NFBC Rules Changes For 2014

[COZ]

It's the old John Smoltz rule!

Here's how it works: for the final week, I'm unsure if Sonny Gray or Jarrod Parker are going to pitch this weekend. Either way, they're definitely not going to pitch before Friday. I plug in Brandon Beachy into my starting lineup on Monday. On Friday, it's clear who the A's will roll out this weekend. I replace Beachy with either Parker or Gray. If neither pitches, I plug in my spare reliever from the bench. Or another starter who isn't scheduled to play until Fri/Sat/Sun.

Same logic can be applied earlier in the season as well for weekend starters. It gives you an out if a 5th starter is skipped (happened with Erasmo Ramirez a few weeks back), or a postponed game kicks a weekend starter over to Monday. Basically anytime you have a starter not schedule to pitch until Friday, you're incentivized to plug in a DL pitcher.

This is the manipulation that occurs with such a rule.

Not sure how this is manipulation. That is what the rule is designed to do, it simply allows you to get "one" start per pitching slot.

I am for any rule that allows us more flexibility to play the game, to manage, and to ensure we have full use of our precious line-up slots. It allows us to avoid being "penalized" by taking a big fat zero in a pitching slot due to no fault of our own like injury/pitching change, etc. If this rule can be "manipulated" to "avoid" a bad start earlier in the week, so be it. That, to me, is a minor trade off to avoid a far greater tragedy that is taking a big fat zero out of a pitching slot for the week. Either way, everyone is simply getting one start per pitching slot while avoiding streaming of pitchers.

The goal is to minimize the risk of injury to all of us while allowing the flexibility to do something about that injury without having our hands tied. I like it. Don't be afraid of change old men!

COZ

[Money]

It's the old John Smoltz rule!

Here's how it works: for the final week, I'm unsure if Sonny Gray or Jarrod Parker are going to pitch this weekend. Either way, they're definitely not going to pitch before Friday. I plug in Brandon Beachy into my starting lineup on Monday. On Friday, it's clear who the A's will roll out this weekend. I replace Beachy with either Parker or Gray. If neither pitches, I plug in my spare reliever from the bench. Or another starter who isn't scheduled to play until Fri/Sat/Sun.

Same logic can be applied earlier in the season as well for weekend starters. It gives you an out if a 5th starter is skipped (happened with Erasmo Ramirez a few weeks back), or a postponed game kicks a weekend starter over to Monday. Basically anytime you have a starter not schedule to pitch until Friday, you're incentivized to plug in a DL pitcher.

This is the manipulation that occurs with such a rule.

Not sure how this is manipulation. That is what the rule is designed to do, it simply allows you to get "one" start per pitching slot.

I am for any rule that allows us more flexibility to play the game, to manage, and to ensure we have full use of our precious line-up slots. It allows us to avoid being "penalized" by taking a big fat zero in a pitching slot due to no fault of our own like injury/pitching change, etc. If this rule can be "manipulated" to "avoid" a bad start earlier in the week, so be it. That, to me, is a minor trade off to avoid a far greater tragedy that is taking a big fat zero out of a pitching slot for the week. Either way, everyone is simply getting one start per pitching slot while avoiding streaming of pitchers.

The goal is to minimize the risk of injury to all of us while allowing the flexibility to do something about that injury without having our hands tied. I like it. Don't be afraid of change old men!

COZ

With the simplicity of this point of view, there will be a lot of "Old Men" running rough shod all over your teams next year. It is a great rule for the analytical and those who have unlimited time. I will be one of those to benefit, the game and the NFBC will not.

[COZ]

It's the old John Smoltz rule!

Here's how it works: for the final week, I'm unsure if Sonny Gray or Jarrod Parker are going to pitch this weekend. Either way, they're definitely not going to pitch before Friday. I plug in Brandon Beachy into my starting lineup on Monday. On Friday, it's clear who the A's will roll out this weekend. I replace Beachy with either Parker or Gray. If neither pitches, I plug in my spare reliever from the bench. Or another starter who isn't scheduled to play until Fri/Sat/Sun.

Same logic can be applied earlier in the season as well for weekend starters. It gives you an out if a 5th starter is skipped (happened with Erasmo Ramirez a few weeks back), or a postponed game kicks a weekend starter over to Monday. Basically anytime you have a starter not schedule to pitch until Friday, you're incentivized to plug in a DL pitcher.

This is the manipulation that occurs with such a rule.

Not sure how this is manipulation. That is what the rule is designed to do, it simply allows you to get "one" start per pitching slot.

I am for any rule that allows us more flexibility to play the game, to manage, and to ensure we have full use of our precious line-up slots. It allows us to avoid being "penalized" by taking a big fat zero in a pitching slot due to no fault of our own like injury/pitching change, etc. If this rule can be "manipulated" to "avoid" a bad start earlier in the week, so be it. That, to me, is a minor trade off to avoid a far greater tragedy that is taking a big fat zero out of a pitching slot for the week. Either way, everyone is simply getting one start per pitching slot while avoiding streaming of pitchers.

The goal is to minimize the risk of injury to all of us while allowing the flexibility to do something about that injury without having our hands tied. I like it. Don't be afraid of change old men!

COZ

With the simplicity of this point of view, there will be a lot of "Old Men" running rough shod all over your teams next year. It is a great rule for the analytical and those who have unlimited time. I will be one of those to benefit, the game and the NFBC will not.

Yeah, no different than any other year with the "Old Men" running rough shod over me. I, for one, happen to think the analytical players that manage their team the best, make shrewd line-up decisions, and play the game should be rewarded over the simple-minded like myself. But I know rewarding the deserving is an unpopular notion nowadays.

But, I do appreciate the concern, oh benevolent one, seeking to protect the dumb masses from you, the wise one with unlimited time and expertise. And, oh yeah, being able to actually use my pitching slot for MY team, instead of having my hands tied? Yeah I'd much rather have that control than to worry about how the wise old man will surely benefit to the detriment of the dumb masses. Do tell, wise one, do tell. Oh wait, THAT conversation is for another day.

COZ

[BK METS]

I don't get it. How is it manipulation when you are just looking to get more information on a pitcher who might or might not pitch? Two different scenarios: 1) You have a guy who might be ready to pitch by the weekend. More than anyone, this is the guy you want to start, but if he doesnt, you waste a pitching slot. You stick him in the lineup and Friday arrives and he is definitely not going to play this week. You switch him out for a guy who will pitch Sunday. This is not manipulation and it really doesn't take much time or knowledge. Just the same research you are doing on Fridays anyways. 2) Same situation, but instead of inserting the player you want to start, you put in a different guy on DL and wait until Friday to see if the guy you want to start is going to pitch. Either scenario doesn't allow manipulation. In my mind, manipulation would be if the guy you are switching out on Friday had already pitched and you are trying to get 2 starts fom 1 slot with two different pitchers. And saying its going to take more time or knowledge or experience is not evident in my mind. It protects you against unforseen injury or a delay in a player coming back from injury. Not sure how this gives anyone an unfair advantage.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Guys, I appreciate all of the feedback on our potential rules proposals and this is what I wanted before locking in the rules for 2014. If there's any hint of making this a streaming pitchers game we won't do it, but as Chris said above the rule is designed to avoid a zero from any position, which includes pitchers. If someone decides to start a DL pitcher early in the week and replace him with a weekend starter, that position is still getting only one start. And more times than not the rule is working as intended; you lose a pitcher to an unforeseen injury during the week and get to replace him on the weekend with a pitcher from your reserve.

But we understand the negatives to any Friday pitcher's change, too, and won't go that route if the change is too big for all.

Still, last month Dan Kenyon suggested a one pitcher change per week rule and the masses loved it. I know we wouldn't go that route because that definitely would open our game to streaming pitchers and make Friday a mandatory lineup change date. That would change our game dramatically, so some folks asked if we could look into just a Friday pitcher's change involving any pitcher who hadn't pitched at all during the week. That's what we did and that's what we're exploring here. So keep the feedback coming and we'll see if the rule change is worth the aggravation or not. If it doesn't make our game better, we'll leave it as is. Simple as that.

[King of Queens]

Greg, you can eliminate the loopholes AND keep the spirit of the rule as follows:

Any pitcher that is NOT on a 25-man active roster as of Monday at 11:59pm EDT cannot be moved from a fantasy owner's active roster to reserve roster until the following week.


This one condition would get rid of what I and many others consider pure gamesmanship that has nothing to do with statistical analysis. The key is getting the programming right so that pitchers have the proper designation.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I am all for the pitching change on Friday. Even a watered-down option like this.
Anything that gives us a little more control over our teams is a good thing.
For years, whenever a new rule change is introduced, we'll inevitably see the 'why change' or 'If it ain't broke', or the 'No change needed' posts.
These posters don't realize the changes made over the years to make this the game that it is now.
This game is not broke and it doesn't need fixing. We all know that.
But giving us an option to put in a pitcher that hasn't thrown during the week is an improvement.
Albeit, a weak one compared with just a one pitcher switch, but still, more options.

One day, I'd like to see an option for twice a week starters.
A) Start him both games
B) Start him the first game, not the second
C) Start him the second game, not the first
D) Bench him
Right now, we only have options A and D.
Some day, we'll look back and think it ludicrous that we didn't have all four options at our disposal.
And the rule under consideration will allow for A, B, AND D.
Is this a good thing?
Even though, I'm for the rule and more control, I'd have to say, no, not really.
It would only be advantageous for those with pitchers having a juicy first game and not a good second match-up.
Like Holland facing the Astros at home, then facing the A's on the road.
With luck, we may get those matchups, but they could just as easily go to our competitor.
Luck is what we're trying to avoid in this game while factoring in more skills.
And this could invite more luck.
Somehow, I want all four options.
I don't think that day is here yet.

[Hells Satans]

I can't really argue the merits. I don't think either option is better or worse. They're just different. But one is more work than the other and that's what I'd like to avoid if I can. But it''s not a deal-breaker or anything.

[Heels]

Strongly against the Friday Pitcher rule for the reasons stated. Would be a factor in my decision on how many leagues to play in.

[KJ Duke]

As always, a handful of people making threats about reducing leagues for a rule change they don't like. If you can't argue the merits, make a threat. I don't see any net league reduction because this does not alter the time commitment beyond a few extra seconds per week. If you don't like it, just say why and leave it at that. Given the strong support for Dough's proposal when these boards were still active early in the year, I believe there's a large contingent that would support it.

[KJ Duke]

Greg, you can eliminate the loopholes AND keep the spirit of the rule as follows:

Any pitcher that is NOT on a 25-man active roster as of Monday at 11:59pm EDT cannot be moved from a fantasy owner's active roster to reserve roster until the following week.


This one condition would get rid of what I and many others consider pure gamesmanship that has nothing to do with statistical analysis. The key is getting the programming right so that pitchers have the proper designation.

Don't like it Glenn - If you're stashing a rookie, you can't start him if called up mid-week even though he's rostered, correct?

[Top Dawg]

I like the proposed pitching change. I've been burned several times this season with a starter losing his weekend start due to rain or injury. For crying out loud, this rule change only gives us, the team managers the same options a major league manager has if his starter gets hurt, needs a leave of absence or rain/snow make changes necessary.

And, for those thinking of all the "smart" moves you can make by starting a guy on the DL to avoid the "bad" Monday start ang get the "good" weekend start... lots of luck. I've seen it almost 50% of the time where the "bad" start is the better outcome. Roll the dice.

Pete

[King of Queens]

Greg, you can eliminate the loopholes AND keep the spirit of the rule as follows:

Any pitcher that is NOT on a 25-man active roster as of Monday at 11:59pm EDT cannot be moved from a fantasy owner's active roster to reserve roster until the following week.


This one condition would get rid of what I and many others consider pure gamesmanship that has nothing to do with statistical analysis. The key is getting the programming right so that pitchers have the proper designation.

Don't like it Glenn - If you're stashing a rookie, you can't start him if called up mid-week even though he's rostered, correct?

Sure you could -- if the pitcher you started UNEXPECTEDLY misses his turn between Monday and Friday AND the rookie call-up is starting on Friday through Sunday.

That's the intention of the rule change, correct?

[KJ Duke]

Ok, I read that backwards.

[Greg Ambrosius]

As always, a handful of people making threats about reducing leagues for a rule change they don't like. If you can't argue the merits, make a threat. I don't see any net league reduction because this does not alter the time commitment beyond a few extra seconds per week. If you don't like it, just say why and leave it at that. Given the strong support for Dough's proposal when these boards were still active early in the year, I believe there's a large contingent that would support it.

I guess the obvious question from a game operator's standpoint then is this: Is the Friday hitter's rule also preventing folks from playing in more NFBC leagues? Are we hurting business with that stupid rule or has that made the game better? And if it has made the game better, then if we can figure out a way to prevent any loopholes with pitchers why wouldn't the majority of owners want a Friday rule for pitchers too? Trust me, this is not a rules change I'm going to fall on the sword over, I'm just trying to help if possible to take some luck out of the game and right now I do think the one unlucky and uncontrollable area we have is pitchers missing starts to mid-week injuries, bereavement or whatever. But the LAST THING I want is any form of streaming pitchers, DL loopholes, etc. So why not have a discussion on how we could make this possible (like Glenn has suggested) to see if there is a solution that takes 1 minute of your time per team per week?

Maybe it's not doable and we'll move on without the rules change, but there are enough smart folks here who can figure out every possible scenario to avoid and then see if programmers can make it happen. But again, if it's too complicated, too hard to understand, not worth the effort, we'll move on. I like growth in business more than I like a Friday pitcher's rule change, but we're trying to help make the game better if at all possible. I just like the discussion without, as KJ says here, the threats being made before seeing what the final rule could be.

[Heels]

As always, a handful of people making threats about reducing leagues for a rule change they don't like. If you can't argue the merits, make a threat. I don't see any net league reduction because this does not alter the time commitment beyond a few extra seconds per week. If you don't like it, just say why and leave it at that. Given the strong support for Dough's proposal when these boards were still active early in the year, I believe there's a large contingent that would support it.

Truly wasn't trying to make a threat, just registering my opinion on an issue I feel strongly about. For brevity I didn't restate the reasons why I am against it b/c they have already been stated (manipulation of the rule, extra time required). It truly will affect my decision on how many leagues to play in and I feel strongly enough about this to make sure my vote is "counted".

[Money]

As always, a handful of people making threats about reducing leagues for a rule change they don't like. If you can't argue the merits, make a threat. I don't see any net league reduction because this does not alter the time commitment beyond a few extra seconds per week. If you don't like it, just say why and leave it at that. Given the strong support for Dough's proposal when these boards were still active early in the year, I believe there's a large contingent that would support it.

I guess the obvious question from a game operator's standpoint then is this: Is the Friday hitter's rule also preventing folks from playing in more NFBC leagues? Are we hurting business with that stupid rule or has that made the game better? And if it has made the game better, then if we can figure out a way to prevent any loopholes with pitchers why wouldn't the majority of owners want a Friday rule for pitchers too? Trust me, this is not a rules change I'm going to fall on the sword over, I'm just trying to help if possible to take some luck out of the game and right now I do think the one unlucky and uncontrollable area we have is pitchers missing starts to mid-week injuries, bereavement or whatever. But the LAST THING I want is any form of streaming pitchers, DL loopholes, etc. So why not have a discussion on how we could make this possible (like Glenn has suggested) to see if there is a solution that takes 1 minute of your time per team per week?

Maybe it's not doable and we'll move on without the rules change, but there are enough smart folks here who can figure out every possible scenario to avoid and then see if programmers can make it happen. But again, if it's too complicated, too hard to understand, not worth the effort, we'll move on. I like growth in business more than I like a Friday pitcher's rule change, but we're trying to help make the game better if at all possible. I just like the discussion without, as KJ says here, the threats being made before seeing what the final rule could be.

All very interesting and is a very good topic for debate. If mine was taken as a threat, I believe I backed it up with facts as to why I was opposed. I don't understand a couple of things.

1. The side of the debate that insists this will only take a second each week. I think to cover all bases each week you'll have different approach to FAAB and your additional roster spots. I believe it's more than a plug and play and know that I will spend a lot of time analyzing every situation every week. In the 12 team events where more players are available this gets magnified.

2. I really don't see how this works if you have to do it on Friday morning. I typically set my lineups on Thursdays. If it truly is the same as the hitters change then all should be able to be changed in the same manner which is probably impossible.

Take it for what it is but I know I will play less teams with this change. It may possibly drive me to the 15 team main event as FAAB is much less complicated there. I don't know, I do know that I remain opposed. I've said my peace here and will leave this to others. Thanks for listening to all points of view.

[Deadheadz]

I too prefer the pitching rules stay the same.

If they do have to change, I agree that only a pitcher who has not pitched at all Mon-Thurs be allowed as a replacement for another pitcher who has not already pitched Mon-Thurs. The point is to allow for a mulligan on a pitcher who gets scratched after rosters lock early in the week or gets bumped due to postponed games.

It shouldn't be a way for owners to choose which starts will and will not count in fantasy when the pitcher has a 2-start week in real life baseball. Players who want that flexibility should be asking for a daily game from NFBC not changing the rules for the original game we all know and love.

[ToddZ]

One day, I'd like to see an option for twice a week starters.
A) Start him both games
B) Start him the first game, not the second
C) Start him the second game, not the first
D) Bench him
Right now, we only have options A and D.
Some day, we'll look back and think it ludicrous that we didn't have all four options at our disposal.

We won't all look back and think it's ludicrous.

I'll say it is ludicrous if the B/C rule is enacted.

For me, this game should be about projecting a season's worth of performance and using game theory to build a roster generating the most roto points from this performance.

In the course of 32 starts, pitchers are going to have good and bad match-ups. These should be folded in together to predict final numbers.

Being able to pick and choose perceived favorable starts bastardizes what should be at the heart of this game - projecting player performance.

Playing a mediocre pitcher in Petco and sitting all but the best in Coors - that's not what this game is all about.

[DOUGHBOYS]

One day, I'd like to see an option for twice a week starters.
A) Start him both games
B) Start him the first game, not the second
C) Start him the second game, not the first
D) Bench him
Right now, we only have options A and D.
Some day, we'll look back and think it ludicrous that we didn't have all four options at our disposal.

We won't all look back and think it's ludicrous.

I'll say it is ludicrous if the B/C rule is enacted.

For me, this game should be about projecting a season's worth of performance and using game theory to build a roster generating the most roto points from this performance.

In the course of 32 starts, pitchers are going to have good and bad match-ups. These should be folded in together to predict final numbers.

Being able to pick and choose perceived favorable starts bastardizes what should be at the heart of this game - projecting player performance.

Playing a mediocre pitcher in Petco and sitting all but the best in Coors - that's not what this game is all about.

I don't agree at all.
The two start pitcher is a product of us being a slave to the calendar. No more, no less.
We all choose the best pitchers to throw via matchups.

[COZ]

I cannot fathom how, when we are spending $1600 for a team, more control over our teams to avoid the impact of injury to our pitchers can be viewed as a bad thing. If you don't have the time, or you simply don't want to swap out an injured pitcher and replace him, then don't. But at least those do care at least have the option to do so. More control over our teams while limiting streaming of pitchers is a good thing.

1) Somebody not having "the time" to manage their team to make one or two pitching changes, which takes all of a minute, is not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.
2) Concern that some fictitious "new" player, who has never played the NFBC nor has ever spent a dime, will not be to handle such a complex rule is not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.
3) Generalized FEAR of "manipulation" of the rule without somebody actually coming up with a VALID way to do so, is not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.
4) Intimating that you will play less games because of the rule is a threat and not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.

Greg, to answer your question, in my opinion, more control to the owner while eliminating the luck factor of injuries makes this a much better game. This rule should be more vigorously supported. It's consistent with the swapping of hitters on Fridays too. I love the rule and am 100% in support of it. Brilliant idea.

COZ

[DOUGHBOYS]

I cannot fathom how, when we are spending $1600 for a team, more control over our teams to avoid the impact of injury to our pitchers can be viewed as a bad thing. If you don't have the time, or you simply don't want to swap out an injured pitcher and replace him, then don't. But at least those do care at least have the option to do so. More control over our teams while limiting streaming of pitchers is a good thing.

1) Somebody not having "the time" to manage their team to make one or two pitching changes, which takes all of a minute, is not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.
2) Concern that some fictitious "new" player, who has never played the NFBC nor has ever spent a dime, will not be to handle such a complex rule is not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.
3) Generalized FEAR of "manipulation" of the rule without somebody actually coming up with a VALID way to do so, is not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.
4) Intimating that you will play less games because of the rule is a threat and not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.

Greg, to answer your question, in my opinion, more control to the owner while eliminating the luck factor of injuries makes this a much better game. This rule should be more vigorously supported. It's consistent with the swapping of hitters on Fridays too. I love the rule and am 100% in support of it. Brilliant idea.

COZ

Really good post, really good.

[Quahogs]

For me, this game should be about projecting a season's worth of performance and using game theory to build a roster generating the most roto points from this performance.

In the course of 32 starts, pitchers are going to have good and bad match-ups. These should be folded in together to predict final numbers.

Being able to pick and choose perceived favorable starts bastardizes what should be at the heart of this game - projecting player performance.

Playing a mediocre pitcher in Petco and sitting all but the best in Coors - that's not what this game is all about.

The game I'VE known for 25+ years always involved how to best manage the resources you had. Some at your fingertips some wistfully unobtainable. To me fantasy baseball while fantasy DOES try to mirror running a team via the mangers/GM chair. Player projections obviously are at the base but hardly the be all end all. Projecting shouldn't end come draft day.

[Money]

I cannot fathom how, when we are spending $1600 for a team, more control over our teams to avoid the impact of injury to our pitchers can be viewed as a bad thing. If you don't have the time, or you simply don't want to swap out an injured pitcher and replace him, then don't. But at least those do care at least have the option to do so. More control over our teams while limiting streaming of pitchers is a good thing.

1) Somebody not having "the time" to manage their team to make one or two pitching changes, which takes all of a minute, is not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.
2) Concern that some fictitious "new" player, who has never played the NFBC nor has ever spent a dime, will not be to handle such a complex rule is not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.
3) Generalized FEAR of "manipulation" of the rule without somebody actually coming up with a VALID way to do so, is not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.
4) Intimating that you will play less games because of the rule is a threat and not a valid argument against the rule. Sorry.

Greg, to answer your question, in my opinion, more control to the owner while eliminating the luck factor of injuries makes this a much better game. This rule should be more vigorously supported. It's consistent with the swapping of hitters on Fridays too. I love the rule and am 100% in support of it. Brilliant idea.

COZ

I assume that this is directed at me. You misinterpret quite easily. I will not dignify with a response.

Unlike Dan, I believe this is a bullshit garbage post. Sorry.

[ToddZ]

The game I'VE known for 25+ years always involved how to best manage the resources you had. Some at your fingertips some wistfully unobtainable. To me fantasy baseball while fantasy DOES try to mirror running a team via the mangers/GM chair. Player projections obviously are at the base but hardly the be all end all. Projecting shouldn't end come draft day.

The original incarnation of the game involved drafting your team and living with those decisions until the player was put on the DL or sent to the minors (or perhaps traded to the other league).

There were no reserve lists, only DL lists.

There was no sitting a .220 hitter in April until he got it going.

Different strokes for different folks, but I miss those days.

But not enough to threaten not to play in these days