Remember New Pitchers Rule For Last 2 Weeks Of NFBC Season

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:19 am

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

quote:Originally posted by Money:

quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:

quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:

Add another vote against. Don't like the idea of having different rules the last two weeks. Either allow it all year or not at all. I'll take the opposing viewpoint, sorry. At the end of the year with so much on the line, I want more control. I hate the idea of losing a money spot, a league, or an overall because of a late in the week managerial decision or injury. I like the rule, a lot. [/QUOTE]On the flip side of it Glenn how are you going to feel when you lose to a guy who was able to stream 45 starts in the last 2 and a half weeks. It's being used to stream pitchers a heck of a lot more than for the example you've sited.

I vote against and I more so vote against the Friday DL loophole. I'm pretty sure we agree on that one.

Go Lions!!! Oh, I mean Go Tigers!!! [/QUOTE]I don't think your example would bother me at all Joe. Since I'd be able to stream as well, we'd both be on an even playing field.

What I can't deal with is counting on a starter based on the anticipated schedule at the beginning of the week and never getting that start due to a manager's whim or a fluke injury.

I am on board with you 100% as far as the Friday DL rule. That needs to be addressed as the way it currently works creates an uneven playing field since only some know the loophole is legal. [/QUOTE]What the rule does is reward teams that have done an awful job putting together a pitching staff and have nothing to lose in ERA and WHIP. It permits them to make up for their failure through volume,.and tp gain points in Ks and Ws. Conversely, it makes it much more difficult for teams with decent ERA and WHIP the whole year to protect their points while keeping up with the streamers in Ks and Ws.

I understand that can be considered strategy, but it's not a strategy that this contest should be incentivizing IMO.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:15 am

Originally posted by Hells Satans:

quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:

quote:Originally posted by Money:

quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:

quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:

Add another vote against. Don't like the idea of having different rules the last two weeks. Either allow it all year or not at all. I'll take the opposing viewpoint, sorry. At the end of the year with so much on the line, I want more control. I hate the idea of losing a money spot, a league, or an overall because of a late in the week managerial decision or injury. I like the rule, a lot. [/QUOTE]On the flip side of it Glenn how are you going to feel when you lose to a guy who was able to stream 45 starts in the last 2 and a half weeks. It's being used to stream pitchers a heck of a lot more than for the example you've sited.

I vote against and I more so vote against the Friday DL loophole. I'm pretty sure we agree on that one.

Go Lions!!! Oh, I mean Go Tigers!!! [/QUOTE]I don't think your example would bother me at all Joe. Since I'd be able to stream as well, we'd both be on an even playing field.

What I can't deal with is counting on a starter based on the anticipated schedule at the beginning of the week and never getting that start due to a manager's whim or a fluke injury.

I am on board with you 100% as far as the Friday DL rule. That needs to be addressed as the way it currently works creates an uneven playing field since only some know the loophole is legal. [/QUOTE]What the rule does is reward teams that have done an awful job putting together a pitching staff and have nothing to lose in ERA and WHIP. It permits them to make up for their failure through volume,.and tp gain points in Ks and Ws. Conversely, it makes it much more difficult for teams with decent ERA and WHIP the whole year to protect their points while keeping up with the streamers in Ks and Ws.

I understand that can be considered strategy, but it's not a strategy that this contest should be incentivizing IMO. [/QUOTE]Exactly.

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:17 pm

Originally posted by Hells Satans:

quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:

quote:Originally posted by Money:

quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:

quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:

Add another vote against. Don't like the idea of having different rules the last two weeks. Either allow it all year or not at all. I'll take the opposing viewpoint, sorry. At the end of the year with so much on the line, I want more control. I hate the idea of losing a money spot, a league, or an overall because of a late in the week managerial decision or injury. I like the rule, a lot. [/QUOTE]On the flip side of it Glenn how are you going to feel when you lose to a guy who was able to stream 45 starts in the last 2 and a half weeks. It's being used to stream pitchers a heck of a lot more than for the example you've sited.

I vote against and I more so vote against the Friday DL loophole. I'm pretty sure we agree on that one.

Go Lions!!! Oh, I mean Go Tigers!!! [/QUOTE]I don't think your example would bother me at all Joe. Since I'd be able to stream as well, we'd both be on an even playing field.

What I can't deal with is counting on a starter based on the anticipated schedule at the beginning of the week and never getting that start due to a manager's whim or a fluke injury.

I am on board with you 100% as far as the Friday DL rule. That needs to be addressed as the way it currently works creates an uneven playing field since only some know the loophole is legal. [/QUOTE]What the rule does is reward teams that have done an awful job putting together a pitching staff and have nothing to lose in ERA and WHIP. It permits them to make up for their failure through volume,.and tp gain points in Ks and Ws. Conversely, it makes it much more difficult for teams with decent ERA and WHIP the whole year to protect their points while keeping up with the streamers in Ks and Ws.

I understand that can be considered strategy, but it's not a strategy that this contest should be incentivizing IMO. [/QUOTE]Hells has got it right here.

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:31 am

I am in first place in my league but falling fast. The 14th place team had about 15 starts this week and caught me in wins. Next will be Ks. I realize all teams have the right to play it to the end but this is getting ridiculous. I have no doubt this team and others will also switch their entire pitching staff the last short week to get as many starts as possible. Changing the rule this year especially given the short week at the end I think was misguided.

Money · Post by **Money** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:44 am

Originally posted by Raiders:

I am in first place in my league but falling fast. The 14th place team had about 15 starts this week and caught me in wins. Next will be Ks. I realize all teams have the right to play it to the end but this is getting ridiculous. I have no doubt this team and others will also switch their entire pitching staff the last short week to get as many starts as possible. Changing the rule this year especially given the short week at the end I think was misguided. The further we get into this the more mis guided it becomes. It was initially introduced because of a few pitchers getting shut down late in the season. Now it is a streaming pitchers event for the last 2 and a half weeks. If you don't participate you'll get run over in K's and W's. The folks willing to take the risk are those that are trailing and they pick up cheap points in those counting categories.

So we don't have a streaming contest all year then at the end we decide to determine the winners by having one. It makes no sense to me. It is more exciting to have 3 pitchers going per day but I'd prefer the contest was determined in the exact nature that it was that it was based on (non-streaming).

Heck, hitters are getting shut down everyday. Should we change the rules to allow daily changes? Where does it end?

Likewhat17 · Post by **Likewhat17** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:31 am

What the rule does is reward teams that have done an awful job putting together a pitching staff and have nothing to lose in ERA and WHIP. It permits them to make up for their failure through volume,.and tp gain points in Ks and Ws. Conversely, it makes it much more difficult for teams with decent ERA and WHIP the whole year to protect their points while keeping up with the streamers in Ks and Ws.

I understand that can be considered strategy, but it's not a strategy that this contest should be incentivizing IMO. [/QB]I haven't made up my mind one way or the other yet on whether or not I like this rule. My take, is regarding this statement here that it rewards teams that have done an awful job putting a pitching staff together.

Some teams, like my main event team, did a great job putting a pitching staff together. For most of the year I've been top 3 in the league in ERA (currently 3.55), Whip (1.22) and have been leading the charge in k's (1395). However, my starters though pitching well have been incredibly unlucky in terms of generating wins.

For most of the season, even with solid ratios, I languished in the middle-back of the pack in wins. This rule has allowed me the opportunity to add the extra starts that I desparately needed to make up ground in wins and hopefully secure a league title.

I didn't have awful ratios and get rewarded for it. I didn't draft an awful pitching staff and exploit a loophole late to supplement it.

My point is that everyone knew of this rule at the beginning of the year, and everyone was on a level playing field regarding its use. Some of us, who noticed early on in the season that we were unlucky in wins, budgeted a little extra FAAB for the last few weeks, knowing that extra starts could be made up then.

Does having 42 starts the last 2.5 weeks change the contest that we have all come to know and love, absolutely. But again, everyone knew that this rule was in place and it was up to us to plan our resources accordingly to achieve the best possible results. For me, it has helped an otherwise good pitching staff make up the necessary points in wins to compete for a league title.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:54 am

According to Clark Spencer of the Miami Herald, Leo Nunez has been placed on the restricted list and suspended by the Marlins for undisclosed reasons.

Score one for the friday pitcher swap rule !

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:49 pm

Originally posted by Likewhat17:

quote:What the rule does is reward teams that have done an awful job putting together a pitching staff and have nothing to lose in ERA and WHIP. It permits them to make up for their failure through volume,.and tp gain points in Ks and Ws. Conversely, it makes it much more difficult for teams with decent ERA and WHIP the whole year to protect their points while keeping up with the streamers in Ks and Ws.

I understand that can be considered strategy, but it's not a strategy that this contest should be incentivizing IMO. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other yet on whether or not I like this rule. My take, is regarding this statement here that it rewards teams that have done an awful job putting a pitching staff together.

Some teams, like my main event team, did a great job putting a pitching staff together. For most of the year I've been top 3 in the league in ERA (currently 3.55), Whip (1.22) and have been leading the charge in k's (1395). However, my starters though pitching well have been incredibly unlucky in terms of generating wins.

For most of the season, even with solid ratios, I languished in the middle-back of the pack in wins. This rule has allowed me the opportunity to add the extra starts that I desparately needed to make up ground in wins and hopefully secure a league title.

I didn't have awful ratios and get rewarded for it. I didn't draft an awful pitching staff and exploit a loophole late to supplement it.

My point is that everyone knew of this rule at the beginning of the year, and everyone was on a level playing field regarding its use. Some of us, who noticed early on in the season that we were unlucky in wins, budgeted a little extra FAAB for the last few weeks, knowing that extra starts could be made up then.

Does having 42 starts the last 2.5 weeks change the contest that we have all come to know and love, absolutely. But again, everyone knew that this rule was in place and it was up to us to plan our resources accordingly to achieve the best possible results. For me, it has helped an otherwise good pitching staff make up the necessary points in wins to compete for a league title. [/QB][/QUOTE]My understanding is that the rule was adopted with the intention of dealing with mid-week changes that occur the last two weeks because no one goes on the DL. It wasn't intended to allow 16-18 SP weeks that dramatically impact leagues in Ws and Ks. By any measure, it has failed its intended purpose regardless of its "fairness."

I think it has been an absolute disaster and likely not play in any of the bigger money leagues next year if it is still around.

rockitsauce · Post by **rockitsauce** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:24 pm

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

I like the rule, a lot. me too. I don't feel it's intent is for willy-nilly streaming but to give players the latitude to make decisions at a time of year that is notorious for last second switcharoos.

take Nunez today for example, thanks for playing bud, we couldn't get 2 or 3 more saves from ya? :rolleyes:

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 3:41 pm

The possibility of missing three days of Leo Nunez (a bad thing or good thing, I forgot) as opposed to 35 streaming starts.

I don't like the rule.

Either stream all year, or don't stream at all.

[ September 22, 2011, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:07 pm

I would vote to keep it, I think it is great.

Money · Post by **Money** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 5:53 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

The possibility of missing three days of Leo Nunez (a bad thing or good thing, I forgot) as opposed to 35 streaming starts.

I don't like the rule.

Either stream all year, or don't stream at all. I agree. I'm sick that I had to be drawn into the steaming thing. There is absolutely no way around it if you're in contention. I hate to bring the walla walla card out here, but I will not be around next year if the rules are not consistent for the duration of the contest.

Money talks. I'll walk although It will hurt because this is the best contest around with the best people running it.

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:58 pm

I guess I just don't understand the reluctance to embrace a rule that puts more power in our hands to affect our finish and less power in the hands of the decisions of others and/or fate during the most important part of the season.

Whenever luck can be minimized when it counts the most, as long as all are on the same playing field, count me as for it.

Cornhusker · Post by **Cornhusker** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:23 am

Count me as someone who does not like this rule and I hope it is removed next year. Like others have said it is like playing a totally different game thelast two weeks.

751542 · Post by **751542** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:54 am

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

I guess I just don't understand the reluctance to embrace a rule that puts more power in our hands to affect our finish and less power in the hands of the decisions of others and/or fate during the most important part of the season.

Whenever luck can be minimized when it counts the most, as long as all are on the same playing field, count me as for it. agree 100 percent!

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:57 am

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

I guess I just don't understand the reluctance to embrace a rule that puts more power in our hands to affect our finish and less power in the hands of the decisions of others and/or fate during the most important part of the season.

Whenever luck can be minimized when it counts the most, as long as all are on the same playing field, count me as for it. Glenn, I am in favor of any rule that limits luck and increases control.

Really, I don't think this rule gives us that control. Rather, the illusion of control.

If we gave double points for home runs and rbi over the last two weeks, there would be faab runs on any player who could hit a ball out of the park.

It is not control, it is fortifying two categories in the name of control.

If anything, it can be called out of control.

If really wanting that control, we can stream all year, like WCOFB. I don't think it makes it a better game though, just different.

Changing the complexion of the game in the name of Leo Nunez is just not right.

[ September 23, 2011, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:26 am

Well said, Dough.

The BIGGEST problem in all fantasy contests at the end of the year is people bailing on their teams. This happens every year in every contest and there's nothing that can be done about it (I've been guilty of it as well, so I'm not pointing fingers). When people bail, other teams pass them because they are paying attention and the bailing team is not.

In a streaming contest (which is what this has been the last two weeks) the problem is exacerbated substantially. There is nothing good about a situation where a team with a crappy pitching staff piles up Ks and Ws and passes two teams that don't give a crap anymore. That can happen anyway, but we shouldn't do things to encourage it or make it easier or more prevalent. There are situations in leagues I'm in where some teams are getting 4 starts this week because they don't care and others are getting 17. In the past, it might have been 4 v. 10 or 11, since double start weeks are hard to come by the last two weeks of the season. That is a huge deal and massive departure from the season where I spent 6 months working. It forces me to play the same game and start Casey #*#ing Coleman and Liam #*#ing Hendricks.

That's skill? If Casey Coleman has a good game it's a goddamn miracle, not skill. This stupid rule increases luck not reduces it.

[ September 23, 2011, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Hells Satans ]

Rog · Post by **Rog** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:41 am

.6 days.good luck to all that are still fighting.

I hope this rule is not available next year.

mattjb · Post by **mattjb** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:44 am

My first year playing baseball and I have 0.5 point lead and i'm in a real dogfight to win my league. I have to say the rule may actually help me but i'm not sure it's right either. I'm not sure the season should still be running at this point either. I would consider making August 31st the cut off.

Money · Post by **Money** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:07 am

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

I guess I just don't understand the reluctance to embrace a rule that puts more power in our hands to affect our finish and less power in the hands of the decisions of others and/or fate during the most important part of the season.

Whenever luck can be minimized when it counts the most, as long as all are on the same playing field, count me as for it. Glenn,

In my estimation the rules should be consistent throughout the course of the entire season. If the concern is players (pitchers) getting shut down then they can stream by emptying their bench of position players. This would be an option to them that had been available to them for the duration of the contest therefore not changing the rules for the stretch run.

All of these leagues are now being decided by the luck of who gets the lucky starts by the ducks were all having to throw in there. 25 weeks of hard work thrown out the window by a stupid (in my estimation) rule change. The intent of the rule change was to protect against a couple of missed starts, instead it has become a streaming contest. It's simply not the way the contest was contested from day 1. Possibly the NFBC develops a separate game next year that allows streaming for the duration of the contest and let those folk that like that sort of thing compete in it.

Cowboy Joe · Post by **Cowboy Joe** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:03 am

I'd like to see an analysis of the impact of this rule on the various leagues when the season is finished.

Good luck to all of the contenders during the final days.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:35 am

What if instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the impact of those deploying extra starts this week, we think through the intent of the rule and decide if there may be another means of dealing with the repercussions of the final couple of weeks of the MLB season?

Greg/Tom please correct me if I am wrong, but the rule was put in place to help minimize the impact of teams not putting players, in this case specifically pitchers, on the DL in September as well as the increase in unannounced shifts in probable pitchers. Truth be told, I am curious if the latter is indeed fact or simply perception. As someone who has written the standard "2-start pitcher" column for several seasons, there are ALWAYS events which alter pitching plans throughout the season. I think the shutting down if Michael Pineda or CC Sabathia is just in the spotlight at the end of the season as opposed to the plethora of in-season changes that go unnoticed and fall under the umbrella of sh!t happens.

I'm also not sure having the ability to replace Leo Nunez in period 25 is fair to those that were unable to replace Joakin Soria, Neftali Feliz, Brian Wilson or any other closer that was shut down mid week but not placed on the DL earlier in the season.

And, we also have the issue of the timing of a pitcher being placed on the DL.

Seems to me, the desire is to at least partially help mitigate some of the luck with respect to expected appearances, both for starters and relievers. The present rules address that but have had the added impact of allowing some streaming the last couple of transaction periods.

I apologize if this has been suggested elsewhere in these types of discussions, but what if we eliminate the Friday DL rule for pitchers, allow changes for EVERYONE twice a week, but install an INNINGS PITCHED MAXIMUM?

There is precedent for this. The IP minimum is in place to prevent teams from deploying an abundance of relievers in an effort to focus on ERA, WHIP and maybe saves.

An IP maximum would prevent teams from streaming starters, in an effort to maximize wins and strikeouts.

Same idea, different categories.

If we can legislate, by rule, deploying an imbalance of relievers, why can't we, legislate by rule, using an imbalance of starters?

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:41 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:

I guess I just don't understand the reluctance to embrace a rule that puts more power in our hands to affect our finish and less power in the hands of the decisions of others and/or fate during the most important part of the season.

Whenever luck can be minimized when it counts the most, as long as all are on the same playing field, count me as for it. Glenn, I am in favor of any rule that limits luck and increases control.

Really, I don't think this rule gives us that control. Rather, the illusion of control.

If we gave double points for home runs and rbi over the last two weeks, there would be faab runs on any player who could hit a ball out of the park.

It is not control, it is fortifying two categories in the name of control.

If anything, it can be called out of control.

If really wanting that control, we can stream all year, like WCOFB. I don't think it makes it a better game though, just different.

Changing the complexion of the game in the name of Leo Nunez is just not right. [/QUOTE]Dan, Bob, Joe, and all others that claim that this rule is making this contest a "streaming" one, I disagree.

If I needed to move up in wins and K's the last two weeks, I'd be streaming anyway, whether or not there were Friday pitcher moves or not. I'd be grabbing every two-start pitcher I could and throwing them in whether I had something potentially to lose in WHIP & ERA or not.

In fact, I actually did this same thing in a CBS independent league I play with some of you. To prove the point further, CBS is the exact opposite of the NFBC or WCOFB as they count the final week and a half as ONE scoring period instead of three. Still I was able to accomplish this. Because I felt wins & K's were where I could most impact my place in the standings, I grabbed 9 two-start pitchers over that final scoring period and let the results fall where they may.

My point is you can stream whether you have twice a week moves or once a week moves. You just have to do it differently. In fact for a couple of my NFBC teams, I've been streaming long before the rule change went into affect. I think the fear of streaming is inconsequential when compared to losing control over what happens with my team during crunch time. I also don't think it is perceived control, I think it is real.

Lastly, many contests, events, etc. have different rules at the end of a season as compared to the bulk of it. Even the sport we base our game upon, baseball itself, has modified rosters in September.

I respect all opposing viewpoints in this thread, however like I said, I'm just not sure I understand them or the antagonism towards a rule that I believe helps.

751542 · Post by **751542** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:17 am

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:

I guess I just don't understand the reluctance to embrace a rule that puts more power in our hands to affect our finish and less power in the hands of the decisions of others and/or fate during the most important part of the season.

Whenever luck can be minimized when it counts the most, as long as all are on the same playing field, count me as for it. Glenn, I am in favor of any rule that limits luck and increases control.

Really, I don't think this rule gives us that control. Rather, the illusion of control.

If we gave double points for home runs and rbi over the last two weeks, there would be faab runs on any player who could hit a ball out of the park.

It is not control, it is fortifying two categories in the name of control.

If anything, it can be called out of control.

If really wanting that control, we can stream all year, like WCOFB. I don't think it makes it a better game though, just different.

Changing the complexion of the game in the name of Leo Nunez is just not right. [/QUOTE]Dan, Bob, Joe, and all others that claim that this rule is making this contest a "streaming" one, I disagree.

If I needed to move up in wins and K's the last two weeks, I'd be streaming anyway, whether or not there were Friday pitcher moves or not. I'd be grabbing every two-start pitcher I could and throwing them in whether I had something potentially to lose in WHIP & ERA or not.

In fact, I actually did this same thing in a CBS independent league I play with some of you. To prove the point further, CBS is the exact opposite of the NFBC or WCOFB as they count the final week and a half as ONE scoring period instead of three. Still I was able to accomplish this. Because I felt wins & K's were where I could most impact my place in the standings, I grabbed 9 two-start pitchers over that final scoring period and let the results fall where they may.

My point is you can stream whether you have twice a week moves or once a week moves. You just have to do it differently. In fact for a couple of my NFBC teams, I've been streaming long before the rule change went into affect. I think the fear of streaming is inconsequential when compared to losing control over what happens with my team during crunch time. I also don't think it is perceived control, I think it is real.

Lastly, many contests, events, etc. have different rules at the end of a season as compared to the bulk of it. Even the sport we base our game upon, baseball itself, has modified rosters in September.

I respect all opposing viewpoints in this thread, however like I said, I'm just not sure I understand them or the antagonism towards a rule that I believe helps. [/QUOTE]100 percent agree!!!

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:30 am

It comes down to who likes streaming as a part of the contest. Folks who say that this is a needed rule change for pitchers who do not pitch when they're supposed to are peeing on legs and telling everybody its raining.

Juan Carlos Oviedo is the only pitcher that has been a surprise no-show and his name isn't on one of our rosters. .