Blowout's AL/NL Challenge

[Hollywood42]

Still looking for one more

[atoaz12]

I'm in depending on buy in

[Hollywood42]

Right on! What's your range? It's sounding like most people are good up to $50

Originally Posted by atoaz12

I'm in depending on buy in

[Grilledeggplant]

Will the league be on ESPN?

[Hollywood42]

That's generally where I like to play, but I'd like to wait to make that official as they seem to have taken away quite a bit of the stuff I liked this year. But not everywhere has opened up yet so I'd prefer to ignore that for now and we can hammer out the details of the league and then come back to the platform at the end

Originally Posted by Grilledeggplant

Will the league be on ESPN?

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

That's generally where I like to play, but I'd like to wait to make that official as they seem to have taken away quite a bit of the stuff I liked this year. But not everywhere has opened up yet so I'd prefer to ignore that for now and we can hammer out the details of the league and then come back to the platform at the end

Taken away? Why would they take away stuff?

Espn is an odd duck company

[Ray27Ray52]

Have we thought about roster sizes yet? With 12 teams and just a 20 player roster (hypothetical roster size) that's 240 players for each league.

[SethMurphy]

We need to be careful on roster size IMO. Remember that when looking at offense, 15 teams in each league in real life means that in the AL 135 players start every day, but in the NL it’s only 120. So I don’t think you want the starting lineups too deep with CI/MI/5OF/UT type stuff, just as a warning. You want some semblance of a FA market to work with as well as trades

[Hollywood42]

Asking a few buddies I know how their AL only league is set up. I do think part of an AL/NL only league is it inherently being more difficult to put together a quality roster due to the lesser number of players available, but I agree that I don't think it makes sense to bother with CI/MI or more than 3 outfielders. Maybe 1 starter at each position (3 for OF), plus a flex?

Ray, you said you're in an AL/NL only league, right? How is that set up?

[SethMurphy]

I would think a starting lineup that mimics the real life lineup is most accurate.

C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 3 OF, UT. Not sure exactly on SP/RP or just P setup..... maybe like 4 SP, 2 or 3 RP spots, no general P spots?

Depth of the bench will be the big difference maker probably.

[Hollywood42]

For pitchers, I was thinking 5 SP, 2 RP. With SPs, it's going to matter less how many slots there are (since with only half the league, it's going to be pretty rare you have more than 4ish starters going on the same day), and more what the max starts we allow are. In my full MLB leagues, we usually have it set at around 12 which is a pretty fair number, but I'm not sure how much the AL/NL only should effect it. There's going to be drastically less quality starters available, so maybe it doesn't matter as much if we drop that number. That's something I'm really not sure about and would like some feedback from others

As for RP, if we had 1 slot, that pretty much covers all the closers from the AL/NL. I'd say definitely 2 so some non-closers will be in play, but I don't quite think I want to bring it all the way up to 3. There's just not that many RPs in the AL/NL out there that are going to be good enough to make a difference in fantasy. I like 2 so that it's deeper than just the closer from each team, but more than 2 and it starts to feel like we'd just be tossing out random middling guys whose ceiling each day is 5 points and floor is -15. Think that'd just be really frustrating to everyone

As for bench slots, I'd love to have that discussion as well. Maybe 5ish, if we go with 1 at each offensive position, 3 OF, 1 flex, 5 SP/3RP? I'd like to create something where the FA pool isn't worthless, but you aren't having a roster crunch every time you make a move either

Originally Posted by SethMurphy

I would think a starting lineup that mimics the real life lineup is most accurate.

C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, 3 OF, UT. Not sure exactly on SP/RP or just P setup..... maybe like 4 SP, 2 or 3 RP spots, no general P spots?

Depth of the bench will be the big difference maker probably.

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

Asking a few buddies I know how their AL only league is set up. I do think part of an AL/NL only league is it inherently being more difficult to put together a quality roster due to the lesser number of players available, but I agree that I don't think it makes sense to bother with CI/MI or more than 3 outfielders. Maybe 1 starter at each position (3 for OF), plus a flex?

Ray, you said you're in an AL/NL only league, right? How is that set up?

My AL only league is a different format for a couple of reasons.

1. There's only 10 teams instead of 12
2. It's a Roto league with no bench instead of a Head to Head

That being said here is our roster setup:

C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, MI,, CI, 5 OF, 2 Utility
9 pitchers with any combination of Starters of Relievers however there is a roster minimum of 1000 combined IP by the end of the season. If a team doesn't accumulate 1000 total IP they receive only 1 point for ERA and WHIP no matter where they were in the standings.

So that's 230 players total for a 10 team league. I will say from experience that FA is pretty much a wasteland of scrubs unless you are able to pick up someone while everyone else is sleeping. There are no waivers so it's first come first serve.

[Hollywood42]

Thanks for the info. I'd definitely prefer shallower rosters to make the FA pool a bit more useful

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

My AL only league is a different format for a couple of reasons.

1. There's only 10 teams instead of 12
2. It's a Roto league with no bench instead of a Head to Head

That being said here is our roster setup:

C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, MI,, CI, 5 OF, 2 Utility
9 pitchers with any combination of Starters of Relievers however there is a roster minimum of 1000 combined IP by the end of the season. If a team doesn't accumulate 1000 total IP they receive only 1 point for ERA and WHIP no matter where they were in the standings.

So that's 230 players total for a 10 team league. I will say from experience that FA is pretty much a wasteland of scrubs unless you are able to pick up someone while everyone else is sleeping. There are no waivers so it's first come first serve.

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by Hollywood42

Thanks for the info. I'd definitely prefer shallower rosters to make the FA pool a bit more useful

No problem. I would say probably for a 12 team league you probably would want to cap it at 9 starters on offense, 6 pitchers, and 4 bench spots. That's 228 players. Still a lot but at least there will be some semblance of a free agency pool.

[Hollywood42]

Here's what I'll propose to start-

C
1B
2B
3B
SS
OF x3
Flex

SP x4
RP x2

Bench x4
DL x2

That's 19 active slots per team, making 228 players owned in total. We can re-evaluate if we want to change this after year 1 if we find we don't like this, but it seems like a reasonable starting point

[SethMurphy]

I like that setup

[Grilledeggplant]

sounds good to me

[Ray27Ray52]

Looks good Hollywood.

[Hollywood42]

Out watching football all day with some buddies, we'll plan on rolling with rosters as described above unless there's any major complaints. I'll start the next conversation (probs scoring settings or keeper options) tomorrow morning

[Hollywood42]

For scoring, here's what I'm thinking-

Hitters
Total bases: +1 (1 point per base)
Runs: +1
SB: +1
CS: -1
BB: +1
RBI: +1
SO: -1
Cycle: +5

Pitchers
IP: +3
L: -5
QS: +4
H: -1
Shutout: +5
ER: -2
K: +1
BB: -1
Complete game: +3
No hitter: +20
Perfect game: +40
Save: +5
Blown save: -3

This creates a system where the top few pitchers are worth more than the top few hitters, but pitchers drop of much more quickly than hitters so it evens out pretty quick. For those of you in the keeper champions league, this is the same system we're now using there, and it's not too far off from the point systems in the road to glory or redrafter's leagues either

[Hollywood42]

Guessing there won't be many qualms about scoring settings, so let's also talk about keepers. Do we want any in this league? I think in this setting it makes sense to not have it be a deeper keeper league, so no more than 4 or 5 if we're going to do it. But if we do, what sorts of restrictions should there be? Is there a cost to keep? Can you keep anyone you like? Etc etc

I'm pretty open to this, but I do think there should be some sort of cost to keep a player each year. That'll create some turnover with the Trouts, Betts, Arenados, etc etc instead of them staying on one certain team each year. Given that rosters are smaller, maybe it makes sense to allow 2 keepers for each team? We could even make it 1 pitcher, 1 hitter, if we wanted. Interested to hear what others think

[Ray27Ray52]

Why don't we do something like 3 keepers with no restrictions other than you can only keep a player for 3 years max. In my AL only league after 3 years on your team they become a free agent.

Sor for instance someone drafts Mike Trout this year. This would be his letter designation A year. Next would be B. The year after that C. After that he is no longer eligible to be kept and his letter designation starts over. Letter designations don't restart for trades. So if he is traded in his B year to a different team he is still a B player and can only be kept for one more year.

[Cornerstore]

Hey just to make sure on this - im good with all settings so far but if a player gets traded from a NL to AL team midseason we still keep that players just make the adjustment on our other roster corrrect? In AL/NL teams have had players move mid year go to waivers but never had a league where im invested in both. Just asking because I can see Arenado be moved to a AL team mid season and if we were not keeping I wouldnt touch him with a 10 foot pole if he just gets thrown to waivers if traded out of league

[Ray27Ray52]

Ah never mind. I'll go with the consensus on players being traded to another league.

[Cornerstore]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

I don't want to mix leagues. If I have an AL player who gets traded to the NL I should lose him.

The team who loses a player just gets first rights to the player(s) who they were traded for.

So if Arenado gets traded for Esteban Florial, Albert Abreu and Miguel Andujar. What if someone owned Florial and another owned Andujar in that case. I dont think that would make sense in multi player deals.