Is It Time To Discuss IP Minimums Going Forward?

[Greg Ambrosius]

When I look at rules changes for the NFBC in 2020, the one that should be discussed first is the Minimum Innings Pitched limit that we now have. We have changed this many times during the years and the current levels need attention now again.

In most contests the Innings Pitched minimum is 1,000, but in the Platinum and Diamond Leagues it's 1,200 IP. That may be a bit much when you consider that right now ONLY 5 PITCHERS have thrown 200 or more innings. Yes, more will finish above that level when the season concludes, but it is very tough these days to find pitchers who throw enough innings to reach these levels.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but it's definitely something to look at for 2020 and beyond. Anyone have an answer?

900 and 1,100?
900 and 1,000?
800 and 1,000?

I'm open for ideas with this one. Any other rules changes to consider before we lock down the site for 2020? I'm listening.....or better, reading.

[KJ Duke]

Perhaps consider changing the W category to W+QS ?

This dilutes the worst "luck" category in baseball by 50% while preserving some value for reliever and bulk pitcher wins.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Perhaps consider changing the W category to W+QS ?

This dilutes the worst "luck" category in baseball by 50% while preserving some value for reliever and bulk pitcher wins.

1,000 innings is still very obtainable. The higher priced leagues look like they may need a lowering of IP standards.

A few years ago, I would have shuddered at KJ's thought.
Now, I think it is very viable.
It more honors the starting pitcher who does his job, but is ruined by his team around him.
(This would be an excellent change for Mets pitchers! )
I also like it in that it would add an excitement to our game.

One question...
Justin Verlander throws a shutout. Houston wins 1-0.
Verlander gets credited for both a W and QS. Would he be credited with 2 W's in this scenario or one?
Credit for both would be a boost to the mundane and often lucky 'W' category.

[KJ Duke]

A few years ago, I would have shuddered at KJ's thought.
Now, I think it is very viable.

Me too Dan!

Wins have become football's kicker of fantasy baseball.

One question...
Justin Verlander throws a shutout. Houston wins 1-0.
Verlander gets credited for both a W and QS. Would he be credited with 2 W's in this scenario or one?
Credit for both would be a boost to the mundane and often lucky 'W' category.

Yes a QS with a Win would count double, and worth it given the increasing rarity.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Good deal. We're on the same page.

[Edwards Kings]

I am ok with lowering IP. Seven complete innings is a bit of a miracle now.

Wins or QS, but W+QS? Not sure I understand the logic behind the cumulative nature of using both.

[ToddZ]

Replace wins with innings pitched and remove the IP minimum.

[red mule]

No need to change anything. 1000 innings is easily attainable. and quality starts reward a 4.50 era.

[ToddZ]

quality starts reward a 4.50 era.

The aggregate ERA of every win is 2.02.

The aggregate ERA of every quality start is 1.88.

Wins reward worse than a 4.50 ERA.

[DOUGHBOYS]

No need to change anything. 1000 innings is easily attainable. and quality starts reward a 4.50 era.

Wins reward relievers who blow Saves giving up three runs in an inning.
Wins reward the Starter who gives up five runs in five innings, only to be lucky enough to have a good offense behind him.
Like it or not, with Starting Pitching going from nine to eight to seven to six, to now averaging over five innings a start, the category will have to change sooner or less sooner.
Wins are going to relievers more than starters.
That trend will continue with the proliferation of 'Openers'.

With Wins + Quality Starts, the Starter is brought back as a mainstay in our game.
A Quality Start will be rewarded and if also lucky enough to win the game, a Starter will be doubly rewarded.
A Verlander start of 8 IP, 1 ER with a Win should be worth more than a Wacha 5 IP, 5 ER with a win.
The category itself has lost interest. It needs pizzazz.
We don't draft for Wins. We hope for Wins.
When making lineups, we don't expect Wins. We hope for Wins.
We would expect our Aces to garner a Quality Start.
The addition of the Quality Start adds life to the category.
The Wins will still fall to relievers most times, but at least our Starters and Aces could go back to delivering for us in this category.

It is certainly worth consideration.

[Gb2715]

No need to change anything. 1000 innings is easily attainable. and quality starts reward a 4.50 era.

Wins reward relievers who blow Saves giving up three runs in an inning.
Wins reward the Starter who gives up five runs in five innings, only to be lucky enough to have a good offense behind him.
Like it or not, with Starting Pitching going from nine to eight to seven to six, to now averaging over five innings a start, the category will have to change sooner or less sooner.
Wins are going to relievers more than starters.
That trend will continue with the proliferation of 'Openers'.

With Wins + Quality Starts, the Starter is brought back as a mainstay in our game.
A Quality Start will be rewarded and if also lucky enough to win the game, a Starter will be doubly rewarded.
A Verlander start of 8 IP, 1 ER with a Win should be worth more than a Wacha 5 IP, 5 ER with a win.
The category itself has lost interest. It needs pizzazz.
We don't draft for Wins. We hope for Wins.
When making lineups, we don't expect Wins. We hope for Wins.
We would expect our Aces to garner a Quality Start.
The addition of the Quality Start adds life to the category.
The Wins will still fall to relievers most times, but at least our Starters and Aces could go back to delivering for us in this category.

It is certainly worth consideration.

That and the 7 IP 1 ER gem won’t be a lost stat to the crap bullpens we have now!

[Philippe27]

The problem with QS is that they're boring. Wins force you to watch the entire game and I think more fun to hope / cheer for than QS but they are more random and harder to predict. W + QS seems like a compromise between the two though.

I don't think we're at a point yet where it has to be changed though.

I think stolen bases are more of an issue than wins personally. I think we'll see it in drafts next year, the value they have in fantasy baseball is ridiculously disproportionate to their actual value. Villar and Mondesi could get drafted before Alvarez next year and it just sounds wrong but I can't think of another stat to replace it that would make the game more fun.

[DOUGHBOYS]

The problem with QS is that they're boring.

You say that. But if your starter has runners on first and second with 5 2/3, 3 ER as his stat line, you'll be plenty interested.
Will he get pulled? Will walking another batter get him pulled? Will he get out of it?
You'll also hang around to see if he gets the win.
There is a lot to like about it.

Edit-
There will also be the angst of the seventh ining.
Your Starter has a Quality Start in the bank.
Does the Manager bring him out for the seventh ininng?
Do you want the Manager to bring him out for the seventh inning?
By itself, the QS may seem boring, but in practice, it brings a lot of intrigue to the fantasy game.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Just a little Stuff to go along with Wins and Quality Starts....

10 Wins is considered mediocre over the course of a season for a starting pitcher.

16 teams, or over half the teams in baseball, can only boast of two 10-game Winners.

6 teams have only one 10- game winner.

5 teams have ZERO ten-game winners.

The Toronto Blue Jays do not boast a pitcher with even seven Wins.

Minnesota has the only rotation in baseball with five Starters garnering 10 Wins.

Jack Flaherty and Miles Mikolas threw over 300 more innings than John Gant.
Wins?...Gant 11, Flaherty 10, Mikolas 9

Matt Boyd won nine games for the Detroit Tigers.
Believe it or not, no other Starter for the Tigers has won more than three games.

The Houston Astros can boast of now rostering four Strarters (Verlander, Cole, Greinke, Miley) who have had 87 Quality Starts this year.
No other team in baseball, even if using ALL Starts, comes very close.

Quality Starts do not always go to the best of teams.
The Kansas City Royals have 59 Quality Starts. The Yankees, 53.

The Royal and Marlins had more Quality Starts than their teams had Wins.

Madison Bumgarner has 20 Quality Starts this year. Nine Wins.

This pales to Jake deGrom of last year. deGrom had 28 Quality Starts with just 10 Wins to show for it.

Then, there is the other extreme....
Domingo German won 18 games...he only had 11 Quality Starts.

Justin Verlander has 20 Wins. The Los Angeles Angels have 22 QUALITY STARTS for the year.

Five individual Starters had more Quality Starts than the Angels team.

I remember when they were excited about signing Matt Harvey.....good times.

24 Starters who threw 150 innings, averaged six or more innings per start...That's less than one Starter per team, folks.

NO Starter averaged seven innings.

Yu Darvish is averaging 38 strike outs per Win this year....

We will have 11 to 15 Starters getting 200 innings pitched this year, depending on their last Starts.....

We will have 20-23 Starters getting 200 strike outs this year, depending on their last Starts......

[Philippe27]

The problem with QS is that they're boring.

You say that. But if your starter has runners on first and second with 5 2/3, 3 ER as his stat line, you'll be plenty interested.
Will he get pulled? Will walking another batter get him pulled? Will he get out of it?
You'll also hang around to see if he gets the win.
There is a lot to like about it.

Edit-
There will also be the angst of the seventh ining.
Your Starter has a Quality Start in the bank.
Does the Manager bring him out for the seventh ininng?
Do you want the Manager to bring him out for the seventh inning?
By itself, the QS may seem boring, but in practice, it brings a lot of intrigue to the fantasy game.

With Wins you get all that an inning earlier + you also care about your pitcher's offense + you care right up until the end of the game.

In the era of openers where it's often announced only a day or two before if a pitcher will have an opener or not, QS could get very frustrating.

W+QS could get the best of both worlds I guess where you take a little away from the value of the W without killing the excitement.

Let's put it this way, QS alone I'd hate, W+QS I'm neutral about it.

[Philippe27]

Also, in my Main Event I'm chasing wins right now. Yes it's frustrating and yes it's a lot of time to find sneaky pickups but they are out there. Anthony Kay with an opener against the Orioles has a decent chance at a W. I spent a good two hours yesterday looking for sneaky pickups, it takes time but honestly it was fun.

With QS, I don't think there's a single pitcher that was available on FAAB in my Main that has a chance at a QS. Maybe Tyler Alexander but that's about it.

[DOUGHBOYS]

No matter.
It's just something to talk about.
For the most part, the NFBC is a stodgy group who does not vote for change.
Even with Wins being more than skill, for heaven's sake, don't change!
We haven't had a major change in years.
Few want change. Ever.

Greg even brought up 3rr. A change that would be very low on a totem pole of would be changes.
It was summarily beaten up.
(As it should be, but it brings up the point that even small changes for a very few satelite leagues are not immune to our community's unwillingness of any attempt at change)

[Greg Ambrosius]

No matter.
It's just something to talk about.
For the most part, the NFBC is a stodgy group who does not vote for change.
We haven't had a major change in years.
Few want change

Greg even brought up 3rr. A change that would be very low on a totem pole of would be changes.

Just to be clear on 3RR, it was not a CHANGE to the NFBC, Dan. We are asking if ADDING a contest with 3RR to private Satellite leagues would be desired. Nothing more. Even with folks saying they aren't interested, we may add a few to the schedule to see if anyone cares to play a private $125 or $150 Satellite League with 3RR.

It's not a CHANGE. It's an ADDITIONAL contest.

And yes, we are a stodgy group and changing Wins would be a drastic change. A lot of categories become tougher through the years and we don't change everything for it. As for IP minimums, I think the Diamond and Platinum deserve attention as 1,200 may be too much. We'll discuss further on 1,000 IP, but any change there would be minimal if at all. Thanks for all the feedback.

[DOUGHBOYS]

No matter.
It's just something to talk about.
For the most part, the NFBC is a stodgy group who does not vote for change.
We haven't had a major change in years.
Few want change

Greg even brought up 3rr. A change that would be very low on a totem pole of would be changes.

Just to be clear on 3RR, it was not a CHANGE to the NFBC, Dan. We are asking if ADDING a contest with 3RR to private Satellite leagues would be desired. Nothing more. Even with folks saying they aren't interested, we may add a few to the schedule to see if anyone cares to play a private $125 or $150 Satellite League with 3RR.

It's not a CHANGE. It's an ADDITIONAL contest.

And yes, we are a stodgy group and changing Wins would be a drastic change. A lot of categories become tougher through the years and we don't change everything for it. As for IP minimums, I think the Diamond and Platinum deserve attention as 1,200 may be too much. We'll discuss further on 1,000 IP, but any change there would be minimal if at all. Thanks for all the feedback.

Noted-
I was editing my comment as you made this post.
Carry on.

[jvetter]

Still really easy to 1000 IP. I am getting 1400+ innings in all my draft champions leagues this year. I don't think the minimum needs to change.

Replace wins with innings pitched and remove the IP minimum.

If a change is made, this would get my vote.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Perhaps consider changing the W category to W+QS ?

This dilutes the worst "luck" category in baseball by 50% while preserving some value for reliever and bulk pitcher wins.

I understand the reasoning for the talk to change the Wins category, but if you are trying to mass market a national contest I don't think changing it to Quality Starts is the answer. In fact, it would take a lot to change any of the 10 foundation categories. Hell, it makes more sense to change Batting Average to OBP and we haven't done that yet!!

The 10 categories are the foundation of Rotisserie Baseball (yes it was 4x4 at one time) and changing any of the categories is going to be tough. People hate Saves, Stolen Bases, Batting Average, now Wins. I get it. But we don't change those categories on a whim. We just don't.

When I look at the Wins category I certainly don't see much change this year from last year. In 2018, 19 pitchers earned 15 wins. Right now there are 21 pitchers with 14 or more wins. Your target for wins is still 90+ and we have about 45 Main Event teams that will top 100 wins this year, similar to past years. That mix of Wins and Saves will drive us all batty, but it's what makes this crazy game so great.

I wasn't looking to change any stat categories, but happy to hear that 1,000 IP minimum still works. I'll solve the 1,200 IP riddle later. Thanks all.

[Ultrarunner]

I think 1,000/1,100 is the sweet spot and I would roll the 1,100 to all high stakes leagues

I’m fine with the tradition of wins even though my Cubs’ crappy bullpen cost me 2-3 from Hendricks

[Baseball Furies]

Perhaps consider changing the W category to W+QS ?

This dilutes the worst "luck" category in baseball by 50% while preserving some value for reliever and bulk pitcher wins.

I understand the reasoning for the talk to change the Wins category, but if you are trying to mass market a national contest I don't think changing it to Quality Starts is the answer. In fact, it would take a lot to change any of the 10 foundation categories. Hell, it makes more sense to change Batting Average to OBP and we haven't done that yet!!

The 10 categories are the foundation of Rotisserie Baseball (yes it was 4x4 at one time) and changing any of the categories is going to be tough. People hate Saves, Stolen Bases, Batting Average, now Wins. I get it. But we don't change those categories on a whim. We just don't.

When I look at the Wins category I certainly don't see much change this year from last year. In 2018, 19 pitchers earned 15 wins. Right now there are 21 pitchers with 14 or more wins. Your target for wins is still 90+ and we have about 45 Main Event teams that will top 100 wins this year, similar to past years. That mix of Wins and Saves will drive us all batty, but it's what makes this crazy game so great.

I wasn't looking to change any stat categories, but happy to hear that 1,000 IP minimum still works. I'll solve the 1,200 IP riddle later. Thanks all.

Amazingly, I have to agree with Greg on this one. The more you start screwing with the 5x5 core categories, the more you're going to lose people and make the already most difficult and challenging of all fantasy sports that much more complicated. For the minority of us die-hards on here, it's one thing, but for the masses, quite another. This being said, there is absolutely one ridiculous rule that needs to be changed which is really a potential huge blight on the game year in and year out which thankfully didn't come into play this year.

There is no way that games after 162 should count towards the standings. There is no skill involved in this at all and introduces a 100% luck factor into the equation after a six month grind of work which invariably helps or screws over a lot of people solely based on the factor of if they were lucky enough or not to have players for these pre-playoff playoff games on their rosters. There is no justification for this. The rules in football for the seasonal games have been altered for various contests over the years, as have the rules for baseball now with the "Second Chance Leagues". There was even a failed attempt at trying to get an in-season baseball contest off the ground which would have cut out an entire month of the regular season, so no justification is in play here on tradition. So I would like to hear the rationale on this and how you guys can survey your clientele on this to make an informed decision based on popular opinion if need be. Thanks.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

The thread is about IP minimums, not bastardizing the rules of roto baseball. Please keep the categories the same. I am not sure I will ever play again, but changing the roto rules would help ensure I don't return. Maybe I should root for change:) I believe the IP was raised in contained leagues to make it more difficult on the save ratio clubs. I like making it hard on them so people are forced to play it more straight so the best team wins. 1150 perhaps sounds about right.

[Brian Jenner]

Replace wins with innings pitched and remove the IP minimum.

I'd be in favour of this. But I can't see the site as a whole making such a drastic change. I really don't like Wins as a category at all, though, so I'd support any changes to this that can get enough traction.