163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post Reply
User avatar
Greg Ambrosius
Posts: 40282
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
Contact:

163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Greg Ambrosius » Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:58 am

Recently we sent a three-question survey to last year's Main Event principle owners and owners who compete in our high-dollar private leagues. It was going to be the first step of this survey as we wanted to get feedback on an NFBC rule that was up for debate. The second step was meant to survey the rest of the NFBC audience from 2019.

The rule that we were discussing in the survey has been in place since the inception of the NFBC and it involves a play-in game if two teams are fighting for the final Wild Card spot or a division title. In either case, Major League Baseball schedules a 163rd play-in game on Monday between those teams and those statistics are part of MLB's regular season statistics. We had two play-in games in 2018 and I believe this has happened five times in our 16-year history. The most famous play-in game was the Bucky Dent HR game from 1978 between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox.

Anyway, in recent years we've also allowed owners to change their starting lineups for those Monday play-in games. There is no FAAB on that Sunday before the Monday play-in game, but yes we do allow owners to bench or start any player involved in that game (or games). We made this part of the survey as well.

Some owners feel it is a lucky advantage or disadvantage to a season of hard work and skill and so we were asked to survey our members for feedback. Again, we chose to distribute the survey to two different factions of customers and we started with our highest-dollar players. The idea was to survey all Draft Champions, Online Championship, Satellite league owners next, but once we were asked to reveal the results it seemed like any second survey would be tainted. We are making our decision based on the current results and moving on from this subject for now. If we have to do a full survey next year we will, but it's apparent that there isn't an overwhelming majority either way, so the rule will stay as it always has.

Here's the survey and the results, and again this was sent to several hundred players from 2019 with nearly a 50% response. The response rate was amazing, but it shows how involved our customers are in everything we do:

1) The NFBC counts any play-in 163rd game into our stats and standings because Major League Baseball counts the play-in game as part of their regular season stats and standings. Do you agree or disagree that play-in stats from a 163rd game should be counted into NFBC league and overall standings?

Agree - 53%
Disagree - 47%

2) If the NFBC continues to count play-in stats from that 163rd regular season game, should the NFBC allow owners to change their starting lineups for that Monday game (or games) or should everyone's lineup for that extra week stay the same as it was the week before?

Allow Starting Lineup Changes - 56%
Keep Starting Lineups - 44%

3) Is there a rules change in any of the NFBC contests that you wish was amended, updated or deleted? Type in your response below if you answer Yes.

No - 72%
Yes - 28%

I will post some of the write-in suggestions later, but nothing was unexpected. Good passion in the written responses, but nothing we haven't seen before.

Thanks to everyone who responded and I apologize to those who weren't able to participate in the survey. I just felt that once we revealed which direction the first respondents went it would taint any result after that. And it took longer than we wanted to remove folks from the first survey from the second one, so we've taken the first results and moved on. Thanks again and best of luck this season.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius

User avatar
Gekko
Posts: 5944
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Gekko » Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:15 am

Appreciate the survey and transparency. Thank you.

King of Queens
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by King of Queens » Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:26 am

Greg Ambrosius wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:58 am
and again this was sent to several hundred players from 2019 with nearly a 50% response. The response rate was amazing, but it shows how involved our customers are in everything we do
So more than 150 responses -- not a small sample size at all.

Thanks for posting the results. Glad we can move on.

User avatar
Greg Ambrosius
Posts: 40282
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Greg Ambrosius » Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:30 am

I'll post some of the suggestions, which we've seen before. Again, I appreciate everyone who took the time to fill this out:

Use Chess clock timing for Draft Champions

Need a DL spot

Change pitchers 2x per week instead of 1

Minor League prospects that were not drafted should be available in Free Agent pool prior to making MLB start.

Cutline - no playoffs and run entire season (or start new contest for best ball with no playoffs)

I don’t like the free agent pickup process and it’s a bit of a pain on your site. I would switch to vickrey method. No reason why you should lose dollars if not bidding against others. I also feel like last to first each week is the better option.

Add a free agent period after the fab runs in case you miss out on all of your picks. Do this for football also.

OBP > AVG The reasons are compelling, notably that A) OBP is a far better measure of a player’s actual real-life value, B) It’s stickier year-to-year than avg, which favors skillful owners bc of a smaller “luck” factor in the category, and C) It’s becoming more mainstream, as we’ve seen other major industry leagues like Tout Wars adopt it. I already know the reasons would wouldn’t make this change are A) It’s not a “classic” fantasy category, and B) large groups of people are generally resistant to change, especially the generally older demographic of NFBC players. But, the reality is that it’s 2020, not 1990. The game and our understanding of it has changed, and the highest-stakes leagues should reflect that.

Shohei Ohtani should be available as a hitter and pitcher in our game. The Draft room should be open October 1. Our hobby has become a year long endeavor. The NFBC should get a head of it.

add The ability to replace hitters that go on the DL at any time of the week.

I wouldn't use the entire last week of the season.

Saves Category should be replaced with saves and holds

No hitter changes on friday. Just weekly for all.

Have faab end at midnight EST Sunday

Ohtani or other two way players should be eligible as hitters and pitchers the same week. I should be able to run him as both my DH and in my rotation same week. That's how it works in real life, and what makes two way players cool. This pick one or the other largely destroys the fun, and a lot of the value.

Injured locked pitchers who haven’t pitched that week should be allowed to swap with another pitcher who hasn’t pitched yet that week. It wouldn’t happen that often but when pitchers lock for the week and then a guy goes on the DL taking a 0 doesn’t seem in the spirit of the game and it would be fair for all teams involved. It also wouldn’t allow streaming, it would only be for injuries.

Happy with the current rules. I would Not be in favor of an Otani rule that would allow him to record both pitching and hitting stats during the same week. I’m also against pitcher changes on Friday.

Would like to see 10 games qualify a player at a position before the season, just as 10 games qualifies in-season

once a week swap out a pitcher only if he hasn't pitched yet

Allow a pitcher who has not pitched M-Th to be swapped out & replaced on Friday, i.e. a P does not lock until he enters a game & accumulates stats M-Th.

Enjoy all and thanks to those who took the time to write these suggestions. We always listen and we are always transparent.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius

DOUGHBOYS
Posts: 13088
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by DOUGHBOYS » Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:37 am

So many people say this is a small issue, but look at all those responses! Love it.
Close to 50-50. Not overwhelming to say the least.
Thanks for the survey, Greg.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!

gemc13
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:25 am

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by gemc13 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:28 am

Thanks for posting Greg!

User avatar
KJ Duke
Posts: 6574
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by KJ Duke » Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:36 am

Wasn't my suggestion, but I do like this one
Allow a pitcher who has not pitched M-Th to be swapped out & replaced on Friday, i.e. a P does not lock until he enters a game & accumulates stats M-Th.

COZ
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Rolling Meadows, IL

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by COZ » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:40 pm

KJ Duke wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:36 am
Wasn't my suggestion, but I do like this one
Allow a pitcher who has not pitched M-Th to be swapped out & replaced on Friday, i.e. a P does not lock until he enters a game & accumulates stats M-Th.
Thank you. 8-) That was mine (& probably not an original thought & probably read it suggested by someone else but I don't remember where it originated). Maybe we can start a new thread to debate the pros & cons of it. I'm not even sure which side I fall on as it was just an idea, but I thought it worthy of consideration myself.
COZ

"Baseball has it share of myths, things that blur the line between fact & fiction....Abner Doubleday inventing the game, Babe Ruth's Called Shot, Sid Finch's Fastball, the 2017 Astros...Barry Bonds's 762 HR's" -- Tom Verducci

User avatar
Gekko
Posts: 5944
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Gekko » Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:59 pm

John Smoltz would like this!

User avatar
Quahogs
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Quahogs » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:24 pm

COZ wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:40 pm
KJ Duke wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:36 am
Wasn't my suggestion, but I do like this one
Allow a pitcher who has not pitched M-Th to be swapped out & replaced on Friday, i.e. a P does not lock until he enters a game & accumulates stats M-Th.
Thank you. 8-) That was mine (& probably not an original thought & probably read it suggested by someone else but I don't remember where it originated). Maybe we can start a new thread to debate the pros & cons of it. I'm not even sure which side I fall on as it was just an idea, but I thought it worthy of consideration myself.
Man, even it's for just the last week of the season. That week is such s ClusterF### of manager's decisions it makes forecasting the pitching schedule impossible. Where every K counts it's a such a nutbuster to have 3 of your pitchers sit the last week due to clinching etc- and there on your reserve are 2 relievers...

The CON in the past had to do with rostering and starting an IL pitcher you know WON'T be pitching through Thursday in order to avoid a poor matchup on Monday and the reinserting for this good weekend start. I would counter that if any pitcher has pitched so far that week then he's locked and you can't move him. Seems simple to me.

User avatar
Navel Lint
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Navel Lint » Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:53 pm

COZ wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:40 pm
KJ Duke wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:36 am
Wasn't my suggestion, but I do like this one
Allow a pitcher who has not pitched M-Th to be swapped out & replaced on Friday, i.e. a P does not lock until he enters a game & accumulates stats M-Th.
Thank you. 8-) That was mine (& probably not an original thought & probably read it suggested by someone else but I don't remember where it originated). Maybe we can start a new thread to debate the pros & cons of it. I'm not even sure which side I fall on as it was just an idea, but I thought it worthy of consideration myself.
Not to say this can't be debated again, but this idea, or very similar variants of it, have come up multiple times throughout the years I believe. The topic is usually broached every April when poor weather conditions and a few extra scheduled off days play havoc with pitching rotations. There is always room for debate, and just because something has been decided one way over and over again doesn't necessarily make it correct, but this topic has been decided over and over again in favor of not making Friday pitching changes.
Russel -Navel Lint

"Fans don't boo nobodies"
-Reggie Jackson

User avatar
Greg Ambrosius
Posts: 40282
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Greg Ambrosius » Tue Feb 18, 2020 2:07 pm

Quahogs wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:24 pm
COZ wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:40 pm
KJ Duke wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:36 am
Wasn't my suggestion, but I do like this one

Thank you. 8-) That was mine (& probably not an original thought & probably read it suggested by someone else but I don't remember where it originated). Maybe we can start a new thread to debate the pros & cons of it. I'm not even sure which side I fall on as it was just an idea, but I thought it worthy of consideration myself.
Man, even it's for just the last week of the season. That week is such s ClusterF### of manager's decisions it makes forecasting the pitching schedule impossible. Where every K counts it's a such a nutbuster to have 3 of your pitchers sit the last week due to clinching etc- and there on your reserve are 2 relievers...

The CON in the past had to do with rostering and starting an IL pitcher you know WON'T be pitching through Thursday in order to avoid a poor matchup on Monday and the reinserting for this good weekend start. I would counter that if any pitcher has pitched so far that week then he's locked and you can't move him. Seems simple to me.
Ahhhhhh, Quahogs and others have found a NEW shiny toy. The attention span of Game 163 now goes toward the pitching changes during the week. My black lab has this same attention span. I can holler SQUIRREL and he forgets about everything and chases the squirrel. Then I holler CAT and he's forgotten the squirrel and is chasing the cat!! :lol:

Seriously, as you know we tried to allow pitching changes on Fridays and it became a mess as people circumvented the intent of the rule. This idea would solve that, but I have no idea if or how it could be programmed. But we have the Friday hitting change for a reason and obviously if a pitcher doesn't pitch before Friday and we could figure out how to program that this move could be made -- and I say could for a reason-- then maybe this could make our game better. But Russell is right, this has been debated before, although I don't think with this twist as an option.

I think you need someone loud, someone who types in big letters and bold letters to get behind this Quahogs. Then it's got a fighting chance. :lol:
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius

Philippe27
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:18 am

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Philippe27 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:16 pm

I'd always been against the other variants of the pitcher swap because it gave an advantage to those who could check back on Wednesday and Thursday to make changes.

I do like this version better but the one part I don't like is that if you put in a reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday then it's basically an automatic that you would take him out. It would be against the spirit of this rule and I think I'd rather deal with the odd starter getting scratched than people benching closers on Friday.

User avatar
Wolfpac
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Wolfpac » Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:33 pm

Philippe27 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:16 pm
I'd always been against the other variants of the pitcher swap because it gave an advantage to those who could check back on Wednesday and Thursday to make changes.

I do like this version better but the one part I don't like is that if you put in a reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday then it's basically an automatic that you would take him out. It would be against the spirit of this rule and I think I'd rather deal with the odd starter getting scratched than people benching closers on Friday.

This!!!

User avatar
Quahogs
Posts: 2399
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Quahogs » Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:48 pm

Philippe27 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:16 pm
I'd always been against the other variants of the pitcher swap because it gave an advantage to those who could check back on Wednesday and Thursday to make changes.

I do like this version better but the one part I don't like is that if you put in a reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday then it's basically an automatic that you would take him out. It would be against the spirit of this rule and I think I'd rather deal with the odd starter getting scratched than people benching closers on Friday.
Why would that be? if on Monday you have the option of starting a starter who is pitching Saturday or a reliever, I'm choosing whoever I think will have the best week. If I pick the reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday - why would I swap him?

Conversely if I choose the starter and I find out Thursday they're skipping his start - well, there you go, I swap him with someone viable on my bench.

King of Queens
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by King of Queens » Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:10 pm

Quahogs wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:48 pm
Philippe27 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:16 pm
I'd always been against the other variants of the pitcher swap because it gave an advantage to those who could check back on Wednesday and Thursday to make changes.

I do like this version better but the one part I don't like is that if you put in a reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday then it's basically an automatic that you would take him out. It would be against the spirit of this rule and I think I'd rather deal with the odd starter getting scratched than people benching closers on Friday.
Why would that be? if on Monday you have the option of starting a starter who is pitching Saturday or a reliever, I'm choosing whoever I think will have the best week. If I pick the reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday - why would I swap him?

Conversely if I choose the starter and I find out Thursday they're skipping his start - well, there you go, I swap him with someone viable on my bench.
If your RP has a weekend series @LAD or @NYY, and hasn’t pitched Monday to Thursday, you’d almost certainly pull him for an SP with a decent matchup.

You could also buy yourself 4 days (weather, uncertain weekend starters, etc.) to make a decision on 2 starters who are not scheduled to pitch Monday thru Thursday. The ability to make that decision later in the week — every week — changes how I would construct my roster.

I’m sure I could (as would you) come up with more if this became a reality. Definitely a rule that would change how we play the game, and not necessarily for the better.

Philippe27
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:18 am

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Philippe27 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:17 pm

Quahogs wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:48 pm
Philippe27 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:16 pm
I'd always been against the other variants of the pitcher swap because it gave an advantage to those who could check back on Wednesday and Thursday to make changes.

I do like this version better but the one part I don't like is that if you put in a reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday then it's basically an automatic that you would take him out. It would be against the spirit of this rule and I think I'd rather deal with the odd starter getting scratched than people benching closers on Friday.
Why would that be? if on Monday you have the option of starting a starter who is pitching Saturday or a reliever, I'm choosing whoever I think will have the best week. If I pick the reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday - why would I swap him?

Conversely if I choose the starter and I find out Thursday they're skipping his start - well, there you go, I swap him with someone viable on my bench.
If I start a reliever, I'm starting him because his team plays 6-7 games and I'm hoping for 3 IP. If he hasn't pitched by Friday, pretty much any starter would be a better start.

Even if you disagree, some people would do it and it's not the purpose of the rule.

User avatar
Gekko
Posts: 5944
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Gekko » Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:43 pm

King of Queens wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:10 pm
Quahogs wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:48 pm
Philippe27 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:16 pm
I'd always been against the other variants of the pitcher swap because it gave an advantage to those who could check back on Wednesday and Thursday to make changes.

I do like this version better but the one part I don't like is that if you put in a reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday then it's basically an automatic that you would take him out. It would be against the spirit of this rule and I think I'd rather deal with the odd starter getting scratched than people benching closers on Friday.
Why would that be? if on Monday you have the option of starting a starter who is pitching Saturday or a reliever, I'm choosing whoever I think will have the best week. If I pick the reliever and he doesn't pitch by Friday - why would I swap him?

Conversely if I choose the starter and I find out Thursday they're skipping his start - well, there you go, I swap him with someone viable on my bench.
If your RP has a weekend series @LAD or @NYY, and hasn’t pitched Monday to Thursday, you’d almost certainly pull him for an SP with a decent matchup.

You could also buy yourself 4 days (weather, uncertain weekend starters, etc.) to make a decision on 2 starters who are not scheduled to pitch Monday thru Thursday. The ability to make that decision later in the week — every week — changes how I would construct my roster.

I’m sure I could (as would you) come up with more if this became a reality. Definitely a rule that would change how we play the game, and not necessarily for the better.
THIS

User avatar
KJ Duke
Posts: 6574
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by KJ Duke » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:18 pm

How about don't lock any player all week until puts up a stat? Can you program that in.

And the spirit of this should be "if he hasn't played yet, he should be movable for ANY reason". Let's ignore the persnickety population that is so against anyone who tries to manage an angle to their advantage --- this is a game, strategy and effort should be involved.

Money
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Money » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:55 pm

KJ Duke wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:18 pm
How about don't lock any player all week until puts up a stat? Can you program that in.

And the spirit of this should be "if he hasn't played yet, he should be movable for ANY reason". Let's ignore the persnickety population that is so against anyone who tries to manage an angle to their advantage --- this is a game, strategy and effort should be involved.
Plus 1
Joe

User avatar
Gekko
Posts: 5944
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Gekko » Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:24 pm

KJ Duke wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:18 pm
How about don't lock any player all week until puts up a stat? Can you program that in.

And the spirit of this should be "if he hasn't played yet, he should be movable for ANY reason". Let's ignore the persnickety population that is so against anyone who tries to manage an angle to their advantage --- this is a game, strategy and effort should be involved.
Would likely require owners to invest more time on a daily basis and favor those owners. I believe that’s why ideas like this were never acted upon before.

User avatar
KJ Duke
Posts: 6574
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:00 pm

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by KJ Duke » Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:32 pm

Gekko wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:24 pm
KJ Duke wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:18 pm
How about don't lock any player all week until puts up a stat? Can you program that in.

And the spirit of this should be "if he hasn't played yet, he should be movable for ANY reason". Let's ignore the persnickety population that is so against anyone who tries to manage an angle to their advantage --- this is a game, strategy and effort should be involved.
Would likely require owners to invest more time on a daily basis and favor those owners. I believe that’s why ideas like this were never acted upon before.
This is the age of crazed DFS players who spend hours and hours building daily lineups, and smartphones/apps easy access for the rest of us. No longer the age of 12-hour per pick slow drafts and waiting 'til you get home to check the Internet for news. I think the time has come.

Also, it's not like we have unlimited bench options to make moves like this more than occasionally - most players (and potential bench replacements) will be locked on schedule early in the week. This would mainly accommodate the highly frustrating quasi-injured hitter who ends up not playing, or the re-scheduled/rained-out pitcher.

User avatar
Baseball Furies
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: 163rd Game Play-In Final Survey Results

Post by Baseball Furies » Wed Feb 19, 2020 1:11 am

Greg Ambrosius wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:58 am
Recently we sent a three-question survey to last year's Main Event principle owners and owners who compete in our high-dollar private leagues. It was going to be the first step of this survey as we wanted to get feedback on an NFBC rule that was up for debate. The second step was meant to survey the rest of the NFBC audience from 2019.

The rule that we were discussing in the survey has been in place since the inception of the NFBC and it involves a play-in game if two teams are fighting for the final Wild Card spot or a division title. In either case, Major League Baseball schedules a 163rd play-in game on Monday between those teams and those statistics are part of MLB's regular season statistics. We had two play-in games in 2018 and I believe this has happened five times in our 16-year history. The most famous play-in game was the Bucky Dent HR game from 1978 between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox.

Anyway, in recent years we've also allowed owners to change their starting lineups for those Monday play-in games. There is no FAAB on that Sunday before the Monday play-in game, but yes we do allow owners to bench or start any player involved in that game (or games). We made this part of the survey as well.

Some owners feel it is a lucky advantage or disadvantage to a season of hard work and skill and so we were asked to survey our members for feedback. Again, we chose to distribute the survey to two different factions of customers and we started with our highest-dollar players. The idea was to survey all Draft Champions, Online Championship, Satellite league owners next, but once we were asked to reveal the results it seemed like any second survey would be tainted. We are making our decision based on the current results and moving on from this subject for now. If we have to do a full survey next year we will, but it's apparent that there isn't an overwhelming majority either way, so the rule will stay as it always has.

Here's the survey and the results, and again this was sent to several hundred players from 2019 with nearly a 50% response. The response rate was amazing, but it shows how involved our customers are in everything we do:

1) The NFBC counts any play-in 163rd game into our stats and standings because Major League Baseball counts the play-in game as part of their regular season stats and standings. Do you agree or disagree that play-in stats from a 163rd game should be counted into NFBC league and overall standings?

Agree - 53%
Disagree - 47%

2) If the NFBC continues to count play-in stats from that 163rd regular season game, should the NFBC allow owners to change their starting lineups for that Monday game (or games) or should everyone's lineup for that extra week stay the same as it was the week before?

Allow Starting Lineup Changes - 56%
Keep Starting Lineups - 44%

3) Is there a rules change in any of the NFBC contests that you wish was amended, updated or deleted? Type in your response below if you answer Yes.

No - 72%
Yes - 28%

I will post some of the write-in suggestions later, but nothing was unexpected. Good passion in the written responses, but nothing we haven't seen before.

Thanks to everyone who responded and I apologize to those who weren't able to participate in the survey. I just felt that once we revealed which direction the first respondents went it would taint any result after that. And it took longer than we wanted to remove folks from the first survey from the second one, so we've taken the first results and moved on. Thanks again and best of luck this season.

Thanks for posting the survey results. Kind of reminds me of when Trump released the transcript of his "perfect phone call". Nothing to see there, right? :roll: I was expecting to see some sort of overwhelming response in favor of keeping the rule for games 163+ play-in stats, but of course this wasn't the case. Like I said earlier, the minds at the top were already made up prior to this survey going out. So things are going to stand the way that they are until something more drastic happens to demand the change and then hindsight will again be 20/20. But in the meantime, I will leave it at this, though I'm sure it's falling on deaf ears at "Corporate". I happen to know a thing or two about business. When nearly 50% of your high stakes, long-time, top clientele disagree with a needless rule that could potentially cost them thousands of dollars of winnings on a crap-shoot, dumb luck, turn of a dime scenarios which they may have absolutely no control of when their opponents they are up against luckily do, it's a BAD look and BAD PR, and it will end up costing you big time if the stars align under the exact wrong circumstances. But who cares, right? There's always football, and we all know how baseball stacks up against that. I said my piece on here. It's clear where I stand along with 47% of my fellow NFBC clientele (give or take) who don't have either the access, time, energy, or the desire to put into all this and take the shit for doing it that I do.

Now carry on with the discussion of some of these other rule change suggestions that in principle are arguing for the same exact thing that I have been, just in different areas of the game...

"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base." ~Dave Barry

Post Reply