Are We Good With 900 IP For 2013?

[Greg Ambrosius]

As we prepare for the 2013 NFBC season, I'm looking at any potential rules changes we should consider for next season. It appears that what we have right now with most of the rules is working rather well, but I'm always interested in hearing any potential rules changes. Does anyone have anything we should look at?

As far as the 900 IP limit, let me know if you'd like us to remain at that level or if that also needs tweaking. I know that in some of the highest dollar private leagues that multiple teams use the all-RP strategy, but even those teams need a few starters to reach the 900 IP limit. Are we all good at this level?

Anything else worth considering? Let me know before we finalize all of our rules, prizes, entry fees, guaranteed prizes, schedule of events and more. Thanks all.

[Nevadaman]

I prefer 1000 IP to better mirror reality, but I can live with 900 - just don't lower it!

[King of Queens]

The more IP the merrier!

[KJ Duke]

I prefer 1000 IP to better mirror reality, but I can live with 900 - just don't lower it!

If we're going to make one final stop in the IP journey, I think 1000 is the number.

Over the course of a season five SP's with single starts only and 4 RPs with around 2 IP per week gets you to 1000. That still leaves room to have a reliever-heavy team for much of the season, but not enough that you can just ignore half of the game.

[Money]

The more IP the merrier!

I support this statement. How about 1250!!

[Cocktails and Dreams]

I agree with others. When you have teams winning and hogging up spots in the biggest league around by doing quirky strategies, changes are needed. Make them do an incredible job of managing the staff if they want to go all relief. Coming from a guy that tried it for the first time this year, it is not easy at 900 but had I done a good job it should have been easier than it was. For the good of the game increase it and take the nonsensical strategies out of play. Let someone like Glenn or KJ win the diamond that truly did a good job playing fantasy baseball. Not some oddball strategy. I want to see people win the big leagues that would have had the best score in a main event had that strategy needed to be done. There needs to be a much more severe price to be for trying to go after ERA and WHIP in my opinion. The diamond standings this year prove it. Two of the likely top 4 doing that strategy, including the winner. Shouldn't happen. 1050 seems right to me. If you can get it done going that route at 1050 then all power to you. It would keep it real. That being said, I am not sure I am even playing any fantasy baseball again, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

[FFBL23]

I agree with others. When you have teams winning and hogging up spots in the biggest league around by doing quirky strategies, changes are needed. Make them do an incredible job of managing the staff if they want to go all relief. Coming from a guy that tried it for the first time this year, it is not easy at 900 but had I done a good job it should have been easier than it was. For the good of the game increase it and take the nonsensical strategies out of play. Let someone like Glenn or KJ win the diamond that truly did a good job playing fantasy baseball. Not some oddball strategy. I want to see people win the big leagues that would have had the best score in a main event had that strategy needed to be done. There needs to be a much more severe price to be for trying to go after ERA and WHIP in my opinion. The diamond standings this year prove it. Two of the likely top 4 doing that strategy, including the winner. Shouldn't happen. 1050 seems right to me. If you can get it done going that route at 1050 then all power to you. It would keep it real. That being said, I am not sure I am even playing any fantasy baseball again, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

Amen to this. Greg, I hope you listen here. This all reliever strategy needs to go away and never come back. It's cheating the game by playing this strategy. People who play this way don't have to manage the back end of a pitching staff which is one of the toughest parts of the game. Using this strategy almost assures a 4th place finish and with a little luck and FAAB magic, you're in the top two and maybe winning the league.

The most prestigious league in the NFBC (Diamond League) is one week away from being won with this strategy for the second time in three years. I know these owners are just playing by the rules, by this just doesn't seem right. Take this thing to 1050 innings or more.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

And by the way, Don and Gino did one hell of a job in the diamond. They executed perfectly and won. Incredible job by them executing. And the way they got things right, they probably would have won with any rules set. To be clear, had I been able to execute the same strategy as well as they did, I would still feel the same way. But it is pretty clear to me what needs to be done when I feel dirty even doing that strategy and feel like I deserve 4th place if KJ and Glenn beat me. And deserve is actually not correct either. I don't deserve anything playing that way. I don't even want to be put in the position to consider such a strategy ever again to be honest and don't really care to play in a game where such strategies can be put in place in a big league. Big league like that, lets make everyone go at it and duke it out and let the best man win. Doesn't have to be the same innings limits for every single league either. The bigger the league, the bigger the innings could be.

[DOUGHBOYS]

This is the one rule change that has come up every year since the NFBC started. I believe the original rule was 400 innings or more. It may have been even less, I don't remember, but I do remember it being moved up from 400 one year.
Since then, the same battle has taken place between those that like the reliever strategy and those that don't.
It usually results in a push up of 100 innings to appease the majority that don't like the strategy while still keeping the reliever strategy 'alive'.

It's time to kill the strategy. It's a one league trick. Not used in the overall, because of giving up 800 points from the get go in two categoriesl.
Let's put individual leagues on an even keel with the overall and make the limit 1200 innings and be done with it.
Well, be done with it for now.
I can see a time where six man rotations and even more specialization could force more adjustments to the innings limit.

[KJ Duke]

This is the one rule change that has come up every year since the NFBC started. I believe the original rule was 400 innings or more. It may have been even less, I don't remember, but I do remember it being moved up from 400 one year.
Since then, the same battle has taken place between those that like the reliever strategy and those that don't.
It usually results in a push up of 100 innings to appease the majority that don't like the strategy while still keeping the reliever strategy 'alive'.

It's time to kill the strategy. It's a one league trick. Not used in the overall, because of giving up 800 points from the get go in two categoriesl.
Let's put individual leagues on an even keel with the overall and make the limit 1200 innings and be done with it.
Well, be done with it for now.
I can see a time where six man rotations and even more specialization could force more adjustments to the innings limit.

The Diamond is a great example for this debate with everyone looking for an edge against tough competition. Using a low IP team has been proven without any doubt to be a smart strategy, especially in an ultra-competitive league where nothing slips by on the waiver wire. The Marsupial team and Chad made the smart strategy plays, and they'll win what they deserve. But I agree the time has come it make it tougher to execute, and after reading the other comments here, 1000 probably isn't enough.

Likewise, teams starting 5 SPs all season could sometimes fall a little short of 1200, and it's probably a good idea to leave room for teams that aren't actively managed all the way to the final week to avoid as many season-end standings adjustments as possible.

I'll split the difference with Dough and bump my suggestion to 1100. (If you want to argue that teams should be starting 6 SPs all season, then 1200 would be best).

[joshguy]

I agree, it for sure needs to be bumped up. The all reliever strategy isnt guaranteed but does take away a lot of the "skill" element out of the game. It also distorts the free agent wire. If I did it, I would just pretty much bid exclusively on closers.

I suggest making it either 1050 or 1100. This would force teams to carry at least 4 starting pitchers, perhaps even a 5th.

4 starters at 175 innings= 700
5 relievers at 70 innings =350
So if a team wished to do the RP strategy, at least he would have to risk it a bit more with some starters that might hurt his ERA/WHIP.

[Greg Ambrosius]

This is the one rule change that has come up every year since the NFBC started. I believe the original rule was 400 innings or more. It may have been even less, I don't remember, but I do remember it being moved up from 400 one year.
Since then, the same battle has taken place between those that like the reliever strategy and those that don't.
It usually results in a push up of 100 innings to appease the majority that don't like the strategy while still keeping the reliever strategy 'alive'.

It's time to kill the strategy. It's a one league trick. Not used in the overall, because of giving up 800 points from the get go in two categoriesl.
Let's put individual leagues on an even keel with the overall and make the limit 1200 innings and be done with it.
Well, be done with it for now.
I can see a time where six man rotations and even more specialization could force more adjustments to the innings limit.

I hope everyone knows that I started this thread to get some feedback, so no need to kill those who are using this strategy.

Dan, we had no innings minimum the first two years of the NFBC and some owners "gamed" the system by having pitchers who didn't even play. I didn't expect that type of strategy when I devised the game and so we had to put the IP minimum at 400. Then the all-reliever strategy remained and we went to 600 IP and then 900 IP. That's where we are today.

I think for the national contests the IP minimum is serving its purpose because it's tough to win anything outside of a league title by dumping two categories. That being said, our Auction Champion from 2011 did dump two categories and won the overall title. But we can look at 900 IP there.

Does it make more sense to move the satellite leagues and high-dollar private leagues minimum innings pitched limit higher by themselves? I'm not against allowing unique strategies in the NFBC, but I do see a trend in the Diamond and Ultimate Leagues and wouldn't mind making those strategies harder. That being said, everyone can use the same strategy and when two or more teams do the same thing it gets tougher to execute. As Chad said, there were three teams that did it in the Diamond League and two did it better than the third.

I have considered 1,000 IP and that was the reason for my initial post, but we'll see. Thanks for all the feedback and since I started the thread I am paying attention to the posts.

And Chad, I know you are burned out by fantasy baseball and these wild finishes, but if you quit fantasy baseball to concentrate on March Madness wagering you'll be letting a good talent go to waste. You have something that few others have and whether you play again in the NFBC or not, don't sell your skills short. You are on the verge of a historic season and no matter how it plays out you've proven what you can do here. Baseball is a marathon and you're finishing after hitting the wall at Mile 25. Congrats on a great, great year.

[DOUGHBOYS]

No problems Greg, I'm good with your decisions.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but just wanted to add a note to Chad.
Chad, I've never met you. I've drafted against you and have read your posts and believe you to be a driven, well-versed fantasy player.
There are faults with every fantasy game. Hell, there are faults with every game, period.
I know you have interests in the outcome of sporting events, and even now, those events are being turned by less than ideal referees.
Fantasy baseball is the marathon of marathons in fantasy sports. The last two or three weeks are the toughest. So many things can happen to lose the first 22 or 23 weeks worth of work.
The same thing is happening in my individual league.
I hate it and I feel your pain.
I've been both the front runner and chaser and at this time of year it is 100% more fun to be the chaser.
The grind is crazy harsh on the front runner.
Don't make any decisions this time of year. I know you know that, and know you know what 'on tilt' is.
You're a great fantasy player and this industry needs top of the line players like yourself.
Good luck the rest of the way.

[KJ Duke]

Does it make more sense to move the satellite leagues and high-dollar private leagues minimum innings pitched limit higher by themselves? I'm not against allowing unique strategies in the NFBC, but I do see a trend in the Diamond and Ultimate Leagues and wouldn't mind making those strategies harder. That being said, everyone can use the same strategy and when two or more teams do the same thing it gets tougher to execute. As Chad said, there were three teams that did it in the Diamond League and two did it better than the third.

While it is more relevant to the single leagues, I think consistency across all leagues is a better set-up. Whether it's 1000, 1100 or 1200, make is the same for all ... it's easier on everyone to not have to manage peculiarities of different leagues where possible. It seemed to work for football scoring.

[low talkers]

I have no argument with 900 IP, nor do I have an argument with raising it. The only thing I would say, is it is probably best not to raise it above 900 for slow drafts. It is very possible to draft a dozen or more starters and end up with only 4-5 healthy ones. At 1000 IP or more, it is possible you could have teams not at all trying to dump any categories and still end up with not enough innings.

[DOUGHBOYS]

While it is more relevant to the single leagues, I think consistency across all leagues is a better set-up. Whether it's 1000, 1100 or 1200, make is the same for all ... it's easier on everyone to not have to manage peculiarities of different leagues where possible. It seemed to work for football scoring.

Agreed.
It would be inviting mix-ups to have different minimums.

[Hells Satans]

Fully support raising the limits to at least 1000. Would support anything up to 1200.

[Hells Satans]

Also, Eric Hosmer can go #$&# himself

[Outlaw]

I'm definatley a yes on upping it. The closer to 1200 IP the better.