AB or PA Minimum

[BrewCrewGM]

I've never brought this up since I thought you could only set an IP minimum on the scoring, but is it possible to set a minimum number of ABs before BA, OBP, & SLG count? Just think it's silly that a team with maybe two or three regulars in their lineup can fluke into a .400/.500/.600 week with very few ABs and have it beat a .300/.380/.500 lineup with a ton of ABs logged in.

What are everyone else's thoughts on this?

[Deleted]

I wouldn't be opposed, but it should be effective for 2017 season.

[St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew)]

totally agree, we'll discuss this in the offseason and if the majority agrees then we'll implement something.

[WhiteSox]

There is no way to implement in ESPN we tried to but there's no option

[Dodgers GM]

yes what tyler said

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

ESPN doesn't have the function.

Have a couple TPB managers oversee the PA or AB's per week. If a team misses the minimum cutoff for the PA/AB for a week they lose their 9th round pick, 2nd time missed, their 7th rounder, 3rd time their 5th rounder, 4th time 3rd rounder, 5th time 1st rounder.

Last year and part of this, I junk piled unowned back up players who were getting semi-regular playing time from the wire to fill my roster. I still was able to play all the while knowing my team was shit. But I still tried to field a somewhat playable team without dismantling my farm to overpay for MLB regulars.

Just recently I promoted a few SP prospects who I value more than the slush I was rostering who I expect to have Starting Rotation gigs at some point next season (Hoffman, R.Lopez, Blackburn & A.Mejia).

I don't know why some teams can't dig to roster a somewhat semi-playable team other than to tank. But even while rostering a team like I did. You're still gonna lose but atleast it makes it somewhat enjoyable for your opponent opposed to not even needing to try.

I also believe making a cut in rosters to a 30 man roster an incremental cut. Would allow for 30 more players to be placed on the wire and make it a little easier for the teams "tanking" to field a playable roster.

[Deleted]

If we went to taking away picks for missing AB/PA limits I'd think we'd have to do the same for missing the IP limits. I'm not really in favor of that penalty structure, but I understand where you're coming from with it.

Last week O's didn't hit the IP minimum, but it didn't really impact scoring other than giving me the L category.

Speaking of which, similar to how IP limits affect losses, PA/AB limits should affect K's.  Using my matchup with O's as an example, I had 195 AB's vs. his 66.  There's no chance in hell I win K's in that matchup.

[rangers]

i don't like having minimums for either, especially in the case of injuries. If the league would like to implement some penalty (outside of the fact that they guarantee losing several other categories) then the limits should be very low to prevent extreme cases. Like SUPER low. There maybe no way for teams playing against weak squads to win K's but there's also no way for weak squads to win R, HR, RBI etc... so to me that's penalty enough.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

Or maybe we just look at the circumstance of the team (re-build) the integrity/reputation of the manager and go from there.

If the manager is me or some other manager who's on daily is very active in chats and player activity and makes an effort then things are let to slide. If the manager is someone who's rarely on, their ESPN page is a disaster and they're neglectful in maintaining their Proboards page then maybe they need to be shown the door.

No penalties just a feel for the situation.

[Deleted]

Can I ask what the rationale for a 30 man roster is? By definition, this means we take 6 entire 25 man MLB rosters out of use. I like the addition of the "poaching" rule, and I don't have this problem myself, but it must be frustrating to not even have a reasonable chance to play a complete roster on a daily basis. I have mental conniptions every time I look at my 3B slot.

I'll go on record as being in favour of MLB dropping roster size gradually to 25 men. We don't have a Players Union to raise a fuss and this would potentially make salary cap issues easier to manage.

[Dodgers GM]

I dont see why teams that have built a system around depth should be penalized for teams that make no effort to try and field a roster to make the weekly requirements. I call that laziness. As for teams with cap issues, if a team with 160+ cap has issues staying under think about what its like for teams that have much less than that. I have no sympathy if a team cant keep their cap under control.

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2016 8:54:47 GMT -5 @indians said:

Can I ask what the rationale for a 30 man roster is? By definition, this means we take 6 entire 25 man MLB rosters out of use. I like the addition of the "poaching" rule, and I don't have this problem myself, but it must be frustrating to not even have a reasonable chance to play a complete roster on a daily basis. I have mental conniptions every time I look at my 3B slot.

I'll go on record as being in favour of MLB dropping roster size gradually to 25 men. We don't have a Players Union to raise a fuss and this would potentially make salary cap issues easier to manage.

I have ask this question on roster size from day one of my 2 years in this league and I still don't know.  Oh, and it's actually worse then what you stated, it's a 31 player roster, 7+ entire 25 man MLB rosters.

[Deleted]

Yeah I don't see how you just "erase" so many roster slots. The old saying.... If it ain't broke...

[Deleted]

But, it is broke in mores ways then one.

[BrewCrewGM]

i'm not in favor of reducing rosters.

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2016 9:53:45 GMT -5 Dodgers GM said:

I dont see why teams that have built a system around depth should be penalized for teams that make no effort to try and field a roster to make the weekly requirements. I call that laziness. As for teams with cap issues, if a team with 160+ cap has issues staying under think about what its like for teams that have much less than that. I have no sympathy if a team cant keep their cap under control.

I had a bet with my wife that it would take at least three hours for someone to play the "Why am I being punished for being deep" card.  Cost me ten bucks.

First, if you're being punished, it's because you're the Dodgers.  It's part of the Sacraments of every major religion to punish the Dodgers.

Second, I reject your premise.  This is not punishment.  It's a proposed tweak, to take place over a couple of years, to increase the competitive balance and the enjoyment level for every team in this League.  You're not being "deep"when you have 35 major league players on your team list;  you're hoarding players and reducing the fun level for everyone.  I love a matchup that ends 9-7 and turns on a managerial decision.  When my only question is whether I win 14-2 or 13-3, that's not near as much fun for me.  I can't imagine I'd want to be around long if the question is whether I am losing by that margin.  Kudos to the guys who do.

...teams that make no effort to try and field a roster to make the weekly requirements.

There are no teams that make no effort to try to make the weekly requirements. There are virtually no weekly requirements and if teams don't meet those that there are, it isn't because they aren't trying.  There are only so many active players to go around and there are no players floating around on the waiver wire to fill roster holes.  as many as 180 players, admittedly many of them part timers, who are on irl Major League rosters, are sitting on TPB rosters taking up room and not being used.  I don't know how many of them would help a team that can't field a roster, but it couldn't hurt.

I agree with Rays.  It really is broke and needs fixing.

[Deleted]

Aug 7, 2016 16:12:16 GMT -5 BrewCrewGM said:

i'm not in favor of reducing rosters.

Of course not, most of the playoff contending teams aren't for giving up anything. Yet, many discussions are about tanking and penalizing teams that make no effort to try and field a roster to make the weekly requirements rather then trying to build competitive balance.

[Deleted]

And, btw, when I say "you're hoarding players", I mean "we".

[Dodgers GM]

Aug 7, 2016 16:47:00 GMT -5 @indians said:

Aug 7, 2016 9:53:45 GMT -5 Dodgers GM said:

I dont see why teams that have built a system around depth should be penalized for teams that make no effort to try and field a roster to make the weekly requirements. I call that laziness. As for teams with cap issues, if a team with 160+ cap has issues staying under think about what its like for teams that have much less than that. I have no sympathy if a team cant keep their cap under control.

I had a bet with my wife that it would take at least three hours for someone to play the "Why am I being punished for being deep" card.  Cost me ten bucks.

First, if you're being punished, it's because you're the Dodgers.  It's part of the Sacraments of every major religion to punish the Dodgers.

Second, I reject your premise.  This is not punishment.  It's a proposed tweak, to take place over a couple of years, to increase the competitive balance and the enjoyment level for every team in this League.  You're not being "deep"when you have 35 major league players on your team list;  you're hoarding players and reducing the fun level for everyone.  I love a matchup that ends 9-7 and turns on a managerial decision.  When my only question is whether I win 14-2 or 13-3, that's not near as much fun for me.  I can't imagine I'd want to be around long if the question is whether I am losing by that margin.  Kudos to the guys who do.

...teams that make no effort to try and field a roster to make the weekly requirements.

There are no teams that make no effort to try to make the weekly requirements. There are virtually no weekly requirements and if teams don't meet those that there are, it isn't because they aren't trying.  There are only so many active players to go around and there are no players floating around on the waiver wire to fill roster holes.  as many as 180 players, admittedly many of them part timers, who are on irl Major League rosters, are sitting on TPB rosters taking up room and not being used.  I don't know how many of them would help a team that can't field a roster, but it couldn't hurt.

I agree with Rays.  It really is broke and needs fixing.

First off I am not being punished since Im rebuilding. So was talking about other teams in the league. Also if you want it to be competitive are you willing to give up some of your cap for the greater good of the league? That would be just as fair as other teams giving up players. Since everyone doesnt have the same cap. Its alot easier for the big market teams to sign or trade for the top expensive guys.

[Deleted]

The salary cap has nothing to do with the existing competitive imbalance and is an utter red herring so just stop.