NFBC Message Boards

I think I am out of NFBC without a major increase in innings pitched for atleast the non-main event leagues. Tired of seeing these all reliever strats. Just not fun for me and the strat distorts not just the draft but FAAB all season long



[ September 13, 2010, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Spyhunter ]

I looked at a number of leagues and identified 14 teams that used this strategy. I only looked at slow drafts and satellites and not all of them.



Here's what I found:



3 teams in 1st

4 teams in 2nd

1 team each in 4th and 5th

2 teams in 8th

2 teams in 11th

1 team in 14th



Of the teams in the top of the standings, the top 7 were the same two players. So, it was imitated, but others did not duplicate the success of these two particular players.



Given the attention paid to this approach, and its relative success, it would not be suprising to see it used more next season.

I used to hate it, too. But I realized that if one player wants to bag two categories, I'm going to whip him at his own game, and devised a counter-strategy. One of those well-known all-reliever guys has yet to finish ahead of me in our joint leagues. So now I look forward to him bagging two categories.

Spyhunter and others,



There is a guy in my satellite league that currently has 1481 innings pitched. He is currently in 3rd place. He has had Barry Bonds, Richie Sexson, Kaz Matsui, Ryan Freel, as well as other non-producers in his starting lineup since day 1. His catchers have not had 1 AB this season. His 1st overall pick in the draft was Jacoby Ellsbury. Yet he is still currently finishing in the money. How do you prevent a strategy like this from being employed. He skews the draft and FA pool as well. Any comments or suggestions.



Thanks and have a nice day,



Dan

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

I think I am out of NFBC without a major increase in innings pitched for atleast the non-main event leagues. Tired of seeing these all reliever strats. Just not fun for me and the strat distorts not just the draft but FAAB all season long This is interesting. I was going to create a post this week to discuss the IP minimum in the NFBC for 2010. I didn't expect people to say "change it or else" but I guess even that doesn't surprise me anymore.



Some people have had success with this strategy this year and in the past and others haven't. I'm not sure we want everyone to play EXACTLY the same. As mentioned above, should we prevent people from bagging steals during the year? Going with all starting pitchers? Do we need an innings max? Should we prevent owners from bagging power categories?



We have a 700 IP minimum. Should we increase it to 800 IP or leave it alone? Does the NFBC need a higher IP minimum than that? I don't know, but I look forward to your feedback. That's a discussion I'll start this week, but on a different thread.

Originally posted by The Mighty Men:

I used to hate it, too. But I realized that if one player wants to bag two categories, I'm going to whip him at his own game, and devised a counter-strategy. One of those well-known all-reliever guys has yet to finish ahead of me in our joint leagues. So now I look forward to him bagging two categories. Excellent Mighty, just build a better mouse trap right ? Care to share your strategy ? You can PM me.

I dont think the inning limit is the problem. Spy needs an excuse why he keeps getting his ass kicked and that seems like the best he can come up with.

Originally posted by Bama:

I dont think the inning limit is the problem. Spy needs an excuse why he keeps getting his ass kicked and that seems like the best he can come up with. no need for an excuse, I know my issues: usually poor management in season. Though I am looking brilliant for once in my main event team where I spent heavily on utley and stubbs when they were dropped!



I look forward to Greg's discussion thread and looking again at this issue, there is a reason that in MLB you don't qualify for things like BATTING TITLEs if you don't have the requisite number of At Bats



[ September 15, 2010, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Spyhunter ]

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

quote:Originally posted by Bama:

I dont think the inning limit is the problem. Spy needs an excuse why he keeps getting his ass kicked and that seems like the best he can come up with. no need for an excuse, I know my issues: usually poor management in season. Though I am looking brilliant for once in my main event team where I spent heavily on utley and stubbs when they were dropped!



I look forward to Greg's discussion thread and looking again at this issue, there is a reason that in MLB you don't qualify for things like BATTING TITLEs if you don't have the requisite number of At Bats [/QUOTE]It's late but I totally agree with Spyhunter. I can defend my reasoning when I post again tomorrow but for now...



I don't think it would be that difficult to offer satellites with a higher IP requirement. I think Ryan Carey and I asked about this last year. (sorry Ryan if this is not true)...



I'm not at the point where I wouldn't play in the satellites but I would love to see satellites offered with a higher IP requirement... I know there are many of us who love to play in the satellites and also like the added bonus that it's also good preparation for the Main Event and even more so if teams aren't throwing SP out the window.





Jack,

I'd love to hear what your counter strategy is too if you could email or pm me.

Still no real reply from anyone regarding my previous post. Any thoughts?



Thanks

Originally posted by crazytown:

Spyhunter and others,



There is a guy in my satellite league that currently has 1481 innings pitched. He is currently in 3rd place. He has had Barry Bonds, Richie Sexson, Kaz Matsui, Ryan Freel, as well as other non-producers in his starting lineup since day 1. His catchers have not had 1 AB this season. His 1st overall pick in the draft was Jacoby Ellsbury. Yet he is still currently finishing in the money. How do you prevent a strategy like this from being employed. He skews the draft and FA pool as well. Any comments or suggestions.



Thanks and have a nice day,



Dan Use an at bats minumum - 4500 seems fair

Originally posted by Quahogs:

quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Men:

I used to hate it, too. But I realized that if one player wants to bag two categories, I'm going to whip him at his own game, and devised a counter-strategy. One of those well-known all-reliever guys has yet to finish ahead of me in our joint leagues. So now I look forward to him bagging two categories. Excellent Mighty, just build a better mouse trap right ? Care to share your strategy ? You can PM me. [/QUOTE]For the low, low price of 2% of your NFBC winnings this year, I'll gladly share it with you.



I should be asking YOU for advice, Mister!

Team with Bonds and others can be found in $325 sat. Slow Draft#1. Team name is Loser Central.

Originally posted by crazytown:

Team with Bonds and others can be found in $325 sat. Slow Draft#1. Team name is Loser Central. If you have not figured it out yet it is Crazytown's team and he very much would like you to look at it.

correct again.

I always post similar messages when this topic comes up. I could never figure out why some members were so upset with the low IP requirement yet were not concerned about the strategy that I used in this years league. In my mind you are doing the same thing only trying to win fewer categories. Not until CC's Desperados recent post suggesting a possibe min. ABs has anyone really answered my question. Maybe next year they will have min AB league as well as a min IP.

Dan, I know you are just creaming for a reply to your 'strategy'.

A few years ago, I played in a free CBS League. A drafter took Ichiro in the third round. Beyond him, it was just great starters and closers. He finished out the draft by picking hitters that were guaranteed not to get at bats.



When the season started, he waited for Ichiro's average to be high enough as to be unpassable by other team averages, and benched him. His hitting the rest of the year were all zeroes.



His pitching garnered all 75 possible points. The only time I've ever seen it done. He finished with 94 points, good enough for fourth place.



Near the end of the year, when it was clear that he was going to win every pitching category, I e-mailed him. I asked why he had done this type of draft with little hope of winning.



He replied that a buddy was in the same league and that they had a $50 bet on who finished higher. He figured by nailing down one category and dominating the pitching side that he would let the odds come into play that his buddy would not finish near the top. His buddy finished 7th. He won the $50.



No offense, Dan, but I can understand this guys reasoning, more than yours. In essence, you're playing for your cash back. There is a small chance that one could finish higher, but a larger chance of ending up lower.



Like the minimum innings pitched 'players', the fewer at bats method of playing requires less thought with less categories and players to worry about. That is my biggest bone of contention for these 'strategies'.

The skewing of an overall competition, or even a prepratory league is also a big minus. Besides a few satelites where 'anything goes', I would just as soon see the 'strategy' eliminated.

Good to see i am not alone in this. Just like in real life, you shouldn't be able to win without playing. The Ratio categories are ripe for abuse and so in real life you don't qualify for things like the BATTING TITLE (note, a ratio category), without minimum ABs. I think the NFBC should go to atleast 1150 Innings and 5k ABs would make sense.

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:



Like the minimum innings pitched 'players', the fewer at bats method of playing requires less thought with less categories and players to worry about. That is my biggest bone of contention for these 'strategies'.

The skewing of an overall competition, or even a prepratory league is also a big minus. Besides a few satelites where 'anything goes', I would just as soon see the 'strategy' eliminated. Ditto that.

Dan,



Agreed. I believe I tried this strategy a few years ago and did not finish in the money. I haven't tried it since.

The one difference this year is that this is a $325 entrance fee league with the top 3 getting free entry into next years main event. No difference with getting 1st or 3rd. Figured why not try it again.



Dan

Dan, I know you are just creaming for a reply to your 'strategy'.

A few years ago, I played in a free CBS League. A drafter took Ichiro in the third round. Beyond him, it was just great starters and closers. He finished out the draft by picking hitters that were guaranteed not to get at bats.



When the season started, he waited for Ichiro's average to be high enough as to be unpassable by other team averages, and benched him. His hitting the rest of the year were all zeroes.



His pitching garnered all 75 possible points. The only time I've ever seen it done. He finished with 94 points, good enough for fourth place.



Near the end of the year, when it was clear that he was going to win every pitching category, I e-mailed him. I asked why he had done this type of draft with little hope of winning.



He replied that a buddy was in the same league and that they had a $50 bet on who finished higher. He figured by nailing down one category and dominating the pitching side that he would let the odds come into play that his buddy would not finish near the top. His buddy finished 7th. He won the $50.



No offense, Dan, but I can understand this guys reasoning, more than yours. In essence, you're playing for your cash back. There is a small chance that one could finish higher, but a larger chance of ending up lower.



Like the minimum innings pitched 'players', the fewer at bats method of playing requires less thought with less categories and players to worry about. That is my biggest bone of contention for these 'strategies'.

The skewing of an overall competition, or even a prepratory league is also a big minus. Besides a few satelites where 'anything goes', I would just as soon see the 'strategy' eliminated.

-------------------------------------------

That is the wrong way to play the game. There should be both an AB and IP minimum to prevent this kind of BS from happening.



The guy who did this must be a lawyer.