Page 6 of 7
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:25 am
by mdecav
Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:16 am
mdecav wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:12 am
Without giving out the results what were the percentages and how many responded?
I didn't look yesterday, but I think over 50% responded to the survey and there isn't a majority consensus either way. We definitely have learned from the early results, but let's see what even more players say.
What I meant was... of those who have already responded what were the percentages?
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:28 am
by Greg Ambrosius
mdecav wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:25 am
Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:16 am
mdecav wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:12 am
Without giving out the results what were the percentages and how many responded?
I didn't look yesterday, but I think over 50% responded to the survey and there isn't a majority consensus either way. We definitely have learned from the early results, but let's see what even more players say.
What I meant was... of those who have already responded what were the percentages?
I'm pretty sure that's what I responded. I'm not giving the percentages, but there wasn't a majority consensus either way.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:20 am
by Baseball Furies
Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:28 am
mdecav wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:25 am
Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:16 am
I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend and make a decision on. Even if at least half of your clientele feel that it is a terrible rule that is screwing people out of money in an unfair way, it should be scrapped. It's not hurting the game by getting rid of games 163 on since they don't even come into play every year, and no one is going into the season banking on these games. And I haven't heard one person get on here and say that they won a league because of this rule and it was great. I will personally go on record and state that if this rule is not changed and I am ever dicked out of out winning a league because of some dumb luck anomaly of an extended season game, and lose money because of it, that it be my last season playing in the NFBC.
I didn't look yesterday, but I think over 50% responded to the survey and there isn't a majority consensus either way. We definitely have learned from the early results, but let's see what even more players say.
What I meant was... of those who have already responded what were the percentages?
I'm pretty sure that's what I responded. I'm not giving the percentages, but there wasn't a majority consensus either way.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:04 pm
by King of Queens
Fingers crossed for a Game 163 in 2020
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:19 pm
by Gekko
Baseball Furies wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:20 am
I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend and make a decision on. Even if at least half of your clientele feel that it is a terrible rule that is screwing people out of money in an unfair way, it should be scrapped. It's not hurting the game by getting rid of games 163 on since they don't even come into play every year, and no one is going into the season banking on these games. And I haven't heard one person get on here and say that they won a league because of this rule and it was great. I will personally go on record and state that if this rule is not changed and I am ever dicked out of out winning a league because of some dumb luck anomaly of an extended season game, and lose money because of it, that it be my last season playing in the NFBC.
1. You (and others) asked NFBC to conduct survey about Game 163.
2. NFBC is conducting said survey
3. While survey is being conducted, you threaten to leave NFBC if rule is not changed and you get "dicked" out of money
You may have just spurred additional owners to vote to keep the rules the same!!
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:37 pm
by Greg Ambrosius
Gekko wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:19 pm
Baseball Furies wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:20 am
I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend and make a decision on. Even if at least half of your clientele feel that it is a terrible rule that is screwing people out of money in an unfair way, it should be scrapped. It's not hurting the game by getting rid of games 163 on since they don't even come into play every year, and no one is going into the season banking on these games. And I haven't heard one person get on here and say that they won a league because of this rule and it was great. I will personally go on record and state that if this rule is not changed and I am ever dicked out of out winning a league because of some dumb luck anomaly of an extended season game, and lose money because of it, that it be my last season playing in the NFBC.
1. You (and others) asked NFBC to conduct survey about Game 163.
2. NFBC is conducting said survey
3. While survey is being conducted, you threaten to leave NFBC if rule is not changed and you get "dicked" out of money
You may have just spurred additional owners to vote to keep the rules the same!!
So if more than 50% say they want to keep the rule, we are supposed to change the rule because there's a threat of leaving the contest from someone who doesn't like the rule?
I would think any rule change would come after a vast majority of people tell us a change is needed. Maybe that will come and maybe it won't. That's why we surveyed our folks and will announce the results when they are final.
Then everyone can see why we changed the rule or didn't change the rule. Good luck to all Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:08 pm
by Baseball Furies
Greg, this isn't a rule change like a preference for swapping OBP for BA, so you're comparing apples to oranges. This is a rule change preventing people from being screwed out of money investing in your game which isn't going to happen to me after all that I invest in this financially and time wise every year. It's a matter of principle for me. You don't have to agree with it and nor does anyone else. But that's where I stand on it.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:11 pm
by Baseball Furies
And what does a "vast majority" mean? This is completely arbitrary and not based on any concrete percentage of anything to determine yay or nay.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:24 pm
by Greg Ambrosius
Baseball Furies wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:08 pm
Greg, this isn't a rule change like a preference for swapping OBP for BA, so you're comparing apples to oranges. This is a rule change preventing people from being screwed out of money investing in your game which isn't going to happen to me after all that I invest in this financially and time wise every year. It's a matter of principle for me. You don't have to agree with it and nor does anyone else. But that's where I stand on it.
Duly noted.
It's a rule that has been in the NFBC since 2004 and the reasoning is that Major League Baseball counts it as part of its regular season. Stupid or not, that's how MLB views it and we do as well. Our year-end statistics reflect the entire Major League Baseball season, whether they start and end in Australia or in a 163rd regular season game.
You begged us to run this survey and the results currently show that the majority of people want the rule to stay the same. In all regards thanks to both questions. Almost half of past Main Event and high-dollar private league owners responded within two days of the survey, which is pretty damn strong. If 60-70% of respondents had wanted a change that would be strong evidence that we'd have to seriously look at that rule and we would.
No one is trying to screw anyone out of money or a league title, but everyone who signs up knows the rules and has the results determined by them.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:51 pm
by Baseball Furies
So the NFBC can arbitrarily come up with new contests which buck the MLB regular season schedule (i.e. A mid-season contest that doesn't count the entire month of September) which is perfectly fine, but God forbid you eliminate games beyond 162 that don't allow for everyone to have equal, competitive chance in the instances that these occur. How does this square with your argument? If this is the case, then there shouldn't ever be a single NFBC contest that doesn't include the entirety of the MLB schedule ever created, promoted, or sold based on the stand you are suggesting you have taken due to the way it's been since 2004. And things do change, and sometimes for the better. It's not 16 years ago anymore and it's okay to let go of the old ways once in a while and move away from some of the way things were "back in the good old days." And I can tell you that there are dozens of your high stakes, big money players who have a ton on the line every year that don't want to be potentially douched out of their money, and unfortunately, whether you like it or not, their opinion matters more and carries more weight than the casual DC or Best Ball player for example...or at least they should. In business, not all clientele are created equal. This should be common sense.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:36 pm
by DOUGHBOYS
"The reasoning is that Major League Baseball counts it as part of its regular season."
Major League Baseball also counts Shohei Ohtani's hitting and pitching statistics in the same week. Yes?
Just making a point. Thanks for the survey.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:49 pm
by Gekko
Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:24 pm
the results currently show that the majority of people want the rule to stay the same.
HOORAY!!!!
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:09 pm
by King of Queens
I think I actually did win some money as a result of a Game 163 back in 2006. It was...
great
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:02 pm
by Philippe27
Baseball Furies wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:51 pm
So the NFBC can arbitrarily come up with new contests which buck the MLB regular season schedule (i.e. A mid-season contest that doesn't count the entire month of September) which is perfectly fine, but God forbid you eliminate games beyond 162 that don't allow for everyone to have equal, competitive chance in the instances that these occur. How does this square with your argument? If this is the case, then there shouldn't ever be a single NFBC contest that doesn't include the entirety of the MLB schedule ever created, promoted, or sold based on the stand you are suggesting you have taken due to the way it's been since 2004. And things do change, and sometimes for the better. It's not 16 years ago anymore and it's okay to let go of the old ways once in a while and move away from some of the way things were "back in the good old days." And I can tell you that there are dozens of your high stakes, big money players who have a ton on the line every year that don't want to be potentially douched out of their money, and unfortunately, whether you like it or not, their opinion matters more and carries more weight than the casual DC or Best Ball player for example...or at least they should. In business, not all clientele are created equal. This should be common sense.
I consider myself one of the high stakes player and I prefer to keep the rule as is. I'd be equally pissed if the rule is changed and I finish 2nd this year and would have won with a game 163.
You're more passionate about this rule than most but doesn't mean our opinions don't matter.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:08 am
by Greg Ambrosius
DOUGHBOYS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:36 pm
"The reasoning is that Major League Baseball counts it as part of its regular season."
Major League Baseball also counts Shohei Ohtani's hitting and pitching statistics in the same week. Yes?
Just making a point. Thanks for the survey.
Major League Baseball allows players to only play 1 game at a position and it's okay. NFBC doesn't. NFBC has a minimum innings pitched limit. MLB doesn't. I mean, we could show the differences all day if we want.
And I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but we're talking about counting stats, which is the most important tool of fantasy baseball and determining an NFBC champion. We have chosen to count all of the stats during the regular season and we're certainly not the only contest that does that. We just surveyed our players where the most prize money is attributed and they stated they want the play-in game to count in our yearly stats AND they want to be able to change their starting lineup for those play-in games.
That's how we currently have the rules and that's what the majority of people have responded they want it. This time I'm just the messenger. Yes, I wrote the rules this way, but we did what folks asked and that's surveyed the members and the top players said to keep it this way. I'm glad we did this survey and I'm proud that so many responded. If we need to debate it again next year we can, but for now the people have spoken.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:19 am
by Greg Ambrosius
Baseball Furies wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:51 pm
So the NFBC can arbitrarily come up with new contests which buck the MLB regular season schedule (i.e. A mid-season contest that doesn't count the entire month of September) which is perfectly fine, but God forbid you eliminate games beyond 162 that don't allow for everyone to have equal, competitive chance in the instances that these occur. How does this square with your argument? If this is the case, then there shouldn't ever be a single NFBC contest that doesn't include the entirety of the MLB schedule ever created, promoted, or sold based on the stand you are suggesting you have taken due to the way it's been since 2004. And things do change, and sometimes for the better. It's not 16 years ago anymore and it's okay to let go of the old ways once in a while and move away from some of the way things were "back in the good old days." And I can tell you that there are dozens of your high stakes, big money players who have a ton on the line every year that don't want to be potentially douched out of their money, and unfortunately, whether you like it or not, their opinion matters more and carries more weight than the casual DC or Best Ball player for example...or at least they should. In business, not all clientele are created equal. This should be common sense.
I love your passion MTM, but this rant makes no sense. We never proposed a mid-season contest that doesn't count stats in September. All mid-season contests use the play-in game as well. The Dirty Dozen proposal last year which ended the season on August 31st was so easily defeated that we had to cancel the contest. The people spoke and we shit-canned that idea for good. See, we do listen to the people.
The Cutline Championship doesn't use the last two weeks of the regular season, people understand those rules, apparently like it and we are headed toward a sellout there. Certainly different contests can have different rules.
Yes, as the survey of our top players have shown, dozens of our top players want the rule to change. But even more dozens of those same players want it to stay. That's why it's important to survey those players and in America the majority rules. And your last line that these top players have more on the line with this rule has convinced me to listen to this survey result and move on. There was great response and I do agree with so much prize money on the line I should listen to this group and weight it more heavily.
Your beef with this rule is no longer with me, it's with the masses who voted to keep the play-in game as part of our yearly stats. You can argue with them now; my job is done. Let's both hope there isn't a play-in game this year and that MLB changes its playoff format by 2022. No other league does this -- the NBA doesn't have an 83rd game and the NFL doesn't have a 17th play-in game -- and it's stupid. It really is. But our logic for why we did it hasn't changed since 2004 and apparently we're not alone in this thinking. If we had been alone and the survey had shown us that
WE were the outlier, we would have changed it immediately for 2020. But that's not what the results showed.
Thanks for leading this argument and we can do it again in 2021 if you believe it merits it.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:45 am
by KJ Duke
Catching up here.
My take - the amount of management time and player sensitivity to this minutia is surprising - especially in light of the NFBC scrapping league histories forever as soon as the season ends, with virtually no backlash whatsoever.
Why does this matter?
1) as a player, learn from your mistakes to get better (its hard to analyze data that doesn't exist)
2) as an investor of cash, be able to audit and confirm that mistakes were not made in the data feeding standings (no longer possible)
3) as a competitor, be able to evaluate patterns and anomalies to ensure game integrity
I am clearly in the minority on what I see as important in this game. These histories exist on mass market sites that have $10 entry fees, yet they do not exist for leagues here for which we've paid $10,000. And no one but me seems to care. Carry on.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:58 am
by Greg Ambrosius
KJ Duke wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:45 am
Catching up here.
My take - the amount of management time and player sensitivity to this minutia is surprising - especially in light of the NFBC scrapping league histories forever as soon as the season ends, with virtually no backlash whatsoever.
Why does this matter?
1) as a player, learn from your mistakes to get better (its hard to analyze data that doesn't exist)
2) as an investor of cash, be able to audit and confirm that mistakes were not made in the data feeding standings (no longer possible)
3) as a competitor, be able to evaluate patterns and anomalies to ensure game integrity
I am clearly in the minority on what I see as important in this game. These histories exist on mass market sites that have $10 entry fees, yet they do not exist for leagues here for which we've paid $10,000. And no one but me seems to care. Carry on.
All of the historical data going forward is there until the next season rolls over, so in the NFBC's case a month after the season ends. Then we retain standings and draft results.
Feel free to email me the data you MUST have for research and I'll talk with IT. Obviously we have all of this information, but saving and displaying weekly Start/Sit, FAAB moves for thousands of past leagues and teams for infinity isn't ideal. But if we need to still show something obvious that is missing we'll talk with IT to make it happen. An email or phone call always works best. Thanks.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:02 am
by CC's Desperados
DOUGHBOYS wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:36 pm
"The reasoning is that Major League Baseball counts it as part of its regular season."
Major League Baseball also counts Shohei Ohtani's hitting and pitching statistics in the same week. Yes?
Just making a point. Thanks for the survey.
This is a lame sales pitch. If this was the case, every pitcher that hit in the NL should be treated the same way.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:14 am
by KJ Duke
Greg, I emailed that to you and/or Darik earlier in the off-season to no avail. If we can't see player stats that led to team stats, if we can't see how lineup decisions affected outcomes, if we can't evaluate weekly stats/trends, we can't do much analysis.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a problem of fanball not wanting to distinguish how high stakes leagues are treated vs low stakes. With the latter exploding the number of leagues you're running, they don't want to store that amount of data. OK, but the number of high stakes contests alone - mains, live auctions, ult/dia/plat are not onerous in terms of data storage.
The easy fix is retain all high stakes histories (keep those league intact as they are at season end) and do the off-season data dump for low stakes only.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:23 am
by Money
This is all about absolutely nothing. What a waste of time. I don't have a strong opinion either way, simply know I won't waste any time on it.
If truth be told I'd do away with the entire final week of the season. Short of that keep it as is! And if as is, lineups should be changed on Monday as they are every other week of the season.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:50 am
by DOUGHBOYS
Any requests that were interesting in the 'type in requests' section of the survey, Greg?
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:11 pm
by DOUGHBOYS
Money wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 11:23 am
This is all about absolutely nothing. What a waste of time. I don't have a strong opinion either way, simply know I won't waste any time on it.
If truth be told I'd do away with the entire final week of the season. Short of that keep it as is! And if as is, lineups should be changed on Monday as they are every other week of the season.
I don't agree, Joe.
I believe it is a tribute to Greg and the NFBC.
Back in the day, we discussed almost every rule under the sun. Some ideas changed the format, some did not.
Now, we have six pages discussing one rule that means little to some.
The passion is the key.
No matter which side of the argument, NFBC players are passionate about making even the slightest rule better.
I am guilty of taking this group for granted sometimes.
But when I see the degree of passion that everybody has shown in this thread, it speaks volumes for those here and reminds me of what a great and wonderful group we have.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:13 pm
by Doctor Who
Also, now that it seems like it is decided, can you release the vote % and how many votes each got. Purely curious. You said before you weren't ready to release that info because you were going to run another survey, but it seems as though that isn't the case anymore because your top players already made the case. I'm just interested in the results.
Re: Rules for 2020
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:29 pm
by Chthroop
Hi,
For once I disagree with Doughboy. IMHO the stats we "earn" must match what the MLB credits players for. Once we start diverging, it opens up lots of potential issues. I also think there is a bit of an operational "risk" where the system must be programmed differently and that would require programming work. I would vote to use those valuable programming resources on other things...
Chris