NFBC Diamond League

Schwartzstops · Post by **Schwartzstops** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:06 pm

If this were in New York I would be very interested, but unfortunately I can't swing a trip to Vegas in March. But for the record, I think a top-4 payout makes sense. Let me know if this comes to NYC and you can count me in!

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:41 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Hard Heads:

I for one have always wondered why in all or most high stakes events 3rd place only gets there money back at best? We were one bad week, 4rbi, 1 win, 2 sb and 4 saves from second place and we get our money back? while the other guy triples their load? Throw 3rd place a bone cause 1 K could decide who gets fruit cake at Christmas and the other gets chocolate cake. Just my two cents, but I have always been more about higher league payouts. Craig, that's not been the case in the NFBC and NFFC Ultimate and Super Leagues. For the Ultimate, we pay $7,500 for third on a $5,000 entry and $3,750 in the Super for a $2,500 entry. We have always had those payouts.

With overall prizes, something has to give to get us the big grand prize and third place is one of those places. Heck, when we first had the NFBC I think third was $750. So we've increased that $500 since we started, much to the chagrin of some who think it's too high. But we try to at least come close to giving your money back for third place there and I've always had folks make money in the Super and Ultimate for third place. I think the plan is to remain that way for 2010 in those two events. [/QUOTE]Greg,

Perhaps this was covered somewhere else, but why the 9000, 3500, 1750 pay out for the 1300 mixed leagues? I mean when it comes down to it, wouldn't something more balanced be appropriate? When leagues are often decided by a single game at the end of the season, shouldn't all payouts for all leagues be looked at and made a little more balanced? It isn't like the person in 1st had 3x the stats of the next player...

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:12 pm

Spreading out the winnings is just going to invite more trick-players like Jim Stanard who use game compromising short-cuts like taking all relievers to try to finish in the money. It's time we let that die like the dinosaurs.

Just my opinion.

-Craig

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:53 am

Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

Spreading out the winnings is just going to invite more trick-players like Jim Stanard who use game compromising short-cuts like taking all relievers to try to finish in the money. It's time we let that die like the dinosaurs.

Just my opinion.

-Craig 800 innings minimun

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:07 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

Spreading out the winnings is just going to invite more trick-players like Jim Stanard who use game compromising short-cuts like taking all relievers to try to finish in the money. It's time we let that die like the dinosaurs.

Just my opinion.

-Craig 800 innings minimun [/QUOTE]Good idea for all NFBC lges, 700 = 1 or 1.5 starters, too low.

LONG GONE · Post by **LONG GONE** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:13 am

I agree with 800 or even 900.

Ryan C · Post by **Ryan C** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:48 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

Spreading out the winnings is just going to invite more trick-players like Jim Stanard who use game compromising short-cuts like taking all relievers to try to finish in the money. It's time we let that die like the dinosaurs.

Just my opinion.

-Craig 800 innings minimun [/QUOTE]Good idea for all NFBC lges, 700 = 1 or 1.5 starters, too low. [/QUOTE]I know this is the Diamond league thread - but I'd like to pick this up and give my vote to please, please, please have some Sat leagues that have an innings limit- every sat league I played in had at least one (some two) teams that went all reliever.

I hate the strategy, hate playing against them and hate that it dilutes the draft prep aspect of playing in these leagues. Many owners buy multiple leagues to prepare for draft day and getting stuck with 2 or 3 all reliever teams basically ruins every aspect of playing in it FOR ME.

I as a consumer would like the choice to avoid them next year if possible. If I see certain owner names in leagues (guys who are known to employ these strategies successfully) I admit I steer clear if possible. But the strategy does work - so after you lose to these guys - you start to think - hey I'll try it - it beats losing. I would rather be able to play in a league that at least makes it more difficult to employ trick strategies.

[ October 12, 2009, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Carey ]

LONG GONE · Post by **LONG GONE** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:32 am

I agree with the post from above!!!! Lets get something done about this.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:46 am

All reliever strategy-"JIMmying pitchers"?

Asumijet · Post by **Asumijet** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:10 am

Originally posted by Ryan Carey:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

Spreading out the winnings is just going to invite more trick-players like Jim Stanard who use game compromising short-cuts like taking all relievers to try to finish in the money. It's time we let that die like the dinosaurs.

Just my opinion.

-Craig 800 innings minimun [/QUOTE]Good idea for all NFBC lges, 700 = 1 or 1.5 starters, too low. [/QUOTE]I know this is the Diamond league thread - but I'd like to pick this up and give my vote to please, please, please have some Sat leagues that have an innings limit- every sat league I played in had at least one (some two) leagues that went all reliever.

I hate the strategy, hate playing against them and hate that it dilutes the draft prep aspect of playing in these leagues. Many owners buy multiple leagues to prepare for draft day and getting stuck with 2 or 3 all reliever teams basically ruins every aspect of playing in it FOR ME.

I as a consumer would like the choice to avoid them next year if possible. If I see certain owner names in leagues (guys who are known to employ these strategies successfully) I admit I steer clear if possible. But the strategy does work - so after you lose to these guys - you start to think - hey I'll try it - it beats losing. I would rather be able to play in a league that at least makes it more difficult to employ trick strategies. [/QUOTE]Having stuck it to Ryan the one time I used such a strategy, I can see the point. However, for what you are hoping to accomplish, Main Event prep and practice, limiting innings won't necessarily do the trick. Teams can still punt saves, sbs or avg. And you are still left with an unrealistic draft picture for the Main Event.

Strategy is what makes this fun for many; we shouldn't limit the strategies but learn to beat the "JIMmying pitchers".

And for a $10,000 entry fee, I should be able to draft all umpires and batboys if I think that is what is going to bring home the $$$.

[ October 12, 2009, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Asumijet ]

jim.s · Post by **jim.s** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:16 am

I've played fantasy baseball for 4 years -- 3 with NFBC, although only two years at live events. Every year I've made a good profit over entry fees, so yes, "all relievers" can work. It seems to me that it is a strategy like any other -- do you go for power or SB etc. Also, anyone is free to use it. However fantasy baseball is supposed to be fun, so if players are offended by this too successful strategy, then you should raise the minimum IP.

If you were NFL owners I guess you would want to outlaw the wildcat formation too

Jim Stanard

751542 · Post by **751542** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:31 am

i peronally would like to see the innings requirement raised as well.....i have always thought 1000ip was best but could live with a 800 innings benchmark...cant help it...i am a purist!!!

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

Correct, the innings pitched discussion should be taken to a different thread. It's a worthy debate, but it shouldn't be done here.

We've had this debate every year and some feel 700 IP is too many and many folks feel it's too low. I have the data for IP here and trust me as many folks dump saves and go with all starters as do those who dump starters and go with 9 relievers. So it works both ways.

Take this to a new thread and we can discuss.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:12 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Correct, the innings pitched discussion should be taken to a different thread. It's a worthy debate, but it shouldn't be done here.

We've had this debate every year and some feel 700 IP is too many and many folks feel it's too low. I have the data for IP here and trust me as many folks dump saves and go with all starters as do those who dump starters and go with 9 relievers. So it works both ways.

Take this to a new thread and we can discuss. This is directed toward this league so I don't see the point in moving it another thread.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:21 am

Originally posted by Asumijet:

quote:Originally posted by Ryan Carey:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

Spreading out the winnings is just going to invite more trick-players like Jim Stanard who use game compromising short-cuts like taking all relievers to try to finish in the money. It's time we let that die like the dinosaurs.

Just my opinion.

-Craig 800 innings minimun [/QUOTE]Good idea for all NFBC lges, 700 = 1 or 1.5 starters, too low. [/QUOTE]I know this is the Diamond league thread - but I'd like to pick this up and give my vote to please, please, please have some Sat leagues that have an innings limit- every sat league I played in had at least one (some two) leagues that went all reliever.

I hate the strategy, hate playing against them and hate that it dilutes the draft prep aspect of playing in these leagues. Many owners buy multiple leagues to prepare for draft day and getting stuck with 2 or 3 all reliever teams basically ruins every aspect of playing in it FOR ME.

I as a consumer would like the choice to avoid them next year if possible. If I see certain owner names in leagues (guys who are known to employ these strategies successfully) I admit I steer clear if possible. But the strategy does work - so after you lose to these guys - you start to think - hey I'll try it - it beats losing. I would rather be able to play in a league that at least makes it more difficult to employ trick strategies. [/QUOTE]Having stuck it to Ryan the one time I used such a strategy, I can see the point. However, for what you are hoping to accomplish, Main Event prep and practice, limiting innings won't necessarily do the trick. Teams can still punt saves, sbs or avg. And you are still left with an unrealistic draft picture for the Main Event.

Strategy is what makes this fun for many; we shouldn't limit the strategies but learn to beat the "JIMmying pitchers".

And for a $10,000 entry fee, I should be able to draft all umpires and batboys if I think that is what is going to bring home the $$$.

[/QUOTE]I take it you planned on trying this in this type of league. It isn't a strategies...it's a loop hole. It's one that should have been closed long ago. If someone decides to go all starters, they are taking on risk. Reliever only removes risk and allows someone not to compete is the most difficult part of the game. I believe starting pitching a huge part of these games and I don't see the point of rewarding anyone who tries to beat the game.

It's pretty simple give up three options and players will sign up for the high end game they prefer.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:25 am

Originally posted by jim.s:

If you were NFL owners I guess you would want to outlaw the wildcat formation too

Jim Stanard What does this have to do with your arguement?

Is college basketball a better game with the shot clock or without?

Schwks · Post by **Schwks** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:59 am

Its October and it seems like everyone is itching for an argument, but to me the reliever strategy is no fun because there is no realistic chance of winning and by winning I mean first place. Who plays fantasy baseball to place or show? Even though Id never personally employ the strategy, I have no problem with it...when I see a guy heading in that direction, I know if I play well, he will not beat me....so its one less team to worry about. I can not imagine being the guy with 9 relievers mid-season with no room to move up the standings.

Bama · Post by **Bama** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:02 am

Shawn you just will not stop with this min inning thing, the ultimate auction has already been ruined by the jump to 700 and not allowing for the implememetion of all stratagies of all parties and now yall want to go and really f it up by adding more. I personally dont see the logic. I guess we need to put in the rules that no one in the league can intentionally dump a cat to satisfy yall, and then ones that lose still wont be happy. Every damn year people in the offseason when the majority of people are doing something else have nothing better to do than lobby for bullshit rule changes that they think will get them an edge am im going on the record of that im pretty damn sick of it. This game was designed for the implemention of different ideas of winning and going about it to outlaw certain ideas that we dont approve of doesnt make sense. the other contest has written rules more to your liking

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:48 am

Originally posted by Bama:

Shawn you just will not stop with this min inning thing, the ultimate auction has already been ruined by the jump to 700 and not allowing for the implememetion of all stratagies of all parties and now yall want to go and really f it up by adding more. I personally dont see the logic. I guess we need to put in the rules that no one in the league can intentionally dump a cat to satisfy yall, and then ones that lose still wont be happy. Every damn year people in the offseason when the majority of people are doing something else have nothing better to do than lobby for bullshit rule changes that they think will get them an edge am im going on the record of that im pretty damn sick of it. This game was designed for the implemention of different ideas of winning and going about it to outlaw certain ideas that we dont approve of doesnt make sense. the other contest has written rules more to your liking Ken..we've talked about this a couple of times. We don't agree, but I know you are not a player looking to play this angle.

You can beat your drum and I'll beat mine.

Purple Helmets · Post by **Purple Helmets** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:11 pm

I'll probably regret getting involved in this conversation, but in short I honestly don't care what the mimimum inning requirement is as long as it's the same for every entrant. That actually goes for any rule in the NFBC. As long as they're the same for everyone and they don't change at any point during the season, then I'm good.

Love and peace from Phoenix, Arizona...now let's start worrying about the things that are really important.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:55 pm

Very cool!

Call it "Tribal Warfare"...as it's more of a syndicate battle with pooled minds and pocketbooks!

Interesting.

Anything with 95% payout catches my eye!

Maybe I'm a happy drunk tonight, but I love everyone (even "E") and everything looks fun!

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:00 pm

Originally posted by Schwks:

Its October and it seems like everyone is itching for an argument, but to me the reliever strategy is no fun because there is no realistic chance of winning and by winning I mean first place. Who plays fantasy baseball to place or show? Even though Id never personally employ the strategy, I have no problem with it...when I see a guy heading in that direction, I know if I play well, he will not beat me....so its one less team to worry about. I can not imagine being the guy with 9 relievers mid-season with no room to move up the standings. In a single league...any strategy has a chance. I've seen the all closer/middle relief take down first place before. It happened this year in a home league.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:08 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Very cool!

Call it "Tribal Warfare"...as it's more of a syndicate battle with pooled minds and pocketbooks!

Interesting.

Anything with 95% payout catches my eye!

Maybe I'm a happy drunk tonight, but I love everyone (even "E") and everything looks fun!

The fun Lance is back!!

Chest Rockwell's wish has been granted!!

Lance, you're a player who loves the best possible payouts and good options. It must have been a bad beat on NFL Sunday last week to set you off so much on the NFBC gang. We accept your reasons, but hopefully Lance G. Turbes will have all his facts straight going forward!!

Ryan E. is a good man. Now that you and Eddie cashed in K "J" Duke's league, you should have enough to return to Las Vegas in March. You drafted a Top 10 team for the first two months of the season. What happened after that? Grind, Baby, Grind. Remember, that's the motto of NFBC champions.

Schwartzstops · Post by **Schwartzstops** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:40 am

Can we get back to the topic at hand for a second? Just to confirm, the "NFBC Premier Invitational" is a 15-team mixed draft, and will be on Sunday 3/21 in Las Vegas at the Bellagio? How many are signed up so far? I'm warming up to the idea...

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:45 am

Originally posted by Schwartzstops:

Can we get back to the topic at hand for a second? Just to confirm, the "NFBC Premier Invitational" is a 15-team mixed draft, and will be on Sunday 3/21 in Las Vegas at the Bellagio? How many are signed up so far? I'm warming up to the idea... Actually, we haven't settled on a date yet, but Sunday, March 28th at The Bellagio likely works for most folks. If everyone wanted it at the Flamingo on Sunday, March 21st, we can accommodate that too. The key with this event is finding the proper spot for it because I don't want this to interfere with the Ultimate Draft League. Several owners have indicated a desire to do both the Diamond and the Ultimate, so let's figure out possible dates for both. Thanks.