Looking Ahead To NFBC Cutline In 2017

[Greg Ambrosius]

We were very happy with the response to the first season of the NFBC Cutline Championship, but we know that the rules will need some slight tweaking going forward. It's been a fun game and it should be a great playoff run, but let's get the ideas flowing now so that we're ready for a better Cutline Championship in 2017.

A few areas that I'm looking for feedback from is:

1. Drafts: How many rounds should we have for these Cutline drafts?
a) Keep it at 36 rounds
b) 38 Rounds
c) Fewer than 35 rounds

2. FAAB: Are the two FAAB periods the correct number?
a) Keep it at 2 FAAB periods
b) Just have 1 FAAB period
c) Expand to 3 FAAB periods

3. FAAB: Did we expand too much with 5 additional roster spots in each FAAB period?
a) Keep it at 5 roster expansions per FAAB period
b) Reduce it to 2 roster spot expansions per FAAB period
c) Reduce it to 1 or even 0 roster spot expansions per FAAB period

4. Scoring: Did we do the right thing by trying to replicate 5x5 scoring?
a) Yes, keep the scoring similar for 2017
b) No, change completely to DFS-style scoring

5. Scoring: Do you see potential scoring changes for any of the categories?
a) Should we add to Saves to make closers more valuable?
b) Should Stolen Bases be more valuable? Any other hitting statistics?

6. Playoffs: We haven't experienced them yet, but any input here is welcome.

If I missed anything, let me know. Again, thanks to everyone who gave us input in this format. Despite starting this contest in mid-January we finished with 1,450 teams and a nice payout all around. I think we can expand that number in 2017 and expand the prize pool, but let's get on the same page with the tweaks first. Thanks for any feedback here and good luck to everyone the rest of the way.

[Gekko]

Greg - assuming PA residents can still play next year (and at an attractive prize pool payout %), I can see myself purchasing some of these teams. Maybe a lot of them.

[Rainiers]

Greg,

I think you absolutely nailed it with Cutline. Its a very, very fun game. I'm definitely coming back for more. Its all about drafting and removes the grind of the season... just leaves you the fun of drafting and the fun of watching how your teams are doing.

I wouldn't change much, if anything. You know the old saying, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Lots of complaints at the time of FAAB regarding the amount of time to set up bid strings (including from me). But some of that was self-inflicted on our own part...e.g. my stacks were way too long. Looking back, I almost always got my guy in the top three bids, only once did it go as deep as the seventh. I had bid strings 20-30 players long. Next year I'll never make it longer than ten. And one real big advantage of the FAAB the way it is..it will keep the industry pros from buying in for dozens and dozens of teams! The way it is now, I think your market will be hundreds of people that buy 5-10 teams...although they will go away if they start to see lots and lots of shark-infested waters.

There are always a few tweaks that could add value, but the bones of this game are wonderful. For example, I think the work that KJ... and Todd Zola...and the rest... did in coming up with the formula is perfect. Other than getting an accurate overall-live-scoring going your software work is basically done.

As for your specific questions:
1. Drafts: How many rounds should we have for these Cutline drafts?
a) Keep it at 36 rounds (or no more than 38).

2. FAAB: Are the two FAAB periods the correct number?
a) Keep it at 2 FAAB periods. I think they were perfectly spaced during the season.

3. FAAB: Did we expand too much with 5 additional roster spots in each FAAB period?
a) Keep it at 5 roster expansions per FAAB period.
No one has yet experienced going more than 8 weeks, but 41 players for that time period seemed about right. But now we are going to be playing for up to 15 weeks, so again, I think 46 will be about right, but won't really know until the end of the season.

4. Scoring: Did we do the right thing by trying to replicate 5x5 scoring?
Absolutely.

5. a) Should we add to Saves to make closers more valuable?
Right now 20 of the top 90 point-scoring pitchers are closers. Seems about right to me.
b) Should Stolen Bases be more valuable? Any other hitting statistics? The formulas seem perfect to me.

Keep up the good work. And thanks for bringing us such a great game!

[Rog]

My only complaint and it is very small (more of maybe a personal feeling) is the dl players in the lineup scoring better than a player all week.I ,like many other players carry 2 extra non playing catchers.
In week 10 getting a 0 from kyle skipworth was much better than having to get gattis with a -19.
I know you want it close to roto as possible but I do beleive we need the 2 runs and 3 rbis every week to go along with the 200 batting average out of the catcher spot.
Just my opinion and not a deal breaker . I am for minus points in the game .

[CALI CARTEL]

1. Drafts: How many rounds should we have for these Cutline drafts?
-The roster sizes were fine, basically makes the draft exactly the same as a 12-team draft.

2. FAAB: Are the two FAAB periods the correct number?
-I think two is the sweet spot

3. FAAB: Did we expand too much with 5 additional roster spots in each FAAB period?
-This could probably use a slight tweak, maybe go down to 2-3 per periods, the lists were just insane having 5 open drops on top of anyone who actually needed to be cut.

4. Scoring: Did we do the right thing by trying to replicate 5x5 scoring?
-Love the scoring, except...

5. Scoring: Do you see potential scoring changes for any of the categories?
-I know someone pointed out the Closers were 20 of the top 90 scorers, but on a week-to-week basis, they get destroyed by Two-Start pitchers -- even a good one start can beat out a three save week in some cases. I think increasing the Saves to 8 points is the right move. I don't see the need to adjust stolen bases, I think stolen bases are overrated in Roto because they are their own category, this puts them were they should be in relation to HR, they still have value, but maybe not quite as much as pure Roto.

[KJ Duke]

1. Drafts: How many rounds should we have for these Cutline drafts?
-The roster sizes were fine, basically makes the draft exactly the same as a 12-team draft.

2. FAAB: Are the two FAAB periods the correct number?
-I think two is the sweet spot

3. FAAB: Did we expand too much with 5 additional roster spots in each FAAB period?
-This could probably use a slight tweak, maybe go down to 2-3 per periods, the lists were just insane having 5 open drops on top of anyone who actually needed to be cut.

4. Scoring: Did we do the right thing by trying to replicate 5x5 scoring?
-Love the scoring, except...

5. Scoring: Do you see potential scoring changes for any of the categories?
-I know someone pointed out the Closers were 20 of the top 90 scorers, but on a week-to-week basis, they get destroyed by Two-Start pitchers -- even a good one start can beat out a three save week in some cases. I think increasing the Saves to 8 points is the right move. I don't see the need to adjust stolen bases, I think stolen bases are overrated in Roto because they are their own category, this puts them were they should be in relation to HR, they still have value, but maybe not quite as much as pure Roto.

Spot-on!

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Lose the ill fated attempt at roto scoring and I will play a whole bunch. Great concept, awful setup as proven this year by closers being irrelevant.

[Deadheadz]

Lose the ill fated attempt at roto scoring and I will play a whole bunch. Great concept, awful setup as proven this year by closers being irrelevant.

5. a) Should we add to Saves to make closers more valuable?
Right now 20 of the top 90 point-scoring pitchers are closers. Seems about right to me.

Closers irrelevant?

[Rainiers]

I don't see the need to adjust stolen bases, I think stolen bases are overrated in Roto because they are their own category, this puts them were they should be in relation to HR, they still have value, but maybe not quite as much as pure Roto.

I couldn't agree more.

-I know someone pointed out the Closers were 20 of the top 90 scorers, but on a week-to-week basis, they get destroyed by Two-Start pitchers -- even a good one start can beat out a three save week in some cases. I think increasing the Saves to 8 is the right move.

I get your point, but I think "destroyed" is too strong a word here. The effect of Two-Start pitchers is being measured in the weekly leader boards. If you look at the weekly leader board, you'll see closers still populate about 15 of the top 90 pitching slots. That is the same ratio as typical MLB pitching staff...1 closer to every 5 starting pitchers.

"I don't see the need to adjust saves, I think saves are overrated in Roto because they are their own category, this puts them were they should be in relation to Wins, they still have value, but maybe not quite as much as pure Roto." That's me quoting you but replacing 'stolen base' with saves. I think the same philosophy applies to saves.

3. FAAB: Did we expand too much with 5 additional roster spots in each FAAB period?
-This could probably use a slight tweak, maybe go down to 2-3 per periods, the lists were just insane having 5 open drops on top of anyone who actually needed to be cut.

This isn't a slight tweak, it's a huge one because it implies that the bench may be cut more than 25%, from 23 down to 17. I get get why you want to shrink the number of FAAB-expansion slots, but be aware of the collateral damage to the roster size. I don't think anyone knows yet what the optimal overall roster size is yet, but I strongly suggest we wait to ask the 400 or so teams still playing in the second half of August how big a bench they need before shrinking it now down to 17. Once we figure out the optimal final roster size, then figure out how to get there. If you want to shrink the number of open drops in FAAB, it may mean expanding the initial draft.

[CALI CARTEL]

-I know someone pointed out the Closers were 20 of the top 90 scorers, but on a week-to-week basis, they get destroyed by Two-Start pitchers -- even a good one start can beat out a three save week in some cases. I think increasing the Saves to 8 is the right move.

I get your point, but I think "destroyed" is too strong a word here. The effect of Two-Start pitchers is being measured in the weekly leader boards. If you look at the weekly leader board, you'll see closers still populate about 15 of the top 90 pitching slots. That is the same ratio as typical MLB pitching staff...1 closer to every 5 starting pitchers.

"I don't see the need to adjust saves, I think saves are overrated in Roto because they are their own category, this puts them were they should be in relation to Wins, they still have value, but maybe not quite as much as pure Roto." That's me quoting you but replacing 'stolen base' with saves. I think the same philosophy applies to saves.

Saves are overrated in Roto too. But, the problem with looking at the overall rankings to assess the value of the Closers is that this league is played on a Week-to-Week best ball basis, not a Season Long Total Scoring method. If you looked at the Top 90 scores each week, I guarantee there's way less than 15 Closers on average in the Top 90, probably closer to about 10 Closers per week, which is not a good enough representation of their worth -- and that's how many teams drafted them (correctly) this year. I mean in my draft there were decent Closers available into the 20+ rounds, where as they were gone once you got to the double digit rounds in the 12-team formats.

3. FAAB: Did we expand too much with 5 additional roster spots in each FAAB period?
-This could probably use a slight tweak, maybe go down to 2-3 per periods, the lists were just insane having 5 open drops on top of anyone who actually needed to be cut.

This isn't a slight tweak, it's a huge one because it implies that the bench may be cut more than 25%, from 23 down to 17. I get get why you want to shrink the number of FAAB-expansion slots, but be aware of the collateral damage to the roster size. I don't think anyone knows yet what the optimal overall roster size is yet, but I strongly suggest we wait to ask the 400 or so teams still playing in the second half of August how big a bench they need before shrinking it now down to 17. Once we figure out the optimal final roster size, then figure out how to get there. If you want to shrink the number of open drops in FAAB, it may mean expanding the initial draft.

I don't know what the optimal roster size is either, but I'm not saying it must be changed, it's just my opinion that the teams would still be fine with a few less roster slots (maybe 40-42 total). Or maybe we go to 38 rounds in the draft and stick to 3 adds per waiver run for 44 total. I don't know, and neither did Greg when they set this up, there was tons of discussion and that was just kind of what was settled on -- I'm not saying it's right, wrong or somewhere in between, just think that the adding of 5 open drops was too much.

[Rainiers]

Cali,

Admittedly, I've only looked at the last four weeks' of pitcher's weekly data for Cutline. Strictly speaking, when you count closers in the top 90, you will see 16, 13, 9, and 13 closers in the top 90 for weeks 12,11,10, and 9 respectively. But I've been throwing out middle relievers that pop up in the top 90 on a weekly basis, even though they randomly pop up, because nobody owns them. If you look solely at Closers and Starting Pitchers, you will see 16, 16, 13 and 17 closers in the top 90 for those weeks. The data is easy to look at yourself if you don't believe me, just go to Players Stats from one of your Cutline Teams and sort by week and points.

Look, its not that big of a deal to add a point or two to saves in order to make the Cutline Draft feel more like other NFBC drafts. But if we are trying to do that, i.e. carry the bias of Roto Saves over to Cutline, let's be transparent that that is what we are trying to do. And if we do that, we might as well be consistent and add a point or to Stolen Bases so as to carry over the Roto bias for speedsters as well.

[KJ Duke]

I don't think the SBs are out of whack, what makes you think they are?

[Rainiers]

I don't think the SBs are out of whack, what makes you think they are?

You and Cali. Cali said it and you thought he was spot on...

I actually don't think we have a problem with Saves or SBs...but if we suspect bias on Saves and want to change the formulas because of it, then when we suspect bias on SBs we should change that too.

[KJ Duke]

I don't think the SBs are out of whack, what makes you think they are?

You and Cali. Cali said it and you thought he was spot on...

Sorry I missed that implication.

I don't see the need to adjust stolen bases

... this was the spot-on part of what he said for SBs.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Lose the ill fated attempt at roto scoring and I will play a whole bunch. Great concept, awful setup as proven this year by closers being irrelevant.

5. a) Should we add to Saves to make closers more valuable?
Right now 20 of the top 90 point-scoring pitchers are closers. Seems about right to me.

Closers irrelevant?

Yes surely you can understand this very basic concept.

[BK METS]

I like scoring the way it is. No need for change in my opinion. This is what makes this contest unique and yet still in line with our mindset of roto scoring. I think expanding the rosters each FAAB period by 5 spots was too much. There were teams that I was trying to add 12-15 new players. I am sure many feel the same way. It was brutal. I would say adding 2 players to the roster size with each FAAB would be the number.

[Joe Sambito]

What about adding 5, put no cuts allowed. So the most you can add in any one period is 5 guys. It will also make the free agent pool more manageable, in that there won't be the need to scan the cuts each time for other people's trash that turns into your gold.

[EA Sports]

We were very happy with the response to the first season of the NFBC Cutline Championship, but we know that the rules will need some slight tweaking going forward. It's been a fun game and it should be a great playoff run, but let's get the ideas flowing now so that we're ready for a better Cutline Championship in 2017.

A few areas that I'm looking for feedback from is:

1. Drafts: How many rounds should we have for these Cutline drafts?
a) Keep it at 36 rounds
b) 38 Rounds
c) Fewer than 35 rounds

2. FAAB: Are the two FAAB periods the correct number?
a) Keep it at 2 FAAB periods
b) Just have 1 FAAB period
c) Expand to 3 FAAB periods

3. FAAB: Did we expand too much with 5 additional roster spots in each FAAB period?
a) Keep it at 5 roster expansions per FAAB period
b) Reduce it to 2 roster spot expansions per FAAB period
c) Reduce it to 1 or even 0 roster spot expansions per FAAB period

4. Scoring: Did we do the right thing by trying to replicate 5x5 scoring?
a) Yes, keep the scoring similar for 2017
b) No, change completely to DFS-style scoring

5. Scoring: Do you see potential scoring changes for any of the categories?
a) Should we add to Saves to make closers more valuable?
b) Should Stolen Bases be more valuable? Any other hitting statistics?

1. D. 40 rounds
2. A. keep at 2
3. D. 4 pickups for the 1st FAAB and reduce to 2 pickups for the 2nd FAAB.
4. A. same
5. A. Add 1-2 more points for saves

[meanguy]

I may be in the minority, but for the record, I think the payout structure should be changed. I would prefer less as a grand prize and more for top 2 in each league. I think the fact that you can have a great year, finish 2nd and still get nothing will prevent a lot of prospective new owners from joining leagues. A grand prize of $20000 - $25000 still sounds very fair.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

This is not a knock on Todd. He was trying to do what he thought was best. In my opinion, trying to replicate roto in a point scoring league just doesn't work. The obvious reasons are saves and steals. The value of these items varies drastically from league to league. No matter how much the number guy wants to try to figure out a value, it is impossible. That is what makes a roto league a roto league. The value of a steal is drastically different from one league to another, depending on how the guys that are doing the running were allocated during the draft. Walks are not an item that is productive in roto baseball. I think it is a mistake in the way the rules were written in the first place. I do think that a walk is more productive than doing nothing. A leadoff walk is just as valuable as a lead off single. Points baseball has always counted them, as they should. It is a productive thing. The only points scoring system that hasn't included them is this one. It is a mistake to rely on numbers guys trying to claim they are replicating roto when it simply cannot be done. Come up with a scoring system that makes sense for points baseball. After all, this is a points baseball game. There is no need to go rogue with it. Just do something like all others that have created points baseball before have done. They have it right. Ask yourself if a walk is a productive baseball item? Obviously it is. It should be rewarded in points baseball. And you obviously need to go to categorical pitching like other full season points leagues have. You need to declare who is a starter and who is a reliever. Then the drafts will take a shape like fantasy baseball is designed. Have at least two of the 9 spots allocated to reliever points, or something along those lines. Then saves will be a big deal. The concept itself is outstanding. The rules used, not so much. The game could be epic with some simple changes.

[FrozenTundra]

I think you did an excellent job for the initial set up and would change very little, if anything. I'm enjoying Cutline a great deal (it doesn't hurt that I'm leading both of my leagues) and expect to play more next year. Not having to struggle with lineup decisions every week is a huge plus, as is not having to suffer when your SP gets crushed.

Either 36 or 38 is fine.
Two FAAB periods is perfect and I would keep them at the same time.
As others have said, we learned a lot by going through the first two FAAB periods. Allowing 3-5 roster expansions is my recommendation. It is imperative, IMO, that unlimited roster replacements be allowed.
Please do NOT change the 5x5 scoring.
I would not change the categories. I don't have a strong opinion on the saves/SB discussion, though I will say that I've been somewhat surprised to see how often my few closers have made it on to my "weekly rosters."
I'm really looking forward to see how the playoffs work.

[Deadheadz]

.

Maybe I'm like several others reading this thread with interest.
I did not play Cutline this season because I wanted to see if it was a game that would last only a year or if it would come back and be something to look forward to every year.

If the rules change too drastically, ie the points scoring system, I will wait another season to see how it goes. If it's the same or tweaked only a little then I will likely take the plunge into one or more 2017 Cutline leagues.

Yes, saves and steals have varying values depending on the individual league and draft but that's the same for every Main Event, Online Championship and Draft Champions league too isn't it?

You can hold off on picking closers or speed guys in your given draft when you see no one else has taken those types of players but you then hurt your chances in the overall contest for each flavor of league.

I'll vote for attempting to keep the game unique by using custom 'roto-style' points scoring.

As a fan of the DC, I'd be fine seeing 50 players on a roster by the time playoffs begin but I do realize one selling point of the Cutline is a quick draft so I'm fine with the current roster size on draft day.

Would FAAB periods be too much work if trying to fill more than 5 additional roster slots? Perhaps.
Don't limit the number of players to be picked up though. Wouldn't be fair to anyone with 10+ players injured to say they can only fill the new slots rather than drop players for replacements.


.

[Ando]

Go. Away.

[Rainiers]

I...though I will say that I've been somewhat surprised to see how often my few closers have made it on to my "weekly rosters."

My guess is you are not alone....

Week 12 Point Rankings, Pitchers page 1, top 50.
Relievers emboldened
Closers italicized

Fernandez, Jose (MIA) 56
Sale, Chris (CHW) 55
DeSclafani, Anthony (CIN) 53
Locke, Jeff (PIT) 47
Norris, Bud (LAD) 40
Roark, Tanner (WAS) 40
Robertson, David (CHW) 39
Bauer, Trevor (CLE) 37
Bumgarner, Madison (SF) 37
Familia, Jeurys (NYM) 37
Kennedy, Ian (KC) 37
Kluber, Corey (CLE) 37
Carrasco, Carlos (CLE) 35
Gausman, Kevin (BAL) 34
Hellickson, Jeremy (PHI) 34
Tomlin, Josh (CLE) 33
Chapman, Aroldis (NYY) 32
Fister, Doug (HOU) 32
Ryan, Kyle (DET) 32
De La Rosa, Jorge (COL) 31
Robles, Hansel (NYM) 31
Kershaw, Clayton (LAD) 30
Conley, Adam (MIA) 29
Pomeranz, Drew (SD) 29
Rodney, Fernando (MIA) 28
Vizcaino, Arodys (ATL) 28
Wright, Steven (BOS) 28
Ziegler, Brad (ARI) 28
Casilla, Santiago (SF) 27
Melancon, Mark (PIT) 27
Teheran, Julio (ATL) 26
Duke, Zach (CHW) 25
Gray, Sonny (OAK) 25
Guerra, Junior (MIL) 25
Duffey, Tyler (MIN) 24
Madson, Ryan (OAK). 24
Bundy, Dylan (BAL) 23
Cueto, Johnny (SF) 23
Hamels, Cole (TEX) 23
Montgomery, Mike (SEA) 23
Britton, Zach (BAL) 22
Wacha, Michael (STL) 22
deGrom, Jacob (NYM) 22
Garcia, Jaime (STL) 21
Osuna, Roberto (TOR) 21
Pineda, Michael (NYY) 21
Eickhoff, Jerad (PHI) 20
Gregerson, Luke (HOU) 20
Jansen, Kenley (LAD) 20
Miller, Andrew (NYY) 20

[Deadheadz]

Go. Away.

You're a model of tolerance and class, sir.

.