Fine-tuning The Friday DL Rule

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:30 am

It was brought to my attention last week that there was a small loophole in our Friday DL rule that involved pitchers and this week I've reached out to STATS to make sure we close this up. Currently, if you start a pitcher who is on the DL and he gets called up during the week you obviously get his stats for that start. That happened last week when Max Scherzer and Scott Baker were called up and pitched on Wednesday.

With our current setup, no owner can move those players out of their starting lineup once they are officially off the DL. However, if you made your roster move on Monday or Tuesday and moved those pitchers to your reserve roster before they were taken off the DL you were getting a replacement for the weekend games. In essence, you had a shot at two starts even though your DL player was on the active roster during the weekend. That was NOT the intent of the rule and I apologize for not closing this loophole earlier.

Going forward, we will manually reverse any move involving a pitcher coming off the DL during the week if this happens again. And we know it will happen again as John Lackey and Ervin Santana are two good examples of guys who will pitch in the minors over the next couple of weeks and likely make a mid-week start. If you start the week with them in your starting rotation anticipating their start, then don't expect to replace them and get a second start by another pitcher. We will cancel that move out and those pitchers will remain in your active roster, as they should.

This is now more work for Tom and me, so don't be afraid to point out these examples to us when you see them. STATS will send me a report each Friday night and in fact we'll reverse those moves on Saturday if needed. The intent of the rule is to help owners who suffer early-week injuries, not for owners to manipulate the rule for a two-start week.

Thanks all and I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier. Good luck and thanks for the help going forward.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:38 am

Thanks for fixing this

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:55 am

Easy solution to the problem: If a player starts the Monday stat period on the DL, make it so he can't be moved to reserve until the following Monday. STATS would have to lock the roster spot for the week (similar to the "game has already started" rule in football).

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:56 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Easy solution to the problem: If a player starts the Monday stat period on the DL, make it so he can't be moved to reserve until the following Monday. STATS would have to lock the roster spot for the week (similar to the "game has already started" rule in football). I agree

Quack & Willy · Post by **Quack & Willy** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:18 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Easy solution to the problem: If a player starts the Monday stat period on the DL, make it so he can't be moved to reserve until the following Monday. STATS would have to lock the roster spot for the week (similar to the "game has already started" rule in football). Agree that this would be a welcome addition.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:00 am

True. Great suggestion, KOQ.

Bama · Post by **Bama** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:04 am

Doing away with the rule would be a better solution. It is Unfair for some teams to be able to change their lineups during the week while others are not, no matter what the reason. From veiwing comments on the rule from the CDM board(about 20 agaisnt the rule and 3 or so neutral) the rule is very unpopular and needs to be done away with.

RedRyder · Post by **RedRyder** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:13 am

Not a huge fan of the rule, maybe in the off-season the NFBC could seek feedback?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:18 am

Originally posted by Bama:

Doing away with the rule would be a better solution. It is Unfair for some teams to be able to change their lineups during the week while others are not, no matter what the reason. From veiwing comments on the rule from the CDM board(about 20 agaisnt the rule and 3 or so neutral) the rule is very unpopular and needs to be done away with. I think we'll do a more scientific survey before coming to that conclusion Kenny. The crying about the luck factor with injuries has been prevalent since Day One and the Friday DL Rule makes sense if we can make sure the pitchers aren't being manipulated. Glenn's idea would solve that and allow anyone who suffers an injury early in the week to find a replacement for the weekend games. That's the intent of the rule and that's how it needs to be run.

I've asked STATS to try to implement what KOQ has requested and they're looking into it now.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:24 am

Originally posted by RedRyder:

Not a huge fan of the rule, maybe in the off-season the NFBC could seek feedback? I will gladly seek input at season's end on this rule and any other rule in the NFBC. But we all know how close every NFBC league is and last year several leagues were decided by one run, one strikeout, one stolen base. Why not give every owner the chance to compete with a full squad if the rule can be implemented properly? Or is it better to just take the zeroes for 6-7 games if the MLB team chose to inform the public about an injury and then DL'd the player on Tuesday morning? I'm just trying to help all of our participants, but if a Friday roster change isn't desirable I have no problem going back to the old-fashioned way of play.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:48 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by RedRyder:

Not a huge fan of the rule, maybe in the off-season the NFBC could seek feedback? I will gladly seek input at season's end on this rule and any other rule in the NFBC. But we all know how close every NFBC league is and last year several leagues were decided by one run, one strikeout, one stolen base. Why not give every owner the chance to compete with a full squad if the rule can be implemented properly? Or is it better to just take the zeroes for 6-7 games if the MLB team chose to inform the public about an injury and then DL'd the player on Tuesday morning? I'm just trying to help all of our participants, but if a Friday roster change isn't desirable I have no problem going back to the old-fashioned way of play. [/QUOTE]I don't see why it isn't implemented properly now. Don't think I'm the only one who likes it as is.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:56 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by RedRyder:

Not a huge fan of the rule, maybe in the off-season the NFBC could seek feedback? I will gladly seek input at season's end on this rule and any other rule in the NFBC. But we all know how close every NFBC league is and last year several leagues were decided by one run, one strikeout, one stolen base. Why not give every owner the chance to compete with a full squad if the rule can be implemented properly? Or is it better to just take the zeroes for 6-7 games if the MLB team chose to inform the public about an injury and then DL'd the player on Tuesday morning? I'm just trying to help all of our participants, but if a Friday roster change isn't desirable I have no problem going back to the old-fashioned way of play. [/QUOTE]A) I'm old fashioned.

B) I love luck...either good or bad...mostly good. Doesn't having 26 weeks and 23 starters help absorb the bad luck...even the old fashioned way? Doesn't it generally even out over time?

C) If team A's OF get hurt on THU, and team B's OF gets hurt on THU...yet only one gets designated to the official MLB DL list by our deadline...that sucks. Same goes for injuries on FRI vs. SUN...MON vs. WED...etc.

Just a preference I guess.

RedRyder · Post by **RedRyder** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:40 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by RedRyder:

Not a huge fan of the rule, maybe in the off-season the NFBC could seek feedback? I will gladly seek input at season's end on this rule and any other rule in the NFBC. But we all know how close every NFBC league is and last year several leagues were decided by one run, one strikeout, one stolen base. Why not give every owner the chance to compete with a full squad if the rule can be implemented properly? Or is it better to just take the zeroes for 6-7 games if the MLB team chose to inform the public about an injury and then DL'd the player on Tuesday morning? I'm just trying to help all of our participants, but if a Friday roster change isn't desirable I have no problem going back to the old-fashioned way of play. [/QUOTE]Well, was trying not to get into a discussion about this until season's end, out of respect to you Greg. But, since ya brought up points and questions

Lance posted what I don't like about it, that some owners do not benefit from the DL rule because the NFBC has a deadline. Doesn't seem fair to me. It is fair in that we all have the same rules to follow though.

I'm sure it has been discussed before, but why the Friday deadline? If the NFBC is going to let some owners have 6-7 games with this DL rule as you stated, why not let owners benefit with 2-3 games too (and have no deadline)?

I wouldn't mind if the whole DL rule went away, because that seems like a more level playing field (reference Lance's example of 2 OFs getting hurt on THU, but only one DL'd on THU). But, I get that the NFBC is trying to help us owners out, just would like to know why the deadline and how in the OF example that is fair to both owners.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:51 am

Jules, I think what makes it fair is that its equal opportunity for all. That said, there is enough disagreement on the topic, and with the increased maintenance on G/T, a change to simplify could be in order for next season.

What if every team had the opportunity to make one change per week, for ANY reason? It could be used for an injured player, a 2-start pitcher that you don't want in for both starts, a guy that tweaks something, a player that gets called up or sent down to the minors mid-week, etc.

This would give everyone a little bit of roster flexibility, and no one would have to worry about deadlines for an injured player.

[ April 21, 2009, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

RedRyder · Post by **RedRyder** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:03 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Jules, I think what makes it fair is that its equal opportunity for all. That said, there is enough disagreement on the topic, and with the increased maintenance on G/T, a change to simplify could be in order for next season.

What if every team had the opportunity to make one change per week, for ANY reason? It could be used for an injured player, a 2-start pitcher that you don't want in for both starts, a guy that tweaks something, a player that gets called up or sent down to the minors mid-week, etc.

Thanks KJ and I did say I think it is fair because we all have to play by the same rules. Still not sure how it is fair to players DL'd Fri, Sat or Sun.

I would be in favor of one DL move per week, would have to give some thought to for "any" reason, but that could be good too.

This would give everyone a little bit of roster flexibility, and no one would have to worry about deadlines for an injured player.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:12 am

The only way to avoid the subjective nature of an injured player and/or some official deadline is to allow the move for any reason. Simple, clean, fun!

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:17 am

I would again like to take this opportunity to state the case for twice-a-week moves. Starting with each series on Monday and Friday. Same for everybody.

I now return you to the action back down on the field.

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:23 am

Another example of a hole in the DL rule is the day-to-day player who ends up missing the entire week, yet is never officially placed on the DL.....

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:21 am

Originally posted by G-X:

Another example of a hole in the DL rule is the day-to-day player who ends up missing the entire week, yet is never officially placed on the DL..... Another example is starting your week with Brandon Webb in your starting lineup. Then inserting Oliver Perez. Avoiding Perez start on the road vs. the Cards and getting the juicier matchup with Washington.

Loopholes abound.

Did I mention the twice -a-week roster moves for position players?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:29 am

Originally posted by RedRyder:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by RedRyder:

Not a huge fan of the rule, maybe in the off-season the NFBC could seek feedback? I will gladly seek input at season's end on this rule and any other rule in the NFBC. But we all know how close every NFBC league is and last year several leagues were decided by one run, one strikeout, one stolen base. Why not give every owner the chance to compete with a full squad if the rule can be implemented properly? Or is it better to just take the zeroes for 6-7 games if the MLB team chose to inform the public about an injury and then DL'd the player on Tuesday morning? I'm just trying to help all of our participants, but if a Friday roster change isn't desirable I have no problem going back to the old-fashioned way of play. [/QUOTE]Well, was trying not to get into a discussion about this until season's end, out of respect to you Greg. But, since ya brought up points and questions

Lance posted what I don't like about it, that some owners do not benefit from the DL rule because the NFBC has a deadline. Doesn't seem fair to me. It is fair in that we all have the same rules to follow though.

I'm sure it has been discussed before, but why the Friday deadline? If the NFBC is going to let some owners have 6-7 games with this DL rule as you stated, why not let owners benefit with 2-3 games too (and have no deadline)?

I wouldn't mind if the whole DL rule went away, because that seems like a more level playing field (reference Lance's example of 2 OFs getting hurt on THU, but only one DL'd on THU). But, I get that the NFBC is trying to help us owners out, just would like to know why the deadline and how in the OF example that is fair to both owners. [/QUOTE]Jules, the deadline is set to make sure you can check to see if your player was DL'd by Friday morning and then move on with your work week. I guess we could allow this up until Friday night's first game but then you'd have to spend all day checking your roster continuously to find out if the official DL would magically appear. That's how it was before we set this deadline.

The deadline is there for everyone and it's the same for everyone.

As for Lance's example, neither player would land on the MLB DL list that quickly. We know that already. Now it's true that both could get hurt on Wednesday and one would appear on the DL and the other wouldn't. I guess we could come up with all kinds of scenarios where it's good for one and not equally fair for the other.

But I'm more concerned about the pitchers' loophole now. Get the signatures for the petition by season's end for the rest. The other part is getting fixed now and that's key for me.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:11 am

Greg, do you really think its a good idea to change a rule that has been in place for the last two years ... 3 weeks AFTER the season has started?

Those who don't like it call it a loophole, but in reality it is what it is and has been for two years, a strategic tool.

[ April 21, 2009, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:14 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Greg, do you really think its a good idea to change a rule that has been in place for the last two years ... 3 weeks AFTER the season has started?

Those who don't like it call it a loophole, but in reality it is what it is and has been for two years, a strategic tool. I most certainly do and we're working on it right now. It will be implemented this week whether I have to do it by hand or automatically. Case closed.

crazytown · Post by **crazytown** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:31 am

Greg,

Is it possible owners kept certain players rostered to take advantage of this loophole? If so, and since it is in the rules, do you have a response other than the above posted message?

Thanks

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:31 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Greg, do you really think its a good idea to change a rule that has been in place for the last two years ... 3 weeks AFTER the season has started?

Those who don't like it call it a loophole, but in reality it is what it is and has been for two years, a strategic tool. I most certainly do and we're working on it right now. It will be implemented this week whether I have to do it by hand or automatically. Case closed. [/QUOTE]I don't like it. Rules should be changed before the season begins, not after.

These issues were known and raised here every season since the rule went into effect. This should've been changed before the season if a change was planned.

[ April 21, 2009, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:33 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Greg, do you really think its a good idea to change a rule that has been in place for the last two years ... 3 weeks AFTER the season has started?

Those who don't like it call it a loophole, but in reality it is what it is and has been for two years, a strategic tool. The rule wasn't changed.

The loophole in the intended rule was fixed.