Last Week Of The NFBC Season....Maybe

[Bronx Yankees]

Greg - Have to agree with Dan and a few others on this one. I am OK with counting the stats from a 163rd game, but disagree that owners should get to make lineup changes just for that game. If the regular season ended on a Saturday, then presumably there would be no opportunity to change lineups for a tie-breaker game played on Sunday. It just seems arbitrary - and unfair to some players - to allow lineup changes just for a tie-breaker game. It also does not seem consistent to say that unscheduled lineup changes will be allowed for a tie-breaker game played on a Monday but there is no FAAB that Sunday night. In other words, even though FAAB is run every Sunday, the NFBC (correctly) does not do an additional FAAB on the last Sunday of the season simply because a tie-breaker game is going to be played on the Monday. For that same reason, the NFBC should not allow unscheduled lineup changes.

The other rule change I would consider for 2018 is how you treat violations of the minimum innings rule. My understanding is that if a player fails to have the requisite number of innings, he/she gets only 1 point for ERA and WHIP but other players' points for ERA and WHIP are not moved up accordingly. That seems wrong to me. It results in less pitching points being awarded than hitting points, which throws off the balance. Also, if I have the second best ERA in a league, and the team with the lower ERA fails to accumulate the minimum number of innings, then I should get 15 points for that category because I would have the lowest qualifying ERA in the league. Similarly, everyone else that hit the innings minimum should move up a point if they finished below a non-qualifying entry in one of the pitching ratio categories.

This is just my two cents. The NFBC has the best games and leagues and these are relatively minor suggestions in the grand scheme of things. Still, if you are considering potential rule changes for 2018, I would tweak these rules. Everything else seems to work well. Thanks for another great season. Can't wait to start drafting again for 2018!

Mike

[Red Sox Nation-]

I'm also in the camp of preferring game 163 be part of the prior week lineup.

Jason

[MadCow Sez]

I'm in agreement with Mike...count game 163 but no roster moves. What you set for the last true week rides through game 163 if it happens.

[JohnP]

Greg - Have to agree with Dan and a few others on this one. I am OK with counting the stats from a 163rd game, but disagree that owners should get to make lineup changes just for that game. If the regular season ended on a Saturday, then presumably there would be no opportunity to change lineups for a tie-breaker game played on Sunday. It just seems arbitrary - and unfair to some players - to allow lineup changes just for a tie-breaker game. It also does not seem consistent to say that unscheduled lineup changes will be allowed for a tie-breaker game played on a Monday but there is no FAAB that Sunday night. In other words, even though FAAB is run every Sunday, the NFBC (correctly) does not do an additional FAAB on the last Sunday of the season simply because a tie-breaker game is going to be played on the Monday. For that same reason, the NFBC should not allow unscheduled lineup changes.

The other rule change I would consider for 2018 is how you treat violations of the minimum innings rule. My understanding is that if a player fails to have the requisite number of innings, he/she gets only 1 point for ERA and WHIP but other players' points for ERA and WHIP are not moved up accordingly. That seems wrong to me. It results in less pitching points being awarded than hitting points, which throws off the balance. Also, if I have the second best ERA in a league, and the team with the lower ERA fails to accumulate the minimum number of innings, then I should get 15 points for that category because I would have the lowest qualifying ERA in the league. Similarly, everyone else that hit the innings minimum should move up a point if they finished below a non-qualifying entry in one of the pitching ratio categories.

This is just my two cents. The NFBC has the best games and leagues and these are relatively minor suggestions in the grand scheme of things. Still, if you are considering potential rule changes for 2018, I would tweak these rules. Everything else seems to work well. Thanks for another great season. Can't wait to start drafting again for 2018!

Mike

Excellent points. If Game 163 is going to count then at minimum can we tack it on to the last period? Great point as well on the minimum innings situation. I think Schroeder brought the same thing up a few weeks ago.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Greg,
We've all tried to convey to you about the wrongness of this rule.
Maybe a hypothetical would help....

Two fellas named Greg and Tom have battled all year long for the Overall lead , with the lead going back and forth many times.
They are tied for the Overall lead after the final day of competition.
But there is a playoff game between Milwaukee and Cincinnati.
Greg is helpless. No playoff personnel.
Tom has Adam Duvall and Corey Knebel on his bench.
Duvall was facing tough pitching during the last series and Tom already leads the world in Saves, so he benched Knebel.

Greg is out of luck. He has no recourse. There is no FAAB. There are no players for him. No choices.
As is now, Tom has the chance to start Adam Duvall and/or Corey Knebel to put his team over the top.
Tom has every advantage. Greg is S.O.L.

If the rule were reversed, Greg and Tom would have an equal footing.
Tom, knowing that the Brewers and Reds may be involved in a playoff, would have to make the decision to start or bench Duvall and/or Knebel with that thought in mind.
We're all equal in that none of us KNOW if there is going to be a playoff game.
It would be up to Tom to incorporate that in his strategy for the last week. Fairness.

Greg, as the rule is now, the playoff game favors Tom's team too much.
There is nothing for Greg to do but watch Tom refine his lineup.
It wasn't his fault.
Nobody knew that Milwaukee and Cincy would have a playoff game when beginning the voyage.
Tom is fortunate enough with existing rules to have those players AND set them up perfectly for success.
After battling season-long, the season rests with Tom's manipulation of his lineup for best results.
In a 'new' week that never existed on the NFBC calendar in the first place.

Edit- I used the Overall as an example, but it is worse in other leagues.
Draft Champions leagues could see players, never used during the season, put in lineups in hopes of gaining a half point or full point to change standings at the top.
A Main Event team with every category settled but runs scored could insert Duvall in the above example to change the standings.
A new week of lineups is made by everybody during every week of the fantasy season.
Then, if there is a 163rd game, starting lineups are only for the few.
How is that right?

[Gekko]

Greg - I like the rule "as is". Entering the final FAAB period, everyone should be aware of the teams who could possibly be competing in a 163rd game and factor that into their final week's faab.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Greg - I like the rule "as is". Entering the final FAAB period, everyone should be aware of the teams who could possibly be competing in a 163rd game and factor that into their final week's faab.

Cannot be done in Draft Champions....

[Deadheadz]

Greg,
We've all tried to convey to you about the wrongness of this rule.
Maybe a hypothetical would help....

Two fellas named Greg and Tom have battled all year long for the Overall lead , with the lead going back and forth many times.
They are tied for the Overall lead after the final day of competition.
But there is a playoff game between Milwaukee and Cincinnati.
Greg is helpless. No playoff personnel.
Tom has Adam Duvall and Corey Knebel on his bench.
Duvall was facing tough pitching during the last series and Tom already leads the world in Saves, so he benched Knebel.

Greg is out of luck. He has no recourse. There is no FAAB. There are no players for him. No choices.
As is now, Tom has the chance to start Adam Duvall and/or Corey Knebel to put his team over the top.
Tom has every advantage. Greg is S.O.L.

If the rule were reversed, Greg and Tom would have an equal footing.
Tom, knowing that the Brewers and Reds may be involved in a playoff, would have to make the decision to start or bench Duvall and/or Knebel with that thought in mind.
We're all equal in that none of us KNOW if there is going to be a playoff game.
It would be up to Tom to incorporate that in his strategy for the last week. Fairness.

Greg, as the rule is now, the playoff game favors Tom's team too much.
There is nothing for Greg to do but watch Tom refine his lineup.
It wasn't his fault.
Nobody knew that Milwaukee and Cincy would have a playoff game when beginning the voyage.
Tom is fortunate enough with existing rules to have those players AND set them up perfectly for success.
After battling season-long, the season rests with Tom's manipulation of his lineup for best results.
In a 'new' week that never existed on the NFBC calendar in the first place.

Edit- I used the Overall as an example, but it is worse in other leagues.
Draft Champions leagues could see players, never used during the season, put in lineups in hopes of gaining a half point or full point to change standings at the top.
A Main Event team with every category settled but runs scored could insert Duvall in the above example to change the standings.
A new week of lineups is made by everybody during every week of the fantasy season.
Then, if there is a 163rd game, starting lineups are only for the few.
How is that right?

While I agree that game 163 should probably be in the same scoring period as 162 it seems I have to still point out that you're assuming the ability of starting or sitting a player under the existing rule gives someone an advantage.

The manager has a tough decision to make in your scenario as the standings are so tight. He could assume an extra few PA or handful of IP will benefit himself but he could be wrong. He could start Duvall and cost himself in the standings. If it's his only chance to advance and can't possibly hurt him, then I can see how that would seem unfair. But in the overall as tight as you describe there is still much risk.

And what about when both managers have players in game 163? What if it was the same player? One might start and the other might sit em. It's not as black and white as you're presenting it.

[DOUGHBOYS]

The fact of the matter is that he gets a choice.
A choice that is all up to him.
The other player has no say at all.
It is more fair for both to have their say equally as they enter their final lineups of the season.
If there is a playoff game, whoever is in the starting lineup plays.
THAT, is fair.

Edit- Am I really in a Gekko/Deadheadz sandwich?

[Gekko]

Greg - I like the rule "as is". Entering the final FAAB period, everyone should be aware of the teams who could possibly be competing in a 163rd game and factor that into their final week's faab.

Cannot be done in Draft Champions....

LOL. Draft champion leagues

[DOUGHBOYS]

I've beat the drum enough.
If Greg wants to change the rule, good.
If not, it only comes up this time of year and we'll go through the same thing next year.
Time to move on.

[Deadheadz]

Edit- Am I really in a Gekko/Deadheadz sandwich?

93CF1DE5-995A-4993-86E2-E3C54407CA66.jpeg (56.48 KiB) Viewed 8671 times

[COZ]

The idea of just tacking on the extra game 163 to the final scoring period without line-up adjustment to me is worse than allowing people to adjust their line-up for the game 163. As has been pointed out by DH & Greg, and which I originally failed to properly take into account, is the possibility for BA/ERA/WHIP damage. Just as it is unfair to allow owners to re-set their line-up, it is just as unfair to have owners have their hands tied for a game that has not even been scheduled, let alone know pitching match-ups when line-ups lock at the start of the final scoring period 7 days prior. Much like Week 17 in football, the whole Game 163, which is not even scheduled until AFTER the regular season concludes, just has a whole gimmicky & gamey feel to it. I find it amusing how everyone loves to champion themselves on the skill side of the luck/skill equation, but truth be told, it is a pure educated guess. It is not an indication of "skill," and it is nothing more than a hail-mary attempt to out-game others & to have players who may play in an otherwise unschedulued game during an unschedulued scoring period. In my opinion, and echoing John Pausma's comments, this gimmicky & gamey feel to a seperate Game 163 scoring period is not consistent with the equitable nature of the rest of the rules enacted by the NFBC. Put me squarely in the eliminate-Game-163 camp.

Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.

[Yah Mule]

Edit- Am I really in a Gekko/Deadheadz sandwich?

Who wouldn't want to be the Lucky Pierre between those two?

[Greg Ambrosius]

I've beat the drum enough.
If Greg wants to change the rule, good.
If not, it only comes up this time of year and we'll go through the same thing next year.
Time to move on.

You have beat it really hard Dan. But to say "We've all tried to convey to you about the wrongness of this rule" just isn't accurate. Not everyone gives their views on these Message Boards and I've gotten emails from folks who want to keep the rule the same and from some who had to make that tough decision in the past and like it the way it is. Again, they aren't on these boards because you can't win by posting from the other side.

That being said, we've gone from "get rid of Game 163" to "okay, Game 163 is part of the standings but only as long as it's not a new week." But a few others are still very much against Game 163 altogether.

Again, my goal was to let as many people as possible post their thoughts before interjecting, but when someone asserted that my only reason for keeping this rule was that it mirrored MLB's schedule I responded. And my response and feeling remains the same: Give the owners the power to make decisions rather than have me force it upon them.

But it's not a drastic change if we keep it as part of the Week 26's starting lineup. Again, that may not be the choice right now, but it seems like that's the way folks are leaning. And that's a decision that can always be changed even after we post the Rules. I will have to check with IT to make sure it's possible. it has happened 4 of 14 times so far, but we always want to have the best setup for the next time it happens again.

I'll still sit on the sidelines and read the posts. Hopefully we get them from more people because I certainly know where some of you stand on this.

[ToddZ]

Curious -- say there was a rainout on the last Sunday and it had playoff implications, so it was made up on Monday. Would we be able to change lineups for the makeup game?

[Greg Ambrosius]

Curious -- say there was a rainout on the last Sunday and it had playoff implications, so it was made up on Monday. Would we be able to change lineups for the makeup game?

You are throwing a brick through an already broken window just for fun, aren't you?

No, it's a good question. The answer is that I had to request STATS to open the new week of Starting Lineups in the event for an eventual final regular season game in a new week. So it was programmed the way I had requested it. Would we have treated it the same way as a playoff game? I can't say for sure, but likely yes. That extra game likely was from a rainout earlier in the year, but obviously it could have been during the final week, too. But honestly I probably would have said yes, right or wrong.

[Rog]

As a person who was lucky enough to have a player in a game 163 win me some money a few years back(Sam fuld),I am on the get rid of GAME 163 fence.The only reason he was in my lineup was because I got to change to a player that was a pinch runner on that monday. Heck after the beating I got this year on Sunday can we get rid of GAME 162 also.

[DOUGHBOYS]

It makes no sense as to why everyone wouldn't move up a peg. They beat the teams that don't meet qualifications. Also should be same amount of roto points available for hitting and pitching. It is roto baseball after all.

At one time, I was in complete agreement with you. And it makes sense as to everybody moving up a peg.
The application should be simple as a matter of rule.

But here is why I hesitate for this rule to be changed. It is a rule that can only be applied after the season ends.
It changes standings, a day, a few days, even a week afterwards after STATS or Greg or whoever gets to comb through each league to verify that all teams have reached the minimum threshold.
It would be heartbreak for those thinking they had won a league.
Literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be changed from one drafter to another.
Standings should not change after the final play of the season.
Finality. Closure.

Through competitive eyes, I agree that the ERA/WHIP non-compliance of minimum innings should have every team moving up a peg.
But through practical eyes and the furor averted afterwards, I like the rule as is.

[KJ Duke]

Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but I'm exhausted on that last Sunday as I seem to have lots of money on the line each season hinging on one run scored, one hit allowed, one K, etc. I just want it be over on Sunday. It's a long battle and it should end when it's supposed to end, I don't care about the theoretical arguments of why it should or should not count. JUST END IT!

[NorCalAtlFan]

Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but I'm exhausted on that last Sunday as I seem to have lots of money on the line each season hinging on one run scored, one hit allowed, one K, etc. I just want it be over on Sunday. It's a long battle and it should end when it's supposed to end, I don't care about the theoretical arguments of why it should or should not count. JUST END IT!

uggh. hate agreeing with kj . but yeah, that last weekend is brutal enough.

[TParsons]

Greg, you keep bringing up that this is a skill- based game, but then you want to add a game on the end that is pure happenstance. How is there any skill whatsoever involved in that? You can talk about owners FAABing those players all you want, but we all know that the most impactful players in any tie breaker are already owned. If anything, this goes on the opposite side of skill based. Get rid of it. It makes no sense and puts teams on an uneven playing field based 100% on luck of owning players that end the season in a tie. How is there any skill involved in that?

[Greg Ambrosius]

Greg, you keep bringing up that this is a skill- based game, but then you want to add a game on the end that is pure happenstance. How is there any skill whatsoever involved in that? You can talk about owners FAABing those players all you want, but we all know that the most impactful players in any tie breaker are already owned. If anything, this goes on the opposite side of skill based. Get rid of it. It makes no sense and puts teams on an uneven playing field based 100% on luck of owning players that end the season in a tie. How is there any skill involved in that?

I love you guys. I really do. The skill is allowing you to set your lineup or not on that Monday with the players you may have going for you that day. If everyone wants that skill out, then the question is whether to keep that game (or any regular season rainout games that have to be made up like Todd suggested) as part of Week 26 or not. There's no skill in that, but I have no problem going that route. I was allowing the decisions to be in the hands of the owners affected by this last REGULAR SEASON game.

Again, is it ideal the way Major League Baseball does this? No. They could easily call it a playoff game and not be part of the regular season. I'm sure the MLB player who loses a batting title, home run title or RBI title doesn't like it, either. But it's part of the regular season.

And sure, we could just do away with any game after Sunday and treat it like Week 17 in football. And if our stats don't match the regular season stats of MLB, so be it. Sure, all can be done. We can even end a week early or two weeks early if we listen to only the Message Boards. But we chose to reflect MLB regular season stats when we started the NFBC and that's what we're doing now. One way or another, we'd like to keep doing that.

[DOUGHBOYS]

What is the rule for next year concerning playoff games?

[Greg Ambrosius]

What is the rule for next year concerning playoff games?

The NFBC will still count any regular season playoff result from a 163rd game in 2018. Our scoring will not change for a potential extra game in 2018. Again, our feeling is that as long as Major League Baseball considers this part of their regular season we believe it should be part of our NFBC regular season.

We are programming this to be part of Week 27 and thus at this point your lineups lock for the final week, which includes any potential extra game or games on Monday and Tuesday. That is different than in years past when we felt it was part of the skill element to start or not start players in that extra game(s). It is not written that way in the Rules yet as I would like additional discussion on this, but that is the current plan. Obviously this is a tweak we could add in the next month.

There were certainly strong feelings against allowing NFBC owners to change their rosters with the extra game, and yet there were strong points against forcing folks to play those players in the extra game. I am open for that debate if folks want to have it. Thanks for the feedback.