Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?

la Jolla · Post by **la Jolla** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:27 am

I think I was one of the first people to employ the all-reliever strategy in the very first Ultimate league. I can remember Eddie Gillis turning to me after like round 13 and saying "do you realize that you do not have any starting pitchers yet." At that time I caught most of that league off guard with the strategy and I did not finish in the money. I am in the Diamond League this year and I (along with most likely every one else) knew going into the draft that Jim would employ the reliever strategy and that someone else would most likely try the no-reliever strategy. So, the fact that Jim is leading this league currently is, to me, a great accomplishment. He did not catch anyone off guard, the rest of us could have tried the same approach if it were so easy. I can tell you from having done it, it is not a slam dunk by any means. The only factor that was an outlier benefit when I tried it, was that FAAB was less tedious not having to scour the starting pitchers. I agree with the recent post Greg. If you raise the innings from 700 you would essentially be getting rid of this approach and so my vote is to leave it alone. I like the fact that competitors use varying strategies and not have all 15 people picking 7 starters and 2 relievers, makes it more fun for me at least. My two cents on the topic.

LONG GONE · Post by **LONG GONE** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:36 pm

Kelly, is this REALLY how owners feel? Let's ask the Diamond League owners if they feel fleeced or if they feel like they are chasing a top owner for the $75,000 prize. C'mon, now.

Diamond League(Experienced Owners) owners have seen the stratgy for a long time. All owners knew about Jim before that league started. At the entre level, absoulutely they feel fleeced.

As for the Diamond League....I'm pulling for Jim and hope he wins.

Greg, if think this is baseball you are all wrong. Reliever stradegy is not baseball, It's game theory.

low talkers · Post by **low talkers** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:56 pm

"Greg, if think this is baseball you are all wrong. Reliever stradegy is not baseball, It's game theory"

Has anyone ever won any NFBC league without using "game theory"?

I sort of see the point of not liking all-reliever strategy because it doesn't mirror a real baseball team. But, nobody goes into a draft trying to draft the best real baseball team.

I personally have no problem with the 700-inning limit, or any other category punting strategy.

[ September 22, 2010, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: low talkers ]

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:46 pm

Greg,

Is it possible to offer a group of satellites with the 700 IP rule and another group with 1200 (or somewhere in that neighborhood) for 2011?

Once again, the main reason I like to try to do a couple of satellites without someone using the RP strategy is to help me prepare for the main event. I've beaten jim s before and I've lost to him. I'll play in a league where the strategy is employed but I also want to draft in a couple of leagues next March knowing that everyone is drafting with the idea of competing in every category. Again, good prep for the classic.

I realize that offering satellites with different IP requirements could may things more confusing especially for the first-timers next year but I think many of the veteran nfbc'ers would like the option. Thanks for your consideration to offer both and thanks for opening up the discussion of this topic.

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:53 pm

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

If Jim S. was running a marathon for money, and there was a hidden wooded area in the middle of the race, and someone drove by and offered to give him a ride for a few miles, knowing that the rules did not stipulate against it, instead of pondering whether it ruined the spirit of the 26-mile run, he'd be barking at the driver to turn off the radio so he could take a nap for a couple minutes before being dropped off 5 miles down the road.

At the finish line, running in solidly in second place, he'd comment to passers by, "This is the third marathon I've cashed in in the past three years. Other people take rides in that hidden area, and still don't cash. I am simply better than them at it. Please don't cut down those trees!!!" A more completely out of line post I have not seen in awhile. [/QUOTE]An opinion on the strategy was asked for, and I gave my opinion of it. I think it's gutless. If you have a problem with that, then you aren't too interested in hearing person's opinions I guess. Why beat around the bush on this topic? I feel very strongly about it. I didn't say it was cheating. I said it was cheap and lazy. Period. My opinion. Feel free to have your own.

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:58 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by LONG GONE:

Many owners may feel like they have been fleeced of their money when a reliever strategy wins, places or shows. That is bad for growing fantasy baseball. Kelly, is this REALLY how owners feel? Let's ask the Diamond League owners if they feel fleeced or if they feel like they are chasing a top owner for the $75,000 prize. C'mon, now.

I don't have any problem having this debate, but to summarize everyone's feelings on this topic isn't correct. And I don't want to have different contests with different rules. The NFBC rules should apply to all formats and owners should be ready for all strategies. [/QUOTE]I'm not sure what the point of this thread is if we're been told back by the person asking the question what the rule should be. I feel like I'm wasting my time posting an opinion.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:05 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Spyhunter:

jim, I don't see any points about how the lack of spending distorts the contest - hence the reason that so many following this strategy are 'in the money' - what is your response? Chris, I don't think everyone who tries this strategy is in the money or has always been in the money. If dumping two categories was such a winner, why wouldn't everyone try it? And in your cases cited for this year, those who are trying this in the Diamond and Ultimate Leagues have had some success, but those innings pitched are not catching up to a couple of those teams and taking them out of the money. It's a long season and these strategies carry a lot of risk, as we're finding out down the stretch.

I've always allowed creative managing in the NFBC and I'm asking for input from those who want to allow this or close the gap somewhat. But to make an assumption that everyone who tries this makes money is foolish and not accurate at all. It's a very risky strategy to dump two categories even in the private leagues when everyone knows it's coming and not everyone has been successful at it.

But either way, I'm open to discussing the merits of increasing, decreasing or leaving the 700 IP minimum where it is. Let's just discuss the merits with accurate facts. [/QUOTE]Greg,

Not sure what facts i have wrong. I said 'so many' per the previous post that someone put up showing the current very high standings of many of the followers of this approach. I didn't say 'all'.

I think 900 works, and ensures that the Results are more statistically relevant and therefore more appropriate to compare. Again, as I pointed out before no one gets the batting title on 1 atbat!!! or 250... just for fun, let's go to wikipedia for the evolution of the requirements:

Qualifications for the batting title

The Major League Baseball batting average championship (often referred to as "the batting title") is awarded annually to the player in each league who has the highest batting average. Ty Cobb holds the MLB (and American League) record for most batting titles, officially winning 11 in his pro career.[1] The National League record of 8 batting titles is shared by Honus Wagner and Tony Gwynn. Most of Cobb's career and all of Wagner's career took place in what is known as the Dead-Ball Era, which was characterized by higher batting averages and much less power, whereas Gwynn's career took place in the Live-Ball Era.

To determine which players are eligible to win the batting title, the following conditions have been used over the sport’s history[5]:

Pre-1920 – A player generally had to appear in 100 or more games when the schedule was 154 games, and 90 games when the schedule was 140 games. An exception was made for Ty Cobb in 1914, who appeared in 98 games but had a big lead and was also a favorite of League President Ban Johnson.

1920–1949 – A player had to appear in 100 games to qualify in the National League; the AL used 100 games from 1920–1935, and 400 at-bats from 1936–1949. The NL was advised to adopt 400 at-bats for the 1945 season, but League President Ford Frick refused, feeling that 100 games should stand for the benefit of catchers and injured players. (Taffy Wright is often erroneously said to have been cheated out of the 1938 batting title; he batted .350 in exactly 100 games, with 263 ABs. Jimmie Foxx hit .349, in 149 games and 565 AB. But since the AL requirement that year was 400 at-bats, Foxx's batting title is undisputed.)

1950–1956 – A player needed 2.6 at bats per team game originally scheduled. (With the 154-game schedule of the time, that meant a rounded-off 400 at-bats.) From 1951–1954, if the player with the highest average in a league failed to meet the minimum at-bat requirement, the remaining at-bats until qualification (e.g., 5, if the player finished the season with 395 ABs) were hypothetically considered hitless at-bats; if his recalculated batting average still topped the league, he was awarded the title. This standard applied in the AL from 1936–1956.

1957 to the present – A player has needed 3.1 plate appearances per team game originally scheduled; thus, players were no longer penalized for walking so frequently, nor did they benefit from walking so rarely. (In 1954, for example, Ted Williams batted .345 but had only 386 ABs, while topping the AL with 136 walks. Williams thus lost the batting title to Cleveland’s Bobby Avila, who hit .341 in 555 ABs.) In the 154-game schedule, the required number of plate appearances was 477, and since the era of the 162-game schedule, the requisite number of PAs has been 502. (Adjustments to this 502 PA figure have been made during strike-shortened seasons, such as 1972, 1981, 1994, and 1995.)

From 1967 to the present, if the player with the highest average in a league fails to meet the minimum plate-appearance requirement, the remaining at-bats until qualification (e.g., 5 ABs, if the player finished the season with 497 plate appearances) are hypothetically considered hitless at-bats; if his recalculated batting average still tops the league, he is awarded the title. (This policy was invoked in 1981, securing Bill Madlock his third NL batting crown, and in 1996, when NL titlist Tony Gwynn finished the year with only 498 PAs.)

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:08 pm

next thing you know, there is gonna be a minimum hr requirement

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:22 pm

Lets not have positional requirements at all. You start 23 players. Why let restrictions that require you compete with everyone else get in the way of a person's creativity? Start 10 offensive rabbits, and 5 starters and 15 relievers, and win all of the pitching categories, steals, and maybe batting average and compete in runs. Gee, great job player.

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:30 pm

Oops, I added 7 starting spots. Well, why constrict who you start anyway?

FFBL23 · Post by **FFBL23** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:47 pm

Given the tone of Greg's responses to this thread, it sounds like nothing is going to change here. That's his decision and we will respect whatever he decides. Personally, I think the innings limit needs to be raised. KJ's 900 inning proposal sounds perfect to me. I think the reason that most of us frown upon this strategy is that it takes much less time/effort in planning, drafting, and in season management when using this strategy. No disrespect to the owners who use this strategy as they are just playing by the rules and playing the game the way they want to. I just wanna see everyone play it straight up. Pitching is the toughest part of the game, and managing the back end of the pitching staff is THE single hardest thing to do in the NFBC. An average player like myself struggles with this every year while the elite players like Childs, Jupinka, and Gekko excel at this. For a player to not have to try to figure this part of the game out just seems kind of cheap. Once again no disrespect to the ones who play it this way, but how hard is it to do a 15 team draft with none of your first 10+ picks spent on starting pitchers? The playbook goes like this: take the best offensive player with your first 8-10 rounds, mix in a closer in round 9-10, then take another closer in rounds 12-14, grab a another questionable closer in round 16 and fill up on potential closers later in the draft then use your other picks on more offense. Middle relievers pop up all year long. Yes there is still risk as you can't afford injuries and you can still miss on your speculative hitter plays, but I believe any player can use this strategy and be fairly effective. Just my two cents.

Kevin

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:03 am

Originally posted by FFBL23:

Given the tone of Greg's responses to this thread, it sounds like nothing is going to change here. That's his decision and we will respect whatever he decides. Personally, I think the innings limit needs to be raised. KJ's 900 inning proposal sounds perfect to me. I think the reason that most of us frown upon this strategy is that it takes much less time/effort in planning, drafting, and in season management when using this strategy. No disrespect to the owners who use this strategy as they are just playing by the rules and playing the game the way they want to. I just wanna see everyone play it straight up. Pitching is the toughest part of the game, and managing the back end of the pitching staff is THE single hardest thing to do in the NFBC. An average player like myself struggles with this every year while the elite players like Childs, Jupinka, and Gekko excel at this. For a player to not have to try to figure this part of the game out just seems kind of cheap. Once again no disrespect to the ones who play it this way, but how hard is it to do a 15 team draft with none of your first 10+ picks spent on starting pitchers? The playbook goes like this: take the best offensive player with your first 8-10 rounds, mix in a closer in round 9-10, then take another closer in rounds 12-14, grab a another questionable closer in round 16 and fill up on potential closers later in the draft then use your other picks on more offense. Middle relievers pop up all year long. Yes there is still risk as you can't afford injuries and you can still miss on your speculative hitter plays, but I believe any player can use this strategy and be fairly effective. Just my two cents.

Kevin A very good post.

I don't know whether I am being a devil's advocate or maybe just a pain in the ass, maybe both, but what about the other side of the equation?

If the 700 innings pitched minimum 'strategy' is allowable, why not the changing of pitchers on Friday with no restrictions?

In effect, the same strategy, only in reverse....

Why would one be allowable, but not the other?

[ September 23, 2010, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:07 am

Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by LONG GONE:

Many owners may feel like they have been fleeced of their money when a reliever strategy wins, places or shows. That is bad for growing fantasy baseball. Kelly, is this REALLY how owners feel? Let's ask the Diamond League owners if they feel fleeced or if they feel like they are chasing a top owner for the $75,000 prize. C'mon, now.

I don't have any problem having this debate, but to summarize everyone's feelings on this topic isn't correct. And I don't want to have different contests with different rules. The NFBC rules should apply to all formats and owners should be ready for all strategies. [/QUOTE]I'm not sure what the point of this thread is if we're been told back by the person asking the question what the rule should be. I feel like I'm wasting my time posting an opinion. [/QUOTE]Craig, I think the discussion so far has been healthy and there are a lot of good points. I certainly haven't made up my mind yet. But I am convinced that not everyone competing against teams using different strategies than their own feel fleeced and I said that.

The IP minimum is one area I want to address next year in the rules, but I do want to keep options open for folks using different strategies on Draft Day and during the season. And I'll use data we have this year to look into this area. Last year I believe less than 1% of all NFBC teams had less than 800 IP and I'll check that data again this year. In many ways, we're arguing over a very small percentage of teams that try this strategy in all of our contests.

Bama · Post by **Bama** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:28 am

My last comment on this. I really think the limit should be in the 600 or 650 min inning. If this statagy was such a slam dunk then everyone would try it but in Greg's last post only 1% tryed it last year. I think some of the one's arguing for raising the limit might be more agaisnt the people trying it than the limit itself. In the Ultimate Auction every year there are on average about 10 people that intentionaly dump a cat and 2 or 3 that dump 2 and as for as i know not one has cashed by dumping wins and k's. Kelly calls them angle cutters but the year he finished 2nd he dumped saves along with Terry Haney who finished third but i dont see all the complaining about this stratagy that is a lot more viable . This year Kimo and Longood will cash in this league by dumping sb's. Longood has won in the past without having a relief pitcher on his squad. I guess what im saying is all stratagys should be available too the ones that think they can win using it. I know some of you or not happy if some dont draft a team the way You think they should by jumping Adp or not filling the bench the way they would but this is what makes it challenging and fun.

[ September 23, 2010, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Bama ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:41 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by LONG GONE:

Many owners may feel like they have been fleeced of their money when a reliever strategy wins, places or shows. That is bad for growing fantasy baseball. Kelly, is this REALLY how owners feel? Let's ask the Diamond League owners if they feel fleeced or if they feel like they are chasing a top owner for the $75,000 prize. C'mon, now.

I don't have any problem having this debate, but to summarize everyone's feelings on this topic isn't correct. And I don't want to have different contests with different rules. The NFBC rules should apply to all formats and owners should be ready for all strategies. [/QUOTE]I'm not sure what the point of this thread is if we're been told back by the person asking the question what the rule should be. I feel like I'm wasting my time posting an opinion. [/QUOTE]Craig, I think the discussion so far has been healthy and there are a lot of good points. I certainly haven't made up my mind yet. But I am convinced that not everyone competing against teams using different strategies than their own feel fleeced and I said that.

The IP minimum is one area I want to address next year in the rules, but I do want to keep options open for folks using different strategies on Draft Day and during the season. And I'll use data we have this year to look into this area. Last year I believe less than 1% of all NFBC teams had less than 800 IP and I'll check that data again this year. In many ways, we're arguing over a very small percentage of teams that try this strategy in all of our contests. [/QUOTE]So I guess you answered your own question. IF 99 % of the players are playing the game straight up, why should you reward the 1 % from avoiding starting pitching pool the toughest part of the game?

Jim Stanard made the comment about me punting saves in the Diamond earlier. I made that decision mid draft when Jim Ferrari drafted Carlos Marmol in round 10. I knew Jim Stanard was going to do it going in. I made my decision based on how they were playing the game. I took a couple of shots on closers in waiting in rounds 20-30, but I missed. Rick Thomas drafted Neftali Feliz in round 22. If he doesn't draft him, I would have owned him and I would been in the save game. After a couple weeks, those roster spots were more important for other bench player to me.

I think the biggest problem and why many players are turned off is the early drafts. I couple years back we started the top three win a free entry in the SCL. The main reason it was an early January draft and it wasn't first priority. We wanted a draft to get the new seasons juices flowing and reward three teams and allow those teams to have a chance even if they paid less attention to it than the main event.

When we did the first ever slow draft DC, we paralleled the idea. More players took to the format as a way to do more leagues with less in season league management. It was a homerun for NFBC as now they had draft action January. The January drafts created two problems. The first was the instability of the player pool that early in the season. With a 45 man roster, you really need to commit 20 roster spots to pitching. With pitchers having the highest injury rate in baseball, it makes sense to game the system and punt wins and K's. With the goal to only have come in 3rd place, the numbers of players willing to try it has increased dramatically. In a straight NFBC early draft with free agent pickups, the reverse thought process has more value. If you punt saves or take a couple of shots late in a draft, you have a pretty good chance of finding saves the first waiver period as they will be a couple of new closers on April 1st compared to mid January.

As more players have tried the reliever theory (higher rate in slow drafts), more players don't like playing against that strategy. I think they are looking for early draft prep for the main event and the closer only theory throws off the drafts flow even more so if more than one players is doing it. The biggest flaw might be pairing the 700 innings with pay the top three.

I know the punting saves gets thrown in mix, but it's totally different breed. It invites so much more risk. I'll use the Diamond leagues as an example. Due to two players punting wins, they were more players using 8 or 9 starters during the year. Starting pitching was pretty cheap on the waiver wire and there were plenty of quality starters dropped during the year as teams were constantly trying up upgrade a notch. As we enter week 25, I'm in battle for one point in wins and trying shake another team in K's. I don't have the luxury of removing any risk and sitting any of my starters as of today. I started 9 starters this week and three have double starts. Every day I have a starter going I feel I'm at risk of losing a couple of points. At the same time as I battle for a win point and hold on to the lead in K's, I'm battling another two contenders for a point in ERA and whip. Every point is important. Who wins those battles might be worth $10,000 a point.

So my point is: as I went all starters to combat the reliever strategy, I still have to take on risk. Sure both Jim's had to use a few starters to make their innings, but they are removing risk. The team taking less risk is rewarded higher in the ERA and whip categories.

I have no problem with either player playing that strategy. It makes it a lot easier when you know it going in. Being around since day one, you are geared to look for this. I think a new players is turned off because they are caught off guard.

I've been in the camp to raise the inning to 800 since 2005. I've always said it was a loophole in the game. When fantasy baseball was started, they couldn't see the future and see where players would play angles to beat the game. Some will say it strategy, but I don't have agree. I think starting pitching is the tough part of the game and I'm not for rewarding players that avoid it.

I've spoke my peace in the past and I didn't want to talk about it until the season was over as I was battling a couple of team playing this in the Diamond league. Jim Stanard did a great job and I don't want to take away for his success. It's nothing against him as my stance has been the same before he played the game in the early NFBC days.

I've been in the Kelly Uganski camp for a couple of years. If you offer a couple of different innings levels, the players will decide where they want to play. All they want is options. If you let the players decide, you will have the answer to this dilemma.

[ September 23, 2010, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:43 am

Originally posted by Bama:

My last comment on this. I really think the limit should be in the 600 or 650 min inning. If this statagy was such a slam dunk then everyone would try it but in Greg's last post only 1% tryed it last year. I think some of the one's arguing for raising the limit might be more agaisnt the people trying it than the limit itself. In the Ultimate Auction every year there are on average about 10 people that intentionaly dump a cat and 2 or 3 that dump 2 and as for as i know not one has cashed by dumping wins and k's. Kelly calls them angle cutters but the year he finished 2nd he dumped saves along with Terry Haney who finished third but i dont see all the complaining about this stratagy that is a lot more viable . This year Kimo and Longood will cash in this league by dumping sb's. Longood has won in the past without having a relief pitcher on his squad. I guess what im saying is all stratagys should be available too the ones that think they can win using it. I know some of you or not happy if some dont draft a team the way You think they should by jumping Adp or not filling the bench the way they would but this is what makes it challenging and fun. I know you will have one more because I made a post!

la Jolla · Post by **la Jolla** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:48 am

I know this will never happen, but imagine if we could get rid of saves as a category altogether. This would cure a lot of these issues:

- no need to draft closers or waste bench spots on in-waiting guys

- changes faab in a big way

- makes drafting, managing starting pitching a premium

- takes away the need for an innings minimum

- takes away the main two punting strategies: all reliever & no saves

It's funny how much of an effect saves has on fantasy in

general. And it's such an irrelevant stat.

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:50 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

I've been in the Kelly Uganski camp for a couple of years. If you offer a couple of different innings levels, the players will decide where they want to play. All they want is option. If you let the players decide, you will have the answer to the this dilemma. bingo.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:08 am

Shawn, making the Slow Drafts or any of the satellite leagues with higher minimum IP is not tough to do. There isn't any additional programming that needs to be done or anything like that. We'd just need to stipulate that on the signup page or somewhere I guess for those leagues. That isn't tough to do and I don't have any problem offering satellite leagues that way or certainly Slow Drafts.

Now if we decide to do an overall prize pool for Slow Drafts, then that makes it a little more difficult to have separate rules. And that was an area I was thinking of going this year. So we need to look at that, but I'm sure we can figure something out.

There are a lot of good points being made. The 700 IP minimum is making those owners make tough decisions down the stretch as you know all too well from the Diamond League and the Ultimate Auction League. But is it enough of a demand? Or would 800 IP be better? 900? Or 600? That's what I'm seeking input in, and if offering different satellite league rules make sense we'll offer them. But in the national contests, one set of rules has to be in place across the board and that's the input I'm looking for.

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:31 am

Greg,

I wouldn't play in an ultimate or diamond league that had a minimum under let's say 900 innings. i agree that i would feel "fleeced" if i lost money to a team using that strategy.

it isn't a concern in the main event because the nature of having to beat 429 owners effectively rules out the RP strategy.

i'd agree with KJ's model of 900 innings for all leagues and be done with it

[ September 23, 2010, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Gekko ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:34 am

I was being a little flip with my last post, but the premise remains the same.

Streaming of pitchers is frowned on by most in the fantasy world. In daily leagues, it is possible to have a new staff each day of the week.

In the NFBC, we are only allowed to change pitchers once a week. This disallows the practice of streaming. If we were allowed to stream our pitchers, even on a twice a week rotation, some managers would gain a large advantage in two categories (wins and k's) while taking their chances with the other categories.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Whether streaming or going minimum, it's the same, the manipulation of categories.

The difference being that streaming would effect most teams, while mini-pulation (yeah, I made up that word, what of it?) only effects a few.

Why is one method more valid than the other?

[ September 23, 2010, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:45 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

I was being a little flip with my last post, but the premise remains the same.

Streaming of pitchers is frowned on by most in the fantasy world. In daily leagues, it is possible to have a new staff each day of the week.

In the NFBC, we are only allowed to change pitchers once a week. This disallows the practice of streaming. If we were allowed to stream our pitchers, even on a twice a week rotation, some managers would gain a large advantage in two categories (wins and k's) while taking their chances with the other categories.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Whether streaming or going minimum, it's the same, the manipulation of categories.

The difference being that streaming would effect most teams, while mini-pulation (yeah, I made up that word, what of it?) only effects a few.

Why is one valid over another? With Bi-weekly pitchings, you have the abiity to use your whole pitching staff. This makes a team will a deep pitching staff have the ablity to use their edge. When every team can stream, you don't have as much as edge as you think. It just increases the numbers in wins and K's for every team.

There isn't enough pitching depth on the waiver wire to just pickup the double starter of the week. It puts premium on adding pitching depth, but you will have less bench spots for hitter which increases the free agent pool.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:49 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

I was being a little flip with my last post, but the premise remains the same.

Streaming of pitchers is frowned on by most in the fantasy world. In daily leagues, it is possible to have a new staff each day of the week.

In the NFBC, we are only allowed to change pitchers once a week. This disallows the practice of streaming. If we were allowed to stream our pitchers, even on a twice a week rotation, some managers would gain a large advantage in two categories (wins and k's) while taking their chances with the other categories.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Whether streaming or going minimum, it's the same, the manipulation of categories.

The difference being that streaming would effect most teams, while mini-pulation (yeah, I made up that word, what of it?) only effects a few.

Why is one valid over another? With Bi-weekly pitchings, you have the abiity to use your whole pitching staff. This makes a team will a deep pitching staff have the ablity to use their edge. When every team can stream, you don't have as much as edge as you think. It just increases the numbers in wins and K's for every team.

There isn't enough pitching depth on the waiver wire to just pickup the double starter of the week. It puts premium on adding pitching depth, but you will have less bench spots for hitter which increases the free agent pool. [/QUOTE]Correct.

And the mini-pulation effects the player pool as well, only with different personnel. Each 'strategy' effects the overall leagues and player pool.

Yet, one is acceptable, while the other is not.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:55 am

Originally posted by la Jolla:

I know this will never happen, but imagine if we could get rid of saves as a category altogether. This would cure a lot of these issues:

- no need to draft closers or waste bench spots on in-waiting guys

- changes faab in a big way

- makes drafting, managing starting pitching a premium

- takes away the need for an innings minimum

- takes away the main two punting strategies: all reliever & no saves

It's funny how much of an effect saves has on fantasy in

general. And it's such an irrelevant stat. taking away saves would take away some of the excitement don't you think? Whether I'm watching live or on the pc I'm aware that it's occurring and I'm on the edge of my seat. The other categories just happen and happen fast. The save for your closer slowly simmers over time though and eventually culminates into a fist pump or eye gouge. A hoot or a holler. Angst theater at its best !

la Jolla · Post by **la Jolla** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:00 am

I was just being facetious Steve:) I happen to agree with you that the save, whether for your teams closer or to preserve your starters win is most likely the most excitable/frustrating part of a game.

I actually do think having everyone play starting pitching is a good idea, I just wanted to come off the sidelines as someone that has tried the all reliever approach and failed with it, and state to those that believe it is somehow a shoe-in to win or place, that is not the case. And to have Jim be looked upon as somehow cheating the game is not cool. How many leagues are won with 108 points? Not too many that I've been a part of. That league is so tight up top that it has allowed a score like that to (potentially) win.

P.S. I must say that I'm going to be disappointed if you don't run the table on every category in our main event league. 142 pts is bush league:) Congrats on a stellar season!