Disabled List

[Cowboy Joe]

No DL. No to expanded bench.

It would not improve the game, only change one strategy and replace it with another. Let's keep it as it is.

I concur.

[JimyMarlboroBallgame]

I've never been in favor of it, but with the apparent accelerated rate of inactive players is the timing right to debate an NFBC Disabled List (maybe 2-player max) for the NFBC next season?

I'd be all for it. Get ready to add about 10 more to that list from Sunday of this week's *p**sies* in the making.

[Driver Love]

I am one who leans toward no DL. I like that we have to make tough decisions week to week with roster management and faab. I like being posed with the decision to release a player on DL based on if I think I can get him back if I need him. Having said that, if we did go to a "DL" spot, maybe we start with one instead of 2?

I am curious to know the reason why on Friday we cannot make lineup changes with pitchers in the same way we do offensive players. I know Greg answered this questions before the season somewhere but I cannot remember what the answer was.

anyone know?

I am still wondering what the answer to this question is. Does anyone know?

[Outlaw]

I am one who leans toward no DL. I like that we have to make tough decisions week to week with roster management and faab. I like being posed with the decision to release a player on DL based on if I think I can get him back if I need him. Having said that, if we did go to a "DL" spot, maybe we start with one instead of 2?

I am curious to know the reason why on Friday we cannot make lineup changes with pitchers in the same way we do offensive players. I know Greg answered this questions before the season somewhere but I cannot remember what the answer was.

anyone know?

I am still wondering what the answer to this question is. Does anyone know?

my guess since the Braintrust has not commented one way or the other, Nothing will be changing anytime soon, meaning for next year.

[Rainiers]

Re: DL Lists vs. Reserve Lists. Be wary of unintendended consequences of unintended loopholes. I'm a believer in the KISS prinicple, as in keep it simple, stupid. For that reason, I'm against a DL list.

If anything as to be done at all, I would add only one to the reserve list. Two might be too radical a change. Before we go to nine, we should see how eight works.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I am one who leans toward no DL. I like that we have to make tough decisions week to week with roster management and faab. I like being posed with the decision to release a player on DL based on if I think I can get him back if I need him. Having said that, if we did go to a "DL" spot, maybe we start with one instead of 2?

I am curious to know the reason why on Friday we cannot make lineup changes with pitchers in the same way we do offensive players. I know Greg answered this questions before the season somewhere but I cannot remember what the answer was.

anyone know?

I am still wondering what the answer to this question is. Does anyone know?

my guess since the Braintrust has not commented one way or the other, Nothing will be changing anytime soon, meaning for next year.

Why should we jump in during a good discussion and force the discussion one way or another? Isn't it best to hear from as many folks as possible before making any decision? I don't think many folks want to hear from me or Tom right now when they're discussing the merits of the DL; they want other owners' opinions.

But you are correct, we do see this thread every year about this time and we haven't changed our opinion of the 7-man reserve squad and no DL. It makes the competition tough, yet fair. Still, we always listen to opinions and this thread already has some good opinions both ways.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I am one who leans toward no DL. I like that we have to make tough decisions week to week with roster management and faab. I like being posed with the decision to release a player on DL based on if I think I can get him back if I need him. Having said that, if we did go to a "DL" spot, maybe we start with one instead of 2?

I am curious to know the reason why on Friday we cannot make lineup changes with pitchers in the same way we do offensive players. I know Greg answered this questions before the season somewhere but I cannot remember what the answer was.

anyone know?

We've already learned through a previous rule how tough it is to find out when a player is officially on the MLB DL List, so doing anything with a DL probably isn't desired for that reason. We'd probably add one full roster spot and take it to 31 rounds before we'd just add a DL spot and even that isn't a desired choice. Two additional spots? Not likely.

As for why we don't have pitchers on Friday lineup moves, we had it before and it created too many other loopholes. The desired goal of the Friday moves was to give owners partial stats from players who went on the DL early in the week, rather than 7 days of zero production. When it came to pitchers, we found owners streaming starters, using the DL to keep certain starters from a first start in an undesired location, etc. All of that is smart strategy, but it took our game to a level that we felt didn't better our game. It made it more time consuming for each owner, that's for sure, but I'm not sure it made our game better. So we took the radical change of having no pitching changes during the week and leaving the hitter changes alone on Friday since you really can't stream hitters.

Could we program pitcher DL moves on Fridays so that it's not a "streaming" game? Probably. But just having straight pitching changes on Friday won't happen here anytime soon because I think it actually hurts the game rather than helps it.

[Driver Love]

Greg,

Can you refresh my memory on what we cannot adjust our pitchers on Friday for the weekend in the same way we can make offensive changes? I recall you addressing this in the past but I cannot remember what the reason was and I am curious.

[ToddZ]

A no questions asked Friday moves for pitchers opens it up to starting a guy for his start in San Diego on Monday or Tuesday then sitting him over the weekend in Coors and using a guy with the opposite schedule or a reliever -- this is the streaming Greg alluded to in his previous post.

[KJ Duke]

Having DL spots would complicate running the game (specifically the timing of DL transactions), as we saw in the past. That's the best argument against it, and I'm coming back to my original view in agreement with Greg that it's probably not a good solution.

However, I don't think the current wave of injuries is temporary. As posted earlier in this thread, there was a monstrous jump in DL days last year and just by observance it seems that jump is being sustained if not increasing this season. Back to back +3 st deviation jumps indicate a fundamental change, not a blip. Accordingly, either we'll need to adjust to having periodic holes in our lineup or roster size needs to adjust upward. Simply arguing against change is actually accepting change, because if the injury level holds it imparts a greater edge to the healthier teams by comparison relative to the first 8 seasons of this contest.

The primary downside of increasing roster size is having less players available in faab, but with more players hitting the DL, there is the offsetting factor of significantly more faab bench/minor league players moving into starting major league jobs. Consequently, to keep the game as it was, it might actually have to change.

I'd like to revisit this and see total DL days at year end 2013, and if it looks as if there's a clear upward adjustment - breaking with history - you could calculate the change in relation to history and potentially adjust roster size accordingly.

[Top Dawg]

I think we will see more DL days than in the past continuing for a few more years. My belief is this is related to PED's. I have a 50 man DC league with 16 of my 27 bench spots held by players on the DL and 3 more in the minors. I don't recall seeing anything like that in prior years, especially not this early in the season.

I would be in favor of one more bench spot in the online and main event teams and against it having anything to do with players on the DL. Just make it an extra round of drafting. Seems like it would relieve some of the DL problems and not totally deplete the player pool.

As for pitching, I can yell from the Jersey shore, I too am in favor of allowing Friday switches, just like we do with offensive players. More strategy = more competition = more fun.

Pete

[Greg Ambrosius]

Having DL spots would complicate running the game (specifically the timing of DL transactions), as we saw in the past. That's the best argument against it, and I'm coming back to my original view in agreement with Greg that it's probably not a good solution.

However, I don't think the current wave of injuries is temporary. As posted earlier in this thread, there was a monstrous jump in DL days last year and just by observance it seems that jump is being sustained if not increasing this season. Back to back +3 st deviation jumps indicate a fundamental change, not a blip. Accordingly, either we'll need to adjust to having periodic holes in our lineup or roster size needs to adjust upward. Simply arguing against change is actually accepting change, because if the injury level holds it imparts a greater edge to the healthier teams by comparison relative to the first 8 seasons of this contest.

The primary downside of increasing roster size is having less players available in faab, but with more players hitting the DL, there is the offsetting factor of significantly more faab bench/minor league players moving into starting major league jobs. Consequently, to keep the game as it was, it might actually have to change.

I'd like to revisit this and see total DL days at year end 2013, and if it looks as if there's a clear upward adjustment - breaking with history - you could calculate the change in relation to history and potentially adjust roster size accordingly.

Rick Wilton has posted number of DL days at the Arizona Fall League Symposium in the past and I can ask him for this data again. The trend is toward more DL days over the last couple of years, but whether we've reached that peak now or not nobody knows for sure. But let me see if I can get some actual data in this regard.

[Billyhaze]

Everyone has to deal with disabled players, some teams more than others, that's just the nature of the beast. If one team has more DL'd players than others ,that's just tuff luck, either drop them or bench them and deal,
we all have tough choices in this game. if one can't overcome the obstacles than you don't deserve to be champion. some of this was brought on by drafting Disabled players with out foresight to what would happen to the roster if other players ended up on the DL

[Driver Love]

A no questions asked Friday moves for pitchers opens it up to starting a guy for his start in San Diego on Monday or Tuesday then sitting him over the weekend in Coors and using a guy with the opposite schedule or a reliever -- this is the streaming Greg alluded to in his previous post.

Forgive me if this is an ignorant question but why is this a bad thing? Isn't being allowed to do this giving owners more control over the management of their team? Why is streaming pitchers bad? Why would it be a bad thing to allow an owner to start his pitcher VS Houston on Monday but bench him on the weekend at Coors? Or what if there is a huge rain storm and your pitcher is going to get rained out on a Friday so you bench him in favor of a reliever on your bench?

This is bad? Again, maybe there is something I am missing and this truly is a problem. On a surface, it seems to be a good thing that gives owners more control and rewards team management.

[ToddZ]

A no questions asked Friday moves for pitchers opens it up to starting a guy for his start in San Diego on Monday or Tuesday then sitting him over the weekend in Coors and using a guy with the opposite schedule or a reliever -- this is the streaming Greg alluded to in his previous post.

Forgive me if this is an ignorant question but why is this a bad thing? Isn't being allowed to do this giving owners more control over the management of their team? Why is streaming pitchers bad? Why would it be a bad thing to allow an owner to start his pitcher VS Houston on Monday but bench him on the weekend at Coors? Or what if there is a huge rain storm and your pitcher is going to get rained out on a Friday so you bench him in favor of a reliever on your bench?

This is bad? Again, maybe there is something I am missing and this truly is a problem. On a surface, it seems to be a good thing that gives owners more control and rewards team management.

Some feel it is bad, some feel it is different.

[DOUGHBOYS]

A no questions asked Friday moves for pitchers opens it up to starting a guy for his start in San Diego on Monday or Tuesday then sitting him over the weekend in Coors and using a guy with the opposite schedule or a reliever -- this is the streaming Greg alluded to in his previous post.

Forgive me if this is an ignorant question but why is this a bad thing? Isn't being allowed to do this giving owners more control over the management of their team? Why is streaming pitchers bad? Why would it be a bad thing to allow an owner to start his pitcher VS Houston on Monday but bench him on the weekend at Coors? Or what if there is a huge rain storm and your pitcher is going to get rained out on a Friday so you bench him in favor of a reliever on your bench?

This is bad? Again, maybe there is something I am missing and this truly is a problem. On a surface, it seems to be a good thing that gives owners more control and rewards team management.

The streaming of pitchers does not rely on the talent of pitching or Managing of your fantasy team. Instead, it relies on the voluminous innings derived from streaming. 200 innings of Joe Blanton and Mark Buehrle will get you as many strike outs and wins as 100 innings of Clayton Kershaw. For a team less concerned with peripherals, it is a major advantage.
Especially during the last couple of weeks in a season, when knowing where to get a point or two, or three.
You'll think it is 'fair for all' until you see your staff with Kershaw and Verlander being passed in the needed category of strike outs or Wins by a team streaming Blanton, Buehrle, Cloyd, McDonald, Mendoza, etc.
I'm sure it can be explained better by somebody else.
Sufficith to say, It's not in the true spirit of the contest.

When streaming was allowed a couple of years back, the NFBC was littered with those that felt gypped out of cash the last two weeks of the season by streamers. Since then, pitching changes of any kind, have not been allowed mid-week.
Like said, I'm sure somebody can explain it better.

[KJ Duke]

Everyone has to deal with disabled players, some teams more than others, that's just the nature of the beast. If one team has more DL'd players than others ,that's just tuff luck, either drop them or bench them and deal,
we all have tough choices in this game. if one can't overcome the obstacles than you don't deserve to be champion. some of this was brought on by drafting Disabled players with out foresight to what would happen to the roster if other players ended up on the DL

That same argument could be made for having a smaller bench or no bench. It's a matter of right-sizing it. If the first 8 seasons was the right size and DL days now are going to be 40% higher, the new right size would be bigger. If you want to argue the first 8 years was too much bench, a case can be made it is right-sized right now. Either way, "tuff luck, deal with it" doesn't offer a foundation for what the right size should be.

[Glenneration X]

Like said, I'm sure somebody can explain it better.

I think it's some NFBC-ers are just prone to reject change.

All joking aside, I don't think there's a right or wrong as far as once a week vs. twice a week pitching moves. I've played both and for this rule in particular, all it does is change pitching strategy. I'm fine with either.

Regarding Friday changes for DL'd pitchers, I'd go for that, but we'd have to be certain to close any "loopholes" disguised as "strategies". One other thing that I will admit always bothered me is that the DL designation and when it's applied is so arbitrary. Some injured pitchers just skip their turn (ie. Ian Kennedy this week) while never being placed on the DL. Some may be injured on Monday but not be placed on the DL until Saturday missing the lineup deadline. In September after rosters are expanded, some pitchers are never placed on the DL even though they may be done for the year. It's the same issue I used to have with the DL rule for hitters. Allowing all hitters to be switched out on Fridays, DL'd or not, took the arbitrary nature of MLB decisions out of the equation making it fairer for all. I'm not sure how we would handle pitching in a similar manner without allowing streaming.

It's a matter of right-sizing it.

I agree. And I believe we are at the right size. With a seven man bench, it allows us to have back up pitchers, a back up MI, back up CI, back up OF, a stashed closer in waiting, and still allows a slot or two for speculative plays. If injuries come up, then it's up to us to make the tough decisions on which of these "luxuries" to do without. It's the tough calls that make this game a challenge.

I also feel that the player availability in FAAB right now for a 15-team league is pretty much right on. I wouldn't want to further expand it or dilute it by messing with our overall roster size.

[Driver Love]

The streaming of pitchers does not rely on the talent of pitching or Managing of your fantasy team. Instead, it relies on the voluminous innings derived from streaming. 200 innings of Joe Blanton and Mark Buehrle will get you as many strike outs and wins as 100 innings of Clayton Kershaw. For a team less concerned with peripherals, it is a major advantage.
Especially during the last couple of weeks in a season, when knowing where to get a point or two, or three.
You'll think it is 'fair for all' until you see your staff with Kershaw and Verlander being passed in the needed category of strike outs or Wins by a team streaming Blanton, Buehrle, Cloyd, McDonald, Mendoza, etc.
I'm sure it can be explained better by somebody else.
Sufficith to say, It's not in the true spirit of the contest.

When streaming was allowed a couple of years back, the NFBC was littered with those that felt gypped out of cash the last two weeks of the season by streamers. Since then, pitching changes of any kind, have not been allowed mid-week.
Like said, I'm sure somebody can explain it better.

Thanks for outlining that. That is the first "reason" I have seen. I can certainly see the argument that being allowed to manage your staff with twice per week moves could be better and more fun than once per week but I am fine with it being either way. I don't see how a Verlander/Kershaw owner would feel gypped because they too could stream other pitchers to dominate the K category and the team that is running with Blanton, Buehrle, Cloyd, McDonald, Mendoza is destroying his ERA and Whip along the way, sacrificing saves and likely not getting many wins either.

I think you explained it very well. I do see the point and issue.

[Billyhaze]

saw this stat thought I would share..

Through 25% of the season, 25% of the players in the ADP top 300 have spent time on the DL or in the minors

[Hells Satans]

The streaming of pitchers does not rely on the talent of pitching or Managing of your fantasy team. Instead, it relies on the voluminous innings derived from streaming. 200 innings of Joe Blanton and Mark Buehrle will get you as many strike outs and wins as 100 innings of Clayton Kershaw. For a team less concerned with peripherals, it is a major advantage.
Especially during the last couple of weeks in a season, when knowing where to get a point or two, or three.
You'll think it is 'fair for all' until you see your staff with Kershaw and Verlander being passed in the needed category of strike outs or Wins by a team streaming Blanton, Buehrle, Cloyd, McDonald, Mendoza, etc.
I'm sure it can be explained better by somebody else.
Sufficith to say, It's not in the true spirit of the contest.

When streaming was allowed a couple of years back, the NFBC was littered with those that felt gypped out of cash the last two weeks of the season by streamers. Since then, pitching changes of any kind, have not been allowed mid-week.
Like said, I'm sure somebody can explain it better.

Thanks for outlining that. That is the first "reason" I have seen. I can certainly see the argument that being allowed to manage your staff with twice per week moves could be better and more fun than once per week but I am fine with it being either way. I don't see how a Verlander/Kershaw owner would feel gypped because they too could stream other pitchers to dominate the K category and the team that is running with Blanton, Buehrle, Cloyd, McDonald, Mendoza is destroying his ERA and Whip along the way, sacrificing saves and likely not getting many wins either.

I think you explained it very well. I do see the point and issue.

The real point for me is that is too much work if you play in a bunch of leagues. I spend way too much of my life on this as it is.

[Edwards Kings]

Not fully thought out by me and I do not know if it was mentioned earlier, but if the goal is expanding our options to field a complete and reasonably competitive team in the face of the increase in DL time, how about reducing position eligability to 5 games in the players current season (obviously not for the NFBC until 2014)?

If that was someone elses idea earlier, I apologize.

[JimyMarlboroBallgame]

Look at yesturday: Wandy, Strasburg, Peavy, Beckett, Cueto....and others not included. I'd actually be for expanding rosters by two more players.

[California Aces]

I am in favor of leaving the rosters the way they are. Injuries are part of the game. It challenges your management skills.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Not fully thought out by me and I do not know if it was mentioned earlier, but if the goal is expanding our options to field a complete and reasonably competitive team in the face of the increase in DL time, how about reducing position eligability to 5 games in the players current season (obviously not for the NFBC until 2014)?

If that was someone elses idea earlier, I apologize.

I like this thought and to expand it a little, only 10 games, instead of 20, need played at a position the previous year to qualify for that position.
If we can't fight these injuries through expanding a roster, increasing flexibility in those rosters could be the key and be of help.

Now, how do we help all those with injured pitchers....