NFBC Message Boards

Since the NFBC now has a points based system in place (and people seem to love it - partly because it is a lot easier to figure out when it comes to the percentage categories like B.Avg., ERA, and WHIP), the following idea came to mind.

What if the Rotowire OC was turned into a points based game like the Cutline but with a few differences / similarities from the Cutline.

The differences / similarities would be the following:

1. There would be FAAB every week (or every other week to cut down on time being spent on FAAB) all season long

2. Submitting starting lineups would be eliminated because it would now be an optimal lineup that the computer would pick (no more complaints about not being able to substitute pitchers on Friday, injuries, weather, unanticipated changes, etc.)

3. The season would be all season long (like the current Rotowire OC)

This type of format would allow for more FAAB than the Cutline (attracting those players who enjoy more FAAB).

There would be no playoffs like there currently is in the Cutline. Thereby, no team would ever be officially eliminated during the season and always have a chance at making a comeback.

Any thoughts about something like this?

.

It's not the worst idea.

With no playoffs you'd probably still see managers with poor teams lose interest and tank the second half but with the optimal scoring it would keep the 60-day DL and demoted minor league players from clogging up their active rosters the way it does now.

Active managers might have a harder time beating the whole league every week rather than beating just the managers who haven't given up. The main advantage to active owners is that they'd have less competion for acquiring replacement players each FAAB period, so they should still have the potential to climb in the standings.

Maybe this is a good option for managers who like FAAB every week or two. For those who don't there's the Cutline. Perhaps another new optimal scoring points game could be a DC with 50 or more players per team an NO FAAB at all during the season.

The only thing about too many different games is fragmenting the customer base and not having enough participation in each game to sustain an overall prize that's attractive to new managers.

.

Part of the reason I suggested something like this is because, if there is a choice between a contest that requires submitting a starting lineup each week vs one where there is no such requirement, I will probably choose the contest where I do not have to submit one.

That means I will be entering more Cutline teams and cutting back on (or maybe eliminating completely) my participation in the Rotowire O.C. contest.

I may be wrong about this, but I think a lot of others will be doing the same thing.

However, if the Rotowire O.C. contest also does not require submitting starting lineups, then my decisions will be based on other factors.

In my opinion, the Cutline contest is going to explode in popularity next year (causing a big increase in the prizes) and it will require Greg and Tom to get very creative to keep it from cannibalizing some of the other contests.

TRAIN wrote:Part of the reason I suggested something like this is because, if there is a choice between a contest that requires submitting a starting lineup each week vs one where there is no such requirement, I will probably choose the contest where I do not have to submit one.

That means I will be entering more Cutline teams and cutting back on (or maybe eliminating completely) my participation in the Rotowire O.C. contest.

I may be wrong about this, but I think a lot of others will be doing the same thing.

However, if the Rotowire O.C. contest also does not require submitting starting lineups, then my decisions will be based on other factors.

In my opinion, the Cutline contest is going to explode in popularity next year (causing a big increase in the prizes) and it will require Greg and Tom to get very creative to keep it from cannibalizing some of the other contests.

I appreciate your thoughts here and I'm happy to hear that you and others are enjoying this points style optimal scoring format. We felt there was a need for an optimal scoring format in baseball and the only way to do that is with a points style scoring system. I think for Year One, it's been a huge success.

That being said, honestly I'm not worried about our contests with in-season FAAB being jeopardized by our optimal scoring format. I don't think we need to lower our prizes in the Main Event or Online Championship because we now have an optimal scoring league. I think the vast majority of our participants still love the challenge of winning the draft AND winning the in-season pickups. Not everyone is resigned to drafting and not having any in-season involvement with their teams.

It's a challenge to set the right starting lineup each week. It's a challenge to win the FAAB battles. And it's a challenge to do both when you're running multiple teams. But that's the challenge many of our NFBC die-hards sign up for. They can complain about FAAB and the effort it takes each Sunday night, but deep down they love the challenge of winning these battles.

The optimal scoring leagues are great add-ons for those who do want more teams but not more work on Sundays. They also are great for folks who hate to set Starting Lineups each week. And as we found out this year, they are great for quick, easy drafts every night. We love the format too, but in no way do we think this will jeopardize our leagues with in-season moves. That's what most of us play for.

The increases in the Cutline will be modest for next year and if we exceed those we'll plan accordingly for the next year. I hope this concept continues to grow, but there's no doubt in our mind that our other contests will continue to grow as well because the real challenge can be found there.

The Rotowire O.C. hybrid was just a suggestion, Greg.

I might have come across too strong in my belief about the attractiveness of not having to submit a starting lineup each week and how it might affect other contests. I don't blame you for being defensive. I probably shouldn't have said that and I apologize.

I do disagree that submitting a starting lineup each week is a testament to one's ability as a fantasy baseball player. As I've stated in other posts, there is too much luck involved in trying to play God for the next 4 to 7 days when submitting a starting lineup.

I believe the only real control that one has is, who you choose to draft, and who you choose to go after in FAAB. To put it another way - TALENT EVALUATION. That is what one should be judged on.

I do hope that you and Tom will at least be open to the idea of more optimal scoring contests in the future. I think they are winners.

TRAIN wrote: I do disagree that submitting a starting lineup each week is a testament to one's ability as a fantasy baseball player. As I've stated in other posts, there is too much luck involved in trying to play God for the next 4 to 7 days when submitting a starting lineup.

I believe the only real control that one has is, who you chose to draft, and who you chose to go after in FAAB. To put it another way - TALENT EVALUATION. That is what one should be judged on.

Just wanted to respectfully express my disagreement with the above response.

At the outset, I'll say that I hope the Cutline continues to be a big success and brings in lots of new players to the NFBC. If the demand is there to justify more optimal scoring contests or leagues, so be it. But, speaking only for myself, the format is not attractive to me. I much prefer the challenge of not only drafting my team, but actively managing it throughout the season. While I do place limits on the number of FAAB leagues I will join - there only are so many hours in the day, especially on the weekend, and too many leagues can impact performance, at least for me - I get the rest of my "fix" playing DC leagues. I enjoy doing a long draft over a number of days (but not weeks), preferably with an entertaining chat room. I've "met" a bunch of great folks in the chat rooms of various drafts.

Most importantly, I do think there is a lot of skill in setting lineups and disagree that the only way to evaluate talent is through drafting and FAAB. Setting lineups involves decisions, just like who to draft and who to go after in FAAB. Is a pitcher or hitter hot or cold? Are you benching your platoon left-handed hitter against the White Sox because they are throwing a bunch of lefties? Do you start the mediocre two-start pitcher over a better one-start pitcher? If you have three closers, do you start them all or go with seven starters and two closers? At what point in the season do you admit defeat in a category and punt it or shade away from it in the hopes of gaining more points in other categories? Do you start an iffy starting pitcher over a strong set-up guy? Do you go with an average position player with four games from Monday through Thursday over a better hitter with only three or perhaps two games during that interval? These are all lineup decisions that require analysis. Yes, sometimes the results are not what you want and that is frustrating. But, you are controlling the team. You are the one deciding - for better or worse - who is starting and who is sitting.

You state that there is too much luck in deciding who to start and who to bench. BUT, one could argue that the optimal scoring approach relies on even more luck. How many times has the scrub bench player gotten a spot start and hit two home runs? Is that skill that you drafted him in the last round? There is no way you would have started that player, irrespective of whether the period was four days, one week, one month, or the entire season. Yet, because of optimal scoring, you might get that player's stats for the week. Alternatively, maybe you got the points for a backup catcher during one or more weeks, not because the backup catcher you drafted did anything of note but, rather, the two or three catchers that you drafted earlier stunk so bad that they produced more negative points than the scrub who only got one start for the week (or who was on the DL). I could go on and on.

Also, I would argue that there is some luck involved in drafting players. I can't tell you how many times I planned to draft a player only to have someone else beat me to him by one or two picks. If that player does crappy or is hurt all year, I definitely consider myself lucky because I know that, had I been able to, I would have picked him. In one of my early DC drafts I did this year, no one seemed to want Michael Brantley. With health, he's a clear Round 3/4/5 type player. He was expected to miss the first month of the season. I think he went around Round 8 or so in most DC drafts. In this draft, I finally jumped on him in Round 13. I felt lucky then; I feel unlucky now (although I feel lucky that others got to him before me in the big-money drafts). Face it, there is an element of luck in all fantasy baseball contests.

Thus, while I think the initial draft and FAAB often have a bigger impact on final outcomes than lineup setting, I disagree that setting lineups is all luck, and also disagree that an optimal scoring system somehow eliminates such luck. If anything, I think there is more luck involved with optimal scoring because you are getting points for players that you likely would have benched if given the choice.

Just my two cents. I hope both formats continue to grow and prosper. To each his own, etc.

Mike

Good post, Mike. Sometimes the best draft picks are the ones you never get a chance to make. You can leave drafts complaining that one of your opponents sniped you on the player you really wanted, but then the season plays out and it turns out he actually caught a bullet for you instead.

Thus, while I think the initial draft and FAAB often have a bigger impact on final outcomes than lineup setting, I disagree that setting lineups is all luck, and also disagree that an optimal scoring system somehow eliminates such luck. If anything, I think there is more luck involved with optimal scoring because you are getting points for players that you likely would have benched if given the choice.
Mike

Hey, Mike. Never met you personally, but have always enjoyed your posts.

Never said setting lineups was "all luck" or that optimal scoring was "no luck". It is more about what you actually have control over and being evaluated on that.

Too many times uncontrolable factors come into play during a 4 to 7 day period.

You can do all of the research in the world about a player's history for home vs away, grass vs turf, day games vs night games, player vs a particular team, etc., etc. and it doesn't mean a thing because sometimes the luck factor intervenes.

Luck Factors: Weather, illness, paternity leave, injury, bereavement leave, banned substance violation suspensions, manager changes his mind about starters, criminal behavior suspension, etc., etc..

In optimal scoring most, if not all, of these factors are removed and you are left with the players that you drafted or picked up in FAAB.

While there is some luck involved in drafting and FAAB, you still control who to choose amongst players that are available, or who you had evaluated as good target and contingent players in FAAB.

It just seems to me that optimal scoring reduces the luck involved.

Agree to each his own.

Thanks, _______. (Sorry, I don't know your name; I wish we had an NFBC phone book or something that allowed us to put real names with Forum names. There are a lot of folks that contribute regularly to these Boards that I have no idea who they are until I play with them in a league and they use the same name for their team.)

I understand your point. While all outcomes can be impacted by luck, I feel that by setting a lineup, you are making strategic decisions that will influence the outcome. Thus, while both formats recognize the importance of drafting, setting lineups adds an additional level of skill, or strategy, or control (whatever you want to call it), while optimal scoring does not have that feature. I agree that luck can impact the outcomes of both formats; I guess I just like the more active approach as opposed to the more passive one. On this one, reasonable minds can differ, and it is great that the NFBC now offers both formats. Take care.

Mike

To clarify my thumbs up ... I'd definitely like to see another optimal scoring contest in the future with an otherwise more traditional setup as TRAIN suggested, but I don't think it should supplant the existing OC contest.

I'd rather see this concept as a standalone league option to see how they play out (assuming IT can migrate the optimal scoring without too much work), then if demand builds for a few years maybe down the road it could lead to another overall contest.