NFBC Message Boards

The reason I am even suggesting this approach is because I am really frustrated with seeing guys on my bench have great stats for a week but not getting credit for their stats because they are not in the starting lineup (even though they are a part of my team).



Why not keep the current 23 positions requirements as they are but also count the stats from the bench players on each team. This would force people to decide what type of bench players they would keep because their stats would now count each week. Each team would have to make the following decisions:

1. Whether to keep more pitchers or hitters on the bench.

2. If someone is in the minors, whether to hold on to them if they are a big time prospect.

3. If a superstar is on the DL, whether to keep him or not.

4. If someone is in a big time slump, whether to drop them or not.

One advantage would be, if you are unable to be at a computer, there would be no need to switch players from the bench to the starting lineup.



If this would be too dramatic a change, an alternate suggestion would be to allow the stats to count from one benched player each week (a 24th man). You would not have to choose the player until after the 7 days are already completed. An example would be, say that J.D. Drew, Brendan Harris, Bobby Abreu, Jon Leiber, and Octavio Dotel were some of my benched players this week. At the end of the current scoring period, I would be able to choose one of them as my 24th player for the week just passed, and their stats for the past week would be added to my team's stats for that week.

Originally posted by unlucky:

The reason I am even suggesting this approach is because I am really frustrated with seeing guys on my bench have great stats for a week but not getting credit for their stats because they are not in the starting lineup (even though they are a part of my team).



Why not keep the current 23 positions requirements as they are but also count the stats from the bench players on each team. This would force people to decide what type of bench players they would keep because their stats would now count each week. Each team would have to make the following decisions:

1. Whether to keep more pitchers or hitters on the bench.

2. If someone is in the minors, whether to hold on to them if they are a big time prospect.

3. If a superstar is on the DL, whether to keep him or not.

4. If someone is in a big time slump, whether to drop them or not.

One advantage would be, if you are unable to be at a computer, there would be no need to switch players from the bench to the starting lineup.



If this would be too dramatic a change, an alternate suggestion would be to allow the stats to count from one benched player each week (a 24th man). You would not have to choose the player until after the 7 days are already completed. An example would be, say that J.D. Drew, Brendan Harris, Bobby Abreu, Jon Leiber, and Octavio Dotel were some of my benched players this week. At the end of the current scoring period, I would be able to choose one of them as my 24th player for the week just passed, and their stats for the past week would be added to my team's stats for that week. Or play the right players, or kick your dog when you have the wrong guy on the bench like the rest of us.



This is a game of skill and it should attempt to mirror real life decisions as best as possible.



Your idea diminishes both greatly.



I don't know if I have heard of a worse idea since an 11x11 league.

Mr. Rockwell - If you think that this is totally a game of skill, then you must be new to this game. I would say that LUCK is at least,if not more, as much a factor as skill in determining who wins. I guess you must be a real genius to know which players to bench/start each week. Can you tell me what the lottery number will be tomorrow? Thanks.

Originally posted by unlucky:

Mr. Rockwell - If you think that this is totally a game of skill, then you must be new to this game. I would say that LUCK is at least,if not more, as much a factor as skill in determining who wins. I guess you must be a real genius to know which players to bench/start each week. Can you tell me what the lottery number will be tomorrow? Thanks. I make as many calls that backfire on who to start as anyone I just do not cry about it like a little girl- if this game is so lucky look at the top of the leaderboard this year- Doughboys, CC, Berkshire- these guys must have a tremendous amount of luck because they do it year and year out. Am I so lucky that going in to this week I was in first in all 3 of my nfbc leagues with very different looking rosters on all 3 leagues? Was I unlucky this week when my pitchers got shelled or was it the truth that my smoke and mirrors starting staff finally came back down to earth in the main event.



It is a bad idea- in fact a terrible idea. Just accept that one and move on. By the way you can call me Chest no need to be all formal now.



[ June 10, 2007, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Chest Rockwell ]

Originally posted by unlucky:

The reason I am even suggesting this approach is because I am really frustrated with seeing guys on my bench have great stats for a week but not getting credit for their stats because they are not in the starting lineup (even though they are a part of my team).



Why not keep the current 23 positions requirements as they are but also count the stats from the bench players on each team. This would force people to decide what type of bench players they would keep because their stats would now count each week. Each team would have to make the following decisions:

1. Whether to keep more pitchers or hitters on the bench.

2. If someone is in the minors, whether to hold on to them if they are a big time prospect.

3. If a superstar is on the DL, whether to keep him or not.

4. If someone is in a big time slump, whether to drop them or not.

One advantage would be, if you are unable to be at a computer, there would be no need to switch players from the bench to the starting lineup.



If this would be too dramatic a change, an alternate suggestion would be to allow the stats to count from one benched player each week (a 24th man). You would not have to choose the player until after the 7 days are already completed. An example would be, say that J.D. Drew, Brendan Harris, Bobby Abreu, Jon Leiber, and Octavio Dotel were some of my benched players this week. At the end of the current scoring period, I would be able to choose one of them as my 24th player for the week just passed, and their stats for the past week would be added to my team's stats for that week. AWFUL!

worst idea ever

This idea really wouldn't impact me either way. My reserve 7 tend perform every bit as miserably as my starting 23!



Kevin

Nobody's crying here - Chest (Is that a girl or a guy's name? Sounds a little feminine to me. Just kidding). Just throwing out some ideas to see what others think. Again, I am glad that you have such great skill and luck does not play a part in your game. Congratulations. As for me, I realize that skill has to have some luck to succeed, and if I had a choice, I would rather be lucky than good any day of the week.



Even though you might not want to hear it, I wish you good luck.

I agree, horrible idea. You should join a draft champions league where you don't have to submit a lineup. If you were speaking about football, I would say there's a lot more luck involved, but baseball is almost all skill. Sure, people could get "lucky" by taking a waiver on a player like Cust, but they also had to have some skill to be aware of him and his potential. With a season lasting half of the year, there's really no luck involved if you win an NFBC league IMO, that is unless you draft all relievers.

Why do you say there is more luck involved in football than baseball? I would say there is just as much luck and skill in both.



Did all of those people that picked up Jack Cust for a $1 know that he was going to hit 6 HR the next week. Or did they just get lucky? What about all of those people that grabbed Mark Reynolds on the cheap? Did they know what he would do his first couple of weeks? What about those that drafted B.J. Ryan early or B.J. Upton late? Are they really that stupid or smart? I would say that there was a lot of luck (both good and bad) involved.



The idea of a 24th player was a way of balancing out a little of the bad luck that we all run into.

wayyyyy more luck in football

Can't help myself from joning the kicking party. People who think it's mostly luck are usually very average and therefore their seasons go one way or another based on, yes, luck. Good players and bad players might end up looking a little more average on down or up years respectively but usually perform near the top or bottom of their leagues based on their skill. Your handle on these boards seems to indicate you don't want to take responsibility for however bad your team is.



Football has a much smaller sample than baseball and is therefore more prone to luck. If a baseball season was decided in two weeks of games, the Royals might go to the playoffs if you picked the right two weeks. Also, inuries are more common and random in football.



As for your idea, it is the worst one I've heard since 11x11 leagues.

Unlucky;



Which team and league are you?

Sorry dude, but have to agree with everyone else...terrible idea.

Unlucky,



In essence, you are recommending expanding the rosters. There was some discussion of that by Ron Shandler who proposed it mainly to have greater dilution of the talent and decrease the available talent FA pool.



I personally think we have a good balance right now (not too deep dilution, but enough teams in the league so that we are pretty deep into the 4th/5th starters, 4th or platoon outfielders, a few super-subs and middle relievers/closers in waiting). Right now, I think this mix is optimal to attract the hard core players without scaring off those who really just enjoy fantasy baseball (without being too hard core) and who the NFBC needs to continue growing the event (numbers of participants and hopefully prize money).



I understand your idea (and feel your pain of having your bench outshine the current crop of starters), but in the long run I think it would be counterproductive to the NFBC.



[ June 11, 2007, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

Like I said previouly, I was just throwing out some ideas that might spice up the game and would balance out some of the luck that is involved when we have to choose who to bench and who to start each week. It seems as though it is not a change that many would like to see happen. No problem.



bjoak said: "People who think it's mostly luck are usually very average and therefore their seasons go one way or another based on, yes, luck. Good players and bad players might end up looking a little more average on down or up years respectively but usually perform near the top or bottom of their leagues based on their skill. Your handle on these boards seems to indicate you don't want to take responsibility for however bad your team is."



bjoak - I have my own reasons for choosing my handle; which I will keep to myself. It has nothing to do with not taking responsibility for my team. If you go back and read the beginning of this thread, you will see that it was started because of seeing some of my bench players having a great week and getting no benefit for their performance. I was just putting forth some ideas to correct that frustrating situation.



As far as skill vs luck, the skill part comes in to play mostly when you choose the players you want on your team. Since we all have chosen 30 players that we think will give us the best chance at winning, why not lessen the luck factor that comes in to play when we have a player(s) benched that has a great week. Not hard to understand.