My last 48 hours or so: 6-0, 4-2, 3-3, 3-3, 1-5.

Nothing like consistency.

A schwarze in the am cycle was just what the doctor ordered. Happy Father's Day to me!

It looks like my $80 will be the biggest challenge. My bullpen is shot due to some combination of A) Almost all deadball pitchers, B) 4 real relievers, and 4 relative mopup guys, and C) Based on batters faced, and IP, I've essentially played 2 more games than anyone else in the league. Time to figure out how to prevent the death spiral.

Posted by thehuseman on 6/21/2020 10:01:00 AM (view original):
It looks like my $80 will be the biggest challenge. My bullpen is shot due to some combination of A) Almost all deadball pitchers, B) 4 real relievers, and 4 relative mopup guys, and C) Based on batters faced, and IP, I've essentially played 2 more games than anyone else in the league. Time to figure out how to prevent the death spiral.

Just4me has helped my teams from going down the fatigue spiral many times. Feel free to hit him up if you need help.

3-9 so far on the day, the wheels are starting to come off.

Kenley Jansen is awful. That is all.