Why the Friday DL needs to be dropped

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:05 am

Ryan Freel is out for the year. Posted next to the player by Stats on 9/21/2006 2:41PM. Deadline for DL players was 12:00 that night. The club didn't place him on the DL by the deadline.

This happened more than once this year. I didn't agree with the rule when it came out. But it turned out to be worse than I thought. Please drop this rule for next year.

rmurph3 · Post by **rmurph3** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:10 am

This happens all the time in September. With expanded rosters, there's often no need for teams to DL injured players. As of 11am today, a quick Google search shows several references to Freel being "out for the year", but none say anything about "placed on DL".

I fail to see how there's any relationship between Freel's situation and the Friday DL rule. The situations that the DL rule applies to are stated clearly, and Freel does not meet the criteria. Doesn't mean it's a bad rule, just means it doesn't help Freel owners in this case.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:25 am

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

Ryan Freel is out for the year. Posted next to the player by Stats on 9/21/2006 2:41PM. Deadline for DL players was 12:00 that night. The club didn't place him on the DL by the deadline.

This happened more than once this year. I didn't agree with the rule when it came out. But it turned out to be worse than I thought. Please drop this rule for next year. You are correct John, this is a rule that likely will not help anyone in September. MLB teams do not put players on the DL in September and thus if you started a player this week who went on the DL you will have the same results whether this rule was in place or not: You get his stats all week.

Now, the rule was designed to help owners like you in situations like this and if this were May and the Reds had put Freel on the DL, you would be grateful for this DL rule. Unfortunately, it's September and you get Freel's stats for the rest of the week because his season came to an end mid-week.

I appreciate the post and I look forward to hearing more comments about the DL rule for 2007. As I've stated before, we had about 150 moves per Friday among the 35 leagues we ran this year, so obviously some folks used the rule to their advantage. I plan on incorporating the rule in 2007 again unless there is overwhelming support against it. I look forward to the comments here about the rule.

Sack · Post by **Sack** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:36 am

Greg: I think Walla Walla brings up an excellent point and the subsequent post by RMurphy was also correct in saying that Freel does not fall within the parameters of the Friday DL rule. However, I think Walla's frustration should help open our eyes.

This rule APPEARS to be put in place to enhance the competition of the game/product. It allows us the flexibility on a Friday to remove an injured player and rely on our bench strength to help us succeed. Why then, when everything is on the line in September should we basically remove that option because major league teams don't need the DL list. It DOES have ramifications with our game.

Personally, I think the game ( NFBC format ) would be even MORE of a challenge if you allowed FRIDAY changes all season OR at the very least starting September 1st expand the Friday DL rule to allow owners to change current lineups for the weekend. Sure, this brings into play some strategy questions. Especially in regard to the pitchers - but it ADDS to the game. A Ryan Freel situation/injury takes away from the idea behind the Friday DL rule.

WALLA WALLA - nice job John.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:09 am

Ken, some people say that adding Friday moves adds to the contest. Other people say it would destroy the contest as they don't want to have to make twice weekly moves. Some people say daily moves would add to the contest. Some say it would destroy it.

The Friday DL rule was put into effect to help all owners better manage their teams. Could a special September rule have been put in place to anticipate the fact that teams don't officially place players on the DL? Sure and some owners have suggested a way to make this possible. But it's tough as "out for the season" on one web site is a lot different from an official DL list from Major League Baseball.

All points to improve the contest are good. The DL rule isn't perfect, but it has helped owners better manage their teams this year. Maybe in 2007 we'll add to the rule with a September stipulation.

Sack · Post by **Sack** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:43 am

"All points to improve the contest are good. The DL rule isn't perfect, but it has helped owners better manage their teams this year. Maybe in 2007 we'll add to the rule with a September stipulation."

Agreed. As usual, I know the NFBC braintrust will work to improve the game. I think this is an area of consideration. Thanks Greg.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:53 am

Originally posted by Sack:

"All points to improve the contest are good. The DL rule isn't perfect, but it has helped owners better manage their teams this year. Maybe in 2007 we'll add to the rule with a September stipulation."

Agreed. As usual, I know the NFBC braintrust will work to improve the game. I think this is an area of consideration. Thanks Greg. to build on that sack maybe it's possible to allow 1 friday move ONLY for the last week of september regardless of DL activity. The standings for MANY leagues come down to the last weekend of the season. Unfortunately this weekend resembles week 17 of the football season. Major league teams playing in races mon/tues are clinch or are eliminated and so go the ab's and starts of the players on those teams. Wouldnt it be nice to take out that one guy who helped you for 158 gms who will now ride the pine for 3 days ?? just a thought

Q

The Lollygaggers · Post by **The Lollygaggers** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:56 am

If twice-weekly moves are allowed across the board, the main effect will be people shuffling starting pitchers into and out of the lineup. I personally don't think that adds any strategy to the game, but I wouldn't stand in the way if that's where Greg & others wanted to go.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:56 am

Greg, Would not be better to allow all teams to change thier rosters on Friday? The problem with the DL rule is it doesn't allow a fair playing field. If this is a game of skill than you have to allow all teams to make the same moves. As it stands with the DL rule there's too much luck involved for it to be considered fair across the board. I for one have always been happy with the once a week rule for moves. But if the move is to give more control than do it for all teams. Do away with the DL rule and go with Roster moves twice a week.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:15 am

Originally posted by The Lollygaggers:

If twice-weekly moves are allowed across the board, the main effect will be people shuffling starting pitchers into and out of the lineup. I personally don't think that adds any strategy to the game, but I wouldn't stand in the way if that's where Greg & others wanted to go. true, there would be a lot of carpet bombing starting. Im just looking at something small - the last week of the season. It would be nice to remove that starter who on monday was going to start friday but due to a clinch on thus is done for the year. There's alot of strategy the last week of the season but giving you ONE move would be nice to help counter the unlucky quotient of the dreaded last weekend of the season.

Q

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:32 am

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

Greg, Would not be better to allow all teams to change thier rosters on Friday? The problem with the DL rule is it doesn't allow a fair playing field. If this is a game of skill than you have to allow all teams to make the same moves. As it stands with the DL rule there's too much luck involved for it to be considered fair across the board. I for one have always been happy with the once a week rule for moves. But if the move is to give more control than do it for all teams. Do away with the DL rule and go with Roster moves twice a week.

I don't understand how you say there is too much luck. It is not good luck to have your player injured and out for the week-end,remember this is the player that the owner thought was his best player at that position for that week or he would not have started him at that position. Now if that player gets hurt and gets put on the DL, then he gets a little help. I don't see how this rule gives anyone an advantage, it just helps someone recover some stats that he otherwise would have missed. How does that make the owner without an injured player at a disadvantage?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:13 am

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

Greg, Would not be better to allow all teams to change thier rosters on Friday? The problem with the DL rule is it doesn't allow a fair playing field. If this is a game of skill than you have to allow all teams to make the same moves. As it stands with the DL rule there's too much luck involved for it to be considered fair across the board. I for one have always been happy with the once a week rule for moves. But if the move is to give more control than do it for all teams. Do away with the DL rule and go with Roster moves twice a week.

As Eric just said, it would be a game of streaming in pitchers if we went with twice-a-week moves and not all NFBC owners have the time to devote half a year to twice-a-week moves. The once-per-week lineup change is perfect for some people and taking out an injured player on Friday takes about 30 seconds per week. It is fair across the board.

Where does the luck factor come into play? When your guy gets hurt on Tuesday and you're able to take him out on Friday? That's lucky good? Or is it bad luck when you lose a player on Tuesday and he can't be replaced until the following Monday? I'm missing the luck point in your argument against this rule.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:01 am

The luck factor is if you have a player that is out but doesn't get placed on the DL in time because the Team is slow to place him on it.

Greg, Your saying no one has the time to do twice weekly changes. That was my argument. But than you turn around and say they have time to make the changes for a DL replacement. You can't have it both ways Greg. Stop walking the tight rope.

Either allow to make changes twice a week or get rid of it!!! :rolleyes

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:19 am

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

The luck factor is if you have a player that is out but doesn't get placed on the DL in time because the Team is slow to place him on it.

Greg, Your saying no one has the time to do twice weekly changes. That was my argument. But than you turn around and say they have time to make the changes for a DL replacement. You can't have it both ways Greg. Stop walking the tight rope.

Either allow to make changes twice a week or get rid of it!!! :rolleyes It takes as much time to move one DL'd player out of your active roster to your reserve roster on Friday morning as it does to call up your league standings. That's much different than watching your 23 active players and your seven reserve players during the week and deciding on Friday which players need to be inactive and which players need to be added to your starting lineup.

Glad to have you active again John. We miss your posts in football!

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:43 am

Greg, the "DL" rule should be changed for the entire year.

It should be any player listed on a reputable "AP" type report as being out TWO weeks or more. (no fantasy sites that fabricate info early like some I know)

The game should not be at the mercy of the MLB clubs submitting their moves when they feel like it, or for September, when they don't have to.

I have done it this way for ten years and it's as smooth as mud. Stats would need to give you or Tom the ability to make a player "DL" for your game. That's should be easy.

The "real time" implematation of "DL" status has a very positive effect on business.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:47 am

Let me add to make this more simple...

Have stats do it the way it's done now, but ALSO give you the option to "hand DL" a player when the need arises.

This way, only you or Tom need to check this Thursday night.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:24 am

Originally posted by UFS:

Let me add to make this more simple...

Have stats do it the way it's done now, but ALSO give you the option to "hand DL" a player when the need arises.

This way, only you or Tom need to check this Thursday night. That is possible, but it's important from my perspective to make sure that DL designation is set by midnight on Thursday so that owners know for a fact whether their guys are DL eligible or not on Friday morning. I don't want owners to have to check all day to find out whether they can reserve a player or not, which is where we got in trouble with Derrek Lee this year. The set deadline is important.

This is doable and it's a good suggestion, although I can still hear the screams a coming!

[ September 22, 2006, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:57 am

a mystery solved. It's Greg and Tom in the background.

Q

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:18 am

Who's in the foreground? Walla Walla? UFS? Q?

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:11 pm

Ryan Freel DL. His replacement on my team if the rules worked. David Eckstein 3-4 1HR 1RBI 1R.

So one more time lets review this. The rule was to give more control to the owners and help out those with a injured player. I had no control and no help with the injured player. So the bottom line is the rule does not work. It's a bad rule that is being held onto out of pride not reason.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:50 pm

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

that is being held onto out of pride not reason. Kinda like the tone of your past posts, heh?

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:44 pm

Originally posted by Plymouth:

quote:Originally posted by Walla Walla:

Greg, Would not be better to allow all teams to change thier rosters on Friday? The problem with the DL rule is it doesn't allow a fair playing field. If this is a game of skill than you have to allow all teams to make the same moves. As it stands with the DL rule there's too much luck involved for it to be considered fair across the board. I for one have always been happy with the once a week rule for moves. But if the move is to give more control than do it for all teams. Do away with the DL rule and go with Roster moves twice a week.

I don't understand how you say there is too much luck. It is not good luck to have your player injured and out for the week-end,remember this is the player that the owner thought was his best player at that position for that week or he would not have started him at that position. Now if that player gets hurt and gets put on the DL, then he gets a little help. I don't see how this rule gives anyone an advantage, it just helps someone recover some stats that he otherwise would have missed. How does that make the owner without an injured player at a disadvantage? [/QUOTE]It certainly puts the owner without an injured player at a disadvantage. I had virtually no use for the rule, so the managers who did use it had several half weeks of stats to gain points on me they otherwise would have not.

My vote is against the Friday DL. Take it away.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:30 am

I vote for the Friday DL, it reduces the overall impacts of Injuries on the game

I understand stand why people want a custom 'hand' DL or September call up rule. Frankly, I think this creates too much interpretation and could create many many frustrated owners. Or if you allow september changes you are going to see pitcher streaming which I think also dilutes the managerial choices one must make.

I VOTE: Keep the rule exactly the way it was.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:33 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by Plymouth:

quote:Originally posted by Walla Walla:

Greg, Would not be better to allow all teams to change thier rosters on Friday? The problem with the DL rule is it doesn't allow a fair playing field. If this is a game of skill than you have to allow all teams to make the same moves. As it stands with the DL rule there's too much luck involved for it to be considered fair across the board. I for one have always been happy with the once a week rule for moves. But if the move is to give more control than do it for all teams. Do away with the DL rule and go with Roster moves twice a week.

I don't understand how you say there is too much luck. It is not good luck to have your player injured and out for the week-end,remember this is the player that the owner thought was his best player at that position for that week or he would not have started him at that position. Now if that player gets hurt and gets put on the DL, then he gets a little help. I don't see how this rule gives anyone an advantage, it just helps someone recover some stats that he otherwise would have missed. How does that make the owner without an injured player at a disadvantage? [/QUOTE]It certainly puts the owner without an injured player at a disadvantage. I had virtually no use for the rule, so the managers who did use it had several half weeks of stats to gain points on me they otherwise would have not.

My vote is against the Friday DL. Take it away. [/QUOTE]Your complaining that because you didn't have injuries to your starter and others did, you were at a disadvantage? So, your starters aren't better than their replacements (plus the fact that they probably lost 2-3 days of stats between injurty time and Friday).

THAT IS PRETTY WEAK BJOAK!!! Re-Read what you wrote LOL... Are you sure that is how you want to be known?

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:59 am

UFS, I'm talking about a rule. I have no control over that. Greg does. I know your buddies so attacking me over past posts which have no effect on any teams or rules is not the point.