Master Index of Archived Threads


Roster Sizes

Nymr83 Nov 28 2005 11:04 AM

i dont want to turn this into a poll yet because theres plenty to discuss, these are a few of the more standard options: A) C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 3xOF, UT, 2xSP, 2xRP, 3xP. 16 starters. B) 2xC, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 5xOF, CI, MI, UT, 9xP. 23 starters. theres also the matter of bench size and how many starting pitchers you must play (or a minimum innings requirement.) DL-size should probably be set to the yahoo maximum of 5, no reason to penalize people for their guys getting hurt. comments?

seawolf17 Nov 28 2005 11:08 AM

Depends on the final number of teams, methinks. Figure there are about 15 "usable" players per team, x 30 MLB teams = 450 players, give or take a few. Distribute those players among twenty fantasy teams, that's 22ish players per team. I'd go: c, 1b, 2b, 3b, ss, 3 of, ut, 7 p (you break them down however you'd like, within a minimum innings requirement). That's 16 starters. Allow nine bench players, plus no more than 2-3 DL slots; you want to encourage player movement.

Valadius Nov 28 2005 11:59 AM

Here's how we did it in my league this year: 2 x C, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CI, MI, 5 x OF, UT, 4 x SP, 3 x RP, 3 x P = 24 roster spots, plus 5 DL spots. This was in a 12-team league. One thing I would definitely change about this is having only one catcher per team, especially in a 20-team league.

Elster88 Nov 28 2005 12:21 PM

5 DL spots = too many. 2 max.

Nymr83 Nov 28 2005 12:21 PM

alot of leagues will turn the 2nd catcher into a 2nd utility man. we have 19 guys interested i have to assume 20... i look at benches as just that- bench players- prospects, platoon guys, etc. if mike cameron, for example, is on someone's bench i consider the league to be too shallow. with 20 teams is we had 23 starters each thats 460 players which is 15.3 per MLB team (each teams' starting 8, their 5 man rotation, and their closer would be 14) so maybe thats a few too many. at the same time i think only 16 starters per team (320 MLB players) isn't enough (10.6 per team.)

Nymr83 Nov 28 2005 12:23 PM

Elster88 wrote: 5 DL spots = too many. 2 max. until you lose 5 guys in the same week (i've been there). i just hate the idea of having to drop players as a result of guys going on the DL.

seawolf17 Nov 28 2005 12:26 PM

I sat with ten guys on my DL at one point last season; I feel your pain. But if we have a deep league with this many teams, I think we need to free up as many free agents as possible, or we'll never get any movement.

Elster88 Nov 28 2005 12:27 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ="Elster88"]5 DL spots = too many. 2 max. until you lose 5 guys in the same week (i've been there). i just hate the idea of having to drop players as a result of guys going on the DL. We've all been there. Part of life. Next time don't take Junior Griffey.

Nymr83 Nov 28 2005 12:30 PM

Seawolf- i suppose that depends on where you want movement to come from, i'd prefer it came from trading depth to fill your needs rather than picking guys up.

Vic Sage Nov 28 2005 12:37 PM

The fewer roster slots, the more that skill is rewarded over luck, and the more that active players are favored over inactive ones. I generally play with an active roster of 23 +1 DL slot, allocated as follows: Lineup -- C, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, CI, MI, LF, CF, RF, DH = 11 (sometimes a UT instead of CI/MI; sometimes OFx3 rather than specific positions) Rotation -- SP, SP, RP, RP + 3 more pitchers = 7 (sometimes no specified slots) Bench -- pitchers or hitters = 5 (sometimes 3, depends on # of teams) I think it's very important to have no more than 1 DL slot since GMs should be forced to make hard decisions about whom to hoard and whom to give up on.

Valadius Nov 28 2005 01:56 PM

5 DL spots may be too much... I'm gonna go ahead and say 3.

Diamond Dad Nov 28 2005 02:01 PM positions

I worry more about the stat categories than the player positions. My preference is to make it as "realistic" as possible -- require 1 player for each defensive position, maybe 4 OF, and add 2 DH's (any player). Total of 10 or 11 hitters should be fine for each team. I like the idea for pitchers of requiring 5 starters, but depending on how the web site tracks pitchers, could make a difference. Having a minimum innings pitched number for the season is a default -- if you have a 1000 innings pitched requirement and you have a max. of 7 or 8 active pitchers, then you'll need to have 4-5 starters active most of the time or you'll fall short of your innings requirement.

Nymr83 Nov 28 2005 03:49 PM

well thats the point D-Dad...99% of leagues will regulate the number of starters you have, the two ways of doing it are a minimum number of innings or a minimum number of starters in the lineup. also this raises the question- daily transactions or set your lineup once a week? i've always favored setting your lineup once a week because otherwise someone can "cycle" through a new starting pitcher in 2 of their slots every day and accumulate massive strikeouts and wins just by doing that and it takes no skill. ]The fewer roster slots, the more that skill is rewarded over luck, and the more that active players are favored over inactive ones. i disagree, i think anyone can take beltran or floyd and get lucky, the skill comes with larger rosters and identifying the breakout players like Brian Roberts was last year

Matt Murdock, Esq. Nov 29 2005 08:46 PM

]daily transactions or set your lineup once a week? i've always favored setting your lineup once a week because otherwise someone can "cycle" through a new starting pitcher in 2 of their slots every day and accumulate massive strikeouts and wins just by doing that and it takes no skill. i disagree. daily transactions are what make fantasy leagues interesting, and they reward the vigilant owners. and there is a great deal of skill and luck involved in cycling pitchers. first of all, with an IP cap, who you allocate your innings to matters a great deal. secondly, finding the right matchup to pick the right starter for a given game takes alot more than "no skill". ] ]The fewer roster slots, the more that skill is rewarded over luck, and the more that active players are favored over inactive ones. i disagree, i think anyone can take beltran or floyd and get lucky, the skill comes with larger rosters and identifying the breakout players like Brian Roberts was last year shorter rosters force you to make your secondary picks more important. with an unlimited roster, you can take chances on TONS of prospects or guys right on the cusp and then reap the rewards when you're right on just one of those guys. the more limited the roster becomes, the more that a correct analysis of potential breakout guys is rewarded. Further, the daily transactions and FA waiver wire allows the vigilant owner to swoop in and scoop up a prospect nobody else has taken a chance on.

Nymr83 Nov 29 2005 11:24 PM

but the vigilant owner will have MORE guys do well on a larger roster thus offsetting any "luck"created by having more players, being able to take a guy that you think will have a breakout year and put him in your 4th or 5th outfielder spot or your 2nd catcher spot when he wouldnt be a starter with a smaller roster is a good thing.

Diamond Dad Nov 30 2005 08:14 PM rosters

I favor weekly transactions. I just don't have the time to make daily roster moves. Daily moves allows an owner who has the time to manipulate the lineup daily to gain a real advantage. Once a week is plenty. I also favor larger rosters, so the draft is deeper, and rewards owners who do their homework and know the sleeper picks and minor leaguers who will come up during the season. Gives more flexibility to make changes, and with weekly moves, that's important.

Nymr83 Dec 17 2005 11:06 PM

i'd like to get a poll on roster sizes up soon....if anyone has any additional input for this subject before the poll goes up you have a few more days.... right n0w the poll will probably look like this: A) 2xC, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, MI, CI, 5XOF, UT, 9XP B) C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 3XOF, UT, 7XP we'd decide on the more specific issue of whether the "pitchers" get divided into starters and relievers later. we'd also decide on bench & DL size after voting on the starting roster size.

Valadius Dec 17 2005 11:22 PM

There needs to be more choices than that. I would prefer option A, but with only one catcher, and ten pitchers.

Nymr83 Dec 18 2005 12:10 AM

can't have unlimited choices in a poll.... my thinking is that i'd rather narrow it down between those 2 radical alternatives and then, if necessary switch around 1 or 2 positions

Valadius Dec 18 2005 07:54 PM

Fine with me.