NFBC Rules Changes Discussion For 2013

[Oaktown]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd love to see that last half week of the season and any tiebreaker games eliminated from the NFBC schedule. It helped me out a ton this year and crushed me last season, but the uncertainty that surrounds those last few games in regards to starters makes it extremely difficult to manage.

They are not having a half week next year, back to the normal full week, finish on Sunday schedule.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd love to see that last half week of the season and any tiebreaker games eliminated from the NFBC schedule. It helped me out a ton this year and crushed me last season, but the uncertainty that surrounds those last few games in regards to starters makes it extremely difficult to manage.

The NFBC season mirrors the length of the MLB regular season, including tie-breakers. All games count and that won't change in the NFBC anytime soon.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I also vote for raising the innings limit, especially for leagues independent of an Overall. I respect the relief pitcher strategy and understand that those who win with it do play within the rules. However, I would never utilize it personally and therefore don't like playing against it because I feel my unwillingness to use it puts me at a disadvantage. The challenge I'm looking for when joining these leagues is to see if I can construct the best team with the best players, not to see if I can find the best "advantage" or "loophole", especially at the high dollar levels I now play. It's similar to why I had an issue with those who gamed the pitcher DL rule. It was within the rules, but was not in the spirit of the type of game I want to play. 1000 innings, 1100, 1200, the higher the better as far as I'm concerned.

I have stated that we should consider a higher IP minimum for the private high-dollar leagues like the Diamond, where we pay off the Top 4 teams. I think you see the strategy more often there because fourth place is worth $10,000. A higher IP limit should be considered for the Diamond and Ultimate Leagues.

The percentage of people who use an all-reliever strategy is definitely less than 5% overall; heck, probably less than 1%. Again, there were less than 2% of all teams under 900 IP with 2 weeks to go, so very few teams struggle to reach the minimum. That being said, you can see that many teams that don't use the all-reliever strategy change course during the season due to unforeseen circumstances and thus try to gain points in different ways. We are trying to find that happy medium to allow for in-season decisions and still have teams make tough pitching decisions. Winning ERA and WHIP with 900 or 1,000 IP is not an easy task no matter how you do it. All of those teams still have tough decisions to make with their pitching slots down the stretch.

All of your points are helpful in our decision and I'm not against having the minimum IP slightly higher for the two bigger private leagues. We should consider all options to keep every league as competitive as possible.

[Atlas]

2. I would like to see Friday P moves (if P on IR) allowed again. It was overkill to eliminate them just to eliminate a rarely used trick.

Agree here. Too many times an anouncement was made after Monday lineups locked and we were stuck for the week with a dead slot. There's gotta be a way to write the rule so it closes any loopholes.

If a pitcher goes on the DL during the week/after lineups lock without an appearance, we get to switch him out on Friday.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I like the pitcher rules as they stand.
That said, I do feel for those that have lost a pitcher during the week.
One pitcher who hasn't thrown a pitch after Thursday's games to be replaced by a pitcher on the bench would be good.
To have any two pitcher moves a month, non-cumulative, would be swell with me too.
Any more than two moves a month would ignite streamers.
Non-cumulative so that a team could not save moves and stream pitchers at the end of the year.
This measure would include ANY pitching moves. Such as having a two-start pitcher throw against the Royals and pulled vs. the Yankees or replacing a hurt pitcher.
Our choice.
Just a thought.

[Scared $ Dont Make $]

1100 IPs...

Lineup changes stay Fridays

Bring back pitchers minus the whole DL designation with one major caveat.
As someone else stated its as simple as you can only replace a pitcher whom has not pitched during that week... takes the shysters out of the loop that will try to beat the "old" system. And yes I realize it allows you to skip a 2 start pitcher that has a bad matchup in his first start, but you are NOT gaining innings pitched like you could in the old system.
Gives the same dynamics to pitching that you have in hitting by sitting a player due to bad matchups but does not give you a competitive advantage by being able to load up on extra starts since you could only replace a spot in your lineup if that pitcher has not yet pitched that week
Greg, your programmers can easily track that... I will quote you 40 hours to program it and 60 hours to test it... Billing rate is $200/hr

[Gekko]

1. increase to 1,000 IP
2. allow any pitcher who has not pitched Mon - Thu be swapped out on Friday

[Atlas]

1. increase to 1,000 IP
2. allow any pitcher who has not pitched Mon - Thu be swapped out on Friday

Any pitcher? Not a Dl'd pitcher?

[Gekko]

1. increase to 1,000 IP
2. allow any pitcher who has not pitched Mon - Thu be swapped out on Friday

Any pitcher? Not a Dl'd pitcher?

ya, let me edit that.

any pitcher who didn't start the week on the DL AND hasn't pitched in a game from Monday - Thursday should be allowed to be switched out on Friday.

[mhest]

This isn't a rule change but...have you considered a draft champions points league for baseball where like football you automatically get the "team" from your roster that scores the most points each week?

If that isn't clear, a slow draft baseball points league where the software chooses your highest points players for the week after the last Sunday game is completed.

[Rog]

how does the computer decide what is more valuable to you a player with 2 hrs and a low avg, 4 steals and no rbi" saves or wins ?
For as many bad choices I made this year this is a great idea but I dont think it is possible.

[Oaktown]

how does the computer decide what is more valuable to you a player with 2 hrs and a low avg, 4 steals and no rbi" saves or wins ?
For as many bad choices I made this year this is a great idea but I dont think it is possible.

Because it would be a points league, not roto.

[KJ Duke]

how does the computer decide what is more valuable to you a player with 2 hrs and a low avg, 4 steals and no rbi" saves or wins ?
For as many bad choices I made this year this is a great idea but I dont think it is possible.

Because it would be a points league, not roto.

It could mimic the existing roto setup relatively well, however, by having the point scoring closely aligned with the auction value of NFBC players under the existing rule set. You wouldn't have the strategy decisions or have to go for balance, but in this way the drafts could be relatively close to the regular leagues.

[Rog]

well that makes sense, lets do it

[BEF]

Guess I'm in the minority, but I like the 900 IP limit as it stands. It gives each owner the ability to make their own strategic decisions both on Draft Day and throughout the year. If my primary goal is to come in first in my league and not in the Overall, and a RP strategy gives me the best chance to do that, then so be it. If that means that not all owners are playing the same way, well, too bad, let's see how you adjust on the fly. Does every MLB team play the exact same way, with the exact same strategy? No, some play small ball while others sit back and wait for the three run homer. Some just depend on three good hitters and great pitching while completely ignoring SBs and defense (hello, Tigers). By eliminating this RP option you're removing a viable strategy just because some owners feel threatened by it. And if it's truly such a small minority, why should it matter all that much (and I'd love to know how many of those teams that struggled to reach 900 did so because they went with a RP strategy, or because they simply gave up and stopped making moves, keeping guys in the rotation who were injured, moved to the pen or demoted to the minors).

[BEF]

Just re-read my post and it comes off a bit harsh. I didn't intend it that way at all. Apologies.

[mhest]

I think one of the issues is that the low innings requirement allows owners to pursue the reliever strategy but if one or two owners use the reliever strategy (play for just the league) the rest of the league has a snowballs chance in the overall. I haven't thought this through but that is the theory anyway. So maybe you have a different innings requirement for the cross league competitions than you do for the satellites.

[Money Men]

I'll kick in my $.02 for what it's worth, and as with someone before me, I have only played the online championship the past two years and do not have the levels of $$$ invested as so many others on here have.

It may be apples and oranges, but I don't understand why streaming is legislated out of the contest as a strategy, but its antithesis (RP strategy) is not.

Wouldn't the addition of an innings pitched ceiling to the innings pitched floor be a simple solution?

It would allow the pitching to be treated like hitting midweek, with the innings cap keeping the "streaming" at bay. Once you eclipse the innings pitched maximum limit, whatever that may be, you stop accumulating pitching stats. It should make the back end software changes for the pitching easy, since the software wouldn't have to recognize what pitchers hadn't thrown an inning the beginning of the week.

I know I found it very frustrating this year to set my pitching for Monday and expect a certain amount of starts on a given week, only to lose a roster spot due to injury, or lose a two-start guy because one of his days was pushed back due to rain, etc.

I am sure this is not the first time this has been brought up. It has probably been beaten to death as an argument in years before I found the NFBC.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

I agree with Glenn. I did use it this year for the first time in the diamond. Was a back up plan that I felt I needed to employ from the back when I kept missing pitching runs. I don't like even being in a position to have to consider using such as a strategy. Felt kind of slimy doing that. Sort of like bunting to break up a no hitter. What I don't understand is if there is nothing wrong with it then why increase it at all? I think it is pretty obvious that most feel there is something wrong with it. That is why it has been increased all along isn't it? There is something wrong with that strategy. So why not increase it in a meaningful way and put an end to it. I believe the diamond league is the toughest league around. When 2 of the top 3 teams(including the winner) used it, it is pretty obvious to me that it needs a major change. 100 not enough.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Guess I'm in the minority, but I like the 900 IP limit as it stands. It gives each owner the ability to make their own strategic decisions both on Draft Day and throughout the year. If my primary goal is to come in first in my league and not in the Overall, and a RP strategy gives me the best chance to do that, then so be it. If that means that not all owners are playing the same way, well, too bad, let's see how you adjust on the fly. Does every MLB team play the exact same way, with the exact same strategy? No, some play small ball while others sit back and wait for the three run homer. Some just depend on three good hitters and great pitching while completely ignoring SBs and defense (hello, Tigers). By eliminating this RP option you're removing a viable strategy just because some owners feel threatened by it. And if it's truly such a small minority, why should it matter all that much (and I'd love to know how many of those teams that struggled to reach 900 did so because they went with a RP strategy, or because they simply gave up and stopped making moves, keeping guys in the rotation who were injured, moved to the pen or demoted to the minors).

You're not being harsh with this post and it's exactly why I'm reluctant to move the IP minimum up as high as some folks want it. Chad, it's not about protecting the all-reliever strategy only because most teams around the 900 IP threshold aren't using that strategy. Many teams discovered much later than you that they didn't have enough pitching to contend in one or two categories for a league title and chose a different path during the season to the most league points. They decided mid-stream to alter their pitching staff. Some do that with more relievers and no starters after a certain point and others bag saves and go after all Wins and Ks possible. A lot of team owners have to make tough decisions about their pitching mid-season and thus it's not all about the all-reliever strategy.

Again, I do think there are more concerns with that strategy's use in the Diamond where we pay Top 4 finishers and even the Ultimate where a Top 3 finish is worth more than your money back. Maybe we need to address those situations separately and I'm not sure why that should be an issue. The Diamond has the same 15 owners coming back for 2013, so let's take a poll of just those 15 to make that decision. And at the end of the day, maybe there is support to keep all strategies available. Maybe not.

Anyway, I enjoy the conversation about increasing to 1,000 or keeping it at 900 or even some of you saying it HAS to be 1,100 or more. But realize this isn't only about the all-reliever strategy because now at 900 or even 1,000 IP you can't go with 8 or 9 relievers all year. You just can't. You need some 200 IP guys who won't blow up your ERA and WHIP and likely you need to get them early. And if you decide to bag Wins and Ks during the season, you still need enough innings to do that. So it's still not easy at 900 IP or 1,000 IP.

Brian is thinking as I am with his post above.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Dave's post changed my thoughts on the minimum.
With slow drafts becoming so popular, due to attrition, there are going to be teams that just won't be able to reach an 1100 or 1200 inning plateau with those injuries.
950 innings would be my vote.

[Nevadaman]

Why not poll everybody about having 1000 IP minimum? I suspect there will be an overwhelming mandate to raise it.

[Glenneration X]

Why do we have to have the same innings limit across the board? Why not 900 for the slow drafts (due to possible SP attrition that can't be replaced via FAAB), 1000 for the Main Events (since just about everyone in a Main Event is going for the Overall at the draft but still allows for shifting gears in-season), and 1100-1200 for the Diamond, Ultimates, and Supers where at that pricing I believe most of us would like all players to play it straight?

[Outlaw]

Why not poll everybody about having 1000 IP minimum? I suspect there will be an overwhelming mandate to raise it.

Having a poll for something like this would really tell how the customer feels. and isn't the customer generally always right? Polls in genernal would be a neat feature to add to the boards.

[KJ Duke]

The DL designation was a constant problem for years. I liked it, but I also disliked it because it was clunky with the timing of that official designation. The only other concern with this rule was that allowed streaming if a guy came off the DL ... but you certainly can't stream a starter if he hasn't pitched through Thursday. Just allow for a Friday swap of ANY pitcher if he hasn't pitched prior to Friday and every problem here is solved.