Innings Minimum

Packman
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:22 am

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Packman » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:32 am

Navel Lint wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:20 pm
In 2019 the average IP of all 570 Main Event teams was 1326, 30+% above the minimum needed innings. That was the average. Just 9 teams didn't make 1000, and I would guess they didn't make much effort at the end. Only 4% of All Main Event teams were even under 1100 innings pitched. I understand some things are different in 2021 compared to the way they were in 2019, but they aren't that different.
I don't see any statistical evidence to lower the minimum, just a bunch of what-ifs and could-happens. But I guess the minimum could be lowered to make the game easier.
I think this was the right idea, but the wrong year to use for comparison. The 2021 pitcher usage will probably more closely align with 2020 than 2019, at least in terms of the amount of bullpen usage and openers, etc. I don't think the issues we'll have to deal with this year will be much worse than what we had to deal with last year. If anything, 2020 was probably worse than what we'll have to deal with this year. I don't remember if there was an innings minimum put in place last year, and the Sprint Main Event rules page seems to be deactivated. But last year they played a 60 game schedule, or 37.037% of the season. And 37.037% of 1000 IP is ~370 1/3 IP. Looking at the 2020 Sprint Main Event data, 26 of the 570 teams did not meet that 370 1/3 IP threshold. So, much more than the 9 teams that didn't make 1000 IP in 2019, but still only ~4.5% of teams, likely many that just quit on the Sprint season toward the end.

Teams cannot use bullpens all season for a 162-game schedule to the extent that they did last year. The roster size is going to be 26-man rosters, not 30-man rosters. Teams will not be able to have 16+ pitchers and 11+ relievers on their rosters this year. Starting pitchers are going to have to be utilized, babied or not. Though the 6-man rotations are my biggest concern, limiting a lot of otherwise 2-start pitcher opportunities. If pitchers are going to only pitch 130-150 IP, it is going to be because they only made 25-28 starts, due to 6-man rotations, getting skipped along the way or going on the IL with phantom "injuries". But when this happens, we will be able to put in another pitcher in our lineup. This isn't old fashioned fantasy baseball where you couldn't bench someone on your active roster and had to drop them in order to get them out of your lineup. We aren't stuck with only the amount of innings pitched that we drafted. Yes, obviously we will have to take the occasional zero when pitcher X gets skipped from his Thursday start and the team made no announcement about it until Wednesday. But that happens every year anyway. I am definitely with King of Queens (and others) regarding the ability to remove a P from your lineup on Friday if he has not pitched in a game that week yet. I think that one fix would go a long way to help with the IP issue being discussed, as well. But overall, I don't think there is enough cause for concern to warrant lowering the 1000 IP minimum.

Thurman15
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:27 pm

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Thurman15 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:15 am

Well I believe Dan identified a real problem. As many have pointed out it may be too late for this year. But those suggesting it is not at all a problem are being stubborn. Sure we CAN select our teams to ensure we get the 1000 innings, but it mostly takes away set up men and good 7th inning pitchers. If they are not going to get saves, and they are not going to pitch too many innings, they won't be drafted. And if you believe I'm wrong, then take a look at the upcoming drafts and auctions. As more of us realize what may happen, a lot of us will now go with 6 or 7 starters and 2 closers (or elite set up men). I'm just saying that it is a shame to need to alter our strategy this year. But we must or Dan is correct, we run the risk of missing the 1000 innings. At any rate I always support the NFBC and will not complain. But hopefully next year we can lower it to 900.

On a side note, these teams going with a 6 man rotation are never going to be able to sign the elite starting pitchers. Imagine telling Trevor Bauer, Gerrit Cole or Jake deGrom that they won't be starting every 5th day. They won't be signing with those 6 starter teams. One example is the Angels. We all know they desperately need a real Ace. Do you really believe they have ANY chance of signing an elite free agent starter next year ??
Rogers Hornsby, Hall of Famer with the Cardinals was once asked " You love Baseball Rogers, but what do you do in the winter ? " His response......"I stare out the window and wait for spring "

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Greg Ambrosius » Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:01 am

Thanks for the discussion on this topic everyone and I enjoyed the opinions. I tried not to jump into this thread too soon to avoid swaying the discussion to continue. I wasn't trying to avoid the topic, I just wanted it to play out.

My first thought was like many on this thread that there was no way I would change the rules this late in the game. It's a great discussion for 2022, but we did think about the 1,000 IP limit before we set the rules and decided this was the right number. Same with 1,100 IP for the Diamond and Platinum.

Now why did we land at 1,000 IP? Well, this came from the players. We have always been flexible with the IP minimum and in fact waaaaaaay too flexible at one time. And we can easily change to a lower or higher number once again if the facts support it. Right now we are assuming what is going to happen in 2021 based on last year's short season and we need more concrete proof that the game is changing this way before changing our rules. Our rules are flexible, but we've also been a little stubborn as you know in changing the basic concepts.

First a history lesson: So when I created the NFBC rules I wanted players to construct their pitching staffs whatever way they wanted. I really did. In fact, I had no minimum innings pitched limit during the first two years. If someone wanted all relievers, I felt that was okay since strikeouts and wins were important categories. Since the first year mainly consisted of only the Main Event, nobody manipulated that rule.

But in 2005, we had some wiseguys in the AL and NL Auction leagues who went with all closers and minor-leaguers to dominate three pitching categories and five hitting categories, while punting two pitching categories. In fact, one person basically went with all minor-league pitchers to punt three categories with the goal of winning the other seven and winning this private league this way (one scoreless third of an inning would qualify and he would win ERA and WHIP). I quickly learned a valuable lesson that sometimes my best intentions of allowing flexibility can get manipulated to the detriment of the contest. I learned that again a few years later when trying to allow pitchers to be removed mid-week if they landed on the DL.

So in 2006 we decided to have a more stringent minimum innings pitched limit. I don't remember if we went directly to 900 or not, but we made it high enough to avoid a roster of non-playing minor-leaguers. Thanks to the suggestions of our players, we either landed at 900 IP that year or quickly thereafter and it stayed that way for years.

But a few years back it was apparent that you could reach 900 IP with three stud starters and a mix of six relievers and starters. And several teams were employing that strategy, which definitely wasn't mirroring an MLB roster of at least 5 starting pitchers. Moving it to 1,000 IP was the answer and quickly the game changed to where there were fewer 200 IP studs each year. That trend has continued to where we are today.

We also moved the Diamond and Platinum leagues to 1,200 IP because fewer and fewer teams were using more than 3 starters in those formats and since then we've moved that down to 1,100 IP. That remains the limit in 2021.

Again, all of these moves were made as a result of feedback from our players. At season's end, we'll gladly look at this rule and change it if needed. At this point, none of us know for sure what is going to happen this year. I do think we all agree that most starting pitchers won't hit their IP levels that they did in 2019 or before that, but that could be as much about the short season of 2020 as it is about teams' reluctance to have starters go through lineups a third time. But the trend is obvious and we'll keep an eye on it.

What is going on now with the 1,000 IP limit is that the stud starters -- and we know there are 15-17 of them now -- are going earlier and earlier in NFBC drafts. And we know why. These are innings eaters and if you get 400 IP from two of your top starters, you can definitely manage those other seven pitching spots in a lot of different ways. I disagree that our limit is restricting the use of middle relievers or setup guys. Depending on how you construct your pitching staff, those guys can have a lot of value, minimal value or no value. It's all part of the roster construction.

We look at IP limits for every team starting in September and email those owners who may fall short. I think we've had to adjust the final standings once and that was in a $150 DC where the owner admitted that he thought 1,000 IP was the rule but wasn't sure at the time of the draft and wanted to try something different. It worked, but unfortunately he lost the prize money and wasn't upset. Most other teams that don't reach that level I can easily look up and see that they gave up on those teams. Most are in the DCs where they couldn't pick anyone up to reach the 1,000 IP limit.

But yes, we sure check this each year and we feel that getting 111 IP from each of the 9 pitching spots over 27 weeks is attainable. Not easy, especially this year, but attainable. And if it was easy, it wouldn't be the NFBC. This is supposed to be hard and it's supposed to take some ingenuity and planning to build a pitching staff that can excel AND reach this limit.

The Founding Fathers wanted us to construct a roster like an MLB general manager would with stars and scrubs. The reason there are 23-man rosters is because in 1980 when Rotisserie Baseball was invented MLB teams had 23 man rosters. Today they have 26 man rosters, but we still keep it at 23. We still have 2 Catchers because no MLB team can go a full 162-game season with just one catcher. The second one sucks, but so be it. All teams have sucky second catchers, so we do too. They also have more than 2 or 3 starting pitchers, so we should too. We are mirroring the tough decisions of an MLB General Manager and it's not supposed to be easy. Am I right?

Thanks for the discussion and I hope I didn't stop it with this post. I just didn't want to remain silent when others might think a rules change could be coming. We can't legally change a rule at this point and don't feel we need to just yet. Maybe next year and we'll gladly have that discussion again. Good luck all and enjoy.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius

Bronx Yankees
Posts: 1238
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:16 pm

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Bronx Yankees » Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:35 am

Thanks, Greg. Can you clarify - does a team that fails to hit 1,000 IP get moved down to 1 point in ERA and WHIP in both league standings and overall standings, or just league standings? Thanks.

Mike
Mike Mager
"Bronx Yankees"

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Greg Ambrosius » Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:44 am

Bronx Yankees wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:35 am
Thanks, Greg. Can you clarify - does a team that fails to hit 1,000 IP get moved down to 1 point in ERA and WHIP in both league standings and overall standings, or just league standings? Thanks.

Mike
Of course in both. Nobody benefits by missing 1,000 IP. That team would fall to 1 point in ERA and WHIP in league and overall standings. Nobody else would benefit from that, but that one individual team would lose all ERA and WHIP points by skirting the rules.
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: Innings Minimum

Post by DOUGHBOYS » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:22 am

A question for you, Greg.

I'll simplify this in terms of numbers.

There is an Overall of 30 teams.
The second ranked team in ERA and Whip does not meet the 1,000 IP requirement. That team drops to one point in both categories.
Does the third ranked team in both categories receive 28 points or 29 points in that category with all other teams moving up a spot?
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Greg Ambrosius » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:27 am

DOUGHBOYS wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:22 am
A question for you, Greg.

I'll simplify this in terms of numbers.

There is an Overall of 30 teams.
The second ranked team in ERA and Whip does not meet the 1,000 IP requirement. That team drops to one point in both categories.
Does the third ranked team in both categories receive 28 points or 29 points in that category with all other teams moving up a spot?
28 points. Nobody gains more points because one team skirted the rules. Everyone stays the safe and only the team that failed to reach that minimum loses points. NOBODY ELSE MOVES IN THE STANDINGS.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius

Rickerbocker
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:03 am

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Rickerbocker » Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:29 am

COZ wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:56 pm
I am vehemently opposed to any change to the Mimimum IP requirement for reasons well articulated by others below. This puts a premium on the traditional “workhorse” SP consistent with the game itself & forces owners to adopt draft strategies & in-season FAAB managment consistent with ensuring one reaches the IP requirement. The way to really attack this issue, which I think is somewhat married to the IP concern raised, but more relevant than changing the IP requirement, is to allow Ps who have not pitched, for whatever reason, M-Th to be substituted for & not be locked until they enter a game. But I recognize this opens a whole new can of worms that I’m sure nobody is ready to deal with this close to draft season but may warrant discussion for next season.

I am in 100% agreement with you on locking (or rather unlocking) P's who haven't pitched through Thursday to be substituted on Friday for the weekend.

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Quahogs » Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:35 pm

Greg Ambrosius wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:27 am
DOUGHBOYS wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:22 am
A question for you, Greg.

I'll simplify this in terms of numbers.

There is an Overall of 30 teams.
The second ranked team in ERA and Whip does not meet the 1,000 IP requirement. That team drops to one point in both categories.
Does the third ranked team in both categories receive 28 points or 29 points in that category with all other teams moving up a spot?
28 points. Nobody gains more points because one team skirted the rules. Everyone stays the safe and only the team that failed to reach that minimum loses points. NOBODY ELSE MOVES IN THE STANDINGS.
If a team is illegally posited ahead of other teams why are the teams below it penalized a point? I don't see the <1000ip team as skirting the rules moreso they are just illegal in those categories. The point taken away from all the team below should receive that point back as the illegal team slides all the way down to 1 each.

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by DOUGHBOYS » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:19 pm

It's a good point, Steve.
In my example, the fellow in first place is helped by another drafter who did not reach the minimum.
The only example where a first place finisher can have two more points than the rest of the field in a category.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by KJ Duke » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:12 pm

The fairest way to deal with missed minimums is neither of the above as I've argued before.

Penalize the offender to the extent they missed the minimum and adjust their team stats and standings accordingly.

If you miss by one inning you should not lose 10 points in standings since plugging in the world's worst pitcher, say Matt Harvey, would not drop you from a 1.20 whip to a 1.47 whip at the bottom of the league. So dropping the offender to 1 point is not fair, and neither is raising 9 other teams by a point (or likewise, raising none of them by a point, as Jupink suggested). So use a formula.

For every inning below 1000 add 1 ER and 3 H/BB in penalty stats and raise the IP denominator to 1000. Then adjust standings on the basis of the that team's updated ERA/WHIP. That would better reflect where all teams should've finished in ratios had the offender reached the minimum with a crappy pitcher.
Last edited by KJ Duke on Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Quahogs » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:17 pm

DOUGHBOYS wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:19 pm
It's a good point, Steve.
In my example, the fellow in first place is helped by another drafter who did not reach the minimum.
The only example where a first place finisher can have two more points than the rest of the field in a category.
How about this example - a bit of a stretch but doable. If I have 5 ME teams and 1 of them is a contender and 4 are laggards(top 10 or so,easy to gauge by the all-star break). I can conceivably ride those 4 with peripheral quality middlemen keeping those teams <1000ip all the while moving them up in ERA and WHIP slowly taking away points from my contenders. I could max out stealing 8 points for the teams I am fighting against.

Hey maybe you put a crimp in the KJ Duke lifetime standings but 150k is 150k :lol: Just sayin...

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Quahogs » Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:28 pm

KJ Duke wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:12 pm
The fairest way to deal with missed minimums is neither of the above as I've argued before.

Penalize the offender to the extent they missed the minimum and adjust their team stats and standings accordingly.

If you miss by one inning you should not lose 10 points in standings since plugging in the world's worst pitcher, say Matt Harvey, would not drop you from a 1.20 whip to a 1.47 whip at the bottom of the league. So dropping the offender to 1 point is not fair, and neither is raising 9 other teams by a point (or likewise, raising none of them by a point, as Jupink suggested). So use a formula.

For every inning below 1000 add 1 ER and 3 H/BB in penalty stats and raise the IP denominator to 1000. Then adjust standings on the basis of the that team's updated ERA/WHIP. That would better reflect where all teams should've finished in ratios had the offender reached the minimum with a crappy pitcher.
I like it. A team could be legitimately pursuing 1000ip and come up 5 short especially due to the whimsical rotations the last few weeks. Very equitable.

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Navel Lint » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:19 pm

KJ Duke wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:12 pm
The fairest way to deal with missed minimums is neither of the above as I've argued before.

Penalize the offender to the extent they missed the minimum and adjust their team stats and standings accordingly.

If you miss by one inning you should not lose 10 points in standings since plugging in the world's worst pitcher, say Matt Harvey, would not drop you from a 1.20 whip to a 1.47 whip at the bottom of the league. So dropping the offender to 1 point is not fair, and neither is raising 9 other teams by a point (or likewise, raising none of them by a point, as Jupink suggested). So use a formula.

For every inning below 1000 add 1 ER and 3 H/BB in penalty stats and raise the IP denominator to 1000. Then adjust standings on the basis of the that team's updated ERA/WHIP. That would better reflect where all teams should've finished in ratios had the offender reached the minimum with a crappy pitcher.
A team could willfully try to game the system, not meet the minimum requirements of the contest that are needed to maintain the integrity of the Main Event overall standings, and you think the current penalty is "not fair".

So we don't want to make a minimum IP requirement that 95% of all teams cleared last season too burdensome, nor do we want to penalize them too much if they don't.

Assume I try the stud pitcher, closers, low ERA RP strategy that Greg mentioned knowing the penalty that you propose. It won't be easy, but I wouldn't try if I didn't think I could pull it off. Remember, it's all relative to 14 other teams actively trying to reach the 1000+ IP.
Damn! I draft great (a first for me). A 2.51 team era, great whip and 110+ saves....but only 920 IP. Under your plan, the penalty would take me to a 3.37 era, that still would have won a lot of leagues last year and would have been 24th in the Overall, plus I still have my 110 saves and great hitting. I'm not sure that is enough of a disincentive to keep people from trying this strategy, especially since we don't want people doing this in contest that has an Overall component.

Pass
Russel -Navel Lint

"Fans don't boo nobodies"
-Reggie Jackson

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by KJ Duke » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:28 pm

Navel Lint wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:19 pm
KJ Duke wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:12 pm
The fairest way to deal with missed minimums is neither of the above as I've argued before.

Penalize the offender to the extent they missed the minimum and adjust their team stats and standings accordingly.

If you miss by one inning you should not lose 10 points in standings since plugging in the world's worst pitcher, say Matt Harvey, would not drop you from a 1.20 whip to a 1.47 whip at the bottom of the league. So dropping the offender to 1 point is not fair, and neither is raising 9 other teams by a point (or likewise, raising none of them by a point, as Jupink suggested). So use a formula.

For every inning below 1000 add 1 ER and 3 H/BB in penalty stats and raise the IP denominator to 1000. Then adjust standings on the basis of the that team's updated ERA/WHIP. That would better reflect where all teams should've finished in ratios had the offender reached the minimum with a crappy pitcher.
A team could willfully try to game the system, not meet the minimum requirements of the contest that are needed to maintain the integrity of the Main Event overall standings, and you think the current penalty is "not fair".

So we don't want to make a minimum IP requirement that 95% of all teams cleared last season too burdensome, nor do we want to penalize them too much if they don't.

Assume I try the stud pitcher, closers, low ERA RP strategy that Greg mentioned knowing the penalty that you propose. It won't be easy, but I wouldn't try if I didn't think I could pull it off. Remember, it's all relative to 14 other teams actively trying to reach the 1000+ IP.
Damn! I draft great (a first for me). A 2.51 team era, great whip and 110+ saves....but only 920 IP. Under your plan, the penalty would take me to a 3.37 era, that still would have won a lot of leagues last year and would have been 24th in the Overall, plus I still have my 110 saves and great hitting. I'm not sure that is enough of a disincentive to keep people from trying this strategy, especially since we don't want people doing this in contest that has an Overall component.

Pass
You couldn't be more wrong. If you had that big of lead in ratios you could throw any bum in there to get to your 1000 mark and still end up with ratios way below the penalty rule.

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Navel Lint » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:46 pm

KJ Duke wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:28 pm
Navel Lint wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:19 pm
KJ Duke wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:12 pm
The fairest way to deal with missed minimums is neither of the above as I've argued before.

Penalize the offender to the extent they missed the minimum and adjust their team stats and standings accordingly.

If you miss by one inning you should not lose 10 points in standings since plugging in the world's worst pitcher, say Matt Harvey, would not drop you from a 1.20 whip to a 1.47 whip at the bottom of the league. So dropping the offender to 1 point is not fair, and neither is raising 9 other teams by a point (or likewise, raising none of them by a point, as Jupink suggested). So use a formula.

For every inning below 1000 add 1 ER and 3 H/BB in penalty stats and raise the IP denominator to 1000. Then adjust standings on the basis of the that team's updated ERA/WHIP. That would better reflect where all teams should've finished in ratios had the offender reached the minimum with a crappy pitcher.
A team could willfully try to game the system, not meet the minimum requirements of the contest that are needed to maintain the integrity of the Main Event overall standings, and you think the current penalty is "not fair".

So we don't want to make a minimum IP requirement that 95% of all teams cleared last season too burdensome, nor do we want to penalize them too much if they don't.

Assume I try the stud pitcher, closers, low ERA RP strategy that Greg mentioned knowing the penalty that you propose. It won't be easy, but I wouldn't try if I didn't think I could pull it off. Remember, it's all relative to 14 other teams actively trying to reach the 1000+ IP.
Damn! I draft great (a first for me). A 2.51 team era, great whip and 110+ saves....but only 920 IP. Under your plan, the penalty would take me to a 3.37 era, that still would have won a lot of leagues last year and would have been 24th in the Overall, plus I still have my 110 saves and great hitting. I'm not sure that is enough of a disincentive to keep people from trying this strategy, especially since we don't want people doing this in contest that has an Overall component.

Pass
You couldn't be more wrong. If you had that big of lead in ratios you could throw any bum in there to get to your 1000 mark and still end up with ratios way below the penalty rule.
Any bum that will get you 80! more innings that you would have to start accumulating early enough in the season to reach 1000 and maintain enough of your era lead. The point is that your penalty, or lack of one doesn't scare me
Russel -Navel Lint

"Fans don't boo nobodies"
-Reggie Jackson

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by KJ Duke » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:51 pm

If someone is crazy enough to think they can "game the system" by getting penalized with 9.00 era and 3.00 whip to fill up the missed innings rather than plugging in 2-start Rockies off the waiver wire ... I will take those guys on all day long, the more you can find the better. :lol:

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Greg Ambrosius » Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:59 am

Guys, we have NEVER had an overall prize altered because of the minimum innings pitched limit. Not even close. I understand this discussion, but to change every standing up and down for this would likely affect 565th place in the Draft Champions National Championship, or more likely 2,565th place. And we'd need an auditor to make sure every single team was moved down and up in every national contest. Yes, if we ever see this close to the top prizes then by all means go at it and holler at us for being so dumb as to not move everyone up one spot. But this is an argument over a what-could-be scenario and our rules clearly state that the team that doesn't reach 1,000 IP gets one point in ERA and WHIP and nobody else moves in the standings. As plain as can be.

Now arguing about our rules is off-season spring training for the boards, so go at it. But this is how we handle the situation and it's not changing.

Again, people in the Top 100 in the Main Event are NOT coming up short in minimum innings pitched and if they do this year just like any other year they likely aren't paying attention. Same for the Rotowire Online Championship. It's required to have 1,000 IP. That's it, bottom line. If you don't, YOUR TEAM is affected. That's it. You lose money.

Carry on with the discussion, but it's not changing anything for 2021.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Greg Ambrosius » Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:37 am

There was a discussion on these Message Boards late last season to look at our 1,000 IP minimum for most NFBC contests and I said we would do that at season's end. Well, here we are.

And yes, this is a discussion worth having this year. I asked for the data from IT last week and among our 1,500+ leagues (which included some non-pay leagues like TGFBI and The Athletic), we found that almost 5% of all teams failed to reach the 1,000 IP minimum. Now most of these were in the Draft Champions formats where you can't pick up substitutes for injured or demoted players, but the fact of the matter is that it's a higher percentage than we'd like to see.

For the record, there were eight league prizes that were adjusted on teams that failed to reach the innings pitched minimum and all but two were in the NFBC Draft Champions format. Those teams missed the IP minimum anywhere from 80 IP to less than 1 IP. Legally we had to demote each of those teams to 1 point in WHIP and 1 point in ERA and then recalculate the standings. About $4,000 in prize money was affected by this.

I reached out to each of the affected owners and to a man they did not realize they missed the IP minimum. And in most cases, they had so many injuries on their DC teams that they couldn't have done much to change the final result. I think it shows me that maybe we need to find a better way to alert those affected owners before the end of the season.

Our goal is to launch the NFBC site for 2022 shortly after the World Series, so we need to finalize the rules for the upcoming season now before we post everything on the site. And the biggest rules decision likely involves the IP minimum for all NFBC leagues.

After looking at the 2021 data, I think a slight move on the minimum IP limit does make sense. Forty percent of the teams that missed the 1,000 IP minimum had 950 IP or more, while 40% had less than 900 IP. I think 950 IP still forces teams to have a strong number of Starting Pitchers and not to just stream Relief Pitchers, while going to 900 IP gets us into that area where past players thought it would lead to teams having just a few good Starting Pitchers and then would stream Relief Pitchers.

So I'll gladly open the discussion here on three options or even write-in options:

2022 Minimum Innings Pitch Limit for most NFBC Contests:
a) 1,000 IP (keep it as is)
b) 950 IP
c) 900 IP
d) something else

And I'll work with the Platinum and Diamond owners on their IP minimum. It is currently 1,100, but that might need adjusting too. Nobody missed out on that limit who won prize money, but it is a lofty total in today's game. Maybe 1,050 makes more sense. We will discuss, but feel free to post here as well.

Thanks for any feedback and we'll finalize before posting 2022's rules. Thanks all.
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: Innings Minimum

Post by Gekko » Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:29 am

Please keep main event at 1,000. No reason why an owner can’t reach that in weekly faab leagues

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Greg Ambrosius » Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:39 am

Gekko wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:29 am
Please keep main event at 1,000. No reason why an owner can’t reach that in weekly faab leagues
And this is an option. There were 18 Main Event teams that didn't reach 1,000 IP, including 11 that were between 950 and 999.

Again, the vast majority of those who didn't reach the minimum IP limit were Draft Champions leagues (even $50, 12-team leagues). So it's possible that a contest with no FAAB needs a reduction and some of the other contests with FAAB are okay where they are. Worth a discussion.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius

JohnP
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by JohnP » Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:57 am

Thanks for looking at this. The trend is downward for sure on IP but 18 of 645 in Main Event is only 2.8 percent and a number of those teams look like the owners gave up on their teams. I agree with Mark on FAAB leagues - still not a problem to get to 1000. Furthermore, it looks like the highest finish of a non-1000 inning pitch team was 333rd in the main. It isn't like some alternative strategy is working well. In the OC....SP is more readily available given the 12-team nature of the contest. No adjustment needed there either.

I think an adjustment for DC contests has merit.

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Philippe27 » Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:42 pm

I think we should keep it as is for the Main Event. The top 40 teams in the overall had 1200+ IP so it's not even close to being an issue for that. If someone wants a heavier RP approach to try and win a league that's fine but we shouldn't change the rules for them.

For the DC I think it could be fair to lower it to 950.

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by DOUGHBOYS » Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:50 pm

Only 29 pitchers threw just 170 innings this past year.
An average of only two such pitchers per 15 team league.
Five years ago, that number was 64.
Innings by starting pitchers are drying up. To boot, there have been more relievers than ever on MLB rosters.
The trend is a can't miss.

I believe changing the minimum requirement for high priced leagues is based on how proactive the NFBC wants to be.
As folks have said, meeting minimums now in large leagues are not a huge problem. But, the trends are there and lowering innings will come with time.
For the very near future, 950-1000 innings is fine.

I don't believe any player has 'gamed' a DC championship.
The 1,000 IP minimum was not meant to be a hurdle for drafters. More so, a deterrent for those that want to 'game' a contest.
With injuries and pitchers not being counted on for large workloads and drafters without FAAB options, the NFBC can be more aggressive with lowering innings requirements in DC's.
It can be lowered to 900 innings without much change in the contest at all.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!

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

Re: Innings Minimum

Post by Wolfpac » Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:22 pm

Please keep Main Event and higher priced individual leagues like Super at 1000

Post Reply