Roster sizes etc...

[TheSmellyCat]

The positions are

1 Catcher
1 1B
1 2B
1 3B
1 SS
3 OF
1 UTIL

3 SP
2 RP
3 P

The games limit was 162 for every position and 2500 inning for pitchers (I think, it was Yahoo!'s standard which I beleive is 2500)

The undecideds are Catchers 1 or 2? If its possible to have 2 starting catchers with a 162 game limit then we'll do that (so games limit can be met). If not we'll come to another decision.

# of UTIL. 1 or 2? What do you think? Keep it the same or change it? What did you think of it last year? Good or Bad?


How many DL spots? It was 2 last year. I think we need more because injured players need to be kept (even if they're out for the year this go around). How about 4 or 5? Any suggestions or prefences?

Any other rules that need to be clarified? Remember there is only so much we can do because Yahoo! sets a range and you can choose where in that range you want for that category.

[imgreat95]

I definately think we need more DL spots. My thinking for this is that if we had had more last year then this whole DL keeper thing would be moot really. That way if someone gets hurt, you put them on the DL.. simple as that...


One thing I have been wondering about though that might add something to this. Looking at my roster (and others as well, so this isn't just for my benefit) I have Mike Remlinger on my roster. Last season he was at the top of the league in "holds" but it didn't make a difference because it wasn't a stat that we used. Basically, under the format we used last season, a relief pitcher is essentially useless unless he pitches a ton of innings and has a low era. Could we possibly include holds this season?? Or something else maybe that would measure a relief pitcher...

[GiveHyzduashot]

Two catchers is practically impossible. There's 30 teams in MLB, there would need to be 40 catchers then. Only 35 catchers see an adequate amount of time. So 25% of the teams would only have a catcher. Catchers are few and far between. With only one catcher, there will still be teams with Dan Wilson and Robert Fisk as their catcher. That's a scary thought. If we made it two catchers then there'll be a whole lot of Tom Lampkins on rosters. That's even scarrier.

I like one util spot. It's been that way in most leagues I have been in. To a lesser degree, the same thing holds true for the second utility spot as it does a second catcher. Not many teams will be able to have a productive player in the second utility spot.

I also like expanding the DL and having holds as a category.

[Nate Dogg]

Last year we talked about having 2 catchers only if you need them to get to 162 games. If you have Piazza or Pudge or .... then you would not want to waste games on a slug. It was just an idea for the teas with a Dan Wilson who end up only getting 120 games. At least you could get all of your games with 2 slugs. I believe that Yahoo automatically allows 162 innings for each player. If we were to change it, it would have to be watched and if you go over 162, even though yahoo allows 324, then you would have to not play a C.

We talked about adding Holds for P's and Walks for Hitters last year and making it a 6x6 league. I don't think we should but if the majority wants to, I will not argue.

I will start a pole

[usc2002]

1 and 1 works best...Like mentioned before, please show me 40 catchers worth it and I will vote 2...since there are no hands lets just stay 1...And 1 util is plenty.........

[pdaj]

A lot of teams platoon catchers .. having a team's two catchers would help your situation..