NFBC Message Boards

I don't check the boards a lot so sorry if I missed something similar, but are there any proposed changes for next year? The game has changed so much that I'd argue it might be time to shift away from some of the stats we've become accustomed to.

The one that I am having a really hard time with is saves. It used to be that there were at least 24 confirmed closers. When one changed, you'd have a new one for the people who were desperate for a closer to bid on/up. Now if you lose both closers, you, uh, just lose. Right now there are 10 committees listed on Closer Monkey, and I count 5 other closers who have anything but a firm grip. When anything changes, you inevitably just get another committee of confusion. It is almost impossible to replace a lost closer with a new closer. How many legit closers have we had to bid on this year? 0?

In my personal league, we are changing to "Saves + Holds" as a category, adding many relievers to the competition and eliminating both the new problem of not enough closers to go around and the old problem of FAAB feeding frenzy when a new closer appears.

I realize this is a big change, but I feel it matches the big change in the way that teams consider their own late inning guys. I'm just not having fun anymore when every week is just a struggle to compete in any way in that category, and I'm considering eliminating leagues that have a saves category. I don't mean that as a threat or anything; I mean it as a sad fact because that is where I'm at in the frustration in this. In fact, now that I think about it, lack of closers is already a big reason I shied away from the 15 team format (which must be a saves nightmare at this point). Or maybe you could offer Saves+Holds on a trial basis and see how people react. I'd play in that sandbox.

Good discussion! FWIW - the main event totals so far are not pointing to a drop in the Save totals. We are at the 45.8 percent mark (2226 of 4860 games played) and the 80th percentile mark is at 35 which is on pace for a 76 total. 76 would actually be higher than the 2019 and 2020 (pro-rated) totals for Saves.

JohnP wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:02 am

Good discussion! FWIW - the main event totals so far are not pointing to a drop in the Save totals. We are at the 45.8 percent mark (2226 of 4860 games played) and the 80th percentile mark is at 35 which is on pace for a 76 total. 76 would actually be higher than the 2019 and 2020 (pro-rated) totals for Saves.

I would think the top 20% would be around the same because the top 20% would all have at least two legit closers. I would expect to see a drop for sure at the 50% mark where people are finding it impossible to compete with anyone with legit closers.

The motto, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going" has apparently, in this generation, morphed into "when the going gets tough, the not-so-tough-minded seek to change the rules to make things easier.”

While I will have to have JP crunch the numbers on it to be sure, I doubt the overall number of total Saves awarded (much like Wins) has significantly changed, rather the allocation of them has changed from traditional "Closers," to other non-traditional relievers. This indeed makes it tougher to simply roster "Closers" from Closer Monkey for "Saves." Rather, now one must adopt new strategies & possibly roster non-traditional players to mine for Saves. This is hard. Life is hard. Fantasy Baseball is harder. But rather than taking the typical reflexive reaction clamoring to change the rules, maybe changing strategies is in order first. While this is probably worthy of discussion, in my opinion, a change in the rules is not. And while your signature motto boasts that "Chance Favors the Prepare Mind," maybe it should really boast that "Chance Favors the Prepared Mind Willing to Change." Change in strategies, not the rules.

COZ wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 25, 2021 4:09 pm

The motto, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going" has apparently, in this generation, morphed into "when the going gets tough, the not-so-tough-minded seek to change the rules to make things easier.”

While I will have to have JP crunch the numbers on it to be sure, I doubt the overall number of total Saves awarded (much like Wins) has significantly changed, rather the allocation of them has changed from traditional "Closers," to other non-traditional relievers. This indeed makes it tougher to simply roster "Closers" from Closer Monkey for "Saves." Rather, now one must adopt new strategies & possibly roster non-traditional players to mine for Saves. This is hard. Life is hard. Fantasy Baseball is harder. But rather than taking the typical reflexive reaction clamoring to change the rules, maybe changing strategies is in order first. While this is probably worthy of discussion, in my opinion, a change in the rules is not. And while your signature motto boasts that "Chance Favors the Prepare Mind," maybe it should really boast that "Chance Favors the Prepared Mind Willing to Change." Change in strategies, not the rules.

+1

Part of the challenge (and fun?) is rolling with the punches.

Improvise. Overcome. Adapt.

Kudo's to Brian for bringing up a rule change.
I've drafted with Brian and I know he is not trying to make things 'easier' on himself or NFBC players.
It is easy to dismiss somebody who offers up a rule change.
Baseball has evolved several times during the NFBC's existence, but our 10 categories remain the same.
It is fair to talk about change.

Any change to NFBC categories does not make our game 'easier'. Really, each change would present just a different way of attacking a category.
If changing Batting Average to On Base Percentage, it make our game neither harder or easier.
We would just look at players in a different light.
Same with Holds and Saves.
Nothing is easier.
In fact, it may be a little bit more difficult, especially when finding room to roster relievers that we give little thought to with our present categories.

I don't think any rule changes considering categories is eminent. The NFBC is mostly made up of folks who like the status quo.
But I do enjoy the conversation.
Thanks again, Brian.

I'm in a pool with Saves & holds and it stinks. It renders closers completely useless. Since there are more holds than saves it becomes a Holds category. I'm betting we will change right back. It makes Chad Green, Tyler Duffy and Connor Brogdon more valuable than real closers, who you have to spend money on, while 7th inning guys can be obtained for a buck. Remember when numerous guys said "Change wins to quality starts" Well 2 years later how do you get a quality start when (other than star pitchers) , Managers won't let their pitchers go 6 innings. I believe Greg will be on my side and suggest knee jerk reactions are not a good idea.

Good discussion. My 30+ year NL-only league transitioned to Saves+Holds several years ago in order to make skilled middle relievers more valuable. After a couple years we decided Saves+Holds devalued closers too much and have switched to 2xSaves+Holds. Everyone seems happy and the change has created the potential for several interesting strategies that don't work in Saves only leagues.

Like Doughboys said, the game is evolving and it's also a zero-sum game. No rule change is going to give anyone an advantage. For me, it's more about do we evolve with the game and do we keep stat categories that are increasingly irrelevant and therefore more frustrating to find because real MLB managers don't care about the stat.

Perhaps a better example would be to imagine that one of our stats was complete games (for SPs). At one time, that would have been an acceptable stat to use. Today, you are super lucky to get one in a week. At the end of the season the person at the top of the leader board would have 10. Would that be a situation to say if you can't be tough, get going, or, hey, baseball is changing and we should consider changing with it?

bjoak wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:51 pm

Like Doughboys said, the game is evolving and it's also a zero-sum game. No rule change is going to give anyone an advantage. For me, it's more about do we evolve with the game and do we keep stat categories that are increasingly irrelevant and therefore more frustrating to find because real MLB managers don't care about the stat.

Perhaps a better example would be to imagine that one of our stats was complete games (for SPs). At one time, that would have been an acceptable stat to use. Today, you are super lucky to get one in a week. At the end of the season the person at the top of the leader board would have 10. Would that be a situation to say if you can't be tough, get going, or, hey, baseball is changing and we should consider changing with it?

Except it's not a better example.

Unlike CG's, save rates have been consistent for nearly 40 years. Since 1983 the save rate per MLB game has been between 0.23 and 0.27% per game. The volume of saves hasn't changed other than minor year to year variances. The only thing that has changed is who actually got the Saves and how we as fantasy players figure out how to get them on our rosters.

Bottom line is the game is about being challenging and fun, not realistic. That's why I like SB and W as categories but others don't.

I think Saves + Holds completely devalue the position, I've heard 2 x Saves + Holds are a nice compromise.

I don't think we're anywhere close to that point where we have to make a change though. Once people are really tired of chasing saves, they'll draft the Hader and Hendriks type in the mid 2nd round.

Philippe27 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 01, 2021 9:58 am

Bottom line is the game is about being challenging and fun, not realistic. That's why I like SB and W as categories but others don't.

I think Saves + Holds completely devalue the position, I've heard 2 x Saves + Holds are a nice compromise.

I don't think we're anywhere close to that point where we have to make a change though. Once people are really tired of chasing saves, they'll draft the Hader and Hendriks type in the mid 2nd round.