Post
by Greg Ambrosius » Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:01 am
Thanks for the discussion on this topic everyone and I enjoyed the opinions. I tried not to jump into this thread too soon to avoid swaying the discussion to continue. I wasn't trying to avoid the topic, I just wanted it to play out.
My first thought was like many on this thread that there was no way I would change the rules this late in the game. It's a great discussion for 2022, but we did think about the 1,000 IP limit before we set the rules and decided this was the right number. Same with 1,100 IP for the Diamond and Platinum.
Now why did we land at 1,000 IP? Well, this came from the players. We have always been flexible with the IP minimum and in fact waaaaaaay too flexible at one time. And we can easily change to a lower or higher number once again if the facts support it. Right now we are assuming what is going to happen in 2021 based on last year's short season and we need more concrete proof that the game is changing this way before changing our rules. Our rules are flexible, but we've also been a little stubborn as you know in changing the basic concepts.
First a history lesson: So when I created the NFBC rules I wanted players to construct their pitching staffs whatever way they wanted. I really did. In fact, I had no minimum innings pitched limit during the first two years. If someone wanted all relievers, I felt that was okay since strikeouts and wins were important categories. Since the first year mainly consisted of only the Main Event, nobody manipulated that rule.
But in 2005, we had some wiseguys in the AL and NL Auction leagues who went with all closers and minor-leaguers to dominate three pitching categories and five hitting categories, while punting two pitching categories. In fact, one person basically went with all minor-league pitchers to punt three categories with the goal of winning the other seven and winning this private league this way (one scoreless third of an inning would qualify and he would win ERA and WHIP). I quickly learned a valuable lesson that sometimes my best intentions of allowing flexibility can get manipulated to the detriment of the contest. I learned that again a few years later when trying to allow pitchers to be removed mid-week if they landed on the DL.
So in 2006 we decided to have a more stringent minimum innings pitched limit. I don't remember if we went directly to 900 or not, but we made it high enough to avoid a roster of non-playing minor-leaguers. Thanks to the suggestions of our players, we either landed at 900 IP that year or quickly thereafter and it stayed that way for years.
But a few years back it was apparent that you could reach 900 IP with three stud starters and a mix of six relievers and starters. And several teams were employing that strategy, which definitely wasn't mirroring an MLB roster of at least 5 starting pitchers. Moving it to 1,000 IP was the answer and quickly the game changed to where there were fewer 200 IP studs each year. That trend has continued to where we are today.
We also moved the Diamond and Platinum leagues to 1,200 IP because fewer and fewer teams were using more than 3 starters in those formats and since then we've moved that down to 1,100 IP. That remains the limit in 2021.
Again, all of these moves were made as a result of feedback from our players. At season's end, we'll gladly look at this rule and change it if needed. At this point, none of us know for sure what is going to happen this year. I do think we all agree that most starting pitchers won't hit their IP levels that they did in 2019 or before that, but that could be as much about the short season of 2020 as it is about teams' reluctance to have starters go through lineups a third time. But the trend is obvious and we'll keep an eye on it.
What is going on now with the 1,000 IP limit is that the stud starters -- and we know there are 15-17 of them now -- are going earlier and earlier in NFBC drafts. And we know why. These are innings eaters and if you get 400 IP from two of your top starters, you can definitely manage those other seven pitching spots in a lot of different ways. I disagree that our limit is restricting the use of middle relievers or setup guys. Depending on how you construct your pitching staff, those guys can have a lot of value, minimal value or no value. It's all part of the roster construction.
We look at IP limits for every team starting in September and email those owners who may fall short. I think we've had to adjust the final standings once and that was in a $150 DC where the owner admitted that he thought 1,000 IP was the rule but wasn't sure at the time of the draft and wanted to try something different. It worked, but unfortunately he lost the prize money and wasn't upset. Most other teams that don't reach that level I can easily look up and see that they gave up on those teams. Most are in the DCs where they couldn't pick anyone up to reach the 1,000 IP limit.
But yes, we sure check this each year and we feel that getting 111 IP from each of the 9 pitching spots over 27 weeks is attainable. Not easy, especially this year, but attainable. And if it was easy, it wouldn't be the NFBC. This is supposed to be hard and it's supposed to take some ingenuity and planning to build a pitching staff that can excel AND reach this limit.
The Founding Fathers wanted us to construct a roster like an MLB general manager would with stars and scrubs. The reason there are 23-man rosters is because in 1980 when Rotisserie Baseball was invented MLB teams had 23 man rosters. Today they have 26 man rosters, but we still keep it at 23. We still have 2 Catchers because no MLB team can go a full 162-game season with just one catcher. The second one sucks, but so be it. All teams have sucky second catchers, so we do too. They also have more than 2 or 3 starting pitchers, so we should too. We are mirroring the tough decisions of an MLB General Manager and it's not supposed to be easy. Am I right?
Thanks for the discussion and I hope I didn't stop it with this post. I just didn't want to remain silent when others might think a rules change could be coming. We can't legally change a rule at this point and don't feel we need to just yet. Maybe next year and we'll gladly have that discussion again. Good luck all and enjoy.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius