Scoring - Maximum Innings Pitched option for Head-to-head leagues
Requests to add maximum innings pitched requirements for H2H leagues. Currently, this feature isn't supported in H2H leagues.
jpaine
shared this idea
-
Steve Huslig
commented
Maxing out the categories would be a bad idea because RPs could earn saves, wins, Ks and effect ERA and WHIP.
-
John Daigh
commented
This needs to be done. In a Roto league, your position has 162 games they can play and that's it. Why not cap starting pitching to a certain # of starts, say 162 starts, etc. ESPN does it and we may move our league as well, solely b/c of this feature. It can be an option for the commissioner. It doesn't have to be standard
-
Bill
commented
What's it going to take to get some movement out of Yahoo on this?
It's been two bleeping years and they still haven't implemented what should be a simple fix that not only Yahoo users, but many of their own "experts" have touted as better than what's currently available. -
Billdog
commented
Hook this up Yahoo so my awesome Commish is happy :)
-
Tyler
commented
Just an FYI to other commissioners out there I emailed Yahoo about this and they promptly responded that they aren't going to do anything about it. I've already moved my league to ESPN just wanted to let others know.
-
Tyler
commented
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IMPLEMENT THIS. It is so critical to H2H points leagues that this is implemented. Without this, there is no reason not to stack your team with as many SPs as possible, even if that means starting empties at hitting positions or RP spots. This feature protects the roster and helps limit the advantages of streaming. It really is absolutely critical to letting a H2H points league run the way they are intended. PLEASE YAHOO, I BEG YOU PLEASE!!!
-
Bill
commented
I would love to see these added! We already have OBP against, why not SLG and OPS?
-
Bill
commented
The ones I'd most like to see would be Slugging Percentage Against and/or OPS Against. Currently we only have OBP Against and both of the above would be a superior metric and shouldn't be difficult to add.
-
Jack
commented
Totally agree with this. We've wanted this in our league as well, as another means to stop streaming.
-
Scott Myers
commented
YES! You have OBPA, so why not BAA?
-
dillon Boyer
commented
Absolutely need this feature. By the end of our H2H points league, managers had figured out they had nothing to lose by filling their bench with SP's and using all of their waivers for the week to stream other SP's.
It made the last few weeks no fun, and the championship STILL came down to the person who started with the most starts for the week, as both managers used the above strategy. If we had a cap to weekly starts, managers could focus on identifying quality pitching rather than a mad grab for quantity
-
Ben Hansen
commented
Personally I want a stat that helps bridge interest between two stats without creating the difficult choice of adding an additional category that has equal weight. (e.g. Instead of Saves vs. Holds or Saves + Holds, have a weighted Saves + Holds where Saves count for double (or a little more) and Holds count for one). This starts to create a type of point system within categories, but I think it offers leagues more customization.
-
Matthew Duffy
commented
Yes. We need SLGA.
-
Dan
commented
That adjustment would make it impossible to overcome having mediocre pitching. If your pitchers are getting battered, not only would you be killed in ERA and WHIP, but now you'd officially have no chance to keep pace in wins or k's either since you'd no longer have the silver lining of having not used so many innings.
-
Anonymous
commented
A per week start limit would be a bad idea. Example: I have Kershaw, Sale, McCarthy, Lynn, & Richards as my SPs. I do not stream pitchers. This week all but Sale have 2 starts; combine that with my RPs and this week I would bust all weekly limits, but it will balance out next week when I have a less than usual amount of starts. So start limits are good for the season total, but it could easily ruin teams purely because of the schedule and not any exploitation on their part (streaming, loading up on SP/RP pitchers, etc...).
-
Anonymous
commented
Agree 100%. Makes no sense to limit each position to 162 games but not be able to limit pitchers to a total of 162 starts
-
G H
commented
In a points league format there is no sacrificing ERA/WHIP/etc. Total points is all that matters. I am suggesting another category that can be used to customize game play. People can choose to use it or not, just like you can choose to limit position players to 162 games played. There should be the same option for pitchers.
-
Sean
commented
This is not an issue about streaming. This is a keeper league that we've had running on Yahoo for the past 4 years and we can only add players on a weekly basis via a weekly FAAB blind auction. The issue is that we have a 6x6 league with IP as a category (we are going to switch to quality starts next year, but it doesn't change the problem). We capped the amount of pitchers you can have on your roster, but it doesn't really make a difference. If both teams have 13 pitchers with 10 being starters, if one team has 5 guys that go twice and the other guy only has 1 guy that's going twice, he's most likely going to lose in wins, IP, K, and quality starts. The only tool that can fix this is would be a cap to starts, like in an ESPN league (I'm currently in one and am enjoying it a lot, hence my consideration to switch over to the dark side).
ESPN does it beautifully, even warning me (mobilly and on the computer) if I'm approaching my starts limit---in that league it's 9 per week. If I log in on a Thursday and I've already had 6 starts, it's surely going to let me know I'm close to the limit.
Yahoo could surely do this easily, and it should put it right next to the innings pitched amount on the bottom of the screen (the minimum innings pitched count). I've been the commissioner of this league for four years consecutively and our Yahoo football league is going into it's 12th season. I don't want to switch to ESPN, but that's a much easier option than manually enforcing a starts cap.
-
Anonymous
commented
Also, it doesn't "need" to be 162, leave it up to the league to decide the limit.
-
Anonymous
commented
The popularity of QS, and decline of Wins, is diminishing the value of middle relievers. My league wants to go to QS, which makes sense, as your pitcher is no longer dependent on his offense or bullpen for a category, but now the set-up guys are relegated to "Hope the closer in front of you gets hurt" rostering. Why would I waste innings on them when I know they can't get me a category and a spot starter can. I propose having a starts limit. And if you're already formulated for eligibility of QS, tracking starts should be easy. This way if your ERA/Whip start to stuff the best way to repair it without scarfing QS/W potential is through premier set-up/middle guys. They have become an essential part of real baseball, clubs are building their bullpens off the ninth and eight inning, some even 7 (Gregerson, Adams, Bell of yore), they should be an essential part of fantasy baseball. And "Holds" are still a flawed stat. This addition should not be too much additional work. I appreciate your time and consideration.