Just a reminder to everyone that the NFBC does have a 700 IP minimum, so those owners below that level right now must get to 700 IP in order to keep their place in the standings. For any team that finishes the season below 700 IP, they will fall to last place in ERA and WHIP (1 point for each category) and standings will be re-run. There are very few teams under this limit right now, but just a heads up to them that they must get above that by season's end.
The NFBC has always had rules in place that allow owners a chance to win with different strategies. The 700 IP minimum is the highest IP minimum we've ever had. That being said, there is still some feedback that we should look at that number and possibly change it for 2011. I am interested in feedback because I also have strong feelings on this.
So the question is this:
1) Should the NFBC continue with 700 IP for all of its events?
2) Should the NFBC raise the 700 IP minimum for all events? If so, to what level? 800? 900? More?
3) Should the NFBC have different rules for different contests? Should the private leagues have higher IP minimums?
I look forward to intelligent feedback on this subject. I'll create a separate thread for other rules changes, so let's stick to topic here. Thanks all.
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 40286
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
I put myself in the shoes of a 700 innings pitched team this year in a non-NFBC team. It's a simpler way to manage a team. Really, I don't even know if I would call it a 'strategy'.
Pitchers such as Benoit and Kimbrel become integral and are always available since they are not closers.
On draft day, I felt I had so much clout on offense, due to not choosing starters and waiting for the back of the draft to get the Benoit types.
I'm second, within a point of first in my league, and most likely will cash. I enjoy the angst and real strategies of drafting a 'normal' team. And miss that with a minimal innings team. Drafting and playing with a team like this requires less time during the week and also becomes an advantage with faab.
Having said all this, I am not opposed to playing against teams that want to implement this tactic.
I would make things a little more difficult for these 'gamers' by increasing the innings pitched limit to 850. This would force them to incorporate a starter or two, be it through their draft or faab, and perhaps make them put as much thought during the week into faab as other players.
Also, there should be 'Classic Prep' Satelite leagues that require 1100 innings pitched, so that folks can be better prepared for the standard Classic draft.
Outside the box a little here...
I'd like to be in a test league with a 'normal' team vs. 14 non-starter teams. Most likely, my team wouldn't have a prayer.
[ September 21, 2010, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
Pitchers such as Benoit and Kimbrel become integral and are always available since they are not closers.
On draft day, I felt I had so much clout on offense, due to not choosing starters and waiting for the back of the draft to get the Benoit types.
I'm second, within a point of first in my league, and most likely will cash. I enjoy the angst and real strategies of drafting a 'normal' team. And miss that with a minimal innings team. Drafting and playing with a team like this requires less time during the week and also becomes an advantage with faab.
Having said all this, I am not opposed to playing against teams that want to implement this tactic.
I would make things a little more difficult for these 'gamers' by increasing the innings pitched limit to 850. This would force them to incorporate a starter or two, be it through their draft or faab, and perhaps make them put as much thought during the week into faab as other players.
Also, there should be 'Classic Prep' Satelite leagues that require 1100 innings pitched, so that folks can be better prepared for the standard Classic draft.
Outside the box a little here...
I'd like to be in a test league with a 'normal' team vs. 14 non-starter teams. Most likely, my team wouldn't have a prayer.
[ September 21, 2010, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
I am in the camp of increasing the inning to at least 900 if not 1000.
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
Also, there should be 'Classic Prep' Satelite leagues that require 1100 innings pitched, so that folks can be better prepared for the standard Classic draft.
I am in this camp. And add a min AB total. But I do not think it is the right thing to do for the 45-rounders. With no FAAB, you could be DQ'ed without intending to implement an alternative strategy.
Also, there should be 'Classic Prep' Satelite leagues that require 1100 innings pitched, so that folks can be better prepared for the standard Classic draft.
I am in this camp. And add a min AB total. But I do not think it is the right thing to do for the 45-rounders. With no FAAB, you could be DQ'ed without intending to implement an alternative strategy.
Neal Moses
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Let the market place tell you what everyone wants. Offer league's with with 700 innings and league's with higher inning amounts.
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
For the main event or other leagues with an overall prize, you should have high inning limits. When one guy is hoarding saves in a league it limits his ability as well as the ability of others in his league to compete for the overall prize. It is really unfair if you get sacked with one of these guys.
In other leagues it is less important, but if I was choosing between two satellites with different amounts, I would take the higher one every time. Also, if you view the satellites as a gateway to the main event it would make sense to have the same limit, no?
900 or 1000 makes sense to me. I'm not sure what team that is making a real attempt to compete in strikeouts and wins wouldn't accrue that many.
In other leagues it is less important, but if I was choosing between two satellites with different amounts, I would take the higher one every time. Also, if you view the satellites as a gateway to the main event it would make sense to have the same limit, no?
900 or 1000 makes sense to me. I'm not sure what team that is making a real attempt to compete in strikeouts and wins wouldn't accrue that many.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
-
Red Sox Nation
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
I put myself in the shoes of a 700 innings pitched team this year in a non-NFBC team. It's a simpler way to manage a team. Really, I don't even know if I would call it a 'strategy'.
Pitchers such as Benoit and Kimbrel become integral and are always available since they are not closers.
On draft day, I felt I had so much clout on offense, due to not choosing starters and waiting for the back of the draft to get the Benoit types.
I'm second in my league and most likely will cash, but I won't draft a team like this again. I enjoy the angst and real strategies of drafting a 'normal' team. Drafting and playing with a team like this requires less time during the week and also becomes an advantage with faab.
Having said all this, I am not opposed to playing against teams that want to implement this 'strategy'.
I would make things a little more difficult for these 'gamers' by increasing the innings pitched limit to 850. This would force them to incorporate a starter or two, be it through their draft or faab, and perhaps make them put as much thought during the week into faab as other players.
Also, there should be 'Classic Prep' Satelite leagues that require 1100 innings pitched, so that folks can be better prepared for the standard Classic draft.
Outside the box a little here...
I'd like to be in a test league with a 'normal' team vs. 14 non-starter teams. Most likely, my team wouldn't have a prayer. Right on Dan. I tried the all reliever a few years back in a satellite and ran away with the title. It was very boring so I've never tried it since then even though I was one for one using it. It can work. Just look at the Diamond league. A few days ago 2 of the top 4 money spots were using it. That league has terrific players so that just goes to show how effective the strategy can be.
I'm all for increasing the innings.
I put myself in the shoes of a 700 innings pitched team this year in a non-NFBC team. It's a simpler way to manage a team. Really, I don't even know if I would call it a 'strategy'.
Pitchers such as Benoit and Kimbrel become integral and are always available since they are not closers.
On draft day, I felt I had so much clout on offense, due to not choosing starters and waiting for the back of the draft to get the Benoit types.
I'm second in my league and most likely will cash, but I won't draft a team like this again. I enjoy the angst and real strategies of drafting a 'normal' team. Drafting and playing with a team like this requires less time during the week and also becomes an advantage with faab.
Having said all this, I am not opposed to playing against teams that want to implement this 'strategy'.
I would make things a little more difficult for these 'gamers' by increasing the innings pitched limit to 850. This would force them to incorporate a starter or two, be it through their draft or faab, and perhaps make them put as much thought during the week into faab as other players.
Also, there should be 'Classic Prep' Satelite leagues that require 1100 innings pitched, so that folks can be better prepared for the standard Classic draft.
Outside the box a little here...
I'd like to be in a test league with a 'normal' team vs. 14 non-starter teams. Most likely, my team wouldn't have a prayer. Right on Dan. I tried the all reliever a few years back in a satellite and ran away with the title. It was very boring so I've never tried it since then even though I was one for one using it. It can work. Just look at the Diamond league. A few days ago 2 of the top 4 money spots were using it. That league has terrific players so that just goes to show how effective the strategy can be.
I'm all for increasing the innings.
2004 NYY "The Greatest Choke in the History of Sports"
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
Outside the box a little here...
I'd like to be in a test league with a 'normal' team vs. 14 non-starter teams. Most likely, my team wouldn't have a prayer. I'm not sure you're right on this premise. Think about it...if 14 other teams drafted ONLY middle relievers and closers (which is what I think you're proposing) then the quality would be severely diluted to a point and you would have the choice of the cream of the starting staffs. I would bet that there would be enough poor outings by the middle relievers to balloon a few ERA's and Whips, while you walk away with wins and K's hands down. They beat each other up for the other categories.
I think this "strategy" works now, because no one else is competing the same way. Let 14 others try?? I bet it pans out differently.
Just my opinion..I could be wrong.
Outside the box a little here...
I'd like to be in a test league with a 'normal' team vs. 14 non-starter teams. Most likely, my team wouldn't have a prayer. I'm not sure you're right on this premise. Think about it...if 14 other teams drafted ONLY middle relievers and closers (which is what I think you're proposing) then the quality would be severely diluted to a point and you would have the choice of the cream of the starting staffs. I would bet that there would be enough poor outings by the middle relievers to balloon a few ERA's and Whips, while you walk away with wins and K's hands down. They beat each other up for the other categories.
I think this "strategy" works now, because no one else is competing the same way. Let 14 others try?? I bet it pans out differently.
Just my opinion..I could be wrong.
-
Layin'theSmackDown
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
if fantasy baseball is to emulate running a real mlb team then it should be made impossible to field a team without starting pitchers. either with sp slots (not in favour) or a min. innings pitched that forces you to have at least 4-5 starters. or maybe all utility slots on the offensive side- i want to try out my no catchers or middle infielders strategy
-
Cowboy Joe
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Another idea is to require a certain number of starting pitchers (e.g., 4) on an active roster (just as you have a requirement for position players) A starting pitcher could be defined as anyone who started 10 or more games in the previous year or who has started 4 games in the current season. There would be no restriction on the type of pitcher filling the other 5 pitching slots.
I feel like I'm the Jerry Quarry of the NFBC.
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by Atlas:
quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
Outside the box a little here...
I'd like to be in a test league with a 'normal' team vs. 14 non-starter teams. Most likely, my team wouldn't have a prayer. I'm not sure you're right on this premise. Think about it...if 14 other teams drafted ONLY middle relievers and closers (which is what I think you're proposing) then the quality would be severely diluted to a point and you would have the choice of the cream of the starting staffs. I would bet that there would be enough poor outings by the middle relievers to balloon a few ERA's and Whips, while you walk away with wins and K's hands down. They beat each other up for the other categories.
I think this "strategy" works now, because no one else is competing the same way. Let 14 others try?? I bet it pans out differently.
Just my opinion..I could be wrong. [/QUOTE]I thought that when I read it too and just chalked it up to Dan missing a cup of coffee that morning. However, it does bring up an interesting point: if you play in a league where you plan to skip starting pitchers and two other guys are planning the same thing, none of you stand a chance--and you won't realize it until at least a few rounds in when you've already set up your draft to go that way. That is a great reason to not do it. What a horrible feeling to know you're dead in the water just 1/6 of the way into the draft, forget the fact that the season hasn't started yet.
quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
Outside the box a little here...
I'd like to be in a test league with a 'normal' team vs. 14 non-starter teams. Most likely, my team wouldn't have a prayer. I'm not sure you're right on this premise. Think about it...if 14 other teams drafted ONLY middle relievers and closers (which is what I think you're proposing) then the quality would be severely diluted to a point and you would have the choice of the cream of the starting staffs. I would bet that there would be enough poor outings by the middle relievers to balloon a few ERA's and Whips, while you walk away with wins and K's hands down. They beat each other up for the other categories.
I think this "strategy" works now, because no one else is competing the same way. Let 14 others try?? I bet it pans out differently.
Just my opinion..I could be wrong. [/QUOTE]I thought that when I read it too and just chalked it up to Dan missing a cup of coffee that morning. However, it does bring up an interesting point: if you play in a league where you plan to skip starting pitchers and two other guys are planning the same thing, none of you stand a chance--and you won't realize it until at least a few rounds in when you've already set up your draft to go that way. That is a great reason to not do it. What a horrible feeling to know you're dead in the water just 1/6 of the way into the draft, forget the fact that the season hasn't started yet.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by LONG GONE:
Let the market place tell you what everyone wants. Offer league's with with 700 innings and league's with higher inning amounts. This is a good idea and I think signups would be double for the leagues with the higher IP requirements.
Let the market place tell you what everyone wants. Offer league's with with 700 innings and league's with higher inning amounts. This is a good idea and I think signups would be double for the leagues with the higher IP requirements.
Richard Kulaski
Fairview, TN
Fairview, TN
-
Emilio Cutaneo
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
i cant believe how much discussion this is generating. the min innings were 600 for 5 years and no one said a word...they were increased last year to 700....there are like less than 1% of teams doing it in all the leagues combined....if someone wants to give up 2 categories thats their choice....to get to 700 inn you still have to pitch some starting pitchers for a good part of the season--so its not like you never pitch a starter...2 years ago i gave up saves after a month and won my league..some guys give up steals...i know 1 nfbc guy who has been doing it in every league for years and is usually in the money--but it makes 1st place harder to attain...stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave it alone
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 2557
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:00 pm
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by Emilio Cutaneo:
i cant believe how much discussion this is generating. the min innings were 600 for 5 years and no one said a word...they were increased last year to 700....there are like less than 1% of teams doing it in all the leagues combined....if someone wants to give up 2 categories thats their choice....to get to 700 inn you still have to pitch some starting pitchers for a good part of the season--so its not like you never pitch a starter...2 years ago i gave up saves after a month and won my league..some guys give up steals...i know 1 nfbc guy who has been doing it in every league for years and is usually in the money--but it makes 1st place harder to attain...stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave it alone There's been discussions about this every year. It wasn't raised to 700 last year. I can't remember the total from 2004, but in 2005 is when the circus started when there was no minimum. They were crawling out of the woodwork to play angles that year. Greg raised it to 400 in 2006 and 600 in 2007. He raised it to 700 in 2008
[ September 20, 2010, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]
i cant believe how much discussion this is generating. the min innings were 600 for 5 years and no one said a word...they were increased last year to 700....there are like less than 1% of teams doing it in all the leagues combined....if someone wants to give up 2 categories thats their choice....to get to 700 inn you still have to pitch some starting pitchers for a good part of the season--so its not like you never pitch a starter...2 years ago i gave up saves after a month and won my league..some guys give up steals...i know 1 nfbc guy who has been doing it in every league for years and is usually in the money--but it makes 1st place harder to attain...stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave it alone There's been discussions about this every year. It wasn't raised to 700 last year. I can't remember the total from 2004, but in 2005 is when the circus started when there was no minimum. They were crawling out of the woodwork to play angles that year. Greg raised it to 400 in 2006 and 600 in 2007. He raised it to 700 in 2008
[ September 20, 2010, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
quote:Originally posted by Emilio Cutaneo:
i cant believe how much discussion this is generating. the min innings were 600 for 5 years and no one said a word...they were increased last year to 700....there are like less than 1% of teams doing it in all the leagues combined....if someone wants to give up 2 categories thats their choice....to get to 700 inn you still have to pitch some starting pitchers for a good part of the season--so its not like you never pitch a starter...2 years ago i gave up saves after a month and won my league..some guys give up steals...i know 1 nfbc guy who has been doing it in every league for years and is usually in the money--but it makes 1st place harder to attain...stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave it alone There's been discussions about this every year. It wasn't raised to 700 last year. I can't remember the total from 2004, but in 2005 is when the circus started when there was no minimum. They were crawling out of the woodwork to play angles that year. Greg raised it to 400 in 2006 and 600 in 2007. He raised it to 700 in 2008 [/QUOTE]Shawn: he might not have his dates just right but what he's saying is exactly right on and you know it 2. Even though i would have liked the limit to stay at 600 or 650 or whatever it was before we raised it i think 700 is a good level and it makes people have at least 2 or 3 starters and live pitchers in every spot and that was the intent of the min in the first place.
[ September 20, 2010, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Bama ]
quote:Originally posted by Emilio Cutaneo:
i cant believe how much discussion this is generating. the min innings were 600 for 5 years and no one said a word...they were increased last year to 700....there are like less than 1% of teams doing it in all the leagues combined....if someone wants to give up 2 categories thats their choice....to get to 700 inn you still have to pitch some starting pitchers for a good part of the season--so its not like you never pitch a starter...2 years ago i gave up saves after a month and won my league..some guys give up steals...i know 1 nfbc guy who has been doing it in every league for years and is usually in the money--but it makes 1st place harder to attain...stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave it alone There's been discussions about this every year. It wasn't raised to 700 last year. I can't remember the total from 2004, but in 2005 is when the circus started when there was no minimum. They were crawling out of the woodwork to play angles that year. Greg raised it to 400 in 2006 and 600 in 2007. He raised it to 700 in 2008 [/QUOTE]Shawn: he might not have his dates just right but what he's saying is exactly right on and you know it 2. Even though i would have liked the limit to stay at 600 or 650 or whatever it was before we raised it i think 700 is a good level and it makes people have at least 2 or 3 starters and live pitchers in every spot and that was the intent of the min in the first place.
[ September 20, 2010, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Bama ]
-
CC's Desperados
- Posts: 2557
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:00 pm
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by Bama:
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
quote:Originally posted by Emilio Cutaneo:
i cant believe how much discussion this is generating. the min innings were 600 for 5 years and no one said a word...they were increased last year to 700....there are like less than 1% of teams doing it in all the leagues combined....if someone wants to give up 2 categories thats their choice....to get to 700 inn you still have to pitch some starting pitchers for a good part of the season--so its not like you never pitch a starter...2 years ago i gave up saves after a month and won my league..some guys give up steals...i know 1 nfbc guy who has been doing it in every league for years and is usually in the money--but it makes 1st place harder to attain...stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave it alone There's been discussions about this every year. It wasn't raised to 700 last year. I can't remember the total from 2004, but in 2005 is when the circus started when there was no minimum. They were crawling out of the woodwork to play angles that year. Greg raised it to 400 in 2006 and 600 in 2007. He raised it to 700 in 2008 [/QUOTE]Shawn: he might not have his dates just right but what he's saying is exactly right on and you know it 2. Even though i would have liked the limit to stay at 600 or 650 or whatever it was before we raised it i think 700 is a good level and it makes people have at least 2 or 3 starters and live pitchers in every spot and that was the intent of the min in the first place. [/QUOTE]You are the only none reliever guy who wants it lower.
quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
quote:Originally posted by Emilio Cutaneo:
i cant believe how much discussion this is generating. the min innings were 600 for 5 years and no one said a word...they were increased last year to 700....there are like less than 1% of teams doing it in all the leagues combined....if someone wants to give up 2 categories thats their choice....to get to 700 inn you still have to pitch some starting pitchers for a good part of the season--so its not like you never pitch a starter...2 years ago i gave up saves after a month and won my league..some guys give up steals...i know 1 nfbc guy who has been doing it in every league for years and is usually in the money--but it makes 1st place harder to attain...stop trying to reinvent the wheel and leave it alone There's been discussions about this every year. It wasn't raised to 700 last year. I can't remember the total from 2004, but in 2005 is when the circus started when there was no minimum. They were crawling out of the woodwork to play angles that year. Greg raised it to 400 in 2006 and 600 in 2007. He raised it to 700 in 2008 [/QUOTE]Shawn: he might not have his dates just right but what he's saying is exactly right on and you know it 2. Even though i would have liked the limit to stay at 600 or 650 or whatever it was before we raised it i think 700 is a good level and it makes people have at least 2 or 3 starters and live pitchers in every spot and that was the intent of the min in the first place. [/QUOTE]You are the only none reliever guy who wants it lower.
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Why should a group of owner's that want to play the game straight up, have to play the game with angle cutter's?
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
In my humble opinion, I say leave it the way it is. We all pay a nice chunk of change to enter whatever league we are playing in. Pure and simple, fantasy baseball has nothing to do about mimicking running a MLB team. The goal is to accumulate as many points possible in a rotisserie style format. Personally I don't care how it's done, it's about scoring the most points.
There is an endless amount of variables involved that using zero starting pitchers still guarantees you absolutely nothing in regards to how you finish (except that you will probably be challenged in wins and K's
). I have not faced a team that employs this type of strategy as of yet, but if and when I do, I will hold no ill will to the strategy.
It's an angle some use to try to accumulate as many points as they can. It's really no different than walking into a draft saying to myself, 'I'm going to kill hitting this year and draft 10 bats in the first 10 rounds.' I'll worry about closers and SP's beginning in R11 - evidenced by all the great starting pitching finds this year in Rounds 10-20 (THuddy, Liriano, JGarcia, Latos, CLewis, etc.)....huh, maybe I should try that next year?!?!
In closing, I'll try to beat anyone (as I'm sure anyone playing here would) no matter what the other team's roster looks like. If I don't, I'll blame myself, not the construction of my competitor's pitching staff.
There is an endless amount of variables involved that using zero starting pitchers still guarantees you absolutely nothing in regards to how you finish (except that you will probably be challenged in wins and K's
). I have not faced a team that employs this type of strategy as of yet, but if and when I do, I will hold no ill will to the strategy.It's an angle some use to try to accumulate as many points as they can. It's really no different than walking into a draft saying to myself, 'I'm going to kill hitting this year and draft 10 bats in the first 10 rounds.' I'll worry about closers and SP's beginning in R11 - evidenced by all the great starting pitching finds this year in Rounds 10-20 (THuddy, Liriano, JGarcia, Latos, CLewis, etc.)....huh, maybe I should try that next year?!?!
In closing, I'll try to beat anyone (as I'm sure anyone playing here would) no matter what the other team's roster looks like. If I don't, I'll blame myself, not the construction of my competitor's pitching staff.
"Luck is the residue of design."
-Branch Rickey
-Branch Rickey
-
Layin'theSmackDown
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by Ando:
Pure and simple, fantasy baseball has nothing to do about mimicking running a MLB team. The goal is to accumulate as many points possible in a rotisserie style format. fantasy sports has everything to do with mimicking the real life sport. probably 99% of all fantasy sports leagues require you to fill out an imitation of a real pro roster (albiet sometimes with a smaller roster size). that shouldnt be confused with the method of scoring for tracking a leagues performance instead of wins and losses.
everytime an mlb game is played the two most significant players are the SPs. to have a contest where they can be an afterthought seems silly.
the all rp strategy is only possible because of the "save" and if you are of the belief that the "save" is somewhat of an artificial and arbitrary stat when compared to the other categories then its going to burn you up a bit. its almost like playing and angle on an angle.
Pure and simple, fantasy baseball has nothing to do about mimicking running a MLB team. The goal is to accumulate as many points possible in a rotisserie style format. fantasy sports has everything to do with mimicking the real life sport. probably 99% of all fantasy sports leagues require you to fill out an imitation of a real pro roster (albiet sometimes with a smaller roster size). that shouldnt be confused with the method of scoring for tracking a leagues performance instead of wins and losses.
everytime an mlb game is played the two most significant players are the SPs. to have a contest where they can be an afterthought seems silly.
the all rp strategy is only possible because of the "save" and if you are of the belief that the "save" is somewhat of an artificial and arbitrary stat when compared to the other categories then its going to burn you up a bit. its almost like playing and angle on an angle.
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Good point! Tell Vegas starting pitching doesn't count.
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
No surprise -- I am in favor of leaving the minimum at 700 (or reducing it). At 700 it already requires using a couple of SP's.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not.
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by jim.s:
No surprise -- I am in favor of leaving the minimum at 700 (or reducing it). At 700 it already requires using a couple of SP's.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not. There is a huge difference in the disparaties that is such a strategy creates. Imagine all the $$ both in a auction draft (or slots in a snake draft) that a all reliever/non-player strategy creates. 3 closers + waiver wire middle relievers is a creates huge issues... all starters means much less imho
And I agree with the comments around Fantasy BB. FB tries to mimic to the extent possible who can draft the best team and be a fantasy BB manager/owner. Not who can chisel the rules the best
[ September 20, 2010, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Spyhunter ]
No surprise -- I am in favor of leaving the minimum at 700 (or reducing it). At 700 it already requires using a couple of SP's.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not. There is a huge difference in the disparaties that is such a strategy creates. Imagine all the $$ both in a auction draft (or slots in a snake draft) that a all reliever/non-player strategy creates. 3 closers + waiver wire middle relievers is a creates huge issues... all starters means much less imho
And I agree with the comments around Fantasy BB. FB tries to mimic to the extent possible who can draft the best team and be a fantasy BB manager/owner. Not who can chisel the rules the best
[ September 20, 2010, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Spyhunter ]
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by Spyhunter:
quote:Originally posted by jim.s:
No surprise -- I am in favor of leaving the minimum at 700 (or reducing it). At 700 it already requires using a couple of SP's.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not. There is a huge difference in the disparaties that is such a strategy creates. Imagine all the $$ both in a auction draft (or slots in a snake draft) that a all reliever/non-player strategy creates. 3 closers + waiver wire middle relievers is a creates huge issues... all starters means much less imho
And I agree with the comments around Fantasy BB. FB tries to mimic to the extent possible who can draft the best team and be a fantasy BB manager/owner. Not who can chisel the rules the best [/QUOTE]So all starters accurately simulates real baseball?
quote:Originally posted by jim.s:
No surprise -- I am in favor of leaving the minimum at 700 (or reducing it). At 700 it already requires using a couple of SP's.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not. There is a huge difference in the disparaties that is such a strategy creates. Imagine all the $$ both in a auction draft (or slots in a snake draft) that a all reliever/non-player strategy creates. 3 closers + waiver wire middle relievers is a creates huge issues... all starters means much less imho
And I agree with the comments around Fantasy BB. FB tries to mimic to the extent possible who can draft the best team and be a fantasy BB manager/owner. Not who can chisel the rules the best [/QUOTE]So all starters accurately simulates real baseball?
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by jim.s:
quote:Originally posted by Spyhunter:
quote:Originally posted by jim.s:
No surprise -- I am in favor of leaving the minimum at 700 (or reducing it). At 700 it already requires using a couple of SP's.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not. There is a huge difference in the disparaties that is such a strategy creates. Imagine all the $$ both in a auction draft (or slots in a snake draft) that a all reliever/non-player strategy creates. 3 closers + waiver wire middle relievers is a creates huge issues... all starters means much less imho
And I agree with the comments around Fantasy BB. FB tries to mimic to the extent possible who can draft the best team and be a fantasy BB manager/owner. Not who can chisel the rules the best [/QUOTE]So all starters accurately simulates real baseball? [/QUOTE]I would be fine with a 5 sp slots, 4 reliever approach as instead of increasing innings
but yes, in BB, there are alot more complete games than there are all reliever teams!
quote:Originally posted by Spyhunter:
quote:Originally posted by jim.s:
No surprise -- I am in favor of leaving the minimum at 700 (or reducing it). At 700 it already requires using a couple of SP's.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not. There is a huge difference in the disparaties that is such a strategy creates. Imagine all the $$ both in a auction draft (or slots in a snake draft) that a all reliever/non-player strategy creates. 3 closers + waiver wire middle relievers is a creates huge issues... all starters means much less imho
And I agree with the comments around Fantasy BB. FB tries to mimic to the extent possible who can draft the best team and be a fantasy BB manager/owner. Not who can chisel the rules the best [/QUOTE]So all starters accurately simulates real baseball? [/QUOTE]I would be fine with a 5 sp slots, 4 reliever approach as instead of increasing innings
but yes, in BB, there are alot more complete games than there are all reliever teams!
Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?
Originally posted by Spyhunter:
quote:Originally posted by jim.s:
quote:Originally posted by Spyhunter:
quote:Originally posted by jim.s:
No surprise -- I am in favor of leaving the minimum at 700 (or reducing it). At 700 it already requires using a couple of SP's.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not. There is a huge difference in the disparaties that is such a strategy creates. Imagine all the $$ both in a auction draft (or slots in a snake draft) that a all reliever/non-player strategy creates. 3 closers + waiver wire middle relievers is a creates huge issues... all starters means much less imho
And I agree with the comments around Fantasy BB. FB tries to mimic to the extent possible who can draft the best team and be a fantasy BB manager/owner. Not who can chisel the rules the best [/QUOTE]So all starters accurately simulates real baseball? [/QUOTE]I would be fine with a 5 sp slots, 4 reliever approach as instead of increasing innings
but yes, in BB, there are alot more complete games than there are all reliever teams! [/QUOTE]With 700 IP you need about 1/3 of your innings from SP. Are there more complete games than games where the SP lasts less than 3 innings? I'm not so sure.
quote:Originally posted by jim.s:
quote:Originally posted by Spyhunter:
quote:Originally posted by jim.s:
No surprise -- I am in favor of leaving the minimum at 700 (or reducing it). At 700 it already requires using a couple of SP's.
In each of the Diamond and Ultimate Auction leagues there is a team completely punting saves (both well respected players). Should we have rules to prevent that strategy? -- of course not. There is a huge difference in the disparaties that is such a strategy creates. Imagine all the $$ both in a auction draft (or slots in a snake draft) that a all reliever/non-player strategy creates. 3 closers + waiver wire middle relievers is a creates huge issues... all starters means much less imho
And I agree with the comments around Fantasy BB. FB tries to mimic to the extent possible who can draft the best team and be a fantasy BB manager/owner. Not who can chisel the rules the best [/QUOTE]So all starters accurately simulates real baseball? [/QUOTE]I would be fine with a 5 sp slots, 4 reliever approach as instead of increasing innings
but yes, in BB, there are alot more complete games than there are all reliever teams! [/QUOTE]With 700 IP you need about 1/3 of your innings from SP. Are there more complete games than games where the SP lasts less than 3 innings? I'm not so sure.