Another day, another
mailbag question, this time from Matt.
I have received tons of requests from friends of current members to join our league, which has made me think about expanding each league from 8 teams to 10. ... should I shrink the roster size of each team or keep it because everyone will be in the same boat?
Matt's league isn't just
expanding from eight to 10 teams, but from 16 to 20. His H2H league has an
eight team American League pool and an eight-team National League pool right
now.
So is a 20-team mixed
league too deep for H2H?
Matt's league uses a
standard 14 hitter, nine pitcher set-up...with the exception of lopping off one
catcher. There are then three bench spots.
So how would Matt's modest
proposal alter his H2H leagues?
American League
|
2012
|
2013
|
|||||
|
Slots
|
# of AL Starters
|
%
|
Slots
|
# of AL Starters
|
%
|
|
|
C
|
8
|
14
|
57%
|
10
|
15
|
67%
|
|
1B
|
12
|
14
|
86%
|
15
|
15
|
100%
|
|
2B
|
12
|
14
|
86%
|
15
|
15
|
100%
|
|
SS
|
12
|
14
|
86%
|
15
|
15
|
100%
|
|
3B
|
12
|
14
|
86%
|
15
|
15
|
100%
|
|
OF
|
40
|
42
|
95%
|
50
|
45
|
111%
|
|
UT
|
8
|
14
|
57%
|
10
|
15
|
67%
|
|
104
|
126
|
83%
|
130
|
135
|
96%
|
National League
|
2012
|
2013
|
|||||
|
Slots
|
# of NL Starters
|
%
|
Slots
|
# of NL Starters
|
%
|
|
|
C
|
8
|
16
|
50%
|
10
|
15
|
67%
|
|
1B
|
12
|
16
|
75%
|
15
|
15
|
100%
|
|
2B
|
12
|
16
|
75%
|
15
|
15
|
100%
|
|
SS
|
12
|
16
|
75%
|
15
|
15
|
100%
|
|
3B
|
12
|
16
|
75%
|
15
|
15
|
100%
|
|
OF
|
40
|
48
|
83%
|
50
|
45
|
111%
|
|
UT
|
8
|
16
|
50%
|
10
|
15
|
67%
|
|
104
|
144
|
72%
|
130
|
135
|
96%
|
Something Matt and his
league mates might want to consider is what the shift of the Astros will do to
the player population in the National League. Both the A.L. and the N.L. would
see a thinner talent pool as a result of Matt's proposal, but the N.L. is already
getting thinner with the Astros leaving. The owners in the N.L. side of the
pool would have already been impacted if there had been no changes, but adding
two teams to the N.L. and coping with the Astros migration
might be a culture shock to some.
As far as whether or not
Matt's league should shrink the rosters, my answer is it's up
to his league. I prefer deeper formats, but I can see how going from 16
to 20 teams might be a little much even for a deeper H2H league.
There would be impact of carrying a handful of bench players/fringe starters,
but in a league that is this deep, my guess is that there were probably already
some Major League starters active in weekly lineups that aren't very good.
The pitching impact would
be interesting, depending upon the league's rules on whether or not there is an
innings maximum or start limit.
American League
|
2012
|
2013
|
|||||
|
Slots
|
# of AL Starters/
Closers
|
%
|
Slots
|
# of AL Starters/
Closers
|
%
|
|
|
P
|
72
|
84
|
85.7%
|
90
|
90
|
100%
|
National League
|
2012
|
2013
|
|||||
|
Slots
|
# of NL Starters/
Closers
|
%
|
Slots
|
# of NL Starters/
Closers
|
%
|
|
|
P
|
72
|
96
|
75%
|
90
|
90
|
100%
|
If it wanted to, Matt's
league could make all starting pitchers and closers active. However, even in
the accumulation-oriented world of H2H, running bottom of the barrel starting
pitchers out there every week is still a recipe for failure. More teams probably
means more relievers. With the overall percentage of pitchers being used moving
from 44 to 50 percent, the number of relievers available should still be
plentiful.
In the end, whether or not
Matt's league wants to make a change is up to Matt. As a Rotisserie guy, I'm a
proponent of deeper leagues, fewer every day players, and greater opportunities
to pursue strategy. It is possible that there will be some days where most
teams are off due to a light schedule. But baseball isn't football. There
aren't bye weeks, so to address Matt's point above; everyone will be in the
same boat from week to week.
No comments:
Post a Comment