Looking at StL, they'd have over 1500 IP per season through 1979 without drafting any new pitchers or waiving old ones, 1393 IP in 1980, 1438 in 1981, 1322 in 1982, 1610 in 1983, 1845 in1984… looks like they are a franchise owners might try to acquire pitching from with some trade offers.

Pittsburgh: 1451 IP in 1977, 1256 in 1978 (cccp, did you include Don Robinson?), 1240 in 1979, 1212 in 1980, 1079 in 1981… The random extra pitcher adds around 100 IP each season. They would definitely need to shore some pitching at some point, whether by trade or by draft, but they have time to deal with it. 

Red Sox: 1417 IP in 1977, 1873 in 1978, 1855 in 1979, 1588 in 1980… don't worry about the red Sox, and don't forget they have great trade bait anyway: Fisk, Lynn, Rice, Yaz, Dwight Evans, George Scott...

Montreal: 1253 IP in 1977, 819 in 1978, 884 in 1979… They'll definitely need help.  Nockahoma might regret drafting them.  Gary Carter should probably be traded for some IP, maybe Andre Dawson too. I'd imagine they could get a lot of IP plus a competent catcher and outfielder in return.

These numbers are from loading the 1977 rosters, then advancing one year at a time and adding rookies.  They might be a little off, more likely underestimating how many IP are available if I missed someone coming off injured reserve.

The Reds are over 1000 IPs all the way until 1982, so we should be fine. If we stick to 20 teams that'll leave quite a few decent pitchers to draft from to fill some holes. We'd definitely need to be pretty active in trades though to keep it going. Should be an interesting league if it gets up and running.

I see my mistake. In this league you don't lose FAs I just loaded the 1978 in my bad. OK.

Posted by dannyjoe on 8/24/2015 9:56:00 PM (view original):
Looking at StL, they'd have over 1500 IP per season through 1979 without drafting any new pitchers or waiving old ones, 1393 IP in 1980, 1438 in 1981, 1322 in 1982, 1610 in 1983, 1845 in1984… looks like they are a franchise owners might try to acquire pitching from with some trade offers.

Pittsburgh: 1451 IP in 1977, 1256 in 1978 (cccp, did you include Don Robinson?), 1240 in 1979, 1212 in 1980, 1079 in 1981… The random extra pitcher adds around 100 IP each season. They would definitely need to shore some pitching at some point, whether by trade or by draft, but they have time to deal with it. 

Red Sox: 1417 IP in 1977, 1873 in 1978, 1855 in 1979, 1588 in 1980… don't worry about the red Sox, and don't forget they have great trade bait anyway: Fisk, Lynn, Rice, Yaz, Dwight Evans, George Scott...

Montreal: 1253 IP in 1977, 819 in 1978, 884 in 1979… They'll definitely need help.  Nockahoma might regret drafting them.  Gary Carter should probably be traded for some IP, maybe Andre Dawson too. I'd imagine they could get a lot of IP plus a competent catcher and outfielder in return.

These numbers are from loading the 1977 rosters, then advancing one year at a time and adding rookies.  They might be a little off, more likely underestimating how many IP are available if I missed someone coming off injured reserve.

I went out much further than that.   It's not the first few seasons I was referring to.   There are seasons with extremely low pitching.  But I am fine just letting this ride and seeing where we end up.

want to make sure it is clear I am not complaining or trying to cause problems.   Just asking questions or raising potential issues that are common with unique leagues such as this.    Just to put stuff out there for the good of the league.   Looking forward to this one for sure

If Boston is still officially available, I would take them.

Posted by edsortails on 8/25/2015 4:37:00 PM (view original):
If Boston is still officially available, I would take them.

You got 'em, edsortails.  Crazyamos wanted them only if it is a 20-team league or smaller, and to me that is a last resort if we can't find enough owners. 

I should go ahead and note that 20 teams might ultimately be the way to go.  Some franchises might be almost impossible to run under these rules.  The concept is an experiment, and I don't know that it would work without changes, like dropping to 20 teams.  I'm just not ready to go there yet. 

Its easier with 20 in terms of finding replacements as well. Even though I made a mistake in my innings count, anything less than 1,400 is still tough to manage. Six more teams to choose pitching from would be very helpful rather than just two. If the league takes off you can expand to 24 in 1993.

Posted by dannyjoe on 8/25/2015 8:31:00 PM (view original):
I should go ahead and note that 20 teams might ultimately be the way to go.  Some franchises might be almost impossible to run under these rules.  The concept is an experiment, and I don't know that it would work without changes, like dropping to 20 teams.  I'm just not ready to go there yet. 

"concept is an experiment"..............well said.  It's a great idea....and through discussion we can work out the kinks to make it great. 

I think crazyjoe reserved the Reds if you want to update page 1 dannyjoe

Posted by crazyjoe02 on 8/22/2015 11:56:00 PM (view original):
I agree. Keeping it at 20 teams might be best. I also like the idea of starting players with the teams that they played their first MLB game with.We could keep it in the same spirit of the rule you have for minimum games played. You get rewarded for doing your homework. If you look up the new rookies to WiS in a season and see that a player played their first MLB game with your team before their WiS season then you can alert the commish and then place that player on your team. Anyways I'll join up with the Cincinnati Reds if this gets underway.

Here is his post

Thanks for pointing that out. I had a modem failure Sunday and lost track of that!

Looks like we've stalled a bit. I'll add the Orioles as a 2nd team to jump start us

That leaves us needing 5 for a 20 team league (or only 1 for a 16 team)