NFBC Message Boards

This week I had a chance to look at all 375 teams in the NFBC's main event and check out the innings pitched totals for each team. The lowest IP heading into this week was 838 and only three teams were under 1,000: 838, 926 and 981. The ranges after those three teams were between 1,005 and 1,681.



In 2007, we raised the minimum IP from 400 to 600 and it's obvious that no team struggled with the higher IP total. Some folks have asked us to raise the minimum IP again, possibly to 800. At this point, I haven't ammended the rules for 2008 with a higher IP total. I think the main event makes it tougher for teams to go with mostly relief pitchers on their staff, but some of the side events lend themselves to greater flexibility.



It's possible we may move this up a bit for 2008 as we're still discussing this point. Right now the minimum seeks just 67 IP per roster spot (9 pitchers for the year) and by going to 800 it would still be only 89 IP per roster spot. Maybe 700 is a modest increase instead.



I know where a lot of you stand on this, but I thought I'd forward the numbers for all to see. In the main event, there has been little concern about our minimum IP total from the participants. Good job all and good luck the rest of the way.

Thanks Greg. Good info. If only 3 teams were under 1,000 maybe 900 or 1,000 should be the minimum? In my opinion the current is definitely too low.



I guess my question would be why so hesitant about raising the current bench mark when it appears most teams will be over 900 - 1000 anyway? Just curious? Thanks.

Originally posted by Nutty Scrat:

Thanks Greg. Good info. If only 3 teams were under 1,000 maybe 900 or 1,000 should be the minimum? In my opinion the current is definitely too low.



I guess my question would be why so hesitant about raising the current bench mark when it appears most teams will be over 900 - 1000 anyway? Just curious? Thanks. Because in the Ultimate Leagues, Auction Leagues and Satellite Leagues some teams do use other strategies to compete for the league prizes. If I'm going to change it for the main event, I will change it for all of the events to keep the IP minimum consistent.

It's getting tougher to win a league using the all reliever approach. The Marmol's, Chamberlain's and Betancourt's of the world are getting harder and harder to find each year.

I would never try to win a league giving up 28 points from the get-go, but at the same time I don't think that the reliever strategy should be shown the door.

My vote is to keep it at 600 innings and hope someone uses this strategy in my league next year.

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

It's getting tougher to win a league using the all reliever approach. The Marmol's, Chamberlain's and Betancourt's of the world are getting harder and harder to find each year.

I would never try to win a league giving up 28 points from the get-go, but at the same time I don't think that the reliever strategy should be shown the door.

My vote is to keep it at 600 innings and hope someone uses this strategy in my league next year. It's a very good point Dan. The Scott Shields and Linebrinks of the world didn't exactly pan out this year and there are many risks with this strategy, yet some folks would love to try it again in 2008. Since the main event wasn't affected at all by our minimum IP level, what's the harm in keeping it at 600? But then again, having it at 700 IP or 800 IP still allows for a lot of relievers on a roster. It's all good.

Greg,



Starting pitching is where the game is won and lost. You are still rewarding someone for not playing any starters. It is a loop hole not a strategy. If someone gets it right, they can get 60% of the pitching points by not playing. Starting pitching is part of fantasy baseball. As I said last year, it is more for the AL, NL and Ultimate leagues. All you have to do is put two options(600 and 800 innings) for those leagues. The players will tell you which they prefer.

Shawn, it's already hard enough to fill auction leagues in each city without offering two types of rules. It's better that I come up with a good set number and go from there. Inching up a bit this year probably wouldn't hurt anyone. I'd rather go to 700 IP than offer two contests with just 600 IP and 800 IP.

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

Greg,



Starting pitching is where the game is won and lost. You are still rewarding someone for not playing any starters. It is a loop hole not a strategy. If someone gets it right, they can get 60% of the pitching points by not playing. Starting pitching is part of fantasy baseball. As I said last year, it is more for the AL, NL and Ultimate leagues. All you have to do is put two options(600 and 800 innings) for those leagues. The players will tell you which they prefer. Shawn,



The key words in your post were "If someone gets it right..."...Isn't that what we all strive for no matter the strategy? I agree that it isn't in the spirit of the game and in no way does it liken itself to real baseball.

By the same token, I do recognize it as a strategy much like Showtime's no relief strategy, which they employ almost flawlessly every year.

Also, if I were to put you in a league against an all reliever strategy, I'd bet on you every time, buddy, and give odds ( I defer to you, Lance ) .

Greg has the IP for the current leagues other than the main event been examined to see where the teams are in relation to the current 600 IP requirements? This may give you an idea if raising the IPs may becomean issue? Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Shawn, it's already hard enough to fill auction leagues in each city without offering two types of rules. It's better that I come up with a good set number and go from there. Inching up a bit this year probably wouldn't hurt anyone. I'd rather go to 700 IP than offer two contests with just 600 IP and 800 IP. I don't think you are going to new players either way. In Vegas, we fill the auction leagues. If players really want them they know where to go.



I'm just saying you put up the sign up list. At some point, you will be able to tell which league is a go. You put up $650 league and $1250. When they don't fill, they either jump up or down depending on which league looks like it might fill. It's the same idea.

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

Greg,



Starting pitching is where the game is won and lost. You are still rewarding someone for not playing any starters. It is a loop hole not a strategy. If someone gets it right, they can get 60% of the pitching points by not playing. Starting pitching is part of fantasy baseball. As I said last year, it is more for the AL, NL and Ultimate leagues. All you have to do is put two options(600 and 800 innings) for those leagues. The players will tell you which they prefer. Shawn,



The key words in your post were "If someone gets it right..."...Isn't that what we all strive for no matter the strategy? I agree that it isn't in the spirit of the game and in no way does it liken itself to real baseball.

By the same token, I do recognize it as a strategy much like Showtime's no relief strategy, which they employ almost flawlessly every year.

Also, if I were to put you in a league against an all reliever strategy, I'd bet on you every time, buddy, and give odds ( I defer to you, Lance ) . [/QUOTE]The Showtime thing is crazy. Why wouldn't he just grab a couple of set up guys? He might get lucky and get 80 saves. He can never win the overall that way. He had a little trouble this year. At least he is taking risk. You know how starters are. We all hate them, but we know that pitching is where the money is won and lost.



The reliever strategy has won the most in the NL. I think it might be because of the 10 pitchers. The 7th or 8th starter really kills you there. I guess until you play those events you really can't get a feel for it.



I've won and lost against the reliever strategy. I prefer we all play it striaght up. Maybe, next year I jump teams in the auction league to prove a point.



[ September 26, 2007, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

Greg,



Starting pitching is where the game is won and lost. You are still rewarding someone for not playing any starters. It is a loop hole not a strategy. If someone gets it right, they can get 60% of the pitching points by not playing. Starting pitching is part of fantasy baseball. As I said last year, it is more for the AL, NL and Ultimate leagues. All you have to do is put two options(600 and 800 innings) for those leagues. The players will tell you which they prefer. Shawn,



The key words in your post were "If someone gets it right..."...Isn't that what we all strive for no matter the strategy? I agree that it isn't in the spirit of the game and in no way does it liken itself to real baseball.

By the same token, I do recognize it as a strategy much like Showtime's no relief strategy, which they employ almost flawlessly every year.

Also, if I were to put you in a league against an all reliever strategy, I'd bet on you every time, buddy, and give odds ( I defer to you, Lance ) . [/QUOTE]The Showtime thing is crazy. Why wouldn't he just grab a couple of set up guys? He might get lucky and get 80 saves. He can never win the overall that way. He had a little trouble this year. At least he is taking risk. You know how starters are. We all hate them, but we know that pitching is where the money is won and lost.



The reliever strategy has won the most in the NL. I think it might be because of the 10 pitchers. The 7th or 8th starter really kills you there. I guess until you play those events you really can't get a feel for it.



I've won and lost against the reliever strategy. I prefer we all play it striaght up. Maybe, next year I jump teams in the auction league to prove a point. [/QUOTE]Shawn,



You're right. I never considered the NL and AL leagues. It would be gaining an unfair advantage in those venues due to the limited starting pitching. However in the ultimate I would think it would be like any other league only with more moolah on the line. Maybe an 800 IP limit in all AL and NL would be a better solution? Would that work on your end, Greg?

Greg, maybe giving us the ip for the sat's and al/nl leagues will give us a better perspective. I personally would like to see a 800 inn pitched minimum. Thanks. Eddy (Frozen Ropes)

Greg,



How many teams were below 800 IP in the satellite, auction and Ultimate events? I know I'm under 800 IP in two leagues, and there are 2 other teams in my satellites that are also under 800.

800 innings. Close any loopholes.

Originally posted by The Lollygaggers:

Greg,



How many teams were below 800 IP in the satellite, auction and Ultimate events? I know I'm under 800 IP in two leagues, and there are 2 other teams in my satellites that are also under 800. Yes Eric, there are a few teams under 800 IP in the side events. Only one is very near 600 IP from what I can tell. That is one of the reasons why I'm not in a rush to go from 600 IP to 800 IP. However, I do think that a slight increase from 600 IP wouldn't kill out any strategies like yours and that's what I'm proposing for 2008. I'm currently having a good discussion with myself over this and will announce my decision soon!!

Originally posted by The Lollygaggers:

Greg,



How many teams were below 800 IP in the satellite, auction and Ultimate events? I know I'm under 800 IP in two leagues, and there are 2 other teams in my satellites that are also under 800. if you are under 800, then there is no way you are winning your league....



the innings pitched minimum is an old rule that was developed in leagues that had K/9 as a category instead of Total K...it should not even been considered in leagues with Total K ...there is no way someone has won a NFBC main event league with last place in Wins and K's...i dare anyone to show an examle of this...



Greg, you should drop the eminimum requiremnet an let foolish owners try to use the all reliever stradegy, less people who have a chance to win....



if anything, there should be a maximum innings pitched to keep somone from punting saves, way easier to win punting saves!

Originally posted by fandango:

quote:Originally posted by The Lollygaggers:

Greg,



How many teams were below 800 IP in the satellite, auction and Ultimate events? I know I'm under 800 IP in two leagues, and there are 2 other teams in my satellites that are also under 800. if you are under 800, then there is no way you are winning your league....



the innings pitched minimum is an old rule that was developed in leagues that had K/9 as a category instead of Total K...it should not even been considered in leagues with Total K ...there is no way someone has won a NFBC main event league with last place in Wins and K's...i dare anyone to show an examle of this...



Greg, you should drop the eminimum requiremnet an let foolish owners try to use the all reliever stradegy, less people who have a chance to win....



if anything, there should be a maximum innings pitched to keep somone from punting saves, way easier to win punting saves! [/QUOTE]LOL no way you are winning you league? It has won many leagues and placed highly in almost every league I have seen it used. However, it will probably never win the overall prize in the main event but to me that doesn't mean much. I compete to win all in types of auction and satellite leagues and those shouldn't be dismissed.



Not only does the all reliever strategy improve peoples offense by freeing up lots of high level picks, but it allows for people to concentrate their FAAB $ all through the year. It is the loop-hole exploitation that keeps on giving...



Anyway, I find it funny that people say making more innings will limit their strategy. No one has said 'you must have 5 SP, 2 MRS, and 2 CL' or anything like that. There is tons of room with even 800ip to invest in SP or invest in MR/CL and underinvest in SPs. What adding more innings does is it makes 2 category rankings MORE SIGNIFICANT. Any statistician will tell you the more 'events' ie innings means the results are more reliable - and isnt that what we all want? Categories thare are reliable gauges of the best teams? You will notice that baseball league awards like the Batting Title that look at Ratio categories require a minimum number of atbats.



I applaud the move to 700 and am holding my fingers crossed for 800



Regards,

Spy