NFBC Rules Changes Discussion For 2013

[Greg Ambrosius]

Every year we look at our NFBC Rules and tweak them to make them better. Last year we eliminated the pitcher lineup changes on Fridays and eliminated the moves for all players during the last two weeks of the season. I think both moves improved the game in 2012.

This year the only rules change we are currently considering is increasing the minimum innings pitched limit from 900 to 1,000. It's an increase that won't prevent teams from still attacking the pitching categories the way they want to, but does force all owners to at least have another starting pitcher in their lineup during the season to meet this threshold. This one is still up for discussion, but it is a change we are considering. Please give us your feedback on this one.

Also, do you have any other rules changes we should discuss now? Let's figure it out now so that we can then get all of our rules in place for the start of the 2013 season. Thanks for all your input and let's start the discussion.

[NorCalAtlFan]

one that will go pooped on, but here goes. thurs lineup moves instead of friday. mitigates some of the damage that these primadonnas do to us when they drink too much caffeine or sleep wrong, and miss a week.
thursdays are traditionally travel days, so the friday rule made/makes sense, but i'm still throwing this out there.

grazie

[KJ Duke]

It's an increase that won't prevent teams from still attacking the pitching categories the way they want to, but does force all owners to at least have another starting pitcher in their lineup during the season to meet this threshold.

From 900 to 1000 would require only 1/2 of an extra starting pitcher. I do think requiring an additional full season starting pitcher and bumping it from 900 to 1100 would be the better call. Looking over season-end numbers most teams are in the 1400-1600 range, so getting to 1100 is a fairly low bar (at least for faab leagues). I punted starting pitchers at mid-season in one main event league and still ended up with nearly 1200 innings.

Likewise, a suggestion made by doughy for those who miss the minimum makes a lot of sense too. It's similar to the rule that MLB has in place for batting title consideration if a player misses the min ABs.

[Outlaw]

I agree with KJ, a move to 1100 or even 1200 would be better IMO

[Money]

I agree with KJ, a move to 1100 or even 1200 would be better IMO

My guess is that this will be the most debated rule change this year. I'll weigh in and agree 1100 - 1200 would be my preference.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I agree with KJ, a move to 1100 or even 1200 would be better IMO

My guess is that this will be the most debated rule change this year. I'll weigh in and agree 1100 - 1200 would be my preference.

Sure, anyone who doesn't use the all-reliever strategy will be vocal on this thread and want the Innings Pitched to be as high as possible. Those who do use the strategy won't want to jump into this public fire. I understand that and won't use all feedback here to make my decision. I'm not trying to kill out unique strategies as I've always favored allowing folks the chance to construct teams the way they feel best. It will be a subtle change if there's a change at all.

[joshguy]

With 900IP, youre really only requiring 3 SPs 33% of your pitchers, yet SPs make up over 50% of the pitcher pool. So at least a bump to 1000 might require 4 SP, making it a little closer to real rosters.

[KJ Duke]

I agree with KJ, a move to 1100 or even 1200 would be better IMO

My guess is that this will be the most debated rule change this year. I'll weigh in and agree 1100 - 1200 would be my preference.

Sure, anyone who doesn't use the all-reliever strategy will be vocal on this thread and want the Innings Pitched to be as high as possible. Those who do use the strategy won't want to jump into this public fire. I understand that and won't use all feedback here to make my decision. I'm not trying to kill out unique strategies as I've always favored allowing folks the chance to construct teams the way they feel best. It will be a subtle change if there's a change at all.

I've used it, Chad used it this year, a lot of other vets have used it on occasion ... but I haven't seen one post arguing against at least 1100 yet, at least not on the boards. We know the RP King won't like it , but Greg, do you think there are actually more guys than you could count on one hand against it?

[Greg Ambrosius]

I've used it, Chad used it this year, a lot of other vets have used it on occasion ... but I haven't seen one post arguing against at least 1100 yet, at least not on the boards. We know the RP King won't like it , but Greg, do you think there are actually more guys than you could count on one hand against it?

The strategy gets tougher to master with each increase. We didn't go from 800 to 1200, we went from 800 to 900. I don't think we'll go from 900 to 1200 this time, either. Again, we all know it gets tougher with each increase, so let's be smart about the next increase if there's a need for the increase at all.

There were 33 teams under 900 IP with two weeks left in the season and 12 heading into the final week. Most aren't using the all-reliever strategy but for one reason or another push the limit on the IP minimum. So an increase won't affect everyone because most are at 1,500+ IP, but that doesn't mean we have to get there right now. A small increase is being considered.

[Hells Satans]

Count me in on wanting 1100 at the very least.

It's sour grapes on my part for sure, but I hate putting up big $$$ to compete against someone who is playing an entirely different game than me. Could I do it too? Sure, but it would not be enjoyable for me. It impacts the entire league's draft and FAAB. I think we should make it as difficult as possible to succeed with that approach.

I don't understand what constituency of players we are trying to protect my not increasing the innings limit substantially. Are we talking about 5% of the player pool? It's absurd to me that something that is overwhelmingly favored by the players would not be implemented immediately just so a few people can implement a particular strategy.


*Worth noting that I finished 190 points behind first place in the Diamond, so a 50 inning minimum wouldn't have mattered for me. I just sucked. That said, I still hate playing in leagues that effectively promote that strategy.

[gpchurchill]

can you win a national championship following the low ip strategy? if the answer is no, why change a rule to try and discourage an owner from attempting a failed strategy? when k's were added as a cat, i think the reliever strategy became moot.

i like the tension created by 900 innings as a limit, but i understand why 1000 might make for a better game. i don't agree that increasing to 1100 or 1200 will necessarily improve the tactical and strategic challenges of managing a pitching staff.

[gpchurchill]

there were several times this season when i wished i could swap out a pitcher on a friday. most often it involved a pitcher who was scheduled to start mid-week, then announced, long after i could do anything about it, as shelved.

is there some way we could find a compromise between what we decided we didn't want, gaming the friday pitcher change, and being completely locked out of any roster move?

for instance, could we agree that it is a better game if we are allowed, on friday, to replace a pitcher on our active roster that a) has not yet pitched that week, and b) is no longer on an active MLB roster.

[Hells Satans]

can you win a national championship following the low ip strategy? if the answer is no, why change a rule to try and discourage an owner from attempting a failed strategy? when k's were added as a cat, i think the reliever strategy became moot.

i like the tension created by 900 innings as a limit, but i understand why 1000 might make for a better game. i don't agree that increasing to 1100 or 1200 will necessarily improve the tactical and strategic challenges of managing a pitching staff.

I am talking more about the non- Main Event leagues, but the RP strategy is an issue even in the Main Events. He may not win the national championship, but his strategy may prevent others in the league from winning the national championship by making saves and offense more scarce.

[KJ Duke]

Churchill - an RP strategy did win an overall contest last season, it wasn't the classic main event but if it could happen there with the same rule set it could happen in any of the contests. If Greg doesn't bump the IP to more than 1000 I might try it just to prove it can be done.

Secondly, I agree on Friday pitchers ... if they haven't pitched through Thursday we should be able to swap them out. That would be a nice addition. In football, Thursday game players lock for the weekend - so I would think STATS could do the same for pitchers.

[Nevadaman]

Raise the limit. AT LEAST 1000, but 1100 is better. Yes, this is fantasy, but 90% of the people playing would like the game to somewhat mirror reality. Also, I agree with the sentiment that it doesn't make sense to protect a tiny percentage of the people trying to game the system.

[BK METS]

I am for raising the innings limit, to 1,000 at the very least, but prefer it to be higher. But, I also agree that the penalty for not meeting the limit is excessively high. If we went to 1,200 innings, but only put a gradual penalty on not meeting the limit, it would allow some to go with the RP strategy, knowing they were going to be penalized, though not catastrophic. I know this makes it more complicated, but first things first, I think allowing 900 innings is just too low.

[Fourslot40]

My opinion is 1200 innings, but no less than 1150. Six starters at 180 innings is 1080. If the idea is to mirror an MLB roster, it mirrors somewhat with a three man bullpen if someone wants... but, perhaps it makes those opposed to the rule feel better with six full time starter innings.

For most of the year I rolled with 2-3 relievers per week and finished with over 1500 innings.

[jim.s]

I'll jump into the lion's den.
1. Concerning IP, when we went from 700 to 900 and jumped over 800, the discussion then was that we would stay at 900 for a while.
2. I would like to see Friday P moves (if P on IR) allowed again. It was overkill to eliminate them just to eliminate a rarely used trick.
3. I wasn't aware there are no subs allowed the last two weeks. Why is that?

[The Mighty Men]

Raise the limit. AT LEAST 1000, but 1100 is better. Yes, this is fantasy, but 90% of the people playing would like the game to somewhat mirror reality. Also, I agree with the sentiment that it doesn't make sense to protect a tiny percentage of the people trying to game the system.

Personally, I never do the strategy and dislike when others do it. But it isn't "gaming the system". It is a strategy within the rules. It is sort of like a basketball team which slows the game down and holds the ball, which is a strategy nobody really likes, but is a viable strategy meant to win.

Not to pick on you, Nevadaman, as I see alot of comments in this thread about this strategy along the same lines.

1000 innings is fine.

[Glenneration X]

I also vote for raising the innings limit, especially for leagues independent of an Overall. I respect the relief pitcher strategy and understand that those who win with it do play within the rules. However, I would never utilize it personally and therefore don't like playing against it because I feel my unwillingness to use it puts me at a disadvantage. The challenge I'm looking for when joining these leagues is to see if I can construct the best team with the best players, not to see if I can find the best "advantage" or "loophole", especially at the high dollar levels I now play. It's similar to why I had an issue with those who gamed the pitcher DL rule. It was within the rules, but was not in the spirit of the type of game I want to play. 1000 innings, 1100, 1200, the higher the better as far as I'm concerned.

[HOB]

Third year here in the NFBC and although I only play in the Online format I would like to think that my opinion does not mean less lol.

I love to see the lineup change day from Friday to Thursday as someone else mentioned..as most of the time it is a travel day.

Increase in innings would be welcomed as well...

Finally I think it should be a rule that everyone has to wear Bobby V mustaches during all drafts.

[swampass]

Part of the reason that friday moves works on hitters is because most series start on friday. as stated numerous times thursdays are generally travel days and most teams dont play. I actually like to see who is in the lineup on friday and who is not. there is becoming more and more lefty/righty splits or managers randomly playing people. So i think the move to have the players not lock at the first game on fridays allowed you to better manage your hitters than would be the case on thursdays.

I honestly dont understand the thursday advantage. If one player has an extra game monday- thursday then play that guy. If you so desperately need to play one guy from mon-weds and then have to switch someone out on thursday so he can go 0-4 then perhaps you should consider a daily league.

Its not a rule, but software wise can we please fix the double header issue? Id also love to have the ability to look at my players stats for the week, the month, and the year on the same page that I make my roster switches on. Yahoo and many leagues offer your players opponents and stats for your players from one page. this is one less tab that i have to toggle as I decide to who play.

Thanks
Chris

[DOUGHBOYS]

I like the current Friday hitter rule more than a Thursday change.
It works better logistically because of the start of the weekend series.
Thursday is usually a travel day and less than half our players play.
I'd rather have that extra 24 hours to garner information in finding out which of our players are good to go for the weekend.

[Fourslot40]

I like the current Friday hitter rule more than a Thursday change.
It works better logistically because of the start of the weekend series.
Thursday is usually a travel day and less than half our players play.
I'd rather have that extra 24 hours to garner information in finding out which of our players are good to go for the weekend.

I agree with this.

[TParsons]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd love to see that last half week of the season and any tiebreaker games eliminated from the NFBC schedule. It helped me out a ton this year and crushed me last season, but the uncertainty that surrounds those last few games in regards to starters makes it extremely difficult to manage.