NFBC Message Boards

I can take a hint with the best of 'em.
I know that most of my rule change ideas are a bit too radical for the NFBC. But if I can come up with anything that makes our game better or can spark an idea from elsewhere, I am all for it.

As with other ideas, just post how you really feel about this one. My feelings won't be hurt. These are just think tank ideas thrown out and maybe a modified version of these ideas are what is needed.
So, here it is...
I feel hamstrung on Friday's in that I can move hitters and wish to move pitchers. I also know that the streaming of pitchers changes our game way too much. We've tried the dl, but that just became a daily argument whether this pitcher or that pitcher has 'officially' been placed on the dl. And in the last part of August and all of September when some teams don't even bother to put pitcher's on the dl, it becomes one big cluster.
So, here's my thought....
One pitcher move on Friday. This would help make up for some injured pitchers or skipped pitchers early in the week. It would also help owners like those of Vargas or others in that a start may be established after the deadline.
This rule would also allow us to not HAVE to throw our 2-start pitchers against both teams.

The 'one pitcher only' designation should prevent all out streaming. Sure, it can be used in that way a bit, but it would be open for all if not suffering an injury or bad matchup during a week.
So, whaddya think of this one. Let me have it.
I'd rather hear all the detriments now, than after presented to NFBC Smarter minds than mine.
Thanks for the listen.

It's a new fresh idea Dan and one that has merit. I think the big issue is the software coding for any ideas like this. With none of us knwing how the STATS/NFBC engine works, it's hard to know if that's part of the reason most changes dont get accepted. But I like the idea.... and I would be all for it. Overall I beleive STATS/NFBC has accomplished a lot in the past 2 years with the software/web sites and the offerings and its a GREAT product.

4 OF with the 5th spot being a H/P swing spot in which you can move any player in or out on Friday

I could easily support this rule change. It would allow some form of pitcher streaming, but in that respect impacts all teams the same. It seems strange setting my lineups on Friday and being able to tweak my hitters to my heart's content but not being able to touch my pitchers at all. It also would help in cases of devastating, undisclosed pitching injuries (what the hell happened, Tyler Chatwood?). Perhaps I'm wrong mathematically, but an empty week from a pitching slot seems more damaging than an injury to a hitter.

On the negative side, this change clearly would impact drafting and managing strategies, and so would represent a meaningful change from the status quo. You could have a super stud pitcher, like Kershaw, and he will be benched pretty much every Friday if he pitched on Wednesday or Thursday (and some Tuesdays). With this rule change, I probably would draft and carry at least 1-2 more pitchers on a 30-man roster and possibly a few more on a 50-man roster. If we adopted this rule change, and so invited some form of pitcher streaming, it probably also would be appropriate to increase the minimum number of innings.

Maybe I'm over-analyzing this, and I certainly could support this rule change, but it would be a meaningful change.

In terms of increasing roster flexibility, I have a few less-impactful suggestions in addition to yours. First, let's lock players in when they play their first game of the period. I hate it when a player is off on Monday but will lock that day. When a bunch of teams have Monday off, I'd like to see who is playing on Tuesday before finalizing my lineup. Second, and this may be more difficult to implement, I would like positional flexibility until the entire lineup locks. For instance, once the Diamondbacks play, Martin Prado is locked into my lineup, but depending on other injuries, etc., it would be nice to move him from 2B to 3B, for example, until all players lock. I realize the downside is that these changes could make things more time-consuming but, well, dammit, this stuff is important!

Just my two cents.

Mike

Yes.

Doughy, it looks like we were of the same mind yesterday about pitcher moves while setting our lineups. I wrote about a similar frustration after setting mine. I'm always for anything that puts more control in the hands of those who are playing this contest (as long as it's not too radical that is ).

I've taken this idea viral. I really don't know what that means and my friends would laugh at me for saying it, but now I feel hip.
I think I've intruded on that thread enough and don't want to be the guy who brings up an idea only to, 'Yeah, but' to every dissenting opinion.
I've yet to see a real reason in not to have the change. And I looked at my team this week as if the new rule were there. I wouldn't have gone for a faab pitcher. I would have either replaced Vargas or Chen in their second start.
Chen because he was facing Detroit.
Vargas because it looked like he came back too early from his surgery.

We're human. We try to look at the worst of new things in our lives. As far as this rule change goes, I think that folks thinking it is the same as 10 pitchers or that there will be an automatic 26 extra starts are overstating things.
It gives us an option.
Can we do those things?
Well yes, if we have the perfect staffs, but we're at an advantage with a perfect staff, no matter the rule.

It's a win-win situation for me. If the new rule passes, I think it'll make for better play for everybody.
If not, hey, what we got now is ok too.
I'm just glad its gone viral.

Hey Dan,

Keeping with the theme of my 12 team preference reputation, do you see different ramifications between the 12 and 15 team contests? I like the idea a lot. The 12 team contests force you to think a whole lot more than the game you prefer and this will add to it.

I think you'll be a NFBC XII guy for life very soon.

The loopholes technically that could present themselves are overwhelming for me. I do like this idea very much if it can be executed.

Money wrote:Hey Dan,

Keeping with the theme of my 12 team preference reputation, do you see different ramifications between the 12 and 15 team contests? I like the idea a lot. The 12 team contests force you to think a whole lot more than the game you prefer and this will add to it.

I think you'll be a NFBC XII guy for life very soon.

The loopholes technically that could present themselves are overwhelming for me. I do like this idea very much if it can be executed.

Between you and Roger, I think I may be hooked on having a team.... or two....or three next year.
Darn you guys!

I think it would only enhance the 12 teamer as well. Injuries, rain, and double starts not wanted, happen to everybody.
Even 12 teamers.
Is there a better chance that streaming can be used?
Sure. It's possible, I won't lie.
But, I feel that the strong pitching teams would be strong with or without the new rule.
So far, nobody has really come up with anything worse than 26 streaming starts....and I knew that before proposing the rule.
I've looked at a test team that I've had over the last five weeks with the new rule. I would have tried to stream once because my pitching aligned for it that one week.
This week, I'd have pulled either Chen or Vargas.

When proposing the twice hitting change three years ago, we had comments like all 7 players on the bench would be hitters and that hitters stats would not be like the past....
That was all hot air and just folks who didn't like change.
What it did was give us an option mid-week. That's what this will do too.
And it'll work for 12 team, 15 team, and 50 rounders.

DOUGHBOYS wrote:

Money wrote:Hey Dan,

Keeping with the theme of my 12 team preference reputation, do you see different ramifications between the 12 and 15 team contests? I like the idea a lot. The 12 team contests force you to think a whole lot more than the game you prefer and this will add to it.

I think you'll be a NFBC XII guy for life very soon.

The loopholes technically that could present themselves are overwhelming for me. I do like this idea very much if it can be executed.

Between you and Roger, I think I may be hooked on having a team.... or two....or three next year.
Darn you guys!

I think it would only enhance the 12 teamer as well. Injuries, rain, and double starts not wanted, happen to everybody.
Even 12 teamers.
Is there a better chance that streaming can be used?
Sure. It's possible, I won't lie.
But, I feel that the strong pitching teams would be strong with or without the new rule.
So far, nobody has really come up with anything worse than 26 streaming starts....and I knew that before proposing the rule.
I've looked at a test team that I've had over the last five weeks with the new rule. I would have tried to stream once because my pitching aligned for it that one week.
This week, I'd have pulled either Chen or Vargas.

When proposing the twice hitting change three years ago, we had comments like all 7 players on the bench would be hitters and that hitters stats would not be like the past....
That was all hot air and just folks who didn't like change.
What it did was give us an option mid-week. That's what this will do too.
And it'll work for 12 team, 15 team, and 50 rounders.

The timing of your proposal here probably works against you. Right now anyone chasing would love this option and those in front would hate it. If it was a rule from the beginning of the year, it would be a normal way of managing your team.

This has a lot of merit and I'm sure Greg and the NFBC will give it some serious consideration. Would you willing to give up some time before the slow draft season to allow them to get it right?

I'm a big fan of this idea.

Whatever they need, they'll get from me.

I'm no tekkie, but I'm thinking they could have an empty slot on the bottom of the bench, designated for a dropped pitcher. This way, during the week, it could be empty or filled with any of the nine starters names, while a pitcher from our bench could replace the benched pitcher in the lineup.
I have no idea how much time this would take though. It's part of the reason I brought the rule change up before the off season. To allow IT time to get it set up if the rule is approved.

In my test league this week, I would have started Tommy Hunter to see if he's a viable Closer in Baltimore.
On Friday, I would then either leave him in if he is the new Closer in Baltimore or have a decision between Hunter and Bruce Chen who may have lost his pixie dust last week.
I'd have had to make that decision on Friday, as is, I'll most likely pitch Hunter for the week and hope for the best.

Just a note, I'm not much on streaming. I'm not a good streamer because I like good ratios in ERA and WHIP, and to tell the truth, I'm just not very good at it.
I think the best streamer in the NFBC is Rick Thomas. He can pay a buck for a 2-start pitcher that I would turn my nose up at and he could get at least a Win and 12 K's out of the guy.
Exceptional.
Chad Schroeder is also a very good streamer.
Both these players are already accomplished players in all facets of fantasy baseball.
They could fish players out of a stream and get their limit in minutes. I'd be in that stream all day, going home hungry.
Now, some would think that the rule change would help them more than most.
It could, but I don't think so.
They're already streaming. They're already getting the jump on W's and K's against us. They're just doing it through FAAB.
It's the way they like to play and they'd play that way given any circumstances.
Who knows, maybe a little lessening of the pitcher pool could hurt them in the long run, I really don't know the effects.
If anything, the new rule would level the playing field.
Players are going to stream pitchers, no matter the rule.
The rule change would give folks like us, a chance to occasionally stream a pitcher ourselves if a good match-up appears or like I have done with my test team, be an option for fixes and 6/3 and 7/2.

I don't like the idea at all. For reasons that I will reserve for the right time. I especially don't think that Greg needed to be blindsided by the opinions of it during a great stretch of a banner season. If anything, the NFBC has always listened to folks and these opinions are best left for post season debate.

Sorry you feel that way.
Every year is a banner year in the NFBC to me.
Blindsiding Greg? Rules are brought up all the time. Some were brought up before mine. One after.
This is a rule that requires software changes. It'd take longer than most rules to enact because of that.
Especially since Greg wants to start the season earlier than usual. So, waiting till the end of the season would have been defeating it before putting up for vote.
Again, sorry you feel the way you do.

Doughy... don't get me wrong. We're good here. I'm all for debating ideas that can improve our game and I think that you always have the best interests of everyone involved with your insightful ideas. I just happen to disagree with the idea and the timing of it. That's all. I'll be checking back to see how it plays out. I hope you are well.