Rule Changes For 2006 NFBC

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:18 am

With the end of the 2005 NFBC season shortly upon us, it's time to announce our plans for 2006. I will have everything finalized two weeks from now, but I'm interested in everyone's input on the following rules changes. Please post your thoughts here:

1) We will have a Minimum Innings Pitched limit in 2006 for the main event and the Auction Leagues. It will be between 300 and 500, possibly 400. Only a handful of teams in all of our events had less than 400 IP this year, but by putting this rule in place it will avoid a team winning with "dead" pitchers on their rosters.

2) We will limit Draft Day picks/bids to players on MLB 40-man rosters. The NFBC will provide a list of 40-man rosters to all owners before the draft and those lists will be the official lists for players to be selected on Draft Day. Again, it will avoid teams from selecting a full roster of players who never reach the majors.

3) I am interested in allowing NFBC teams to make roster moves within their own 30-man rosters twice a week. Starting lineups would be made on Monday 5 minutes before the first game and teams could set a new starting lineup on Friday 5 minutes before the first game. There still would be only one FAAB period per week, but this new rule would: a) allow owners to get a player out of their starting lineup who went on the DL early in the week; and b) would make those reserve spots even more valuable since teams would want to have more active players who can fill in each week should injuries occur.

I do not have any other rule changes in mind. The suggestion to make the Utility spot available to hitters and pitchers isn't appealing to me. If anyone has any other suggestions, I'm open to them here.

For 2006, I'm proposing the following:

1) 330 teams for the main event, which allows us to raise second place league money from $1,750 to $2,250 for the 22 leagues. We'll also increase fourth place overall to $3,500, fifth place overall to $1,750 and add a ninth place overall prize of $1,250 or a free 2007 NFBC entry. The payout is again 75% of total signup revenue.

2) We'll add $1,250 Mixed Auction Leagues this year in New York and Las Vegas. We will have Friday auction leagues if we add Tampa to the mix this year.

That's all for now. We'll begin taking signups on Monday, Oct. 3rd and will have hotel rates and codes for everyone soon. It should be a great, great third season in 2006. Thanks everyone.

viper · Post by **viper** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:47 am

I'm for the three proposed rules. The first two barely effect any teams and seem to be "no brainers". The third allows for more managerial involvement without requiring owners to live at their PC.

I would really like to see a league's 3rd place team get their money back - namely increase that amount to $1250. There may not be the funds to do this so then please consider taking the additional $500 you are providing to each league and raise both 2nd and 3rd places to $2000, & $1100 respectively. That is adding $550 per league rather than $500 but I'm sure your increases in the overall prizes can be adjusted some.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 am

Rule proposal #3 looks like it'll bring on a fair amount of debate. It may become a major issue to the "casual" player because I can see it raising the strategy of the game to a whole new level. It may come down to a compromise of having the ability to swap out a player on friday only if he's on the DL on your active roster. However I dont know if that is trackable. In any event Greg, if there's too much backlash to change maybe a satellite league with that option ?

Q

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:20 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

Rule proposal #3 looks like it'll bring on a fair amount of debate. It may become a major issue to the "casual" player because I can see it raising the strategy of the game to a whole new level. It may come down to a compromise of having the ability to swap out a player on friday only if he's on the DL on your active roster. However I dont know if that is trackable. In any event Greg, if there's too much backlash to change maybe a satellite league with that option ?

Q My thought is that this isn't affecting the "casual player" at all and you don't have to live at your computer to win under these new rules. I understand what you're saying, but honestly how many times will you change your starters with one of your reserves on Friday? Usually if you have an early week injury or if you want to make a pitching change you'll do it, but that's about it. At the end of the year, some teams may make pitching changes late in the week, but again they are just pulling from their seven-man reserve roster, not from the free agent pool.

Yes, it's worthy of a debate and I look forward to the pros and cons. But honestly the intent is to avoid week-long zeros from players who go on the DL Tuesday or Wednesday, or get hurt early in the week.

Now, could some teams start a Rockies' pitcher on the road on Monday and take him out of their starting lineup for the Sunday home game? Sure, but again I see that as more of a positive than a negative. But we'll see.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:49 am

Twice a week lineup moves - Good.

Min 500 IP - Good.

Keep DH spot for hitters only - Good.

batting 1000 greg ...

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:03 am

Rule Change Proposals:

1) Yes, I think this is a good idea.

2) Agree again.

3) Agree again.

Minor tweaks overall, but can make the process more enjoyable.

I also agree with Viper about 3rd place getting their money back, but I am not really in it for the money (did I type that with a straight face?).

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:57 am

Twice a week lineups time has come. Now, like football, we can match up for each team. Thanks for being open-minded, Greg, its what makes the NFBC the best.

Moneymaker · Post by **Moneymaker** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:00 am

I hate to be the one to disagree, but I'm not in favor of the proposed new rule to allow twice-weekly roster submissions.

In short, this is not a small change. My suggestion: stage any fundamental rule changes through an auction, ultimate, or mid-season league first. Weed out any unforeseen headaches on a much smaller scale.

Why don't I like it? I see several possible problems. One is -- opposite from what was intended, I think it would actually give a greater advantage to the teams that sustain less injuries. For example, what if three or more of your big guns go on an extended DL stint at the same time? (This is a common occurence, by the way). While other teams are having fun streaming their players and gaining five extra games and two extra starts per week, you're stuck with Bonds, Thome, and Ben Sheets on your bench. They're too good to drop (while their injury situation is unclear), but you're damned if you don't stream like everyone else.

I see a category-punting issue too that comes into play with this rule change, but I don't want to elaborate on it and have a few jokers try it next year.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:37 am

Originally posted by Moneymaker:

I hate to be the one to disagree, but I'm not in favor of the proposed new rule to allow twice-weekly roster submissions.

In short, this is not a small change. My suggestion: stage any fundamental rule changes through an auction, ultimate, or mid-season league first. Weed out any unforeseen headaches on a much smaller scale.

Why don't I like it? I see several possible problems. One is -- opposite from what was intended, I think it would actually give a greater advantage to the teams that sustain less injuries. For example, what if three or more of your big guns go on an extended DL stint at the same time? (This is a common occurence, by the way). While other teams are having fun streaming their players and gaining five extra games and two extra starts per week, you're stuck with Bonds, Thome, and Ben Sheets on your bench. They're too good to drop (while their injury situation is unclear), but you're damned if you don't stream like everyone else.

I see a category-punting issue too that comes into play with this rule change, but I don't want to elaborate on it and have a few jokers try it next year. Make it two.

I have a life.

The game should not be decided because one wants to, but can't always get to a computer.

Nevadaman · Post by **Nevadaman** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:43 am

I'm totally in favor of all three changes. As far as I'm concerned, these are all no-brainers. The Friday roster move will bring more strategy into the game and make things more fun. Having the chance to substitute an injured player is great and long overdue. Anything that limits bad luck should be welcomed by everyone. I thought this contest was supposed to reward the best owners, not the luckiest!! I would also add as many have before me, that I DO NOT want daily changes, but twice a week is perfect.

Nevadaman · Post by **Nevadaman** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:45 am

By the way, if someone can get to a computer once a week, they can get to a computer twice a week. Most of the time you won't even have to make any changes anyway. Give me a f'n break!!

[ September 20, 2005, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Nevadaman ]

Moneymaker · Post by **Moneymaker** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:45 am

Originally posted by Nevadaman:

Most of the time you won't even have to make any changes anyway. No way. With this new rule, you will get beat if you don't make roster changes for every new period.

SlackerDan · Post by **SlackerDan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:44 pm

I am ok with min. innings for pitchers, use only 40 man roster, twice a week moves ... all good.

Would love to see utl hitter or pitcher, but it looks like SlackerBrothers are the only team in all of NFBC that would be interested in it. Oh well ... SlackerDan

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:05 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

3) I am interested in allowing NFBC teams to make roster moves within their own 30-man rosters twice a week. i've thought about it some more...don't do it greg. if you do, limit it to only 1 move per team, or better yet...only 1 DL move per team.

[ September 20, 2005, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:17 pm

I'm all for twice weekly moves. Drafting a good bench should carry more weight in the outcome of the contest and unlucky injuries should have less weight.

devilznj · Post by **devilznj** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:25 pm

Like changes except for Rule #3 - no need to screw around with lineups midweek. You have an injury, live with it. Every single team runs the exact same risk each week.

Owners would carry more pitchers as reserves and that's where the action would be - not the rare Monday injury replacement.

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:55 am

Originally, I was all for rule #3, but the point about Bonds, Thome, and Sheets is a good one. As is, it is very tough to do well with key injuries, and this would continue to push the team with these injuries further down. Lets think this all the way thru. The getting to a computer is a goofy argument, most everyone checks the standings first thing in the morning anyway, it is like taking a morning grump, just part of the day. But the team with extensive longer term injuries, they are at a severe disadvantage.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:44 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

3) I am interested in allowing NFBC teams to make roster moves within their own 30-man rosters twice a week. i've thought about it some more...don't do it greg. if you do, limit it to only 1 move per team, or better yet...only 1 DL move per team. [/QUOTE]I want the discussion to continue on this twice-weekly moves proposal, so I feel uncomfortable jumping in here. But let me just state the obvious to everyone who is so worried about people changing their pitching lineup each week:

If someone has a two-start pitcher on their roster for that week (i.e. they know he's starting on Monday and likely again on the weekend), don't you think that pitcher is already in that team's lineup come Monday morning? Does anyone really think he's been on the bench and will be inserted on Friday or that the owner will see that one start and then bench him for the weekend? It doesn't make any sense for someone to have a two-start pitcher for that week on the bench on Monday and then have him change the lineup on Friday to get him in for the second start. He's likely already in the lineup.

As for player moves, obviously you would be allowed to change your starting lineup anytime after Monday's games and have that be effective on Friday. So no owner would have to SIT in front of their computer on Friday to make lineup changes. You could do that Monday night, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.

The biggest concern is for teams who have injuries to major stars. I hear that concern the most because yes then you are hamstrung. You can't afford to cut those players, yet you want a more active reserve roster. So I understand that pain more than any other.

Sorry to interject and please keep the thoughts coming. I'm getting private e-mails on this one and the New York destination and both are leaning in one direction. I'll reveal soon. Thanks for all the input and we'll make the right decisions on both, although I'm sure there's no way to please everyone.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:57 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Sorry to interject and please keep the thoughts coming. I'm getting private e-mails on this one tell the private e-mail folks who are in favor of the twice-a-week lineup, that they will get results that weren't intended.

mr moneymaker is correct about "injured bench teams" being at a clear disadvantage. there is also another big issue that mr moneymaker informed me of and i agree. maybe we'll talk privately, but i need to talk with mr moneymaker first.

la Jolla · Post by **la Jolla** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:07 am

in allowing moves twice a week, what will happen is almost all of the 7 reserve spots will be starting pitchers that people can rotate in and out of the line-up. that will create an environment that will hurt any teams with injuries to star hitters that have to be placed on reserve, thus allowing for less pitchers to be rotated in and out. the only solution i can come up with to alleviate that is to expand the reserves from 7 to 9 or 10.

Moneymaker · Post by **Moneymaker** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:45 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

If someone has a two-start pitcher on their roster for that week (i.e. they know he's starting on Monday and likely again on the weekend), don't you think that pitcher is already in that team's lineup come Monday morning? Does anyone really think he's been on the bench and will be inserted on Friday or that the owner will see that one start and then bench him for the weekend? Greg, consider this. Each week there are several pitchers on my fantasy team that only get one start. Their one start ranges from Tuesday to Saturday (inclusive) -- i.e. if a MLB team has a five-man rotation with no game on Thursday, Tuesday's pitcher gets one start. Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday pitchers always get one start. The Saturday one-start pitcher is due to a situation similar to the Tuesday example. With the rule change, fantasy teams can stream their pitchers in a two-start fest if they stock their bench with pitchers. They can start the Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday one-start guys, then bench them for the Friday/Saturday one-start pitchers.

And I see more a few more possible problems with this rule change. Fundamental strategies could be changed across the board. To be safe, please test it out somewhere else first. My bet is that most people won't like the side effects.

To me, this is a deep issue. In general, I think fantasy baseball rules should be more standardized. One of the big reasons that fantasy football is so much more popular than fantasy baseball is that no matter where you play fantasy football, the rules are nearly the same. There is none of this daily versus weekly versus bi-weekly versus rotissierie versus head-to-head versus (on and on...). All of the different flavors water down the game, confusing and frustrating people.

[ September 21, 2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Moneymaker ]

cfolson · Post by **cfolson** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:31 am

I agree that the twice weekly transactions will have more consequences than has been implied. As has been pointed out above, two start pitchers are not the issue. Streaming one start pitchers is the issue. I'm against any rule change that gives artificial strategies (such as loading up on bench starters and rotating them twice weekly) an extra advantage. There are already plenty of such instances and we do not need more.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:34 am

Now I don't support or reject the idea of a mid-week roster move at this stage, yet I think it's quite important for everyone to understand it's ramifications....because they are bigger than you think.

POINT 1: Call it 'Pride' or 'Year End Garbage Picking'. It's when many teams start loading up on starting pitching for the active roster in a chase for Wins and K's. This is usually done by teams in the lower 2/3's of the standings. The top 1/3 of the league standings know the ramifications of such a strategy to their ERA and WHIP, so they typically refraim from it. This happens because there is a lot of pride on where you place when it's all said and done, regardless of whether it's in the money or not. So we know this happens, but because there are only weekly changes the magnitude of such actions affecting the outcome of our own leagues, as well as the overall league, is minimalized to a certain extent. One of the major reasons it's minimalized is that it only produces enough to effect the middle of these category standings: usually. Now switch to bi-weekly changes and now your talking about impacting the top end of these category standings: potemtially.

Point 2: I assume many of the astute players in this league have a pretty good idea of what cumulative stats are required to win your league if not the whole championship. It's all there from the 2004 league. And after this year, we will have another set of (non-steroid) stats to help us plan for next year. If bi-weekly is incorporated, you can throw these measures out the door as a guide for next year come draft day. Offensive numbers will be slightly up, with W's, K's, ERA's and WHIP all up higher (more so than offense). I think the worst result of this is that those repeat players, whom learn something new every year, which then gives them the confidence to come back to try and get it right the next year, will become frustrated with the moving targets (projections used as a draft guide) and not return. There should be some value in playing this game year after year in regards to the knowledge you gain. Knowing what cumulative stats it will take to win your league is one of them - (ie we all know there is little to be gained in overloading in categories, so we draft accordingly). Changing rules that could materially impact the results, may negate a good portion of this experience and could impact upon managers coming back year after year. I don't think we want to see someone come off the street next year (ie newcomer) and win 2006 because the playing field had just be partially leveled again (ie previous experience and knowledge negated).

Just food for thought.

[ September 21, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:58 am

Originally posted by Clark Olson:

I agree that the twice weekly transactions will have more consequences than has been implied. As has been pointed out above, two start pitchers are not the issue. Streaming one start pitchers is the issue. I'm against any rule change that gives artificial strategies (such as loading up on bench starters and rotating them twice weekly) an extra advantage. There are already plenty of such instances and we do not need more. I agree. I check my results each day, but I certainly do not have an extra 20-30 minutes to change my lineup again.

This is suppose to be fun, not a second part-time job.

Cellar Dwellers · Post by **Cellar Dwellers** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:01 pm

I think Moneymaker and nydownunder make some very good points and I'm not as sure as I was that the twice weekly moves is the way to go. I'm still thinking about this and the possible ramifications of those changes.