NFBC Message Boards

Greg,

I’ve always been curious (maybe moreso this year) as to why every NFBC league doesn’t use the same player pool? On draft day, every league has the same player pool. But after draft day, the player pool shrinks and all non-drafted players not on the 25 man roster are removed from each individual league’s player pool.



Suppose the following hypothetical:

Nick Adenhart was not drafted in any leagues on draft day.

John Bale was not drafted in any leagues on draft day.



After draft day, Adenhart would be removed from EVERY league’s free agent pool, while Bale would not be removed. Obviously the difference is that Bale is on the 25-man roster. Why do you give so much weight to being on the 25-man roster? In fantasy football, can we pick up players that are not on NFL teams (Antonio Bryant)?

anyone can attempt to answer my question (not just greg)

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

Greg,

I’ve always been curious (maybe moreso this year) as to why every NFBC league doesn’t use the same player pool? On draft day, every league has the same player pool. But after draft day, the player pool shrinks and all non-drafted players not on the 25 man roster are removed from each individual league’s player pool.



Suppose the following hypothetical:

Nick Adenhart was not drafted in any leagues on draft day.

John Bale was not drafted in any leagues on draft day.



After draft day, Adenhart would be removed from EVERY league’s free agent pool, while Bale would not be removed. Obviously the difference is that Bale is on the 25-man roster. Why do you give so much weight to being on the 25-man roster? In fantasy football, can we pick up players that are not on NFL teams (Antonio Bryant)? This is a worthy question. As I've stated on another thread, since we do not allow trading in the NFBC, the FAAB pool during the 26 weeks of the regular season is a very, very important part of our game. You must use your $1,000 FAAB budget very wisely to succeed.



By not allowing undrafted minor-leaguers in the free agent pool all year long, it gives everyone in your league the same chance to use their FAAB money when that player is called up to the majors. Again, if you really, really, really knew this top prospect was going to be so good and wanted to stash him on your reserve roster, you could have done that on Draft Day. You can draft ANYONE on Draft Day. But if nobody in your league feels this player was worthy to be drafted and he starts in the minors, then we've all agreed to use our FAAB to pick him up when he gets called up.



Yes, this does prevent an owner in that league from stashing him on their reserve roster for a few bucks two weeks before he gets called up. But from my perspective, it's a fairer challenge to have everyone use their FAAB allocations to bid for him the week that he's called up to the majors. It strengthens the strategy you all use during the season whether to spend too much or hang onto this money for key pickups at any point in the season.



If all players were available all the time, I believe the value of free agent pickups would be lessened and competing after a rough start would be tougher because no trades are allowed. With our current setup, teams can still battle back and pick up a prospect like Max Scherzer...if they're now willing to pay the price. In the leagues where Scherzer was drafted in the late rounds, those owners have earned that right to have positive value while other leagues now have to use a lot of their FAAB to get him. These are individual league competitions, but everything we do in those individual leagues affect the overall contest.



Again, it's a very worthy question. I hope this explains my position. I'd love to hear others.

Cut and pasted...



How would this rule change alter anything in a bad way...



RULE: Any minor league player drafted and later dropped before being placed on a major league teams 25 man roster, will be removed from the free agent player pool in that league until he is later placed on a major league teams 25 man roster.



I feel that this would ELIMINATE any possible draft and drop strategies of collusion. (and that wold be a good thing.)



~Lance



[ May 02, 2008, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

Cut and paster duex ...



Every league has the same player pool prior to the draft. Once the draft begins, who is available to you from your next pick right thru the end of the season is 100% dependent on which players are taken by every other owner. No two leagues available player pool will be alike once the draft starts.



So, if Scherzer is taken in LV3 and not in NY3, you're saying that it's an advantage for me in LV3 because if he's dropped I could add him cheaply? Well, what if he isn't dropped? Doesn't that mean I now am at a disadvantage because he won't be available to be picked up at all?



Suppose the rule is changed such that if he's dropped he can't be picked up until added to the 25-man roster. If that's the case, then in scenario (a) in which he isn't dropped, I am at a disadvantage because I can't get him at any price, and in scenario (b) I get no advantage because if he is dropped I have to pay just as much as everyone else. Exactly how is that fair ... as the rule stands is can be either an advantage or a disadvatage to me if Scherzer is drafted in my lge (dependent on whether or not he is dropped), but if the rule is changed it only can be a disadvantage. And if its a disadvantage for one lge, that logically suggests a relative advantage for other lges where he is not drafted ... so by changing the rule, you'd actually be creating an advantage in lges that DIDN'T draft him relative to those that did, and rather than creating equality you'd actually be creating inequality.

another cut and paste...



To me the rule is unique to the contest. I play a local with a wide open FA policy. That too is fun. But this rule streamlines my thought process during the week and makes it easier to play multiple leagues. There is less free agent pickup clutter to contend with.



It has simply become a matter of preference for me.

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Cut and paster duex ...



Every league has the same player pool prior to the draft. Once the draft begins, who is available to you from your next pick right thru the end of the season is 100% dependent on which players are taken by every other owner. No two leagues available player pool will be alike once the draft starts.



So, if Scherzer is taken in LV3 and not in NY3, you're saying that it's an advantage for me in LV3 because if he's dropped I could add him cheaply? Well, what if he isn't dropped? Doesn't that mean I now am at a disadvantage because he won't be available to be picked up at all?



Suppose the rule is changed such that if he's dropped he can't be picked up until added to the 25-man roster. If that's the case, then in scenario (a) in which he isn't dropped, I am at a disadvantage because I can't get him at any price, and in scenario (b) I get no advantage because if he is dropped I have to pay just as much as everyone else. Exactly how is that fair ... as the rule stands is can be either an advantage or a disadvatage to me if Scherzer is drafted in my lge (dependent on whether or not he is dropped), but if the rule is changed it only can be a disadvantage. And if its a disadvantage for one lge, that logically suggests a relative advantage for other lges where he is not drafted ... so by changing the rule, you'd actually be creating an advantage in lges that DIDN'T draft him relative to those that did, and rather than creating equality you'd actually be creating inequality. I don't get the "if he's drafted and never dropped" argument.



That logic would apply to all players drafted and kept rostered. You are not "entitled" to have a shot at any drafted and kept rostered players.



Your "scenario a" is irrelevant and applies to all players drafted and kept rostered.



Your "scenario b" is as fair as possible. You must pay the market value for a player when he is introduced to the STATS system...just like every other league. (unless you drafted and kept him rostered...which is a risk and sacrifice you earned by drafting and wasting a bench spot on him.)



Bailing out injured teams by having the luck of being in a league that drafted and dropped a bunch of stud prospects is not fair to all the injured teams in other leagues where they did not draft and drop a bunch of prospects.



Everyone pays the fair market value for NEW players added into the STATS system unless you drafted and kept that player.



I may be confused. (my eyes hurt.)



~Lance

Beaten horse's pulse getting weaker, weaker ...



Let's get back to why Zambrano wasn't worth a 7th round pick, that was more fun.

Lance,



if the rule is modified (to remove drafted players until they're called up)



League 1. Drafted Scherzer. Dropped him to pool since he's sent to AAA before camp breaks. Scherzer is now NOT available to anyone in League 1 until he gets called up.



League 2. No one drafts Scherzer. Instead they use that draft slot to draft another player (it could be Danks, or Eveland, or C.Floyd. When/if that player is dropped that player is NOT subject to removal. League 2 has more available players in the pool than League 1 has.



BOTH leagues have the same chance at Scherzer.



A small slight but a slight nontheless.



[ May 02, 2008, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Quahogs ]

Maybe another solution would be the NFBC establishing the player pool prior to the draft. There are 750 ML players and 450 roster spots.



Option A) Since there are many websites and magazines that rank players, use a standard choice that all agree on that contains all 750 potential MLB rostered players, plus the top 100 prospects. Surely this would include all players that would possibly be drafted. If not, change it to the top 150 prospects. From that point on it becomes the standard free agent pool for the draft and the season. It would never contract, but if there were call-ups that were not on the original list then they could be added.



Option B) Allow everyone to submit their prospect "wish list" and compile a standard database for the players.



IMO, the FAAB process wouldn't be affected by these suggestions (or any of the others). FAAB is always going to be dependent on whatever the needs of the league happen to be.



Greg's point that these are all individual leagues that contribute to one overall event explains a lot. He is placing the emphasis on the individual leagues and the better teams will be able to win extra prizes. I've always viewed it just the opposite (well, except for in 2004).



Sort of like top-down, bottom-up analysis. He is starting with the individual and working to the Main. If that's the case then most of the arguments that myself, UFS, Lance, et al, won't hold water. We are looking at it from different directions, from the overall to the individual.



Since Greg is the arbiter establishing the rules, he reserves the right to say which direction it goes. He says it is individual leagues to the overall. Then that is the way it is.



I'll concede the point to him.



It also basically puts an end to the issue of multiple team ownership. If the focus is from the individual league to the overall, then having multiple teams really has no bearing.



All of the arguments and debate that I personally have put up focus on looking at the overall first.



This is called equilibrium strategy. What a good book that was

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

since we do not allow trading in the NFBC, the FAAB pool during the 26 weeks of the regular season is a very, very important part of our game. You must use your $1,000 FAAB budget very wisely to succeed.



By not allowing undrafted minor-leaguers in the free agent pool all year long, it gives everyone in your league the same chance to use their FAAB money when that player is called up to the majors. sorry for just getting back to this. i think a lot of what you posted is valid whether undrafted minor-leaguers are in the FAAB pool or not.



i know you think of this contest being about individual leagues first, but unfortunately for a lot of the participants, it's about the overall contest.



something seems amiss (with me anyway) that everyone is competing in the overall contest, yet each owner is not working with the same player pool.



still not sure what's the reasoning behind allowing someone undrafted like John Bale in your FAAB pool, but not Nick Adenhart? sure the rule is "it's the 25-man roster", but why not allow each owner the chance to pick up who THEY want?



[ May 03, 2008, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

If you knew about the guy on draft day Kudos to you. Sounds to me like someone is upset that he dosent want to spend the money or dosent have the money to obtain certain Free Agent players.



The draft is huge, championships are won in rounds 15-30! You need to draft your value there.

some posters keeps saying if you wanted a player, you should have drafted him on draft day. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHY ARE THERE HUNDREDS OF FREE AGENT PICKUPS EVERY WEEK? IF FOLKS WANTED THOSE PLAYERS, THEY SHOULD HAVE DRAFTED THEM!!! RIGHT??? :rolleyes:



[ May 03, 2008, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

hopefully greg will keep an open mind on this one for next year.

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

some posters keeps saying if you wanted a player, you should have drafted him on draft day. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHY ARE THERE HUNDREDS OF FREE AGENT PICKUPS EVERY WEEK? IF FOLKS WANTED THOSE PLAYERS, THEY SHOULD HAVE DRAFTED THEM!!! RIGHT??? :rolleyes: Injuries and poor draft choices, an example might be Francisco Liriano.

Originally posted by Plymouth:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

some posters keeps saying if you wanted a player, you should have drafted him on draft day. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHY ARE THERE HUNDREDS OF FREE AGENT PICKUPS EVERY WEEK? IF FOLKS WANTED THOSE PLAYERS, THEY SHOULD HAVE DRAFTED THEM!!! RIGHT??? :rolleyes: Injuries and poor draft choices, an example might be Francisco Liriano. [/QUOTE]if people wanted these new players, they should have drafted them. right??? that's the logic others are using?



[ May 03, 2008, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Originally posted by Plymouth:

Injuries and poor draft choices, an example might be Francisco Liriano. do you have any minnows on your "bait" farm?

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

hopefully greg will keep an open mind on this one for next year. Hopefully



We are at a loss on the argument because everything we come up with relies on everyone putting the $100,000 first, especially the NFBC.



If the individual leagues are put first by the NFBC, then any type of individual strategy or tactic is going to hold precedence over creating any balance for the overall event.



It's the catch-22 of developing a complex game. That's why I've been asking what the purpose of the NFBC was. Since I never really got an answer, I just assumed that it was the $100,000 prize. Especially since that is what is being marketed on the NFBC homepage.



If it's a game within a game, then which game is the container for holding the other game?



Greg's answer means that both you and I were wrong in how we viewed it. It's not a game within a game. It's just a game that awards bonus prizes to teams that have exceptionally good seasons. The $5000 league prize is what most people are after first. If they get it then they are completely satisfied. If they get a bonus prize then that just makes it all the better.



I'm starting to realize that we are a minority group going after the NFBC Championship above all.

Originally posted by Jackstraw:

We are at a loss on the argument because everything we come up with relies on everyone putting the $100,000 first, especially the NFBC.

i don't see how it hurts a league if Adenhart, scerzer, clement, etc...are available in the FAAB pool.



other owners are able to bid on them if they are drafted and dropped in their leagues!!!!!

A poll would likely show most players are in the NFBC main event for the overall prize. However, this has no bearing on my preference for how the player pool is handled, or the logic of how it should be handled. Trying to equate one to the other (if you're in it for the $100k then you should agree with us) is just a straw man argument.



[ May 03, 2008, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

I still dont see your logic even with the 100K involved. If your playing for that one could say why didnt you draft scherzer, clement, lind, among others and just hold them this way you would not have to bid and spend the money on them.



Some owners took the risk of holding that guy on his bench just for that reason. It's a risk/reward scenario.



Why is Pearce owned in 90% of leagues stil....Cause some people drafted him for just this reason. It's all a strategy and you need to decide which one you are going to utilize.



I know if i drop pearce he will be picked up immediately and my strategy could backfire on me so i'm stuck with him on my bench but once he gets the call BOOM i'm set. I guess you just dont like to play that strategy if that is the case then you have to bid your $$$ to get him hopefully.



It's all relative and i like the rule cause it makes the draft that much more important.



congrats to owners that drafted him you were smarter than us and i respect your patience and risk reward

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

A poll would likely show most players are in the NFBC main event for the overall prize. However, this has no bearing on my preference for how the player pool is handled, or the logic of how it should be handled. Trying to equate one to the other (if you're in it for the $100k then you should agree with us) is just a straw man argument. There are actually mathematical models for how games like these should be created to maintain a fair distribution of odds for each player. I named a book that puts it into simpler terms than some indepth game theory math books. I'm not going to bother with explaining it but if you want to read it for yourself, then the I listed the book in the other thread.



I'm not balking on an explanation to be an a-hole, but because I agree that I don't see anything changing. There isn't any need to pursue the discussion because it just creates a lot of ill-will between folks.



Like I said about my equilibrium strategy, sometimes you gotta give into someone or something just so that you can get something that you want. I would rather make friends and have a place to play.

I didnt see anything about a book, guess I missed a few pages. Even so, I don't see a necessarily right or wrong method, I see different preferences.



[ May 03, 2008, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

I didnt see anything about a book, guess I missed a few pages. Even so, I don't see a necessarily right or wrong method, I see different preferences. Exactly



I'm with you on this now, but I do see both sides of the coin very clearly now.



You're right, it is all about preferences, and perspective.

Originally posted by Jackstraw:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

I didnt see anything about a book, guess I missed a few pages. Even so, I don't see a necessarily right or wrong method, I see different preferences. Exactly



I'm with you on this now, but I do see both sides of the coin very clearly now.



You're right, it is all about preferences, and perspective. [/QUOTE]This is definitely a 60/40 type thing either way.



There's nothing wrong at all with the way it's done now.



I guess I'm a Fundamentalist. LOL. 390 teams should have the access to the same players if they are competing for the same prize. And I proved in the other thread that there is no dramatic effect on faab on the contest.



I'm with GG, if I'm competing for the overall prize, having my DB of players chosen by my league just doesn't seem right.



Being that it's 60/40 type issue, and five years of doing it this way already, I can understand why it probably won't be changed.