Hmm... Forgot about CG and SHO. Those would help offset the reliever strategy to a degree although we can only count on ~1 per week at best
Lets see:
wins > SP
losses > RP
ERA > RP
saves > RP
CG > SP
SHO > SP
whip > RP
Ks > SP
BB > RP
I just dont see how we can get away from the reliever strategy. I even dropped holds and total bases and the RPs still have the advantage. We could add IP and have a minimum IP per week high enough to scare people into starting pitchers. I think we've had 12-14 IP in the past but that doesn't really do the trick. That can be reached easily by two decent SPs going 5-6 innings with relievers getting the rest easily. I suggest a 16 IP minimum or maybe even up to 18. That would put a damper on using relievers and allow us to to avoid over loading the pitching categories with less desirable stats like IP.
How high are you willing to go on the minimum IP per week, Imran?
Lets see:
wins > SP
losses > RP
ERA > RP
saves > RP
CG > SP
SHO > SP
whip > RP
Ks > SP
BB > RP
I just dont see how we can get away from the reliever strategy. I even dropped holds and total bases and the RPs still have the advantage. We could add IP and have a minimum IP per week high enough to scare people into starting pitchers. I think we've had 12-14 IP in the past but that doesn't really do the trick. That can be reached easily by two decent SPs going 5-6 innings with relievers getting the rest easily. I suggest a 16 IP minimum or maybe even up to 18. That would put a damper on using relievers and allow us to to avoid over loading the pitching categories with less desirable stats like IP.
How high are you willing to go on the minimum IP per week, Imran?
Comment