NFBC Rules Changes Discussion For 2013

[Money Men]

Trouble with an innings cap is the extra time to evaluate pitchers. Wcofb did that and it cut down on league counts most people would play, and some wouldn't play at all because of the time commitment of evaluating all the double start scenarios. Plus, then everyone has to monitor their IP.

KJ,

Thanks for the response, and please do not take my response to yours personally. It is not my intention. I was floored that this could possibly be the reason.

While my NFBC experience is much more limited than yours (two sub par finishes in the Online), I don't see these as significant reasons not to use the cap as the way to handle the pitching issue. I just read three pages full of passionate, intricate ideas to solve the minimum innings issue, and the midweek pitching issue, some as detailed as creating a 14-hour window where pitching changes can be made. As in depth as NFBC players are, it astounds me that an innings cap of all things would cut down on the number of leagues played, or the number of participants in the NFBC?

Adding an avg IP/week column to your spreadsheet would be too much of a time commitment in the NFBC...where guys have spreadsheets that would make Joseph's amazing technicolor dreamcoat look staid? Where the successful use all sorts of "numerish' (copyright - Dough) to research and prepare and navigate the season?

If that is the reason, consider me stunned. I thought this was the best of the best, leave no stone unturned to climb the mountain. Of all the reasons not to have the cap, it is too much work to follow was not at all what I expected to hear.

[KJ Duke]

Money - the actual innings cap is a minor issue, it's allowing any pitcher to be swapped on Friday that would cause many to cut back leagues. If you didn't play wcofb, ask anyone that did. Not only does it require a much bigger time commitment, it has a big impact on faab and bench strategy.

[KJ Duke]

Let's say I have four good starts for the week, two on Tuesday on two on Friday. Under the present system, I would use four starters and five relief pitchers in my weekly lineup. Let's also say I have seven total relief pitchers on my team. Under the new system as proposed, I could on Monday through Thursday, use the two starters that are scheduled to start and seven relief pitchers. I wouldn't have to pick and choose among the relief pitchers. On Friday, I will bank on the fact that two of these relievers will not pitch during the week and switch them out for the two starters scheduled to start on Friday. This is basically Rog's example, but if it works, it adds a new dimension that adds relief pitching pitching flexibility. I prefer the present system.

Incorrect. As proposed, there should be one period, Monday-Sunday. If your pitcher is active on Tuesday at the time of his start he is locked there for the entire week. If he is not in your lineup at the time of his start he is locked on your bench for the entire week (and his stats do not count).

I keep seeing examples of what would happen under modified 2011 rules with the split week ... again, that's not what I'm suggesting. One week would be one scoring period.

[BK METS]

Innings Cap - NO!!!!!
Innings Limit - Yes, 1,000
Friday Switching of pitchers - If its too complicated and there are possibilities for loopholes, NO
Obama v Romney - ROMNEY!!!! (oops, wrong message board )

[KJ Duke]

Innings Cap - NO!!!!!
Innings Limit - Yes, 1,000
Friday Switching of pitchers - If its too complicated and there are possibilities for loopholes, NO
Obama v Romney - ROMNEY!!!! (oops, wrong message board )

No loopholes with my suggestion. No lawyers, no accounting gimmicks, no tricks. Simple.

Obama vs Romney ... liver vs cauliflower? NEITHER

[uky]

My $.02

Going from 900ip to 1000ip is going to have little influence on the results. I would like to see it raised to 1080ip at this phase of the game. That's an average for six SP's, six IP, 30 GS. That doesn't seem too aggressive to me.

If it were achievable without confusion, and I know and understand it's not, I would do away with all Friday moves unless your player hits the DL after the start of Mondays games. But, seeing how that isn't going to happen, I would leave pitching moves "as is" for now.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I'm dense, KJ, so it takes me awhile to get it.
And, I just got your plan.
I like it.
Once a pitcher throws a pitch, he locks on your roster whether benched or not.
It won't matter which day.
So, if on Saturday a roster had Lincecum pushed back to Monday to 'rest his arm', he can be replaced by any pitcher who has not thrown a pitch because he wouldn't be locked.
I was too much into the 'Friday only thing'. Apologies.
Good plan.

[King of Queens]

One period per week for pitchers, two periods per week for hitters. Okay, makes sense. Now the big question: can it be programmed?

One thing I don't like about this proposal is that you'd be forcing owners to stay on their toes all week, and at all times of the day. Rather than having just Monday evening and Friday evening deadlines, you would have to stay aware of pitching news all week long in order to maximize the swap.

It's a fundamental shift in the way we play this game -- and not necessarily a good one.

[joshguy]

One period per week for pitchers, two periods per week for hitters. Okay, makes sense. Now the big question: can it be programmed?

One thing I don't like about this proposal is that you'd be forcing owners to stay on their toes all week, and at all times of the day. Rather than having just Monday evening and Friday evening deadlines, you would have to stay aware of pitching news all week long in order to maximize the swap.

It's a fundamental shift in the way we play this game -- and not necessarily a good one.

I agree 100%. Losing 3 games on a hitter is much more severe than losing 1 start from a pitcher. You can make up losing a start. You can never make up 3 games over the weekend for a hitter.

I think it also bails out teams if their relief pitcher doesnt pitch Monday through Thursday. So they would get bailed out of a bad/unlucky lineup by being able to insert a SP. I think you should have to stick with your pitching lineup. Most likely, if they havent pitched M-TH, they will only pitch once over the weekend. Thats the chance you take if you start a reliever.

Sure, it could affect some races but with pitching you can do things to correct that. Its no different than say if your CI gets hurt Monday, you have to wait til Friday. Sure it sucks a lot more than say if he got hurt on Wednesday but thats just the way it is. Over the course of 26 weeks, those things will even themselves out.

[Scared $ Dont Make $]

One period per week for pitchers, two periods per week for hitters. Okay, makes sense. Now the big question: can it be programmed?

One thing I don't like about this proposal is that you'd be forcing owners to stay on their toes all week, and at all times of the day. Rather than having just Monday evening and Friday evening deadlines, you would have to stay aware of pitching news all week long in order to maximize the swap.

It's a fundamental shift in the way we play this game -- and not necessarily a good one.

I agree 100%. Losing 3 games on a hitter is much more severe than losing 1 start from a pitcher. You can make up losing a start. You can never make up 3 games over the weekend for a hitter.

I think it also bails out teams if their relief pitcher doesnt pitch Monday through Thursday. So they would get bailed out of a bad/unlucky lineup by being able to insert a SP. I think you should have to stick with your pitching lineup. Most likely, if they haven't pitched M-TH, they will only pitch once over the weekend. Thats the chance you take if you start a reliever.

Sure, it could affect some races but with pitching you can do things to correct that. Its no different than say if your CI gets hurt Monday, you have to wait til Friday. Sure it sucks a lot more than say if he got hurt on Wednesday but thats just the way it is. Over the course of 26 weeks, those things will even themselves out.

Josh,

No offense, but if you truly believe 1 start is not equal to 1 offensive player for 3 days... then you have not played this game long enough or do not understand what it takes to succeed in it.

1 win this season cost me $1400. Just one, and I know I had a few times where starters got scratched from a weekend start on a Tuesday or Wednesday during the week. So now you have a dead spot. At least in hitting you have the chance to put someone in place for the weekend.

It is obvious you should treat hitting and pitching equally. And there was a rule in place 2 years ago to allow that equality, but the pitching rule had too many flaws, so it was removed altogether.

So no great idea was put into place to replace it last year, so it was scrapped. But to be fair, pitching should be treated the same as hitting.

So ask the question... WHY do we let hitters be swapped on Fridays? Mostly because of an injury that may occur mid week so you do not accrue ZERO stats.

So WHY is the same rule not applied to pitching? The rule being proposed is to try to prevent a DEAD spot on a team for 3 days. Pretty much to mirror why batters were allowed to be swapped on Fridays.

I design applications and websites for a living within IT so I can explain what of the 2 options is easier to implement and test

Option 1 - Much easier
Allow a 12-16 hr window on Fridays for an owner to remove from their starting lineup ONLY PITCHERS that have not pitched AT ALL during that week (not IP because someone could have pitched and not registered any innings)
Pros:
Prevents a dead spot if a pitcher is known to be scratched or injured before they start on the weekend
Easy to program and test
Cons: Smaller window of opportunity, but we are playing a high-stakes game so if you complain about having to do something on a Friday maybe you should go play Yahoo baseball. I would rather much have a smaller window that is simple to understand the rules, than have no opportunity at all

Option 2 - More difficult
Allow an owner to swap out a pitcher at anytime during the week as long as he has not pitched up to that point in time
Pros:
Allow the user the ability to do it at anytime during the week
Cons:
Difficult to determine that time. Are you relying on Live Stats?? That is tricky in and of itself
Or do you only allow windows during non-games. This will be very difficult to define the rules around when that player becomes locked.
Level of testing would be very high as well due to having to due all this time sensitive testing

[bustouts]

I have suggested the following change for many years and I think it does deserve some consideration:

Any day of the week, you should have the ability to activate a player who was on the DL, regardless if they were a hitter or pitcher. The way it is now, If a player is scheduled to come off the DL on wednesday, you are forced to play shorthanded for Monday and Tuesday if you start him or Wednesday and Thursday if you dont. Also, many times a player is scheduled to come off the DL but does not for some reason when his time is up, thereby forcing you to miss up to 4 days stats.
You can close the pitchers loophole by only allowing a substitution for a pitcher who has not yet pitched during the week.

Also, if any player was placed on the DL at anytime during the week, you should have the ability to replace him. Since the Major League teams are not always consistent in the timing of their moves, we should be able to change our line up any day before the affected players teams are playing just like we have the ability to do so today with our normal line up changes.

The argument against this was that it would force US, the players, to watch our teams everyday and know our players status. The fact that you would have the ability to make the changes anyday as long as the Dl was involved would actually help those who pay close attention and those who dont. For example, if player x goes on the official DL on Monday after the line up submission cut off, you would not be able to swap him out until Friday. My way would allow all of us the ability to make the change Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or whenever we see it, getting valuable stats that normally would be missed.
In my opinion the use of the Dl would provide a happy medium between twice weekly moves for both pitchers and hitters and allow us more control over our line ups with not a whole lot more extra work. The Dl is the key.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Except for the innings minimum being pushed up, there doesn't seem to be a rule change presented that is backed by the masses.
That speaks to how good and well conceived our present rules are.

[Money Men]

One of the most frustrating things to me during my two seasons playing NFBC is the level of luck that comes into play over a seven-day stretch for pitchers, and three and four-day stretches for hitters.

Youkilis gets hurt in his first AB on Monday, and you get oongatz for four days. Youkilis gets hurt in his last AB on Wednesday, and its a different story. Its not luck that Youkilis is hurt, the luck is when the injury is suffered.

Storm blows through on Tuesday, and the two-start pitcher you added through FAAB gets pushed back to Wednesday by a rainout, and all those hours of planning, researching, and bidding go out the window. He is now a one start guy in your lineup, when you have better one start guys on the bench.

Now maybe I had a higher number of frustrating things like this happen to me this year, but by July I had had it (and no I did not have Youk).

Around that time I found out about the daily games. I split my time the rest of the year between here and there. I hope to do the same next year. But if push comes to shove with the limited amount of fantasy baseball dollars I have available, I would be foolish not to go with the option that reduces the luck factors of injury and weather.

I only bring this up because I think the daily games are changing the landscape of the industry, and I think that needs to be taken into account when looking at rules changes such as the pitchers being locked for seven days.

[uky]

Except for the innings minimum being pushed up, there doesn't seem to be a rule change presented that is backed by the masses.
That speaks to how good and well conceived our present rules are.

I totally agree, only because we don't have the information available quick enough to play the game like we should.

[Greg Ambrosius]

One of the most frustrating things to me during my two seasons playing NFBC is the level of luck that comes into play over a seven-day stretch for pitchers, and three and four-day stretches for hitters.

Youkilis gets hurt in his first AB on Monday, and you get oongatz for four days. Youkilis gets hurt in his last AB on Wednesday, and its a different story. Its not luck that Youkilis is hurt, the luck is when the injury is suffered.

Storm blows through on Tuesday, and the two-start pitcher you added through FAAB gets pushed back to Wednesday by a rainout, and all those hours of planning, researching, and bidding go out the window. He is now a one start guy in your lineup, when you have better one start guys on the bench.

Now maybe I had a higher number of frustrating things like this happen to me this year, but by July I had had it (and no I did not have Youk).

Around that time I found out about the daily games. I split my time the rest of the year between here and there. I hope to do the same next year. But if push comes to shove with the limited amount of fantasy baseball dollars I have available, I would be foolish not to go with the option that reduces the luck factors of injury and weather.

I only bring this up because I think the daily games are changing the landscape of the industry, and I think that needs to be taken into account when looking at rules changes such as the pitchers being locked for seven days.

Sir, no matter how many rules changes I'm asked to make, I will never be able to eliminate the luck factor in fantasy baseball or owners saying they would have won it all if not for bad luck. If this post was meant to help move the discussion along, it didn't hit its mark. If you really think there is no luck involved in a daily game, then by all means go that route. You are comparing apples to oranges and as a game operator I have a lot of factors to take into consideration when comprising my rules and one of them involves the amount of time owners want to spend each day managing their teams. With your daily game comparison, you own that team for THAT ONE DAY.

So carry on with your rules suggestions, but Doughboys is right: There is no good consensus right now on pitching changes. Losing a scheduled pitching start sucks, but as we've seen in the past trying to erase a bad doesn't always lead to a good rules change. Maybe the daily games are infallible, I don't know.

[uky]

One of the most frustrating things to me during my two seasons playing NFBC is the level of luck that comes into play over a seven-day stretch for pitchers, and three and four-day stretches for hitters.

Youkilis gets hurt in his first AB on Monday, and you get oongatz for four days. Youkilis gets hurt in his last AB on Wednesday, and its a different story. Its not luck that Youkilis is hurt, the luck is when the injury is suffered.

Storm blows through on Tuesday, and the two-start pitcher you added through FAAB gets pushed back to Wednesday by a rainout, and all those hours of planning, researching, and bidding go out the window. He is now a one start guy in your lineup, when you have better one start guys on the bench.

Now maybe I had a higher number of frustrating things like this happen to me this year, but by July I had had it (and no I did not have Youk).

Around that time I found out about the daily games. I split my time the rest of the year between here and there. I hope to do the same next year. But if push comes to shove with the limited amount of fantasy baseball dollars I have available, I would be foolish not to go with the option that reduces the luck factors of injury and weather.

I only bring this up because I think the daily games are changing the landscape of the industry, and I think that needs to be taken into account when looking at rules changes such as the pitchers being locked for seven days.

obviously, you need to be playing daily games.

[Money Men]

One of the most frustrating things to me during my two seasons playing NFBC is the level of luck that comes into play over a seven-day stretch for pitchers, and three and four-day stretches for hitters.

Youkilis gets hurt in his first AB on Monday, and you get oongatz for four days. Youkilis gets hurt in his last AB on Wednesday, and its a different story. Its not luck that Youkilis is hurt, the luck is when the injury is suffered.

Storm blows through on Tuesday, and the two-start pitcher you added through FAAB gets pushed back to Wednesday by a rainout, and all those hours of planning, researching, and bidding go out the window. He is now a one start guy in your lineup, when you have better one start guys on the bench.

Now maybe I had a higher number of frustrating things like this happen to me this year, but by July I had had it (and no I did not have Youk).

Around that time I found out about the daily games. I split my time the rest of the year between here and there. I hope to do the same next year. But if push comes to shove with the limited amount of fantasy baseball dollars I have available, I would be foolish not to go with the option that reduces the luck factors of injury and weather.

I only bring this up because I think the daily games are changing the landscape of the industry, and I think that needs to be taken into account when looking at rules changes such as the pitchers being locked for seven days.

Sir, no matter how many rules changes I'm asked to make, I will never be able to eliminate the luck factor in fantasy baseball or owners saying they would have won it all if not for bad luck. If this post was meant to help move the discussion along, it didn't hit its mark. If you really think there is no luck involved in a daily game, then by all means go that route. You are comparing apples to oranges and as a game operator I have a lot of factors to take into consideration when comprising my rules and one of them involves the amount of time owners want to spend each day managing their teams. With your daily game comparison, you own that team for THAT ONE DAY.

So carry on with your rules suggestions, but Doughboys is right: There is no good consensus right now on pitching changes. Losing a scheduled pitching start sucks, but as we've seen in the past trying to erase a bad doesn't always lead to a good rules change. Maybe the daily games are infallible, I don't know.

Greg,

I was a bit taken aback by your response, so I tried to figure out what I could have said to touch a nerve. I am not naive enough to think luck does not exist in the daily games, or that it can be eliminated from the NFBC. I am not expecting you to remove the luck factor, nor do I sit around lamenting my mid-pack finish and blaming it on bad luck. Nobody that ever assesses their performance in this contest and decides it was bad luck that did them in ends up being successful in the future.

I also was not taking a shot at you or your game. I was merely mentioning how the daily games reduce (not eliminate) the luck factors of weather and injury. I wondered if that factor should be considered a part of the discussion on the pitcher rule. Obviously, the answer is no.

I will just say the one thing that to me is not apples and oranges is the amount of discretionary cash I have available to play fantasy sports. It's tough for me to scrape together an online entry fee, let alone own multiple teams in multiple contests. With the rate of growth your game has seen, my $350 going elsewhere would be unnoticed, and I understand that.

But when it comes to wagering my money (and maybe it is because my stack is small to begin with), I am looking to leverage the odds as much in my favor as I can. If that means reducing the possibility of a rainout costing me a start by even a miniscule margin, I'd be a fool not to try and take advantage of it.

I am sorry if you felt my post did nothing to advance the cause. I'll go back to just reading the message boards.

Bob

[Gekko]

it seems to me that daily games have even more luck introduced, ie, anything can happen in a small sample size, and one day is very small sample size

on top of that, in order to get a perceived (and maybe real) advantage over your opponents, you would have to invest lots and lots of time. heck, the nfbc regular game is a challenge for me from a time standpoint once the season begins. no way i'd play the daily games

[Gekko]

Storm blows through on Tuesday, and the two-start pitcher you added through FAAB gets pushed back to Wednesday by a rainout, and all those hours of planning, researching, and bidding go out the window. He is now a one start guy in your lineup, when you have better one start guys on the bench.

you should be factoring in this possibility when choosing to bid on this pitcher and then to start him.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

The take is too high as well to make it a viable option to spend a lot of time on. As you mentioned a day is a small sample size. One person might know what they are doing, but the next guy will have a clue also, especially at higher dollar levels. Eventually the only person making the money is the house. One day, I imagine a daily site with large buy in specialties with much better payouts will come about. In the meantime I don't luck the thought of them making so much off my entry fee, especially when it costs the same to run a smaller game and they don't make near as much on the smaller games.

it seems to me that daily games have even more luck introduced, ie, anything can happen in a small sample size, and one day is very small sample size

on top of that, in order to get a perceived (and maybe real) advantage over your opponents, you would have to invest lots and lots of time. heck, the nfbc regular game is a challenge for me from a time standpoint once the season begins. no way i'd play the daily games

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Lot of good ideas on the rules. Most any are okay by me on the pitching during the week thing. i agree with Glenn that it isn't necessarily a good thing to go to places like having to follow your team every day to put a guy in though. The only major change I would like to see is innings min increased substantially, especially in the independent leagues.

[Scared $ Dont Make $]

I'm dense, KJ, so it takes me awhile to get it.
And, I just got your plan.
I like it.
Once a pitcher throws a pitch, he locks on your roster whether benched or not.
It won't matter which day.
So, if on Saturday a roster had Lincecum pushed back to Monday to 'rest his arm', he can be replaced by any pitcher who has not thrown a pitch because he wouldn't be locked.
I was too much into the 'Friday only thing'. Apologies.
Good plan.

KJ/Doughy
Again, this is not so simple unless we live in a perfect world. We say once they throw a pitch

Ok, so we relying on LIVE scoring for this? Well, if there is ANY glitch in data feeds, then I foresee a pitcher getting shelled in the first inning and if a data feed is not there yet, a player hurries up and swaps them out of their lineup.
STRIKE ONE

We also saw issues with double headers this year. What mess would that have caused trying to be so pitch specific.
STRIKE TWO

I definitely like the concept, but I think it would need to be tweaked to prevent data feeds from dictating the application logic.

My suggestion on this:

Pitcher is LOCKED 5 minutes prior to start time of that days game. Remains locked until official stats run that next morning, if the pitcher still has not pitched, they become unlocked. Again until the next game for that team 5 minutes prior to it starting. This can occur for pitchers Mon-Fri

That keeps it clean and simple and easy to explain. And will not have to deal with any data feed delays or relying on NON-OFFICIAL data feeds. And pretty easy to program and test.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Okay, thanks for all of the rules suggestions. As Dan said, by the lack of new suggestions I think it shows we do have pretty solid rules. The innings pitched minimum should be increased slightly for our national contests and we'll then re-evaluate everything at season's end. I haven't decided yet on a minimum innings pitched level yet for the private high-dollar leagues, but I will start discussing with the Diamond League participants and go from there. We'll have a resolution soon on all of that shortly.

I'm not convinced that weekly pitcher changes are needed if all the confusing scenarios are needed to make it happen. And that includes making everyone watch every pitcher closely through Thursday and then jump online within a 16-hour window to possibly make one change. The whole idea of Friday lineup changes was to give owners 3 days of production if a player landed on the DL on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. I understand that some pitchers may miss a start the same way, but I'm not sure we can create a better game to prevent the occasional missed start by a pitcher. In fact, I'm pretty sure we create more problems than answers.

I think I know which path we're taking for 2013 thanks to your suggestions. Thanks again and now it's time to get the rules on print. We're moving forward with our 10th anniversary season, so be ready soon.

[Likewhat17]

My suggestion on this:

Pitcher is LOCKED 5 minutes prior to start time of that days game. Remains locked until official stats run that next morning, if the pitcher still has not pitched, they become unlocked. Again until the next game for that team 5 minutes prior to it starting. This can occur for pitchers Mon-Fri

That keeps it clean and simple and easy to explain. And will not have to deal with any data feed delays or relying on NON-OFFICIAL data feeds. And pretty easy to program and test.

My only problem with this idea, and with KJ's suggestion is that it just opens a potential new loophole. You'll have owners who will start with 4 or 5 relievers in their lineup to start the week, and then switching out the one's who haven't pitched yet in order to accommodate their starters who go later in the week. It may not seem like a big deal, but a few innings a week would translate to a huge impact by the end of the season.

[Scared $ Dont Make $]

My suggestion on this:

Pitcher is LOCKED 5 minutes prior to start time of that days game. Remains locked until official stats run that next morning, if the pitcher still has not pitched, they become unlocked. Again until the next game for that team 5 minutes prior to it starting. This can occur for pitchers Mon-Fri

That keeps it clean and simple and easy to explain. And will not have to deal with any data feed delays or relying on NON-OFFICIAL data feeds. And pretty easy to program and test.

My only problem with this idea, and with KJ's suggestion is that it just opens a potential new loophole. You'll have owners who will start with 4 or 5 relievers in their lineup to start the week, and then switching out the one's who haven't pitched yet in order to accommodate their starters who go later in the week. It may not seem like a big deal, but a few innings a week would translate to a huge impact by the end of the season.

But is that any different than what you are allowed to do with hitters????

Greg,

I just don't believe it is fair to open up hitters to be swapped on Fridays but restrict pitchers when there is a pretty solid option in place that would not in any way ruin the integrity of the game or the rules.

We introduced Friday roster moves for BOTH hitting and pitching initially. Then removed Pitchers because of a flaw. So why not use a better method now that one is out there.

I will gladly work with others such as KJ to define SET business rules to prevent any loopholes and deliver it to you so you can get IT to implement it.

People are not saying anything about the pitching because they saw a flawed system last year so it left a bad taste in there mouth. If this newer method was the original idea, people would be all for it.

I say use common sense and treat hitting and pitching equal.

The easy way is to do nothing, but now you treat hitting that has 5 categories differently than pitching that has 5 categories.

And please don't give me the excuse that a hitter with 12 ABs is WAY more important that a pitcher with 7 IP... cause that is bogus. Its ALL relevant.