Here's another thought:

I set this up so that we'd each have 5 starting pitchers and 5 relief pitchers.

Then, as I describe somewhere above, makings "Games" a stat category for pitchers and giving it a value of +1, everyone could track their own 162 game max for starting pitchers, since as a stat category, that number will appear in your Team Log.

I figured if that if, barring injury, the typical starting pitcher starts 33-35 games a year, there would by several occasions during the season that you'd want to bench one of your SPs - like when they were pitching at Coors, for example - so as not to exceed the 162 game limit before the end of the season.

In other words, you would decide which starts the pitcher would miss, not Yahoo because you never benched a pitcher and hit your 162 game max couple of weeks before the season ends.

However.....

If one or more of your SPs misses an odd start here or there without ever going on the DL (which happens often), by carrying only 5 starters someone could find themselves in the position of it being an impossibility to hit the 162 game max.

Let's say, for example, it's some time in August, and the total of your SPs starts plus their projected number of starts for the remainder of th season only adds up to 158 or 159.

What are you supposed to do now? Dropping one of them doesn't help, since you can only have 5 SPs, so while you'd add someone else's future starts you'd be losing the future starts for the pitcher you drop.

So this is what I came up with to solve the problem:

I suggest that we change the roster configuration so that we have one less hitter on the bench, and carry six SPs instead of 5.

That's what most MLB teams carry anyway: 11 pitchers and 14 position players.

Plus, this will add another element of strategy to the game, because now, if you don't bench one of the 6 regularly, you'll hit the 162 game max around the time that each makes his 27th start of the season, and again, you'll be locked out of possible upcoming matchups which are more favorable than the ones you've already used.

I don't know if I explained that very well.....


"Difficult....not impossible"