The Rich Get Richer - RE: Injuries

[Outlaw]

Interesting Read! At first read I tend to agree with most of his recommendations.



I would be interested in hearing from Veteran NFBC'rs what thier take is, especially with the increasing injury numbers.



One arguement I can see is Risk/reward when drafting players with a history of injuries.





The Rich Get Richer

Masters of the NFBC

Written by Todd Zola

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 00:00



The three stories dominating the fantasy landscape to this point of the season are Jose Bautista, the continued dominance of pitching and the plethora of injuries. Today, I would like to spend some time talking about the third point, injuries. Specifically, I am going to use this space to bring to light something that I feel is an inequity in our NFBC competitions and then propose a solution.



To illustrate the depth of the injury situation, let us take a look at how many disabled players there are on the average in an NFBC 15-team league. In my NFBC Classic league, there are currently 46 players flagged with that nasty pair of red letters, DL. That is, on the average, three per team. I play in a couple of satellites where there are 38 and 42 disabled players. So it is safe to say there are about 42 injured players populating each league’s rosters.



I know injuries are part of the game. I realize luck is a significant element of the competition. But here is my issue with the current roster setup. Our rules lead to the fantasy baseball equivalent of the rich getting richer. Not only does a team enjoy good fortune because they are mostly injury-free, but they have more available reserve spots to better manage their roster. This imbalance is further amplified with the advent of the Friday activation rule for hitters.



For every injured player, the unfortunate owner can roster one fewer reserve hitter to deploy during a good matchup, one fewer starting pitcher to spot, one fewer speculative closer or one fewer Minor League prospect. It is already bad enough that the injury necessitates substituting a lesser player in the active lineup. But in addition to losing a reserve spot to a hurt player, the owner is handcuffed as they do not have the same inventory of healthy players to manage their team compared to teams with fewer injuries. The rich get richer.



My proposal is thus: trim the draft to 27 or 28 players meaning we all have four or five reserves. Then, allow each team a separate disabled list to house injured players. In addition, open up the eligible free agent pool to be everyone on the 40-man roster. If the holdup is the concern that owners may hoard injured players, then set a maximum number of disabled players.



At least early in the season, this should make free agency more interesting as there will be 30-45 fewer drafted players. You will need to really decide what to do with your four or five reserves. Plus, why have the Friday activation rule if there are a ton of teams that cannot carry a backup at every position since they are sporting so many injuries? If everyone has the exact same four or five reserve spots to work with, at least that inequity is eliminated. By this point in the season, on average, that is how many we have anyway. Let's get rid of the "on average" and make sure everyone is playing with the same arsenal.



The primary drawback I see to the idea is policing of the rosters. Truth be told, what I am proposing is quite commonplace. The standard rule is you get one week’s stay of execution after the player is reinstated from the DL. Of course, you are free to activate him his first week off the DL, but you have one transaction period to take action. In regular leagues, monitoring this is the duty of the commissioner or the secretary of waivers and transactions. It is unreasonable to ask our buddies Greg and Tom to police every single NFBC league for DL activations. That said, I am quite sure our friends at STATS Inc can concoct the necessary code. What we would need is for the site to track when the player comes off the disabled list, notify the owner and automatically drop the player if no action is taken after the second transaction period off the DL. The tracking is already done, as that unsightly red DL appears and disappears. We just need STATS Inc finest to tie that to a warning, then an automated drop after the second transaction period off the DL.



Who’s with me?

[kgrady]

Perhaps MLB should incorporate a new rule whereby players are not paid if on the DL with an oblique injury. That would probably cut the number of DL stints in half!



Seriously, I think your proposal has some merit, but I also have some reservations. It seems to me that expanding the roster for DL purposes would lead people to take more chances on injured players in the draft. I.E. - One could have drafted Johan Santana knowing he'd be able to shift him to the DL and replace him with a healthy player. Chase Utley would likely have been drafted earlier.



This would change the dynamics of the draft and the game itself. Not sure whether that's a good thing, a bad thing or somewhere in between.



Kevin

[Edwards Kings]

Kevin brings up a good point. I do not know if having a DL roster is better, or merely different.

[ToddZ]

Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

Kevin brings up a good point. I do not know if having a DL roster is better, or merely different. To me, it is BETTER because everyone has the same 4 or 5 (or whatever) number of healthy reserves, with the understanding that some will be stashing (by choice) minor leaguers.



My "issue" is presently, some owners have 5,or 6 DL guys meaning they have 5 or 6 backups in their lineup and only one reserve to manage their roster through Friday activations, pitching matchups, etc.



Other teams have 1 or 2 DL guys so they can manage their roster with more flexibility.



Luck is part of the game, no doubt. But I see the separate DL as a means to level this part of the playing field.

[Edwards Kings]

Originally posted by ToddZ:

quote:Originally posted by Edwards Kings:

Kevin brings up a good point. I do not know if having a DL roster is better, or merely different. To me, it is BETTER because everyone has the same 4 or 5 (or whatever) number of healthy reserves, with the understanding that some will be stashing (by choice) minor leaguers.



My "issue" is presently, some owners have 5,or 6 DL guys meaning they have 5 or 6 backups in their lineup and only one reserve to manage their roster through Friday activations, pitching matchups, etc.



Other teams have 1 or 2 DL guys so they can manage their roster with more flexibility.



Luck is part of the game, no doubt. But I see the separate DL as a means to level this part of the playing field. [/QUOTE]Understood. But...and there is always a but...means currently exist to address the issue you present.



In (very) rare cases, the four or five DL'd players may be the "stars" of your team and an owner cannot bear to part with them. In most cases, I will contend, two or more of the DL's players are replaceable with FA players with a reasonable match to the skills being dropped, or are out such a time that once released, will reside in the FA pool available to be reacquired.



The DL roster seems to me to have the same general roster management impact as waiving injured players with available FA.



Just thoughts.

[whipsaw]

I have six double play teams this year, with rosters ranging from zero to five DL players on them. I would see the addition of a DL as a significant negative going forward. Adding a separate DL (of seemingly infinite size) and reducing the active roster by a couple of spots fundamentally changes the game, and would be an overreaction to what appears to be an unusually large rash of injuries among top hitters this year.



Luck is part of the game, and so is injury risk. We all know the risks. There are lots of risks. Insane roster construction by major league managers. BABIP risk (for both hitters and pitchers). Rookie callups. Crazy bullpen usage. Weather. We can't fix every risk, nor should we try. Injury risk is no different than any other form of risk, and in some cases is far more predictable than those listed above. So manage your risk if you are unhappy with what would occur if the gamble goes against you.

[Life is good]

I like things exactly how they are. Why level the playing field.... It is already level. We all start at zero and have the risk of drafting Josh hamilton....lol You could add one DL spot for everyone, but whats they point. If you lose good players to the DL your probably not gonna beat 800 plus teams anyways....So why change anything?

[Life is good]

Plus waiver wouldn't be as fun..... I have Soto & Kendrick on waivers...It's part of the game.

[Life is good]

The player pool would be weaker....& double start & plays of the week would be alot harder to find.............