Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?

NorCalAtlFan · Post by **NorCalAtlFan** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:43 am

Greg, you certainly aren't going to find a consensus on this matter. I think if you were to put it up to a vote, a higher IP limit would prevail, but what is that perfect median that sates those clamoring for more and doesn't eliminate those that use the all reliever strategy.

I think KJ was on the right track, but we don't want him to get a big head and adopt the 900 IP do we?

Honestly, and this probably won't go over too well, you should convene a "council" of 7-10 top players. The CC's, Steve's, Lindy's, Jim S, etc. and have them come up with a number that works for both sides.

I'm for raising the IP requirement, but I also feel that those that choose to go all reliever, as annoying as it is, shouldn't necessarily be left out in the cold entirely.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:32 am

Originally posted by la Jolla:

I was just being facetious Steve:) I happen to agree with you that the save, whether for your teams closer or to preserve your starters win is most likely the most excitable/frustrating part of a game.

I actually do think having everyone play starting pitching is a good idea, I just wanted to come off the sidelines as someone that has tried the all reliever approach and failed with it, and state to those that believe it is somehow a shoe-in to win or place, that is not the case. And to have Jim be looked upon as somehow cheating the game is not cool. How many leagues are won with 108 points? Not too many that I've been a part of. That league is so tight up top that it has allowed a score like that to (potentially) win.

P.S. I must say that I'm going to be disappointed if you don't run the table on every category in our main event league. 142 pts is bush league:) Congrats on a stellar season! Thanks Scott - no chance there, Duke's muscle ran away with the power numbers. No climbing that mountain !

Agree. Props to Jim S, he plunked his $ down, played by the rules and is about to cash in quite a few leagues. The weakened offense this season played right into the reliever strategists hands. Also, by flooding the market with starters (when 2 all reliever players are present)the others teams are compelled to run 7-9 starters out there repeatedly in order compete for W's and K's further degrading ERA and WHIP. This also plays into their hands. Excellent strategy. I may have to give it a whirl myself

[ September 23, 2010, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Quahogs ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:47 am

Okay, I asked IT for the data to date and I think it is pretty overwhelming. I think we can make a consensus agreement here by looking at the facts. Remember, we still have 11 games to go, but here's what we have so far from 191 NFBC leagues, 2,865 teams:

** 98.1% of all teams currently have over 1,000 IP (2,808 of 2,865 teams) and by next week I'm sure that 98.6% of all teams will have over 1,000 IP.

** 98.6% of all teams currently have over 900 IP (2,826 of 2,865 teams) and by next week I'm sure that 99% of all teams will have over 900 IP.

** 99.4% of all teams currently have 700+ IP as of now (only 17 teams don't) and I would say by the end of the week all but six teams will be over 700 IP (they are that close to 700). I'd say two teams won't hit 700 IP and we'll act accordingly if needed.

** Of the 21 teams at 711.1 IP or less right now, 12 of those teams are owned by two people. Eight of those teams are in $125 satellite leagues.

** The most IP right now is 1,801 and 125 teams are already over 1,600 IP. If we really were replicating an MLB team, we'd all finish with 1,458 IP (162 games x 9 IP, not counting for extra innings). Already we have almost 1,800 teams (out of 2,865) over 1,400 IP with 11 days of the season remaining.

** Even with the season still going on, almost 94% of all NFBC teams have 1,200+ IP even with the 700 IP minimum. So while we have the minimum IP in place at a low level, a very small percentage are even worried about it or affected by their strategy.

So if you look at the data, you can see that so few owners are using anything close to an all-reliever strategy that you could say the 700 IP minimum is doing its job. And if you are still concerned about those owners trying this method, then you could easily go to 800 IP and not affect many owners at all. 900 IP would probably seal the leak altogether, if that's everyone's goal.

But the data is pretty strong that few leagues are affected and most owners are not in a league where ANYONE is doing this. But we'll address this in next year's rules one way or another just because it seems to be a concern.

But overall, the numbers tell a better story than anything else.

LONG GONE · Post by **LONG GONE** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:30 am

Greg, If we look at your statistics more closely the effect will be much greater then you think.

The important factor is not the percentage of people employing the strategy- it's the percentage of league's that are affected.

First of all we have to subtract the main event style league's (Main Event,Auction Championship, on line and double play ect.), because the strategy is never employed in these league's.

This strategy effects only individual league's. Here is my quick version of the math. There are approximately 1467 teams in individual league's.(2865 total teams - 1398 main event style teams with over all prizes). The numbers are off a little because of Al/Nl league's which have less then 15 teams.

Now we need to know the number of individual league's if we divide 1467 teams by 15 we get 97.8. Now we know there are at LEAST 21 teams using the all reliever strategy. Some of the teams with more then 711 inning may also be using the strategy. Therefor the bottom line is at LEAST 21 leagues out of 97 are being affected. At LEAST (21.6%).

Red Sox Nation · Post by **Red Sox Nation** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:39 am

Originally posted by LONG GONE:

Greg, If we look at your statistics more closely the effect will be much greater then you think.

The important factor is not the percentage of people employing the strategy- it's the percentage of league's that are affected.

First of all we have to subtract the main event style league's (Main Event,Auction Championship, on line and double play ect.), because the strategy is never employed in these league's.

This strategy effects only individual league's. Here is my quick version of the math. There are approximately 1467 teams in individual league's.(2865 total teams - 1398 main event style teams with over all prizes). The numbers are off a little because of Al/Nl league's which have less then 15 teams.

Now we need to know the number of individual league's if we divide 1467 teams by 15 we get 97.8. Now we know there are at LEAST 21 teams using the all reliever strategy. Some of the teams with more then 711 inning may also be using the strategy. Therefor the bottom line is at LEAST 21 leagues out of 97 are being affected. At LEAST (21.6%). Good point. I think what the NFBC needs to look into is that some folks will not enter the Diamond's, Ultimate's, Super's, etc. because they don't want to play with teams employing this strategy. I don't think anyone is cheating because it is within the rules but I also would feel "fleeced" in one of these leagues if I lost to someone employing the strategy. It's obviously not guaranteed to work but I would guess that more times than not teams are successful with this strategy. I tried it once in a satellite and ran away with the league. I'm for increasing to 900 IP also.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:02 am

Originally posted by LONG GONE:

Greg, If we look at your statistics more closely the effect will be much greater then you think.

The important factor is not the percentage of people employing the strategy- it's the percentage of league's that are affected.

First of all we have to subtract the main event style league's (Main Event,Auction Championship, on line and double play ect.), because the strategy is never employed in these league's.

This strategy effects only individual league's. Here is my quick version of the math. There are approximately 1467 teams in individual league's.(2865 total teams - 1398 main event style teams with over all prizes). The numbers are off a little because of Al/Nl league's which have less then 15 teams.

Now we need to know the number of individual league's if we divide 1467 teams by 15 we get 97.8. Now we know there are at LEAST 21 teams using the all reliever strategy. Some of the teams with more then 711 inning may also be using the strategy. Therefor the bottom line is at LEAST 21 leagues out of 97 are being affected. At LEAST (21.6%). Well Kelly, two teams employed this strategy in the same March 21 Super League. Two teams did it in the same Diamond League. Two teams did it in the same Ultimate Auction League. So I guess AT LEAST isn't totally correct. As for the main event, the lowest IP total I see right now is 936 and everyone else is at 1,055 IP or above.

So I think the data is out there for all to see. We can spin the percentages all we want, but the key is to have rules in place that make sense for everyone. I think 700 IP as a minimum has done its job, but there is certainly cause for tweaking it some. Heck, we were at 400 IP not too long ago. We'll look at the data and adjust this rule if needed. We'll see.

It seems like few other tweaks are being requested. I think it's time to start finalizing the rules and getting 2011 off the launch pad. Thanks all.

mgk2004 · Post by **mgk2004** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:22 am

Okay ... I rarely post to the message boards, but since I am one of those frowned upon players who employ the all RP strategy, I thought I should contribute my 2 cents here ...

For those folks who think this strategy works "most of the time", you are wrong ... since 2006 I have drafted 23 NFBC teams (mostly of the $250 satellite variety). All of those teams employed the all RP strategy. Zero of those teams won their league ... five finished in second place ... two finished in third place. It's not that I am a particularly stupid fellow ... there are just too many things that can go wrong with that strategy ... with so few innings, a bad outing or two can blow up both your ERA and WHIP, and with this strategy you have to win both of those categories. So, I am down over $2000, but keep coming back, because one learn's from their mistakes ...

This year I have five all RP teams ... one of them will finish in first place ... two others will finish somewhere from first to third and one of them will finish somewhere from second to fourth ... and the other one just plan sucks (all $125 leagues except the sucky team which was $250). As a previous poster mentioned, this year tended to be a good year for this strategy ... who knows what next year will bring ...

Regarding the IP limit, the current 700 definitely forces one to need innings from "risky" starting pitchers. In fact, three of the teams mentioned above just got burned because I still need innings, and when Chris Narveson got blasted by SF last week, that one outing dropped me from first to third place in two leagues as I lost several points in ERA and WHIP (which is the primary risk with this strategy).

If the IP limit is raised to 900, I will waive the white flag and surrender, as this strategy would no longer be viable ... pretty sure nobody here would miss me ... and it looks like many would rejoice as one of the all RP players would be gone -- one of those "not really a cheater but some of us think really is a cheater" guys! ) At 800 IP, I would probably keep trying and contribute more money to the rest of you ...

Thanks!

--- Mike

LONG GONE · Post by **LONG GONE** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:27 am

The at "LEAST" refers to owners that have more then 711 innings as per your example. I assume there are more then 21 teams using this strategy, but I don't know because I don't have access to your data.

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:44 am

Mike,

This isn't about winning or losing. You guys keeping mentioning it to dodge the real issue that it dodges strategy, hurts the other competitor's prep for main event leagues. These are giant turn-offs.

Last year I did the $325 Top three win the same thing league, not realizing that the all-reliever people would flock to it like ants to a half-eaten ham sandwich on a park bench, as 4 people used the strategy, and the draft sucked. The league sucked. I would never join a top three league ever again. And I won the league! Winning has no relevance to the discussion. Bush league tactics are what is relevant.

mgk2004 · Post by **mgk2004** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:58 am

well Sebadiah ... this is why I tend to not want to contribute on the Message Boards ... I thought perhaps some folks might want to hear from somebody who employs the all RP strategy (in addition to Jim), and you accuse me of being bush league ... I don't know you, but I wish you well ...

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:38 pm

Mike, I called the tactics bush league. I'm sure they don't define you as a person.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:43 pm

Originally posted by LONG GONE:

Greg, If we look at your statistics more closely the effect will be much greater then you think.

The important factor is not the percentage of people employing the strategy- it's the percentage of league's that are affected.

First of all we have to subtract the main event style league's (Main Event,Auction Championship, on line and double play ect.), because the strategy is never employed in these league's.

This strategy effects only individual league's. Here is my quick version of the math. There are approximately 1467 teams in individual league's.(2865 total teams - 1398 main event style teams with over all prizes). The numbers are off a little because of Al/Nl league's which have less then 15 teams.

Now we need to know the number of individual league's if we divide 1467 teams by 15 we get 97.8. Now we know there are at LEAST 21 teams using the all reliever strategy. Some of the teams with more then 711 inning may also be using the strategy. Therefor the bottom line is at LEAST 21 leagues out of 97 are being affected. At LEAST (21.6%). What is the percentage in leagues with $1000 entry fee of higher? I bet it is close to 100 %.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:48 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by LONG GONE:

Greg, If we look at your statistics more closely the effect will be much greater then you think.

The important factor is not the percentage of people employing the strategy- it's the percentage of league's that are affected.

First of all we have to subtract the main event style league's (Main Event,Auction Championship, on line and double play ect.), because the strategy is never employed in these league's.

This strategy effects only individual league's. Here is my quick version of the math. There are approximately 1467 teams in individual league's.(2865 total teams - 1398 main event style teams with over all prizes). The numbers are off a little because of Al/Nl league's which have less then 15 teams.

Now we need to know the number of individual league's if we divide 1467 teams by 15 we get 97.8. Now we know there are at LEAST 21 teams using the all reliever strategy. Some of the teams with more then 711 inning may also be using the strategy. Therefor the bottom line is at LEAST 21 leagues out of 97 are being affected. At LEAST (21.6%). Well Kelly, two teams employed this strategy in the same March 21 Super League. Two teams did it in the same Diamond League. Two teams did it in the same Ultimate Auction League. So I guess AT LEAST isn't totally correct. As for the main event, the lowest IP total I see right now is 936 and everyone else is at 1,055 IP or above.

So I think the data is out there for all to see. We can spin the percentages all we want, but the key is to have rules in place that make sense for everyone. I think 700 IP as a minimum has done its job, but there is certainly cause for tweaking it some. Heck, we were at 400 IP not too long ago. We'll look at the data and adjust this rule if needed. We'll see.

It seems like few other tweaks are being requested. I think it's time to start finalizing the rules and getting 2011 off the launch pad. Thanks all. [/QUOTE]Copied from other thread:

Lawrence Liebman

Junior Member

Member # 46113

Member Rated:

posted September 14, 2010 06:44 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I looked at a number of leagues and identified 14 teams that used this strategy. I only looked at slow drafts and satellites and not all of them.

Here's what I found:

3 teams in 1st

4 teams in 2nd

1 team each in 4th and 5th

2 teams in 8th

2 teams in 11th

1 team in 14th

Of the teams in the top of the standings, the top 7 were the same two players. So, it was imitated, but others did not duplicate the success of these two particular players.

Given the attention paid to this approach, and its relative success, it would not be suprising to see it used more next season.

--------------------------------------------

My point continues to be that the data shows that it too simple to win with this approach as is not appropriate to rate a ratio of 1.25 whip with 700 innings better than a team with a whip 1.27 for 1250 (or what ever). And obviously this is being abused in the single league format. I don't see any issue with people dumping a category, like saves or steals, but I have an issue with is being rated in a ratio category against someone who is doing it with a small sample size

Even with 900 innings, there are many strategic choices that could be made around the mix of starters and relievers. You could even go with 3 starters, 5 relievers and 1 spot starter, so it isn't like this strategy will completely disappear, but atleast there will be a better stratistical strength to the WHIP/ERA ratios.

I would also vote for a 5k AB minimum....

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:24 am

There are numbers that indicate that the mini guys affect few leagues, but too,there are some folks who get in to slo drafts and satelites only at the last minute if they do not see Jim S or Mike K's name.

Their enjoyment is to replicate the Classic Draft as closely as possible.

There can be separate innings limits leagues, sure, but I doubt many will want to participate in drafts, knowing that it won't be classic-like.

It looks like the majority of the thread would like the innings limit raised or have the choice of avoiding the mini guys.

Two comments I found particularly entertaining on this thread...

"Flock like ants to a half-eaten sandwich on a park bench"-

Classic stuff.

Of course, I will steal that one and use it locally

The other was by mgk2004,

"And when Chris Narveson got blasted by SF last week, the one outing dropped me from first to third place"-

Most of us were thinking it and I'll say it.

Welcome to our world, Mike.

jim.s · Post by **jim.s** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:11 am

A few of observations, then a suggestion:

1. The discussion about minimum IP as an analogy in tournament bridge. One camp wants to allow new complicated bidding systems to be invented to move the strategy forwrad. Others say that allowing this makes the game less fun for the average player because these new bidding systems can radically shift strategy, and non-experts want to play the normal way they are used to. The solution in bridge is to allow much more freedom of bidding systems at higher level expert tournaments, but restrict them at lower level tournaments.

2. if you left the 700 IP alone, there will be some very interesting drafts/auctions next year in the Supers and above, because more players will try variations on punting strategies and several players using one stragey forces modification of that strategy. If several people use all reliever, those teams fight ove a meaningful number of points in W and SO

3. players (including top experts) who don't want to play against all RP strategy already have that option: the main event and the auction championship (as it gets larger), which everyone agrees isn't worth using all RP there.

Suggestion:

1. raise min IP to 800 in the draft champion slow drafts. people are saying they want these to prepare foe the main event, so discourage use of all RP here. The risk of setting it too high there is players could miss it due to injuries, with no ability to get FA replacements, but that should be OK at 800 IP

2. keep min at 700 IP, at least for events at $500 entry and above.

3. allow friday P changes for events at $500 and above

This will allow the higher dollar leagues, which have more experts, to be laboratories for development of new P strategies, but will give players who don't want to be involved in such a league many good choices (slow drafts, main event, auction championship and maybe lower $ satellites)

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:45 am

Okay, I think we have a lot of the viewpoints out front and center on this subject and it's time for us to make a decision here as we get the 2011 NFBC rules in place. I'm going to start another thread soon with the new rules and if I've missed anything you can add to it there. But I think there are only a couple of areas of concern and we'll address them and get the rules in place.

Over the last two years, data has shown that 99% of all NFBC teams have easily hit the 900 IP mark. Raising the 700 IP mark makes sense and I had a sense to do it for 2011 before the feedback and the data. I especially feel we need to do it in the satellite leagues and the Slow Drafts and we will do that. But I also think we can have a consistent level across all contests. I'm still weighing all of that.

But thanks for the input and we'll move onto 2011 with the rules very shortly. We are working hard to unleash our basketball contest and to still be out front early with 2011 NFBC signups. Stay tuned.