Let's revisit Friday lineup changes for P

[Fourslot40]

I believe the last time we had this discussion, I proposed the following:

1) NFBC owners will have a window every Friday from 3am EDT (or whenever the standings are refreshed) until the first game played on Friday in which they may make pitcher swaps.

2) Any pitcher moving from the active roster to the reserve roster must not have any pitching stats accumulated during the Monday to Thursday period. Even one pitch thrown will disqualify the pitcher from being removed from the active roster.

I have no idea whether this can be programmed. Even it it can, many will have a problem with the small window in which a pitcher swap can be made.

The bottom line is that this is the ONLY solution that results in no manipulation/rules-circumvention AND no reliance on the timeliness of the MLB DL-designation.

Here's the issue... If I have 3-4 closers, I put them in on Monday with no risk and whichever one hasn't thrown can potentially be replaced for a start over the weekend. No injury. Instead of focusing on this change that appears to bring controversy with varying opinions (hence four pages), I think everyone could agree that the the lineup flexibility after games lock that we have in the NFFC should be the focus.

One quick point on Cosart and it may or may not have been said... I have Cosart in a lineup this week and I knew the risk of his hamstring issue potentially flaring up over two starts. He is on the DL for vertigo, but was shaky with a hamstring issue. I took that risk and lost... I own that decision... that is not a functionality problem. There is enough information these days to weigh the risk on Mondays.

[Captain Hook]

All of those things are why I just want a DL P activation rule
It should be really SIMPLE ... IF you have a pitcher who is NOT on the DL when his game locks (Mon/Tue) and he Officially goes on the DL before lineups lock on Friday you can "DL bench" him on Friday and replace with a pitcher who is on your reserve list.

I fully understand this may not be programmable (esp by STATS personnel - no insult intended just reality comment) BUT is is done on at least one other roto site.

and if that can't be done I would suggest it is not that big a deal to have be done manually
(I commish an AL only league where there are midweek DL transactions plus players sent to the minors can be replaced on any given day and it is just not that much work - YEAH I know mulitply that by hundreds of leagues but maybe Greg can get an intern)

[COZ]

It should be really SIMPLE ...

I fully understand this may not be programmable (esp by STATS personnel - no insult intended just reality comment) BUT is is done on at least one other roto site.

and if that can't be done I would suggest it is not that big a deal to have be done manually

Really? I think Greg articulated clearly why this is not "really SIMPLE..."

There clearly is not a definitive enough baseline to determine the exact minute a player is DL'd, then to have that picked up by STATS, updated by the system, recognized by us the players and then for us to change our line-ups. This was tried before and failed. And I know from a CBS league I played with a DL rule, there was, as Greg said, a significant delay (sometimes days) from the time the injury is announced and the official DL designation is given. I never understood it and it would make me beyond pissed. Greg clearly explained the reasons for the delay which I never knew before. I agree with others, and Greg, that if we are going to go this route of Friday pitching rule, that it NOT BE CONDITIONAL UPON A DL DESIGNATION. There are too many conditional factors that come into play, not to mention us constantly having to check when STATS has applied the DL designation to a guy. Greg again, has made clear, and I completely agree with him, in setting the rules, that he does not want a contest that forces us to be constantly checking the website, i.e. the minor league call up rule must be official by Sunday at 6:00 AM otherwise not eligible for waivers. Adopting the DL designation as the baseline, would force us in the position to be constantly checking to see if the DL designation tag was applied. And nobody, I think, wants that; not to mention the bitching about STATS in the interim waiting for the DL designation.

Claiming the DL designation is 'REALLY SIMPLE" is only go to muddy the waters in this argument and put us back to square one. So, again, we are back to Glenn's proposed rule, based upon a pitcher not having thrown a pitch during the week as the baseline in determining eligibility of when a pitcher can be replaced. Any other arguments simply detract from the argument, in my opinion.

COZ

[Captain Hook]

I think we have determined that none of the potential ways to do this will make everyone happy.

That said the simplicity is that if STATS imports the DL transaction like they do others they would always have it the day after the player is officially placed on the DL by their ML club. That is the best we can do and still not have other types of changes made available (which I am not against - personally I would be fine with changing the full lineup on Fridays and there are plenty of people who play in this contest who enjoyed that format elsewhere).

So yes someone whose pitcher goes on the DL on Friday is going to be pissed they can't make their change when others who had pitchers go on the DL on Mon/Tue/Wed/Thurs can make their change. Tough! At least the rule would be clean and simple and apply to everyone equally. That is the best we can do

[TParsons]

So yes someone whose pitcher goes on the DL on Friday is going to be pissed they can't make their change when others who had pitchers go on the DL on Mon/Tue/Wed/Thurs can make their change. Tough! At least the rule would be clean and simple and apply to everyone equally. That is the best we can do

Some might say that the current rule is "clean and simple and applies to everyone equally." So "Tough!" to you. Any usage of a DL designation is the least clean among all possibilities. That has already been played out here and failed miserably.

[Navel Lint]

So yes someone whose pitcher goes on the DL on Friday is going to be pissed they can't make their change when others who had pitchers go on the DL on Mon/Tue/Wed/Thurs can make their change. Tough! At least the rule would be clean and simple and apply to everyone equally. That is the best we can do

Some might say that the current rule is "clean and simple and applies to everyone equally." So "Tough!" to you. Any usage of a DL designation is the least clean among all possibilities. That has already been played out here and failed miserably.

Bingo!

[knuckleheads]

If we were to do anything with pitchers, my hope is that it wouldn't involve the official MLB DL list. Hopefully we could figure out a process that allows owners to make the move without that stupid list from MLB.

Why can't we just allow owners to change out any pitcher on Friday who hasn't already pitched Monday through Thursday. I don't see why that wouldn't resolve all issues.

It would allow owners to swap out a pitcher who is DL'd after the Monday locks but before he pitches ala Cosart. It would also prevent owners searching for a loophole from streaming a 2-start pitcher away from a tough early week start while activating him for an easier late week start.

And all this done without relying on the MLB DL designation.

Wouldn't that address all the concerns?

That would probably be the solution if we were to program it that way. It basically would allow owners to replace someone injured before or during the week and replace him on the weekend if you had a pitching replacement on Reserve. But it would still allow owners to start a DL pitcher and replace him with a SP who had a tough matchup early in the week and an ideal matchup on the weekend. I guess that's not our worry, but it does still allow that, right?

If you allowed the rule as Glenn suggests, owners would "game" the system in weeks their closers did not make an appearance Mon-Thurs.

Scenario: I start Jonathon Papelbon at the beginning of the week over Jose Quintana (who is scheduled to start on Friday only) because I prefer Papelbon's 7 shots at a save over one start from Quintana. Four days later, Papelbon has not pitched because the Phillies suck and are always losing. I then put in Quintana on Friday because I now prefer his 1 start to Papelbon's only 3 shots at a save.

Greg has thoroughly debunked the viability of any DL-related roster changes due to the inconsistency of MLB's DL postings.

[ikenbaseball]

This isn't really that tough........we have Friday lineup changes for pitchers. Once a pitcher throws one pitch that week he is locked in and you can't change him out.

Players will stream pitchers....players will play matchups....but everyone will have a fair shake to do this. It's the simplest way to make this happen. There will be people opposed but this is suppose to be a GAME. Games are suppose to be fun. Flexibility is important. Hitting and Pitching lineup changes on a Friday night is not a big deal.

[Fourslot40]

If you allowed the rule as Glenn suggests, owners would "game" the system in weeks their closers did not make an appearance Mon-Thurs.

Scenario: I start Jonathon Papelbon at the beginning of the week over Jose Quintana (who is scheduled to start on Friday only) because I prefer Papelbon's 7 shots at a save over one start from Quintana. Four days later, Papelbon has not pitched because the Phillies suck and are always losing. I then put in Quintana on Friday because I now prefer his 1 start to Papelbon's only 3 shots at a save.

I made this exact point a few posts ago at the top of this page.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I've given you guys six days to dissect this "problem" and to argue with Perry, who is stubborn in his old age and likes to win arguments. It was informative and it allowed some to take their shots again at STATS. That wasn't the informative part.

Contrary to what Perry thinks, the DL is not easy and is not good for our game. We aren't making Friday pitching changes based on the DL designation. I don't know how I can be more clear about that.

Glenn's proposal is the best one, but again some people will use the Friday rule beyond replacing an injured player. Honestly, that doesn't bother me as much because that's really what we decided with the hitters, too. We just gave up on the idea of replacing a hitter who was put on the DL mid-week and said "screw it, let's allow any hitter to be removed on Friday because every team has 3 games left anyway."

You can't have the same attitude toward pitchers or we'll be benching two-start starters who have a bad first matchup, starting more DL guys again, etc. But there probably are ways to use much of what Glenn is proposing and offer a possible solution. It has to be as easy as replacing a hitter on Friday, but if you do it with the designation that your active pitcher can be removed on Friday if he hasn't pitched Monday-Thursday, then that lineup move can only be made on Friday. It shortens the window of making a starting lineup change involving pitchers, but that would be the biggest downside. Still, as we improve our app and make lineup changes easier, this shouldn't be a big hurdle to overcome.

I'll keep reading the suggestions and skip over the insults, but obviously this is a 2016 rules suggestion that has plenty of time to be vetted. I have my own thoughts on this and not every rules suggestion makes the game better. I'm not sure if this one does, as we've proven before. And definitely no to the DL designation. But I do feel that we improved the game and reduced a little luck in our game with the Friday hitters' move, so I'll look at the pitchers' options for 2016 and see if there is something simple that can be done and run it pass the programmers. We have enough time to think this through both from a rules standpoint and a programming standpoint, but I need to be convinced that it makes our game better and easier before enacting anything for 2016.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Spending the last couple of days talking to NFBC folks has left me a little disheartened about this change.
Everybody wants something different. They want change. They want flexibility and choices. But, they want it their way.
A tough nut to crack.

We've been in this system so long that a few people think that choosing between a Starter or Closer on Friday would somehow be 'gaming'.
I don't get it.
It's a choice.
A choice that should be afforded us. Like choosing between a power hitter or speedy outfielder on Friday.
Aroldis Chapman and Greg Holland haven't thrown a pitch this week.
What difference would there be if owners had a choice to play them on Monday's and on Friday's?
None, really.

I've talked with a few people since this thread started. Everybody wants different things. All agree that choices in pitchers during the week would be a good thing. That flexibility would be great.
Their problem being in how to achieve that choice or flexibility.
The proposal of changing pitchers who haven't thrown a pitch and changing them along with hitters on Friday's makes the most sense right now.
The problem that some had with this idea was the small window of Friday morning to Friday night as the deadline.
However, if STATS could keep that window open from Wednesday morning till the Friday deadlines, that would alleviate the problem and open that window further.
If a Manager makes a move on Wednesday and one of the pitchers involved is in a pitchers box score
(Russ, this eliminates your no-pitch examples and ph or pr by pitchers)
STATS would disallow the move.

This is not a big change. Most of the time, we have few pitchers on our bench eligible to still throw on Friday.
Still, it gives us something.
Something to combat zeroes or something to give us the freedom to make choices in pitchers.
It would be better than putting nine pitchers in a lineup and hoping for the best four, five, or six days, or even seven days away.

[Fourslot40]

Sometimes too many options can be counter-productive. Kind of like an higher-end restaurant. There's a reason why there are few choices on a menu with no substitutions.

[Captain Hook]

Greg I don't need to win the DL argument - Glenn's proposal would at least be better than what we have now and I would be okay with that.

On a related note given that you have the only baseball game in town I would be interested in knowing exactly how all the competitors in the NFBC (not just the message board contributors) feel about having unrestricted lineup setting on both Fridays and Mondays. I have read your objections but wonder if in fact the majority of players agree or more to the point are there participants that you would actually lose if there were two lineup settings each week - I do understand that would be more important to the game operator than a simple majority wanting a different contest (and there is a totally different option).

You have played in TOUT on the new site with the new rules for a few years. Do you think that is a bad format?
I think (slight explanation required) that being able to DL a player once officially on the DL or activate a player who returns from the DL during the week is a better game. But maybe high stakes players don't agree. We will never know unless they are asked.

[Navel Lint]

On a related note given that you have the only baseball game in town I would be interested in knowing exactly how all the competitors in the NFBC (not just the message board contributors) feel about having unrestricted lineup setting on both Fridays and Mondays. I have read your objections but wonder if in fact the majority of players agree or more to the point are there participants that you would actually lose if there were two lineup settings each week - I do understand that would be more important to the game operator than a simple majority wanting a different contest (and there is a totally different option).

I think I've made it relatively clear that I'm not in favor of a change to the pitcher rule.

It's not that the current rule is good, it's not.
If fact, I would call it perfectly imperfect.
There is no advantage or disadvantage built into the rule itself that singles out a particular owner.
I don't believe that to be case with all of the proposals that have been made throughout this thread.

Dan has made a proposal above that sounds reasonable, it is, although he admits that the biggest problem is the time frame available to make any changes. I know that the time frame issue has been a non-starter for many people in the past and I think it would be again now.
He has provided a work-around for the time issue by allowing for what would essentially be "conditional" roster moves on Wed and Thurs. Honestly, (and not to be a smart-ass), how many of us would trust that that system would be programmed to do that without error
And since I'm not being a smart-ass , how would they a handle a Thurs game that is suspended and to be finished at a later date?

All that being said, if we changed the pitcher rule would I take my pencil, paper and projections and go home next year? NO!
And I doubt very many others would either.
All you have to do is look at the overall standings from each season to know that the NFBC player is very loyal.

I would just prefer to keep the rule as is.

[knuckleheads]

Glenn's proposal is the best one, but again some people will use the Friday rule beyond replacing an injured player.

The "hasn't pitched this week" idea is fatally flawed.

The most important statistic for closers is Saves Chances. If you allow a closer to be removed on Friday if he hasn't pitched, then there is no penalty for the Owner's decision to start the closer who didn't get a save chance.

Period 7 this year:

A. Reed pitched 1 game on Thursday and gave up 4 base runners and 4 runs. He's locked.

S. Casilla did not pitch Mon-Thurs. week 7 and would be eligible to be replaced.

Both owners made a poor decision (known only after the games were played) to start those closers. However, Reed's owner is further punished by having to start Reed in the weekend games while Casilla's owner gets to add an extra start to the week's totals.

[DOUGHBOYS]

This is not a flaw at all.

Hitting-wise, we start Jarrod Dyson, thinking (hoping) he plays and does not.
He doesn't.
We replace him on Friday, knowing he probably won't play.

We also start Jimmy Rollins, he goes 0-14
We replace him with somebody hotter.

The penalty is already built in, we got little by starting them. Same will go for pitchers.

Some Closers will have three good appearances and some will have none.
Is there a disadvantage for either one in that instance.
The Closer not used on Mon-Thurs, may get rocked on Friday, like your Reed example.

The game is as it is before, avoid bad performances.

[knuckleheads]

This is not a flaw at all.

Hitting-wise, we start Jarrod Dyson, thinking (hoping) he plays and does not.
He doesn't.
We replace him on Friday, knowing he probably won't play.

We also start Jimmy Rollins, he goes 0-14
We replace him with somebody hotter.

The penalty is already built in, we got little by starting them. Same will go for pitchers.

Some Closers will have three good appearances and some will have none.
Is there a disadvantage for either one in that instance.
The Closer not used on Mon-Thurs, may get rocked on Friday, like your Reed example.

The game is as it is before, avoid bad performances.

Dan, the inequity is that in Glenn's scenario, only pitchers who haven't pitched Mon-Thurs can be replaced. If you took the same rule and applied it to hitters, Rollins would be locked but you could still replace Dyson, who didn't play.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Right.
I don't see the inequity.
Would it be an inequity the other way had Reed pitched well?
Neither owner knows what Fri-Sun holds. Reed may be the better pitcher during the next time frame.

Same for a Starter. Does a bad Thursday start mean that his owner's at a disadvantage?
No. He's just worse off because he had a bad start.
Like it is now.

A PM indicated that it would be to an owner's detriment if a pitcher was injured while pitching Mon-Thurs.
He's right.
But, it's the same way now. That does not change.

[Deadheadz]

.

While I prefer no change I don't have any reason to argue in favor of status quo or for change.

What I do anticipate is changing the pitcher rule will simply give more of us the opportunity to make more mistakes. It seems unthinkable to me that you guys would bench Chapman or Holland for any reason, even on a 3 day stretch except at the very late stages of the season where you might need Wins and Ks to move up in the categories but have no benefit by adding Saves.

Even then, great closers could get nearly as many Ks and potentially get one or more Wins in the 3 day weekend.

We all have regrets after the lineups lock. How many more regrets could we have if there were more changes available to us?


Tell me if this idea has any merit:

Remove the requirement for rosters to have 9 pitchers active to be a legal lineup. We add the pitchers to the active roster whenever we see fit and once they are added after their team's first game of the week, they stay locked in. Bench pitchers would not be locked into the bench. This way you're not "replacing" pitchers and potentially gaming the system by having your cake for 4 days and then eating it too by swapping hurlers on Friday. You leave the slot open (taking a zero) until you decide to activate a pitcher and then he's locked for the remainder of the week.

Comments?


.

[knuckleheads]

Right.
I don't see the inequity.
Would it be an inequity the other way had Reed pitched well?

There would still be inequity, not "the other way," but in the same way.

The rule was suggested to alleviate the hardship of having to carry an injured player for seven days. But the unintended consequence is that it would additionally allow owners of relief pitchers who didn't pitch Mon-Thurs the benefit of added flexibility.

The reason the rules works differently for hitters and pitchers is there is only one-category of hitter and there are two categories of pitchers.

Hitters
1. All hitters are in consideration to play every day.

Pitchers
1. All relievers are in consideration to play every day
2. All starting pitchers are in consideration to play once every five days.

It would be easy to allow roster moves with relievers to be setup the same as hitters. But as relievers have to be put into 1 of 9 Pitching Roster Spots, you cannot separate the RP for the SP.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Right.
I don't see the inequity.
Would it be an inequity the other way had Reed pitched well?

There would still be inequity, not "the other way," but in the same way.

The rule was suggested to alleviate the hardship of having to carry an injured player for seven days. But the unintended consequence is that it would additionally allow owners of relief pitchers who didn't pitch Mon-Thurs the benefit of added flexibility.

The reason the rules works differently for hitters and pitchers is there is only one-category of hitter and there are two categories of pitchers.

Hitters
1. All hitters are in consideration to play every day.

Pitchers
1. All relievers are in consideration to play every day
2. All starting pitchers are in consideration to play once every five days.

It would be easy to allow roster moves with relievers to be setup the same as hitters. But as relievers have to be put into 1 of 9 Pitching Roster Spots, you cannot separate the RP for the SP.

Yes. There would be choices for Closers too if not pitching Mon-Thurs.
Much like switching a power hitter for a speed hitter on Friday.

[knuckleheads]

The difference is, all hitters (whether they played or not) can be swapped. Only closers who don't pitched can be swapped. Closers who pitched can't be swapped.

[knuckleheads]

Yes. There would be choices for Closers too if not pitching Mon-Thurs.
Much like switching a power hitter for a speed hitter on Friday.

It's only a little like it. To quantify the inequality:

100% of hitters can be swapped on Fridays.

10%-40% of closers would be able to be swapped on Fridays, roughly speaking.

[DOUGHBOYS]

You have to remember this, a team with a Closer with no Saves Mon-Thurs got 0 Saves from that guy Mon-Thurs. Zero.
He still needs Saves.
He'll have the choice of re-installing him or putting in a mediocre starter, who was left off the starting lineup, thinking that the Closer would enter a game.
No inequity at all.
Injuries happen with Closers as well as Starters.
Ottovino was here today, gone tomorrow. There should be relief (pun intended) for them as well.

[knuckleheads]

You have to remember this, a team with a Closer with no Saves Mon-Thurs got 0 Saves from that guy Mon-Thurs. Zero.
He still needs Saves.
He'll have the choice of re-installing him or putting in a mediocre starter, who was left off the starting lineup, thinking that the Closer would enter a game.
No inequity at all.

Dan, How is it not a significant advantage when one owner has the option to take out or leave in a closer, and another owner must leave his closer in the lineup?

Neither pitcher was injured or DLed or injured during the first four games of the week.