Minimum Innings Pitched Totals

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:13 am

Through 16 weeks of competition, I thought it would be fun to see if any team was close to our minimum of 400 innings pitched. Of the 477 teams that I got data from, here's the results:

** 467 of the 477 teams are over 546 IP as of now. The highest total through 16 weeks is 1,111.2 IP and the lowest total is 273.2 IP. All but one team should be over 400 IP within two weeks and it's unlikely that any team will finish with fewer than 450 IP.

** Only one main event team has fewer than 693 IP as of today. It's likely that only one main event team will have fewer than 1,000 IP by season's end. Had we doubled the number of innings pitched this year to 800 in the main event, it would not have affected anyone's strategy. There are nine auction league teams that could finish with less than 700 IP, but all but one of those should have at least 600 IP.

The IP minimum and using 40-man rosters seems to have worked for this contest this year and we'll definitely look to add higher minimum IP totals for the mid-season leagues. Again, we'll address this at season's end, but a slight increase may be needed for show more than anything else in the main event and possibly for the auction leagues as well.

The Lollygaggers · Post by **The Lollygaggers** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:05 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

The IP minimum and using 40-man rosters seems to have worked for this contest this year... Greg - I think the IP minimum is all you need. The 40-man roster rule is confusing, especially since there are so many exceptions on Draft Day (Clemens, Urbina, top prospects, etc). Can you think of a "loophole" that has been closed by the 40-man rule that was not already closed by the 400 IP rule?

viper · Post by **viper** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:25 am

if there are 40-man rosters, will there be dinner tickets provided. I drive back the evening after the draft and I don't get home until about 1pm. Adding another hour plus to the draft where we draft all remaining rostered players isn't too appealing. Heck, I would actually vote for a 27 man roster where many more rostering decisions would have to be made over the season.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:25 pm

Originally posted by viper:

if there are 40-man rosters, will there be dinner tickets provided. I drive back the evening after the draft and I don't get home until about 1pm. Adding another hour plus to the draft where we draft all remaining rostered players isn't too appealing. Heck, I would actually vote for a 27 man roster where many more rostering decisions would have to be made over the season. Mike, I'm sure they mean the major league 40 man roster not drafting 40 players for our teams. For your sake though I believe using a teams 40 man roster at least cut down on having the moderators writing in a bunch of players - quite a time consuming process

Q

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:29 pm

Originally posted by The Lollygaggers:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

The IP minimum and using 40-man rosters seems to have worked for this contest this year... Greg - I think the IP minimum is all you need. The 40-man roster rule is confusing, especially since there are so many exceptions on Draft Day (Clemens, Urbina, top prospects, etc). Can you think of a "loophole" that has been closed by the 40-man rule that was not already closed by the 400 IP rule? [/QUOTE]It closed Perry from taking all Class A pitchers and anyone else who wanted Class A pitchers.

The Lollygaggers · Post by **The Lollygaggers** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:08 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

It closed Perry from taking all Class A pitchers and anyone else who wanted Class A pitchers.

The 400 IP rule stopped the "Perry loophole" by itself. There was no need for an additional 40-man roster rule. It's not a big deal, but the 40-man roster rule doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything. And we've already seen a situation where one team illegally drafted someone not on the 40-man roster or the "safe" list. So I say, scrap the rule; it isn't necessary to prevent the Perry loophole.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:07 pm

I agree. (Ditch the 40 man rule)

If I do the research...and it pans out...I'd like the opportunity to grab Jared Weaver for a buck in week 6...than to have to waste a bunch of FA$$$ on him when the world catches up via TV/internet and he is added to the pool.

~Lance

The Lollygaggers · Post by **The Lollygaggers** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:25 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

I agree. (Ditch the 40 man rule)

If I do the research...and it pans out...I'd like the opportunity to grab Jared Weaver for a buck in week 6...than to have to waste a bunch of FA$$$ on him when the world catches up via TV/internet and he is added to the pool.

~Lance Actually, Lance, I'm suggesting that we ditch the 40-man roster rule for the draft only. That rule was implemented to close the Perry loophole, and, as I've already pointed out, it's redundant. But I don't want to have to sift through every minor league player when looking for free agents; I like the current method better.

But you could DRAFT Jered Weaver if you wanted to.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:36 pm

Well...that's still an improvement IMO...good!

~Lance