Innings Pitched Question

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:41 am

Under the rules, there is a 900 IP requirement. I have a few leagues where it's not clear that the teams will meet it because (1) the teams are dead and (2) they went with a RP strategy.

The rules state: Should any team not reach the required limit of 900 innings pitched by the end of the season, the rankings will be altered to show that team getting 1 point in both ERA and WHIP. No other teams will switch positions in the standings, but the team that didn't reach the minimum IP will automatically earn 1 point in ERA and WHIP.

So I know I'm reading it correctly, under this scenario for ERA...

1st place: Team A - over the IP limit

2nd place: Team B - under the IP limit

3rd place: Team C - over the IP limit

... Team A gets 15 points, Team B gets 1 point, and Team C gets 13 points? Team C does not get 14 points, correct?

Cocktails and Dreams · Post by **Cocktails and Dreams** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:32 am

Not speaking for the men in charge, but I would be under the impression that team C would move up to 14 points. I would think all points would need to still be accounted for.

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:37 am

Well then, I suppose it's good i asked the question. The language re not switching position in the standings leads me to believe that wouldn't be the case, but obviously, reasonable minds can disagree.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:38 am

Agreed.

If a team did not reach the innings minimum, they shouldn't have a stranglehold on its former position.

The team getting one point and was at the bottom of WHIP and ERA while not having a good staff should still be rewarded for making the minimum. They would get two points while the team not making the minimum would get one point.

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:44 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Agreed.

If a team did not reach the innings minimum, they shouldn't have a stranglehold on its former position.

The team getting one point and was at the bottom of WHIP and ERA while not having a good staff should still be rewarded for making the minimum. They would get two points while the team not making the minimum would get one point. Perhaps. But I don't think that is what the rule says. I also think such a rule opens up the possibility of collusion (not that I am in any way accusing anyone of that) i.e., Team C says to Team B - don't reach your IP limit and I'll give you something, because your point (or maybe 2 if Whip also involved) could make a difference.

[ July 26, 2011, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Hells Satans ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:52 am

Collusion can happen anywhere. Not just with that example.

A team out of it, but with an rbi and hr lead over a competitor could be asked to call off the hounds allowing a team to pass them in both categories.

Let's hope none of this stuff occurs.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:09 am

The team that doesn't reach the minimum gets 1 point in ERA and WHIP and no other point totals are altered. Two teams would get 1 point in those categories in this case. That is how the rule was written and applied.

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:19 am

Thanks .

Cocktails and Dreams · Post by **Cocktails and Dreams** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:31 am

That seems odd. If there is a 15 team league and a team has 14 points in ERA but did not meet the requirements, then why should a team that met qualifying marks, and earning 2nd in a category only get points for third place? That is a rule that should be changed in my view. Standings in each and every category should equal 120 points. If they don't then that instantly makes ERA and WHIP more important categories than other categories. That should not be the case. I would go as far to say that if two teams in a league do not meet reguirements they would each get 1.5 as they tied for last. It is not roto baseball otherwise.

Dirt Dogs · Post by **Dirt Dogs** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:13 pm

Cocktail,

Look at it from the other view. If you have 15 points in ERA and your competition is in 3rd sitting on 13 points whey should they benefit and get an extra point and you in first get no extra points. The penalty is to the team that did not hit the innings pitched. The other standings should not be altered one way or another. I like the rule how Greg described it.

Red Sox Nation- · Post by **Red Sox Nation-** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:33 pm

I can understand both sides of this but I don't want to see an "adjustment" to the final league and overall standings based on this. Let the leagues be decided on statistics.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:40 pm

Originally posted by Dirt Dogs:

Cocktail,

Look at it from the other view. If you have 15 points in ERA and your competition is in 3rd sitting on 13 points whey should they benefit and get an extra point and you in first get no extra points. The penalty is to the team that did not hit the innings pitched. The other standings should not be altered one way or another. I like the rule how Greg described it. Because the team in 3rd getting 13 points had the SECOND BEST ERA earned legally so they should be given points corresponding to the second best ERA.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:36 am

Originally posted by Dirt Dogs:

Cocktail,

Look at it from the other view. If you have 15 points in ERA and your competition is in 3rd sitting on 13 points whey should they benefit and get an extra point and you in first get no extra points. The penalty is to the team that did not hit the innings pitched. The other standings should not be altered one way or another. I like the rule how Greg described it. I agree.

Cocktails and Dreams · Post by **Cocktails and Dreams** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:55 am

Originally posted by Dirt Dogs:

Cocktail,

Look at it from the other view. If you have 15 points in ERA and your competition is in 3rd sitting on 13 points whey should they benefit and get an extra point and you in first get no extra points. The penalty is to the team that did not hit the innings pitched. The other standings should not be altered one way or another. I like the rule how Greg described it. Nobody is benefiting in reality though. Current standings are simply based on assumptions. An assumption a team will meet requirements,. But he has only earned 2nd place, in your example, if he does. If he doesn't, then the club showing in third has actually earned 2nd place and should get second place points. The team not meeting the qualifying standards earned last place and one point. This issue is pretty clear cut for me. Every category needs to equal 120 points or it is not roto baseball. Never should it be the case that one category is more important to the standings than another category. It is actually very surprising to me that people think it should be the other way as that makes very little sense to me. No clue why anyone would think that one category should be more important than another.

[ July 27, 2011, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Cocktails and Dreams ]

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:38 am

I don't much care either way if we change it, but I do think the rules require the current result.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:39 am

I agree with Todd and Chad. The team not reaching the innings limit was in second place under the assumption that like all the others teams, they would finish within the rules of the game.

Since this didn't happen, the offending team should be dropped to the bottom and other teams should move up since they played within the rules.

The third place team is not 'rewarded' with an extra point. They earned it for having the best E.R.A. or WHIP within the rules.

Now, it is neither here nor there since Greg has responded about the rule. But, it makes good fodder to talk about during the off season.

Dub · Post by **Dub** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:24 am

It almost happened to me last year and I was Team C. I had this same discussion with Greg who ruled the same way. In the end, the team made (barely) the min innings threshold. Matter of fact, this team actually holds the record for lowest DP ERA for a season.

The team was XXXDEFAULTXXX .

http://nfbc.stats.com/baseball/online_records.asp

[ July 27, 2011, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Dub ]