2013 GWJ Fantasy Baseball League Catch-All

If anything I think the roster sizes are too small. I've also played in a million different roto leagues (first H2H for me), and the only time I've played with a roster size this small was when it was NL or AL only. I'm all for adding a bench spot, but not at the cost of removing a starting spot. If it were up to me, I'd up the # starters to 25, but I'm fine with the current format if that's what everyone else likes.

As far as the whole starters vs. relievers thing, since K's is a stat you're probably punting at least 2 categories (and Ws) if you go with a max reliever strategy. How many forced RP's are you proposing per team? Anything more than 1 forced RP, and people are forced to pick MR's to fill what is meant to be a closer role. If we actually get to 14 teams, then it's really unreasonable to force 2 RPs per team. I still dont' quite have a grasp of H2H strategy, but I'm guessing MR's just don't have the same value as in a roto league.

If you're proposing 1 fixed RP, 3 fixed SPs and the rest any P I suppose I can live with that, but even without setting that rule, I'm guessing every team would comply with that certainly for the draft, and probably the majority of the season.

Oh as far as espn screen names, my settings are set to display my GWJ name, but when I look at it it shows my real name... what does it show for everyone else?

I'm up for 5 SP slots and 2 RP slots with 5 bench spots.

ukickmydog wrote:

Wasn't there a big debate about streaming starters earlier? If all strategies are fair-game, are you saying this is okay now?

I've always said streaming was okay. In fact, on Page 1, I agreed with you that streaming wasn't a feasible strategy and also related that in every league I've played over the years, no one who has streamed has won a league. That doesn't mean I want to deny it to anyone as a strategy. If someone wants to stream, more power to them.

ukickmydog wrote:

Having a couple forced SP and RP slots is actually to make sure that it is fun. I've been in leagues with all P slots and someone drafts a million closers. Sure, they didn't win the league, but it definitely made it un-fun for the rest of the league not being able to have more than one closer because they were all monopolized by one person that could start 8 of them. I see setting all pitchers to P as akin to setting all infielders to just IF. If I want to start 8 first basemen I should be able to start 8 first basemen? That would be decidedly un-fun.

I don't think anyone here is going to draft 9 closers. They would be guaranteeing themselves a last place finish. They would essentially be punting all pitching categories except saves. There just aren't that many innings pitched for 9 closers over the course of a season to allow for giving up a run or two and a few base hits here and there in 1 inning of work on average.

I think comparing position players and pitchers is a bit unfair. With pitching you are either a starter or a reliever. With positional players, a first baseman will not be able to play catcher, SS, 2B, etc. for the most part. The positions are there so that people can't draft 8 first baseman (they wouldn't be able to anyway since most quality first basemen are gone by Round 2).

ukickmydog wrote:

Sorry if I sound off-putting, but I've been playing fantasy baseball for 15 years now under a million different sets of rules. I like to think I have a pretty good grasp on what prevents people from 'cheating' the system and keeping if fun for everyone else.

That said, I think it should be a consensus on what everyone in the league wants to go with. You've laid out why you think small benches and all P slots is good, I've countered with why I think they are bad. Why not open it up to everyone else?

No worries about tone. We're just having a discussion.

Here are some polls for people to vote on. Polls close March 8.

Poll 1 - 2 questions: Roster size and bench slots. -

Poll 2 - 2 questions: Positional slots and Pitching slots

[color=red]PLEASE KEEP IN MIND![/color] When answering these questions, make sure your math comes out correct.

For instance, if you choose a roster size of 25, your answer for bench slots + # of positional slots + # of pitching slots, should come out to 25.

I chose a roster size of 25. 3 bench slots + 9 generic pitching slots + 13 positional slots = 25.

Kush has voted.

I have Voted!

I am fine with any format that the majority agrees upon.

Voted, but ultimately as long as we do not have FEWER starting/bench spots as the current setup I'm fine. In fact, i can't get my ideal setup onto to poll (+1 C, +1 U, +1P = total 25 starting spots) so as long as we don't take away from the current number of starters I'm fine.

Carlbear95 wrote:

Voted, but ultimately as long as we do not have FEWER starting/bench spots as the current setup I'm fine. In fact, i can't get my ideal setup onto to poll (+1 C, +1 U, +1P = total 25 starting spots) so as long as we don't take away from the current number of starters I'm fine.

I couldn't pick my ideal either since there wasn't just a generic IF instead of CI and MI, heh. Oh well, whatever happens, happens.

I voted as well, and my preferences are the same as Kush's: 5 SP slots and 2 RP slots with 5 bench spots. And a 25-man roster.

But they are just preferences, and I'll be happy with however it shakes out.

Carlbear95 wrote:

Oh as far as espn screen names, my settings are set to display my GWJ name, but when I look at it it shows my real name... what does it show for everyone else?

I'm seeing your real name (assuming that's your real name ;)) not your screen name.

B Dog wrote:

I voted as well, and my preferences are the same as Kush's: 5 SP slots and 2 RP slots with 5 bench spots. And a 25-man roster.

But they are just preferences, and I'll be happy with however it shakes out.

Carlbear95 wrote:

Oh as far as espn screen names, my settings are set to display my GWJ name, but when I look at it it shows my real name... what does it show for everyone else?

I'm seeing your real name (assuming that's your real name ;)) not your screen name.

It looks like it insists on your using your real name over your display name. You have to go through several steps to get to the fields where you can change your name. You then need to make sure to hit 'Save' a few times to make it stick. Annoyingly, after doing so, the profile page still shows my real name, as though I made no changes. The league page shows it correctly now though.

Voted! My preferences probably shouldn't (and by the look of the poll numbers, won't) carry much weight. I voted for 18 players -

5 SP
3 RP
1 each position (OF x 3)
DH
Utility
7 man bench for a 25 man roster.

I haven't participated in fantasy baseball since 2005, so I am fine with whatever is chosen in the end for roster style.

I changed my profile name on ESPN to reflect my GWJ username, though, it wouldn't have been hard to figure mine out anyways.

I have voted and I have tried to update my ESPN profile to show my forum name but thus far it looks like it is still showing my real name.

Voted.

FSeven. Sent you a PM. I got the invite on Saturday and accepted. Must have missed someone else.

Sorry about those who couldn't make their ideal rosters. This poll limited the number of choices I could select.

I really value everyones' specific wishes so rather than fart around with that poll site, I did what I should have done to begin with: created a google spreadsheet. Sorry for all the jumping through hoops but I'm sure we will get this league setup in a format that is agreeable to the majority.

jonfen, I already entered your information. Please verify.

Gio - Yeah I figured it out, it was CaptDomano. Thanks!

sr_malo & CaptDomano - please accept your invites and join the league.

Like doc said, changing your name on ESPN is a bit convoluted but it's doable. It also might take an hour or so to update so don't worry if the changes don't happen immediately.

FSeven wrote:

sr_malo & CaptDomano - please accept your invites and join the league.

All set here, boss! Thought I changed my name, but that was apparently just my member name, and my real name still showed up. My bad!

FSeven wrote:

jonfen, I already entered your information. Please verify.

Looks good, thanks.

nm

I entered the setup I've grown comfortable with. I'm ok with trying out anything else though.

absurddoctor wrote:

I entered the setup I've grown comfortable with. I'm ok with trying out anything else though.

I would be fine with yours as well, having 2 UTILs isn't ideal, so perhaps mine would be better off like yours (CI, MI, UTIL instead of IF, UTIL, UTIL).

My main things are having a couple SP and RP specific spots with the rest P, 5 bench slots, and no more than 25 man rosters. The variations on IF and UTIL spots isn't all that important.

Good luck to FSeven on interpreting the data When I last looked more people wanted 2 OF's vs. 3 OFs.

Regardless, I really hope we don't end up starting even fewer than the 22 currently on the site. If people want more bench spots that's fine, but I personally don't see the logic of fewer starters but more bench players. I've read most of these posts as start less players, have more bench spots, and fix all but 1 pitcher spot. It's a free league and I'm really interested in trying out a H2H league with cool people, so I'll go with whatever gets voted, but I think limiting variety in lineups takes away some of the strategy and really makes in-season trading a lot more limited since everything is so strict and there will be good talent on the waiver wire.

Definitely opened my eyes to how different people's fantasy baseball leagues are. I've seen lots of variety in football, but I always thought baseball traded in a very narrow band.

Carlbear95 wrote:

Definitely opened my eyes to how different people's fantasy baseball leagues are. I've seen lots of variety in football, but I always thought baseball traded in a very narrow band.

Agreed--then again, I've only played in one other fantasy baseball league so I don't have THAT much experience. I'm surprised there are so many different variations for this stuff.

ukickmydog wrote:

My main things are having a couple SP and RP specific spots with the rest P, 5 bench slots, and no more than 25 man rosters. The variations on IF and UTIL spots isn't all that important.

I think this pretty accurately captures my thoughts as well. I'm less interested in the specific number/format of MI vs. CI vs. UTIL spots, but like the idea of 25-man rosters, 5 bench slots and at least a few defined SP and RP slots.

To be honest, for a fledgling league we would have been better suited to Rotisserie scoring. The Roto format is the best bet when getting everyone up to speed on baseball scoring and managing your lineup to assess strengths and address weaknesses. H2H has more of a micromanaging aspect since you have to evaluate your lineup on a week to week basis as opposed to the long haul.

At any rate, yesterday was voluntary Spring Training report date so news is starting to pick up about players and outlooks on the 2013 season. The excitement is slowly starting to build!

Reminder for everyone to update their roster format preferences in the spreadsheet.

Also, feel free to modify your preferences. At the very least I'd like to have everything set in stone by the end of February so that we can spend the first half of March focusing on our draft strategies.

Ok, I've joined the league, changed my name and voted.

Personally, I don't understand why there's a push for a set number of SP/RP. IMO, 5 SP are too many and 2 RP are not enough. Having, say, 2 SP, 2 RP, and 3 P spots allows every manager more flexibility with their pitching staff. If a manager wants to have a 5 SP/2 RP roster that's fine, you have that option. However, if a manager prefers to focus on saves or ERA, their hands are tied by limiting the number of RPs they can roster. Another issue is what to do if a pitcher loses his starting spot. Will the manager be forced to drop that player because now he isn't a "starter" anymore? Is it up to the commissioner to police everyone's roster?

Dictating the total number of SPs/RPs without leaving any open P slots is going to create problems down the road.

sr_malo wrote:

Dictating the total number of SPs/RPs without leaving any open P slots is going to create problems down the road.

I'm not sure if you've checked out the spreadsheet yet, but I don't think anyone has suggested a specific number of SPs/RPs without having and general P slots open.

CptDomano wrote:
sr_malo wrote:

Dictating the total number of SPs/RPs without leaving any open P slots is going to create problems down the road.

I'm not sure if you've checked out the spreadsheet yet, but I don't think anyone has suggested a specific number of SPs/RPs without having and general P slots open.

I did.

I have already expressed my Fantasy Baseball novice stature, though.

I do admit to posting before checking the spreadsheet, but it has been brought up in the thread.

My roster preferences are on the sheet. It seems that, as a league, we're not too far apart.

What's the consensus on the number of DL slots? I think one is good, but two would be better.

Added my preference to the list, but as I have only played in one fantasy league before I'm not really sure I understand how the differences will play out over a season.

Cronox wrote:

Added my preference to the list, but as I have only played in one fantasy league before I'm not really sure I understand how the differences will play out over a season.

I think folks are going to find out rather quick that with a set number of RP and SP slots (as opposed to generic P slots to be used how the owner wishes according to their needs), it's going to be very hard to correct mistakes and bad outings, not to mention replacing injured pitchers or closers who have lost their starting/closing jobs. Each pitcher you start has to be meticulously considered on a day-to-day basis because if you start that P against a hot team and he gets rocked you're going to have to figure out a way to offset those bad stats if you have any desire to win that weeks' matchup by winning some of the pitching categories.

On a related note, it looks like the overwhelming majority of owners is in favor of a 25 man roster. That said, if Kush and shag (who optioned for 23) can adjust their rosters to equate to 25, it will be much easier for me to figure out what consensus says in regards to roster format.