Marcos was advocating for increasing our IP limit to 35 (which is fairly standard). He won't post here so I will post on his behalf. I guess the benefit of staying at 25 is that it allows for more strategies to be viable (namely rostering mostly relievers) and puts less pressure on the rebuilding teams to roster more mediocre starters just to reach their innings minimum. His argument for moving to 35 seemed to be mostly that it would decrease the value of relievers.

I'm happy to throw that one out there.

Prior to the 25 IP limit, we had no limit. You could basically win the ratios and saves (before we had SV/HLD) with a few good closers. Why did we pick 25? No one had said anything about a 'standard' so we went with what seemed reasonable.

On that note, do we want it even higher?

I would be fine with this.

It just occurred to me that we've discussed this before: http://redscape.com/viewtopic.php?f=167&t=3651

Nick even mentioned going to 35 IP.

We also talked about having a minimum games started #. That might make 'openers' popular.

Of course we discussed it before...we've discussed everything before.

This is a solution in need of a problem...as in has any owner EVER used the closer strategy effectively?

Yes, you do need a minimum innings requirement; otherwise a team with bad pitching could just have one great reliever pitch one clean inning and win two categories. But 25 innings forces an owner to have at least a few starters. If a closer strategy could be done, Ryan would have been able to do it.

This discussion is a waste...of bytes. Next up: how many angels fit on a pin?