Minimum Innings Pitched for Rotisserie
Although there is a "minimum innings pitched" option available for head to head leagues, I believe there needs to be one instituted for Rotisserie as well. ESPN has already adopted this feature and I believe the season long minimum should be set at 1000 innings.
The reason this is necessary is because someone in my league employed a strategy of only drafting batters early then going after all the elite relief pitchers without having a single starting pitcher on his team. He also has many relief pitchers on his bench that he can activate during off days and some relief pitchers with starting pitching eligibility to put in his SP slots.
The result is he will go on to dominate the Saves category along with ERA and WHIP because of the low amount of innings he will utilize with only elite relievers. It seems he is primed to win by finding a way outside of the system which I believe is outside of fair play. At the very least, he has guaranteed himself a top 3 finish. This is a loophole that needs to be addressed.
Nick Szafranski commented
There should be a minimum innings pitched option for the entire season. That way a team doesnt have a pitcher have one perfect inning and wins the ratio categories, and then benches his pitchers the rest of the year
Dennis Welshans commented
One PRO league I'm in, the leader has no SP on his roster, and is on pace for 740 IP for the season. SP slots empty. NFBC has a 1000 IP minimum to prevent this.
larry womack commented
I also agree Yahoo needs to raise the innings limit per week to avoid the managers from loading up on top closers. This should level the playing field for all managers. Weekly innings limit should go up to at least 30 innings per week.
Michael Walcott commented
Give Commissioners the option to turn this on or off, and set the minimum number of innings they want. They already have a Max number of innings that can be adjusted or turned off, so why not Min?
ron lucas commented
three out of the 5 stats in pitching dude, saves, era, and whip, that's an advantage!
T Chr commented
If you can't beat a team that punts two scoring categories, then you deserve to lose.
Oh M commented
I agree please add/raise Minimum Innings Pitched for Rotisserie
Marc Nakashian commented
One easy fix is to have SP and RP slots, many leagues have 4 and 3 or 5 and 2 but some just have Pitcher. If you have a set # of RP slots that would fix this.
But I agree, baseball is played with SPs and RPs and I think every league should have both represented in the starting lineups. Close the loophole.
Some leagues don't but to each their own.
@ Dave Sanchez
There is a lot of things completely wrong about your post and I will address them:
1. The people employing this strategy are not targeting/acquiring the "Feliz's, Rodney's, F. Rodriguez's" of the world. They are acquiring high end relievers which is easy to do because they do not have to use picks on SP's. For instance E. Diaz, Melancon, Colome, Watson. You can check their ERA's and WHIP's from last year and you'll see that those numbers are more than enough to guarantee locking up ERA and WHIP categories in any standard Rotisserie league.
2. Those employing this strategy are not starting 10 pitchers or even 8. Most use maybe 5-6 great relievers only and refrain from using "average" relievers who could risk their grasp on ERA and WHIP categories. They use just enough relievers to ensure locking up SV's without jeopardizing their ERA and WHIP. The end result is that these managers reach about 400-500 innings pitched for the entire season. If they are required to use up another 500 innings, then it definitely makes their strategy a lot more riskier and challenging. If a manager can dominate the pitching categories after using 1000 IP regardless of whether it's all relievers or a mix of SP and RP's then I have no issue with it and more power to them. Just asking that the minimum be put in place.
3. Yes, you are right.....winning pitching categories means nothing unless you have good batting. But this strategy makes it easier to do that because you don't have to focus on acquiring starting pitching. This allows you to use your top picks to choose great bats at the top of the draft - and in turn get the jump on picking elite relievers staring in rounds 5-7. In fact, you don't necessarily have to target the very best RP's, just good ones. You can find relievers in the 10th-11th rounds that put up ERA and WHIP totals similar to the very elite SP's like Scherzer, Bumgarner etc. like some of the RP's mentioned above.
Personally, I see something inherently wrong with the concept that you can dominate 3 of 5 pitching categories by completely ignoring a whole subset of pitchers. A subset of pitchers who are considered extremely important in real baseball as well. I understand not everyone sees it my way, but there are many who agree with me - including ESPN. Just asking that this minimum inning requirement be a selectable option for those who want it in their league. Those who don't see it my way can continue to play their leagues in the current format.
Dave Sanchez commented
Not sure how or if this can be done. You don't need 10 RP to dominate SV category. 5 will do just fine. As far as trying to capture the ERA and WHIP, there are better odds to get good points out of just RP, but they blow up too. N Feliz, F Rodney or F Rodriquez and their high ERA & WHIP sound familiar?
I looked at the number for 2016 and with 10 pitchers on the roster (with 2 SP/RP included) you easily reach 700+ innings. all one would need is a couple of SP's to reach the magic 1000 that you are advocating.
Then the new strategy will be 2 elite SP and the rest elite RP and you have a **** good chance of taking not only SV, ERA and WHIP, but maybe a few points in K's because RP's normally have a much higher K to Inning ration than SP's.
This situation should not happen in a 'live' draft situation, other managers would 'clue in' pretty quickly, but it certainly would happen in autodraft situations!
As far as a guaranteed Top 3 finish, is sounds like this manager picked good batting too. Soooo ...... they might just as well have gotten a top 3 finish playing regular. Sounds like you are just frustrated that it is working in your league. But truthfully, winning the pitching categories does NOTHING if you don't have the batting, right??
Many teams have a 'lock' on 3 categories, that don't place well. I often compete against teams with sluggers who lock up R, HR & RBI but suck in AVG and SB because they focused on big bats.
For the comments saying that this feature is not feasible for Rotisserie - ESPN has already adopted this feature. Here is their official rule explanation:
"For Roto leagues, failure to accumulate the minimum number of innings will result in forfeiture of ERA and WHIP pitching categories for the entire season. Teams will receive "1" Roto point for both the ERA and WHIP categories."
Basically, if at the end of the season you have not met the required minimum inning limit, your score in ERA and WHIP drops to 1.
I don't agree that ignoring Starting pitchers and loading up on relievers is a "legit" strategy to win the ERA and WHIP categories because you are "artificially" winning them rather than by picking the best players, which should be the required task.
Regardless, whether some people agree that this is a legitimate strategy or not is really not the point. Just asking that miniumum innings for Roto be a feature available for commissioners to utilize if they so choose. If people want to use this strategy in their leagues, they can choose to enter leagues with no minimum inning requirement.
We can debate on whether it's a "legitimate" strategy or not, but I just think there should be an option available to those leagues that would prefer not to have this type of strategy employed as ESPN has done.
If a manager in a Rostisserie league only uses elite relievers, then you're looking at a final ERA number around the low 2's and a WHIP figure in the low 1's. That virtually locks up first place in those 2 categories.
It really isn't comparable to your theory of loading up on "HR hitters and SB" guys. Again, I'm not asking for this to mandated in every yahoo league out there. But just requesting that a minimum innings limit for Rotisserie leagues be an available feature for commissioners to use at their disposal.
Actually is is not a loophole and a legitimate strategy in baseball, loading up on RPs.
I don't necessarily agree with the comment about winning ERA and Whip, but they will get killed for sure in Ws and Ks. You take 3 of the 5 batting categories and the worst you have is a tie.
This is really no different from the hitter strategy of taking only HR hitters and SB guys to get virtual locks on those categories and a big chance of winning Runs and a pretty good shot at RBI.
Please add an innings minimum option for roto leagues. This is available in head to head leagues and the option should be available for all leagues, H2H and roto. NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL ROTO, BUT A SELECTABLE OPTION.
I agree with all of the comments. This may not be feasible.
This is one the main features of roto, and shouldn't be changed. What are you going to do, disqualify a team permanently if he doesn't meet the innings for one week?
The settings would be similar to the H2H.
Which is not how pure roto is set up. With roto, you get x number of innings max per season. If you want to burn all the innings in 4 months, more power to you. If you want to wait to later in the season to see which pitchers reach top form, more power to you.
Roto is not normally a weekly format.
I am suggesting it be based on weekly.
If you are talking pure roto, scoring is based on season long scoring, not a weekly basis. If a manager chooses to sit pitchers, they are basically giving away Ks and Wins, and there is a legit strategy that some players employee of stocking up on RPs to try and win Ss, ERA and WHIP.
Roto has maximums, but not minimums.