Pitching Changes

[Yah Mule]

We're making this all very complicated and the solution of simply adding another roster spot is right there in front of us. I started a week recently with eight guys officially on the DL, although one was a pitcher who came off the DL and made a start. So I can understand why people want the added flexibility. I really don't think another 15 guys being removed from the FAAB pool will be that significant. Round numbers are nice, but it's really an aesthetic concern and function should always be the goal.

Sorry for all the DL spots, and I understand your point. But I am not sure I agree 15 guys being removed from the FAAB pool wouldn't be significant. Raw numbers, we are into ML rosters about 60% (450 players on our rosters and reserves versus 750 MLB players on each teams 25 man roster). Now take out the approximately four pitchers on a team no one wants (middle reliever/situational lefty/5th man types) and one offensive player no one wants (second catcher/glove only utility/Alcides Escobar) and that percentage already moves up to 75% penetration. I know this does not count DL players we cannot afford to release or those ML players we hope to see soon, but I am just trying to draw a general picture.

In short, the pool is thin (properly) reflecting the no-trade aspect of the competition. Those 15 guys are key. Hell, not sure I can find 15 guys in the FA pool I actually want on my team right now. Take 15 out and Escobar starts looking like a stud.

Sure, the players available are going to be mostly under replacement level, but they're going to be regular or semi-regular players. And the talent pool will be the same if players are removed from it under a DL designation or by roster expansion. To me, the biggest argument against increased rosters is it will give healthy teams an even bigger advantage in stashing talent. My inclination is to leave things the way they are. We're all at the same risk of an injury derailed season (I know this can be argued based on risk aversion, but the basic point is true).

[Deadheadz]

This is a very interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it Dan.

Before getting to my point I will throw out two comments.

1. Would changing the Saves category to Saves+Holds be enough to make a lot more pitchers relevant without creating the need for adding a hitting category?

2. Longer benches, even if just by 1 spot, should be preferable to adding dedicated DL slots. Along with a dedicated DL slot you are inviting the strategy of drafting and stashing a DL player in the pre-season while other teams may have a fully healthy roster and no need to participate in the first round of FAAB. It seems to me that NFBC was always against this sort of thing. I dunno.


Pitching has changed, and may change again in the near future.

I recently listened to a Blue Jays Central podcast where they brought up a theory I hadn't yet considered. Their idea as to why HR are up along with Ks is not juiced balls. It's a managerial and offensive response to The Shift.

Simply put, batters are not willing or able to learn how to bunt or hit against the shift but are being encouraged to sell out to the HR which is not affected by the placement of fielders. Well, most players anyway. It actually simplifies things for the guys with pop since they can wait on their pitch and either strike out, fly out or hit it over the fence. The average goes down for most but the reward goes up. Even Clayton Kershaw is giving up more HR that ever before.

If that's the flow of MLB, then it's possible the ebb will come when managers realize there's nothing they can do to combat the rise in HR. And rather than taking out their Ace who has just given up his 2nd or 3rd bomb as per conventional wisdom, they should leave in their top arms rather than going to a reliever who rarely has the pedigree of the Starter.

It may never happen but I think we may see managers accept that all pitchers will give up HR and realize they're better off in the long run to keep riding their "horse" SP. It could mean we'll never again see a season ERA of under 2.00 but it could mean we go back to more pitchers racking up 200+ innings.

Bottom line, when you consider changing the rules you should always give thought to what you'll want if/when the trend swings back the other way. Will you regret the change?
.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Let's be super conservative and define a 'horse' as a pitcher who averages six innings per start and has an ERA below 4.00

Currently, there are 22 'horses'. Less than one per Major League team. (Washington has three)
The rest, donkeys.

Above all, the length of a starter's stay in a game is determined by his pitch count.

[ToddZ]

The power increase isn't because of the shift - it's likely a confluence of a bunch of things (including the ball) - but there's also the big change in general philosophy of elevating low pitches. This would be the case regardless of the shift.

My theory is not all fly balls are created equal. Sure, there have always been those generated via uppercut swings on low pitches, but the majority were hitting the bottom half of the ball on higher pitches. Now, the proportion has shifted to more flies on lower pitches (backed by data).

An argument can be made a fly ball emanating from a harder, uppercut swing on a low pitch will travel further than not squaring up a higher pitch.

This could help explain the increase in homers of some low ball/ground ball pitchers.

[Deadheadz]

The power increase isn't because of the shift - it's likely a confluence of a bunch of things (including the ball) - but there's also the big change in general philosophy of elevating low pitches. This would be the case regardless of the shift.

My theory is not all fly balls are created equal. Sure, there have always been those generated via uppercut swings on low pitches, but the majority were hitting the bottom half of the ball on higher pitches. Now, the proportion has shifted to more flies on lower pitches (backed by data).

An argument can be made a fly ball emanating from a harder, uppercut swing on a low pitch will travel further than not squaring up a higher pitch.

This could help explain the increase in homers of some low ball/ground ball pitchers.

I dunno. Maybe you're right but more elevating of low pitches could just mean more pitchers are keeping the ball lower trying to avoid the center of the strike zone where even more balls could be hit out.

Seems like a chicken and egg situation but I will defer to your expertise.

[Rainiers]

If the landscape remains the way it is now, middle relievers will organically become more useful as fantasy owners realize having Miller/Devenksi/Betances etc. instead of streaming an SP7 may earn more ratio points than are lost in W and K..

This is true. But the impact of middle relievers stats on ratios is severely limited by the number of innings they pitch. When I've studied it, I only found a handful of MR worthy of consideration for owning. I wonder how many you think are worth owning now in a standard 15-team league? In any case, if holds were added to saves to make a hold&save category, middle relievers would become significantly more relevant in fantasy, better reflect the changes in MLB over the past decade, and increase the quality of the FA pool for pitchers in Fantasy. This would be over and above the organic growth. IMO, there might be more like 20-30 middle relievers worthy of drafting or owning. Its an interesting concept. Maybe try it in some satellite leagues to begin with if going down that road.

[Rainiers]

There are two rules in the NFBC I'd change.

2. Allowing players drafted then dropped to remain in that league's pool, even if the player is a prospect that never played in MLB yet. In an overall competition, the available inventory for all leagues should be the same. Again, I don't care as much about how the available pool is determined as I am it's the same for all teams within each overall competition.

I'm with you that there is inequality in the player pool in a overall contest if a minor leaguer is available in some leagues and not others. The way I would fix it is to allow any player drafted on any team in any contest to be eligible in FAAB for all teams in that contest, not just the league or leagues he was drafted in.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Just some notes on the 100 pitch plateau for Starters...

By year, here are the number of pitchers who averaged 100 pitches per game...

2013- 31
2014- 29
2015- 22
2016- 17

As of now, 2017 has 18 pitchers averaging 100 pitches a game. That number is bolstered by two items.
The Washington Nationals bullpen has allowed Dusty Baker an excuse (as if needed) to throw his Starters longer. This will probably come back to bite the Nationals at some time.
As is, the Nationals have four Starters averaging more than 100 pitches per start.

Also, the second half of the season leads Managers to shorten the rope on hurlers who have thrown a lot of pitches. Hence, the number of pitches per start starts will decrease with more rest given in contemplation of the playoffs.

Of the 18 Starters throwing 100 pitches per game, most are veteran pitchers.
The only youngsters allowed to throw an average of 100 pitches are Robby Ray, Dylan Bundy, Daniel Norris, and Michael Fulmer.

It's also interesting to note that 11 of the 18 hurlers come from just four teams.
The Nationals- 4
The Tigers- 3
The Red Sox- 2
The Giants- 2

Good bullpens are allowing Managers to pull their Starters earlier. And they are.
Even their studs.
Clayton Kershaw is not throwing 100 pitches a game.
Neither are any of the Cleveland Indian pitchers.
The team with the best record in baseball, the Houston Astros, do not have a Starter with 100 pitches a game.
The Cardinals are noticeably limiting their Starters.
They are the only team in baseball with a rotation that has not missed a start.
In 71 starts, Martinez, Leake, Lynn, Wacha, and Wainwright have reached 100 pitches in just 24 games.

Edit- Who would have bet during Spring Training that the Yankees Starters with the least amount of pitches per game would be Tanaka and Sabathia?
Their leader is Luis Severino who averages just under 100 pitches a game. Tanaka and Sabathia, just 88.
It should be noted that when Tanaka is allowed to throw a lot of pitches (he has thrown over 110 pitches twice), in his next starts, he was lit up for eight and seven earned runs.

[Deadheadz]

There are two rules in the NFBC I'd change.

2. Allowing players drafted then dropped to remain in that league's pool, even if the player is a prospect that never played in MLB yet. In an overall competition, the available inventory for all leagues should be the same. Again, I don't care as much about how the available pool is determined as I am it's the same for all teams within each overall competition.

I'm with you that there is inequality in the player pool in a overall contest if a minor leaguer is available in some leagues and not others. The way I would fix it is to allow any player drafted on any team in any contest to be eligible in FAAB for all teams in that contest, not just the league or leagues he was drafted in.

So, take away the advantage of strategically drafting a minor leaguer who may cost a lot of FAAB$ otherwise and allow anyone to pick him up cheaply when you have a hunch and space on your bench?

I guess that would help free up bench space rather than holding onto Moncada types for months.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I'm with you that there is inequality in the player pool in a overall contest if a minor leaguer is available in some leagues and not others. The way I would fix it is to allow any player drafted on any team in any contest to be eligible in FAAB for all teams in that contest, not just the league or leagues he was drafted in.

I would agree with this except for the words 'in any contest'. Meaning, no crossover.
There are over a 1,000 different players taken in Draft Championships.
The Main Event should not have an open door for all of those players.

The rule could read...
'Any player drafted by a Main Event team even if not selected in other leagues, will be eligible for all leagues in FAAB.'

This would open up the Main Event leagues more, increase the FAAB pool, while still providing bidding wars on players who move up the minor league ladder quickly and were not selected before the season.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

I'm with you that there is inequality in the player pool in a overall contest if a minor leaguer is available in some leagues and not others. The way I would fix it is to allow any player drafted on any team in any contest to be eligible in FAAB for all teams in that contest, not just the league or leagues he was drafted in.

I would agree with this except for the words 'in any contest'. Meaning, no crossover.
There are over a 1,000 different players taken in Draft Championships.
The Main Event should not have an open door for all of those players.

The rule could read...
'Any player drafted by a Main Event team even if not selected in other leagues, will be eligible for all leagues in FAAB.'

This would open up the Main Event leagues more, increase the FAAB pool, while still providing bidding wars on players who move up the minor league ladder quickly and were not selected before the season.

I think he was saying the same thing. I took it that way at least, due to the inclusion of "in that contest." Either way, I think that would make a lot of sense.

[Rainiers]

I'm with you that there is inequality in the player pool in a overall contest if a minor leaguer is available in some leagues and not others. The way I would fix it is to allow any player drafted on any team in any contest to be eligible in FAAB for all teams in that contest, not just the league or leagues he was drafted in.

I think he was saying the same thing. I took it that way at least, due to the inclusion of "in that contest." Either way, I think that would make a lot of sense.

I did mean to say the same thing as Doughboy. Unsurprisingly, he wrote it more clearly.

The suggestion was meant for other national Contests with FAAB, not just the ME. The one that comes to mind for me is Cutline. Each national contest with FAAB would have separate player pools much the same way leagues do now. Todd's suggestion is a good one, and Don wrote a good rule for implementing it.

[Greg Ambrosius]

1 Catcher slot. 1 extra Reserve. Same amount of draft rounds.

I would personally be 100% behind this.
There are a lot of NFBC'ers who think the 2-catcher system adds more 'strategy'.
For me, I believe there would be more strategy with one.

Thanks again for all of the great feedback on Rules changes. I always appreciate the ideas and as King of Queens stated sometimes we make changes based on customer feedback, like expanding rosters from 29 spots to 30 spots. Wow, I almost forgot that we had only 29 roster spots in the early years of the NFBC. Glad we changed that.

The Founding Fathers of Rotisserie Baseball wanted to replicate the pain and suffering of running a Major League Baseball team, which is why we had 23 man rosters and 2 Catchers. No MLB team could go through a full season with just one catcher and if you think finding 2 catchers in a 15-team Mixed League is tough, imagine the pain in an AL-only or NL-only league back when there were only 28 MLB teams. Finding a second catcher that can help you -- or better yet, not HURT you -- has been a big part of fantasy baseball for the last 38 years.

I just don't think that the top pay-to-play game in the industry needs to change that precedent to make it easier on everyone. That's just my opinion.

Same with adding a DL spot or two. The 7-man reserve is TOUGH and this year has been TOUGHER than any other year. The 10-day DL is playing havoc with everyone. But to take 15 or 30 players out of the free agent pool in each league would really make FAAB thin. I just don't see us meddling with the 23-man starting roster, the 30-man roster or the 7-man reserve roster. It's not easy to manage in this setup and managing FAAB and the reserve spots is more important than ever before. We really want to keep it that way.

I'm not trying to throw cold water on the ideas, but I just don't see the NFBC going down to 1 Catcher or adding more reserves. I just wanted to state my reasons for that as I think it's a strong fabric of the game that was originally invented by Daniel Okrent. Thanks all.

[Greg Ambrosius]

There are two rules in the NFBC I'd change.

2. Allowing players drafted then dropped to remain in that league's pool, even if the player is a prospect that never played in MLB yet. In an overall competition, the available inventory for all leagues should be the same. Again, I don't care as much about how the available pool is determined as I am it's the same for all teams within each overall competition.

I'm with you that there is inequality in the player pool in a overall contest if a minor leaguer is available in some leagues and not others. The way I would fix it is to allow any player drafted on any team in any contest to be eligible in FAAB for all teams in that contest, not just the league or leagues he was drafted in.

I will just explain the reasoning for our current rule when it comes to minor-leaguers. Right now it says: "Any player who is not on a team roster within your league and is on a major league roster or once was on an NFBC team in your league is considered a free agent for that league."

The reason that we allow a minor-leaguer who was originally drafted in your league to remain in your individual league's free agent pool is that if he was good enough to be drafted then he's good enough to be picked up in FAAB. If someone in your league speculated on Cody Bellinger in Round 29 and then cut him two weeks into the season, why shouldn't you have another chance to speculate on Bellinger, something you had planned on doing in Round 29 or 30? By cutting him that owner isn't punishing everyone else in his league for his draft "mistake", he's allowing a second shot at him.

Does that mean there could be 1 more available player in that FAAB pool than another league? Possibly, but he's also replacing that player with someone who might be on active rosters in other leagues.

I understand the desire to have all free agent pools exactly alike, but not every draft is alike. So when someone speculates on a minor-leaguer, we believe that if he's good enough to be drafted he deserves to be good enough to be picked up in FAAB. Adding him to every other league that didn't speculate on him just rewards all of those other owners with a cheap pickup rather than waiting for his callup when his value seems much higher. It's the price to pay for not speculating on a young talent. Again, changing this rule would make it easier on all owners in that contest, but I'm not sure it makes the contest any better.

Right or wrong, that's the reason for the current rule. Hope that helps.

[ToddZ]

Greg - I understand the reasoning, always have, just don't agree with it.

If you wanted to speculate on Bellinger, pick him before someone else did.

How many are there in these leagues that got sniped on Bellinger versus those with no intention of stashing him? My guess is the number not planning on drafting him was much larger.

However, in season, everyone in a league where a player was dropped has access -- regardless if they wanted him at the draft. THAT'S the inequity. There's owners that can make a preemptive bid on a player not available in the vast majority of leagues.

Yes, it's a risk, it costs FAAB and a roster spot. But my point is, every league should be able to make that decision (or not be able to). There's 15 owners with access to a potential difference-maker in an overall contest simply because he was drafted and dropped.

My preference is we all have access or none of us do. The available player pool is ALL players originally drafted in all leagues within an overall contest (plus those becoming eligible) or players that are released while they're in the minors are not available until they're called up. Don't really care which, just prefer same playing field for everyone within each overall.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Greg, I'd like to answer your last post.
In the current system, the fellow drafting Bellinger in the 29th round, has given his 14 league mates a leg-up on other leagues in which Bellinger was not drafted.
I can use myself as an example here.
I drafted Bellinger in the 28th round. I had a string of injuries the first few weeks and dropped Bellinger.
(ugh! )
He was FAAB'ed by a league mate a week later.

The winner was not the fellow who drafted Bellinger, but somebody who, as in most leagues, had little interest in Bellinger on draft day.
If having Bellinger available in every league because I drafted him on draft day, this fellow wouldn't have an advantage over other leagues in which Bellinger was not available.
The mindset should be changed to, if a player is good enough to be drafted in a league, he should be available for FAAB in all leagues.
I understand your logic.
But in some cases, maybe even a lot of cases, it doesn't work well for all.

[JohnP]

Greg - totally disagree with your last post. The field should be the same for all in my opinion - this is a national / overall contest. We all have same number of slots to fill, same time to make pick, start out with same FAAB dollars, draft from the same player pool, even have the same FAAB pool week 1 but then it all changes. Week 3, 15 guys somehow get a shot at Bellinger or whomever that the other 360 don't. If I dropped Kershaw this weekend, I'm sure he would be pulled from the pool. Why? Because you are trying to protect the fairness of an overall contest. I think that "fairness" is what should drive the bus here in terms of having a common player pool.

[Greg Ambrosius]

How do you know the guy who picked up Bellinger didn't want him in the draft? You took him well before he was being drafted in other leagues, so we don't know that for sure.

Again, I understand why he was drafted and why he was cut. He was good enough to be drafted and thus remains in your league.

To think that Bellinger should be available in every league because one owner cut him in an overall contest seems like a weekly dump of talent that only makes FAAB more difficult. Suddenly Bellinger becomes available in FAAB in early April when he wasn't drafted in your league but was cut in one other league?

I get why some would want that, but hopefully you understand why we do it the other way.

[KJ Duke]

I drafted Bellinger in the 28th round. I had a string of injuries the first few weeks and dropped Bellinger.
(ugh! )
He was FAAB'ed by a league mate a week later.

The winner was not the fellow who drafted Bellinger, but somebody who, as in most leagues, had little interest in Bellinger on draft day.
If having Bellinger available in every league because I drafted him on draft day, this fellow wouldn't have an advantage over other leagues in which Bellinger was not available.
The mindset should be changed to, if a player is good enough to be drafted in a league, he should be available for FAAB in all leagues.
I understand your logic.
But in some cases, maybe even a lot of cases, it doesn't work well for all.

Looked at differently, by drafting and dropping him, you expose him to someone else taking him and not having him available later in the season. So you'd effectively be getting a free pass by drafting and dropping if he wasn't available to be picked up.

Likewise, addressing the issue of the pool being the same ... it is the same for all teams prior to the draft, but it's never the same at all times thereafter. I think that blows up the argument that all leagues are not equal. Bellinger is available to be drafted and/or picked up later in the season. If you want to roster him before he's called up, draft him! If you're lucky enough and someone else in your league drafts him and then drops him, pick him up then! If no one drafted him, outbid everyone when he's called up.

There are three different ways to acquire him, either you control the action in your league regarding him or you don't based on the decisions you and your direct competitors make. Likewise, if someone drafted Bellinger in your league and not others, that's one more non-Bellinger player for you in the draft. There's your offset in "fairness". Every league is different, I'm not buying the "unfairness" argument presented here. Fair is equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Greg - totally disagree with your last post. The field should be the same for all in my opinion - this is a national / overall contest. We all have same number of slots to fill, same time to make pick, start out with same FAAB dollars, draft from the same player pool, even have the same FAAB pool week 1 but then it all changes. Week 3, 15 guys somehow get a shot at Bellinger or whomever that the other 360 don't. If I dropped Kershaw this weekend, I'm sure he would be pulled from the pool. Why? Because you are trying to protect the fairness of an overall contest. I think that "fairness" is what should drive the bus here in terms of having a common player pool.

It's okay to totally disagree. Friends can do that.

Let's look at Bellinger again. He was called up on April 25th, got off to a good start and was picked up in 9 Main Event leagues on April 31st. Here were the 9 winning bids:

Cody Bellinger (LAD) $296 Main Event Las Vegas April 1 League 1 MustSeeTV314{M4}
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $85 Main Event Las Vegas March 30 5 pm PT Arnold's Rug
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $129 Main Event New York March 25 League 3 Glenneration X
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $211 Main Event New York March 25 League 4 Emma/Srebro Main NYC
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $236 Main Event Online April 1 1 pm ET League 4 Brock The House
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $295 Main Event Online April 1 1 pm ET League 5 Chest Rockwell
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $170 Main Event Online March 29 8 pm ET League 1 King of Queens
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $278 Main Event Online March 29 8 pm ET League 2 Captain Morgan
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $440 Main Event Online March 29 8 pm ET League 4 New World Order

The week before he was picked up in 7 Main Event leagues where he was drafted and cut:

Cody Bellinger (LAD) $96 Main Event Las Vegas April 1 League 3 Story Time
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $49 Main Event Las Vegas April 1 League 5 Cali Cartel
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $59 Main Event Las Vegas April 1 League 6 RotoGut Main
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $134 Main Event New York March 25 League 1 Incredible Hulking Us NY1
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $88 Main Event Online April 1 1 pm ET League 3 JoeSoDef
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $5 Main Event Online March 27 8 pm ET League 2 BABIP McBatflips
Cody Bellinger (LAD) $38 Main Event Online March 30 8 pm ET League 3 I Love Don Denkinger

In Week 3 he was picked up in 1 Main Event League where he was drafted and cut:

Cody Bellinger (LAD) $22 Main Event Online March 27 8 pm ET League 1 The Notorious C.O.Z.

In Week 2 he was again picked up in 1 Main Event League where he was drafted and cut:

Cody Bellinger (LAD) $55 Main Event New York March 25 League 1 The Achievers - ME

So out of 32 Main Event Leagues, if my math is correct, he was:
* Drafted in 23 of 32 leagues
* Cut in 7 different leagues (he was cut twice in Main Event March 27th Online 8 pm League and in New York March 25 League 1)
* Bid on for first time in 9 leagues where he wasn't drafted

Three teams actually cut Bellinger in Week 1 and he wasn't picked up the next week in two of them:

Cody Bellinger (LAD) Main Event Las Vegas April 1 League 5 Ray Of Light
Cody Bellinger (LAD) Main Event New York March 25 League 1 Sons of Thunder - New York
Cody Bellinger (LAD) Main Event Online March 27 8 pm ET League 1 Team king

Changing the rule would allow Bellinger to be available in all 9 leagues where he wasn't drafted and in the three leagues where he was cut by Week 2. Good or bad? It would certainly provide for smaller bids in those leagues where he wasn't drafted and reward the astute owners who had a reserve spot to wait out his callup.

Again, good or bad? We lean the other way with the way the rule is written. Just my opinion.

[Deadheadz]

To me Greg's explanations make sense.

Here's another way to look at the fairness issue.
Say you're in a league with 2 or 3 really bad managers. On draft day they each select a handful of washed up hasbeens which most NFBC vets wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. This league now has perhaps a dozen good players available in FAAB who aren't available to bolster rosters in other leagues because they were drafted in those leagues. The rest of the managers in that league will scoop those guys up and get an advantage over teams in leagues with all "good" managers.

Is that fair in the sense of an overall competition?

Just the way some bad managers will give an advantage to their leaguemates why shouldn't a "good" manager who is smart enough to pluck Bellinger during the draft also give an advantage to himself and potentially his leaguemates? Every league will have it's own quirks, advantages and disadvantages compared to other leagues in the contest. That can't be policed.

Greg said this has been a really tough year for injuries and I agree. It's been tough on all of us and that's why it's fair. We're all in the same boat. Rolling with the punches will show who's a good manager and who's not. Changing the rules because the game "got harder" is a kneejerk reaction.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Just silly.
Rule change suggestions are not meant to make any game 'easier'.
They are suggested to make the game BETTER.
If having the 'easier' mindset block, our roster's would still have 29 players.

[Edwards Kings]

I drafted Bellinger in the 28th round. I had a string of injuries the first few weeks and dropped Bellinger.
(ugh! )
He was FAAB'ed by a league mate a week later.

The winner was not the fellow who drafted Bellinger, but somebody who, as in most leagues, had little interest in Bellinger on draft day.
If having Bellinger available in every league because I drafted him on draft day, this fellow wouldn't have an advantage over other leagues in which Bellinger was not available.
The mindset should be changed to, if a player is good enough to be drafted in a league, he should be available for FAAB in all leagues.
I understand your logic.
But in some cases, maybe even a lot of cases, it doesn't work well for all.

Looked at differently, by drafting and dropping him, you expose him to someone else taking him and not having him available later in the season. So you'd effectively be getting a free pass by drafting and dropping if he wasn't available to be picked up.

Likewise, addressing the issue of the pool being the same ... it is the same for all teams prior to the draft, but it's never the same at all times thereafter. I think that blows up the argument that all leagues are not equal. Bellinger is available to be drafted and/or picked up later in the season. If you want to roster him before he's called up, draft him! If you're lucky enough and someone else in your league drafts him and then drops him, pick him up then! If no one drafted him, outbid everyone when he's called up.

There are three different ways to acquire him, either you control the action in your league regarding him or you don't based on the decisions you and your direct competitors make. Likewise, if someone drafted Bellinger in your league and not others, that's one more non-Bellinger player for you in the draft. There's your offset in "fairness". Every league is different, I'm not buying the "unfairness" argument presented here. Fair is equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Totally agree.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Just silly.
Rule change suggestions are not meant to make any game 'easier'.
They are suggested to make the game BETTER.
If having the 'easier' mindset block, our roster's would still have 29 players.

I would hope that people know me well enough by now to know that while I may be silly I'm not stupid.

Of course we always strive to make the game BETTER. It's my opinion -- and again I could be wrong -- that a 1 Catcher league doesn't make the NFBC better. Or adding DL spots. We can dispute the minor-league rule, but I think the current rule makes it fairer for all owners when those players are called up to the majors. Pitching has definitely changed through the years, but as John points out not to the point where it's a game changer.

Rules discussions have been great to shore up our eligibility requirements in the past, increase minimum innings pitched guidelines, add another roster spot on Draft Day, and more. Those all came from the players. We'll continue to tweak our rules to make them better and add new games where needed, thanks to the input from all of you.

[DOUGHBOYS]

My response was to Deadheadz, but if it struck a nerve for you Greg, so be it.

I believe that all suggestions from NFBC'ers, in their minds, are aimed at making the game better not easier. They wouldn't take the time to make the suggestions if this were not the case.
I love the game as is. I really do.
Change is ok, if needed.
You certainly do not think change is needed and that is your decision.
That is ok by me too.