NFBC Message Boards

Week 17 in the NFL and the last week or two of the MLB is not an apples to apples comparison. Excluding Week 17 was around long before high stakes since most fantasy football leagues are head to head and it made sense not to decide a league championship on ONE WEEK where odd things happen.

The high stakes arena is not head to head (yes, they keep H2H standings) but there are provisions to get the highest scoring teams in the playoffs if they don't make it via record. The finals are a multi-week run off, factoring in regular season points average, then the points scored during the playoff run. If Week 17 were included, it would be 20% or 25% of the total points, depending how long the playoff runoff would be with the extra week. High stakes has determined that even 20 or 25% is too much so they eliminated Week 17.

Baseball is cumulative. One week of baseball is about 3.8% of the fantasy season.

It's not "just like Week 17 in football."

Thank you Todd Zola ...thank you

I don't want to summarize this thread too quickly and I realize a survey will give us better results, but early feelings are:

** Not everyone in the NFBC agrees that the play-in game shouldn't be part of our results.
** Not everyone agrees that this isn't an MLB regular-season game.
** Not everyone agrees that the comparison of fantasy baseball's play-in game is the same as fantasy football's Week 17.

What I do agree with is the thought that maybe the play-in game should just be part of your Week 27 lineup. I know that's not a big concession, but at least that way the luck of getting one more game is the same as getting one less game that week (maybe a rainout). It's the luck of the draw for that final week.

I will admit that we have always asked for the chance to allow owners to change their lineups for those play-in games. My feeling was that this is a skill game and you should have the right to decide whether you want those play-in players in your lineup or not. Yes, you may want all of the hitting stats, but maybe you don't want the pitching stats.

That being said, adding that ability for the play-in game might not be as good for the game as I thought. Maybe the play-in game should just be part of Week 27.

Again, it might be an early summation, but that's what I'm seeing so far.

Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:45 am

** Not everyone in the NFBC agrees that the play-in game shouldn't be part of our results.

A poll would be the best way to know all owner’s opinions on this, not just the few who post here.

Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:45 am

** Not everyone agrees that this isn't an MLB regular-season game.

** Not everyone agrees that the comparison of fantasy baseball's play-in game is the same as fantasy football's Week 17.

Not sure I understand the relevance. IMO it being considered “the regular season” is not a strong enough rationale to include Game 163s.

All owners should be playing under the same circumstances. Including Game 163s gives an advantage to one owner over another.

I honestly like having game 163 as part of the regular season despite some of the luck, because people do in fact plan their pickups based on the possibility of one of these games. People on here can scream and cry about how ludicrous it is just because they don't think that far ahead, but some people do. That said, I agree that game 163 should be part of the week 27 lineup, and not a separate week 28. I think that is a good compromise, and it would provide another element of strategic planning.

Dustmite wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:09 am

I honestly like having game 163 as part of the regular season despite some of the luck, because people do in fact plan their pickups based on the possibility of one of these games. People on here can scream and cry about how ludicrous it is just because they don't think that far ahead, but some people do.

Very strong post, Dustmite!

mdecav wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:05 am

Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:45 am

** Not everyone in the NFBC agrees that the play-in game shouldn't be part of our results.

A poll would be the best way to know all owner’s opinions on this, not just the few who post here.

Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:45 am

** Not everyone agrees that this isn't an MLB regular-season game.

** Not everyone agrees that the comparison of fantasy baseball's play-in game is the same as fantasy football's Week 17.

Not sure I understand the relevance. IMO it being considered “the regular season” is not a strong enough rationale to include Game 163s.

All owners should be playing under the same circumstances. Including Game 163s gives an advantage to one owner over another.

Sounds like you’d feel the same way about 2 Japan/Mexico/Australia/Wherever games that start the season overseas. Right?

Not everyone will have players on either of the two teams playing those distant site games. So it gives owners who have those players an advantage. Get rid of game 163 and you gotta give up game 1 for a couple of teams too.

That’s how I see your logic here.

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:00 pm

mdecav wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:05 am

Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:45 am

** Not everyone in the NFBC agrees that the play-in game shouldn't be part of our results.

A poll would be the best way to know all owner’s opinions on this, not just the few who post here.

Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:45 am

** Not everyone agrees that this isn't an MLB regular-season game.

** Not everyone agrees that the comparison of fantasy baseball's play-in game is the same as fantasy football's Week 17.

Not sure I understand the relevance. IMO it being considered “the regular season” is not a strong enough rationale to include Game 163s.

All owners should be playing under the same circumstances. Including Game 163s gives an advantage to one owner over another.

Sounds like you’d feel the same way about 2 Japan/Mexico/Australia/Wherever games that start the season overseas. Right?

Not everyone will have players on either of the two teams playing those distant site games. So it gives owners who have those players an advantage. Get rid of game 163 and you gotta give up game 1 for a couple of teams too.

That’s how I see your logic here.

Wrong. Absolutely 100% wrong.

The early games are scheduled games, part of the 162 game schedule. We know well in advance they are going to be played and which teams will play in them. Everyone has access to those team’s players if owners so wish to bid on them, which is asinine if you are adjusting for those two games in your season-long league.

mdecav wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:39 pm

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:00 pm

Sounds like you’d feel the same way about 2 Japan/Mexico/Australia/Wherever games that start the season overseas. Right?

Not everyone will have players on either of the two teams playing those distant site games. So it gives owners who have those players an advantage. Get rid of game 163 and you gotta give up game 1 for a couple of teams too.

That’s how I see your logic here.

Wrong. Absolutely 100% wrong.

The early games are scheduled games, part of the 162 game schedule. We know well in advance they are going to be played and which teams will play in them. Everyone has access to those team’s players if owners so wish to bid on them, which is asinine if you are adjusting for those two games in your season-long league.

You don’t see the early games as an unfair advantage to the owners who drafted players on those 2 early game teams?

Why not consider game 163 & 164 as scheduled games that probably will not be played? You still need to plan for them. You draft/FAAB players from teams likely to contend for the playoffs.

Even if NFBC decided for some reason to stop counting tie-breaker regular season games after week 26, won’t you still be upset if/when there are games between week 26 and the playoffs that are 161/162 to make up for rainouts/postponement?

Would you support having “extra” games be part of the final scoring period with no lineup changes after Friday?

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:17 am

You don’t see the early games as an unfair advantage to the owners who drafted players on those 2 early game teams?

“Advantage”: Maybe, but likely very little. ”Unfair”: Absolutely not. Every owner has the same ability to draft or bid those players if they so choose.

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:17 am

Why not consider game 163 & 164 as scheduled games that probably will not be played? You still need to plan for them.

They’re NOT scheduled games. Full stop.

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:17 am

Even if NFBC decided for some reason to stop counting tie-breaker regular season games after week 26, won’t you still be upset if/when there are games between week 26 and the playoffs that are 161/162 to make up for rainouts/postponement?

No, because any game 162s required to be played after the regular season ends on Sunday are SCHEDULED games that had to be played. If a Sunday game 162 is postponed to Monday and is required to be played, that game should count.

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:17 am

Would you support having “extra” games be part of the final scoring period with no lineup changes after Friday?

There should not be any other lineup changes after the Friday before the season ends.

mdecav wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:41 pm

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:17 am

You don’t see the early games as an unfair advantage to the owners who drafted players on those 2 early game teams?

“Advantage”: Maybe, but likely very little. ”Unfair”: Absolutely not. Every owner has the same ability to draft or bid those players if they so choose.

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:17 am

Why not consider game 163 & 164 as scheduled games that probably will not be played? You still need to plan for them.

They’re NOT scheduled games. Full stop.

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:17 am

Even if NFBC decided for some reason to stop counting tie-breaker regular season games after week 26, won’t you still be upset if/when there are games between week 26 and the playoffs that are 161/162 to make up for rainouts/postponement?

No, because any game 162s required to be played after the regular season ends on Sunday are SCHEDULED games that had to be played. If a Sunday game 162 is postponed to Monday and is required to be played, that game should count.

Deadheadz wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:17 am

Would you support having “extra” games be part of the final scoring period with no lineup changes after Friday?

There should not be any other lineup changes after the Friday before the season ends.

All logical and solid points of course, Mike, which I agree with which doesn't mean shit unless WE SURVEY THE ENTIRE NFBC MAIN EVENT CLIENTELE AT LEAST SO WE CAN GET THE TRUE NUMBERS AND INPUT WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON THIS WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE SEASON SO WE DON'T END UP PUNTING THIS AGAIN UNTIL NEXT YEAR. It needs to be resolved THIS YEAR for 2020. Let's just stop the back on forth on here among the smallest minority, and hear from the majority. Let't talk particulars of the survey, how it will get done, how we will receive it, how will the results be tallied, etc. Thanks.

I don't care much about game 163, other than if it counts I don't want to be forced into a lineup decision by a player lock.
Either don't count it, or let me decide if I want my guy to play in it.

KJ Duke wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:28 pm

I don't care much about game 163, other than if it counts I don't want to be forced into a lineup decision by a player lock.
Either don't count it, or let me decide if I want my guy to play in it.

I say if we're going to include an unscheduled game not even known whether or not it will be played until late on the final day of the season, after everyone in contention has already been on an emotional roller-coaster following stats & standing changes on the final day with all the games being played at the same time, then Game 163 should be locked & loaded & included in the final scoring period. This way it will allow all the Nostradamus' who are so"SKILLED" & "SMART" (h/t Glenn) to predict not only which teams will be in a Game 163 but also to have said players, most especially pitchers, locked into their line-ups the week before or the Friday before for hitters. That would only be fair.

Three additional points that have not yet been mentioned:

1. We pay a premium at the draft or auction for players on good teams. Part of the reason is that competitive MLB squads are less likely to shut down their players late in the season. This argument could be extended to teams that could potentially play in a tie-breaker regular season game. It’s all “baked into the cost.”

2. While an MLB team may play 163 games, no MLB player is coming anywhere close to that. What you get when you draft a player is the **possibility** of accumulating all of his regular season statistics. Whether that ends up being 161 (cancelled), 162 (as scheduled) or 163 games (tie-breaker) is unknown on draft day. Furthermore, there’s no point in comparing baseball to any other sport, because teams in other leagues don’t play shorter or longer regular seasons

3. Is it necessarily an advantage if you have players in a Game 163? What if you have 5 hitters and they combine to go 0 for 20? Or your starting pitcher gets bombed? No guarantees here.

King of Queens wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:04 am

3. Is it necessarily an advantage if you have players in a Game 163? What if you have 5 hitters and they combine to go 0 for 20? Or your starting pitcher gets bombed? No guarantees here.

If you had $125K riding on that last day and you were tied for the lead, would prefer to have five hitters and a pitcher playing game 163 or nobody playing that game?

mdecav wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:15 am

King of Queens wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:04 am

3. Is it necessarily an advantage if you have players in a Game 163? What if you have 5 hitters and they combine to go 0 for 20? Or your starting pitcher gets bombed? No guarantees here.

If you had $125K riding on that last day and you were tied for the lead, would prefer to have five hitters and a pitcher playing game 163 or nobody playing that game?

It would depend on where I stood in various hitting categories. There are certainly scenarios where it could work to your detriment to have 5 active hitters and 1 active pitcher.

In any event, it all depends on your perspective. If you choose to think of it as a “bonus game” versus “part of the regular season,” you will look at those stats (be they good or bad) in an entirely different manner.

mdecav wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:15 am

King of Queens wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:04 am

3. Is it necessarily an advantage if you have players in a Game 163? What if you have 5 hitters and they combine to go 0 for 20? Or your starting pitcher gets bombed? No guarantees here.

If you had $125K riding on that last day and you were tied for the lead, would prefer to have five hitters and a pitcher playing game 163 or nobody playing that game?

Mikey, I think En Vogue put it best way back in 1992 when they stated: "Never gonna get it...No he's never gonna get it...Never gonna get it (no not this time)...the more he talks the more things sound the same..."

FOR THE LAST TIME, CAN WE PLEASE PUT THIS TO REST VIA A SURVEY AND LET THE PEOPLE BE HEARD? NO MATTER HOW YOU SPIN IT, SLICE IT, OR DICE IT, THE DEBATE ISN'T ABOUT THE MERITS OF GAME 163 OR NOT. IT'S ABOUT EVERYONE WHO IS STILL COMPETING ON THAT DAY HAVING IT BE A FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WHICH IS IN THEIR CONTROL, WHICH THIS SITUATION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR. PERIOD.

But again, who the fuck cares what several people on here think. There are 1000 or more that should be heard from and sooner rather than later so that a definitive decision can be made on this PRIOR to the start of the 2020 season. Thank you again for your prompt attention to this matter.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go back to filling leagues for the NFBC and making you guys more money.

King of Queens wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:43 am

mdecav wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:15 am

King of Queens wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:04 am

3. Is it necessarily an advantage if you have players in a Game 163? What if you have 5 hitters and they combine to go 0 for 20? Or your starting pitcher gets bombed? No guarantees here.

If you had $125K riding on that last day and you were tied for the lead, would prefer to have five hitters and a pitcher playing game 163 or nobody playing that game?

It would depend on where I stood in various hitting categories. There are certainly scenarios where it could work to your detriment to have 5 active hitters and 1 active pitcher.

In any event, it all depends on your perspective. If you choose to think of it as a “bonus game” versus “part of the regular season,” you will look at those stats (be they good or bad) in an entirely different manner.

“It depends” assumes some sort of equivalence.

Seven of the ten scoring categories are counting stats so 70% of the categories can only benefit you having a player, and if you say 50/50 on the rate stats, then you’re at around an 85% possibility of improving your standing - all else being equal - if you have a hitter and pitcher in Game 163.

And yes I consider it a bonus game.

Baseball Furies wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:18 am

BUMP. What's the ETA on the survey? Thanks.

Not until after the New Year. Now is not the time for a baseball survey and the rule in question isn't going to affect drafts at all.

Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:56 am

Baseball Furies wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:18 am

BUMP. What's the ETA on the survey? Thanks.

Not until after the New Year. Now is not the time for a baseball survey and the rule in question isn't going to affect drafts at all.

Okay, then when can we expect the survey in the New Year? Thanks.

Greg Ambrosius wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:56 am

Baseball Furies wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:18 am

BUMP. What's the ETA on the survey? Thanks.

Not until after the New Year. Now is not the time for a baseball survey and the rule in question isn't going to affect drafts at all.

When this survey is announced will those who take the survey be able to see the rationale behind the choices being voted on? I assume there are two questions being asked, which are independent of each other:

1 - If any regular season games need to be played after the scheduled last day of the season, should owners have the ability to change their lineups for those games?
2 - Should Game 163 stats be counted?

Well, this is like kicking a dying dog.

Dan is disgruntled due to losing $5,000 grand via the playoff game a decade ago when Adrian Gonzalez went something like 3-for-6 with three runs, a homer, and three RBI.

For some reason, I sense another SNAKE on the boards.

Everyone that's bitching has no idea if a change or no change will help or hurt them in the future.

CC's Desperados wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:18 am

Well, this is like kicking a dying dog.

Dan is disgruntled due to losing $5,000 grand via the playoff game a decade ago when Adrian Gonzalez went something like 3-for-6 with three runs, a homer, and three RBI.

For some reason, I sense another SNAKE on the boards.

Everyone that's bitching had no idea if a change or no change will help or hurt them in the future.

Follow along, Shawn.
I was on the other side of this for years after after that happened.
Snake? Seriously?

You're not the SNAKE. His traits can be found on the NFFC boards.