Rules for 2020

[DOUGHBOYS]

This is the time of year when new rules are discussed before the new year begins.
I'm sure some others want minor changes to rules.
Already for the coming year, we will have P/U.

My hope is not to add a rule, but delete one.
A lot of NFBC drafters have tried for years on this rule, but to no avail. One more try!

I am talking about playoff games.
Playoff games count in our statistics.
I know that through time, playoff games statistics have counted towards Major League statistics.
Heck, Maury Wills had 165 games played in 1962, when THREE playoff games were needed to decide who went to the World Series.

The argument by the NFBC is that like MLB, they believe statistics should be the same for the NFBC
Should it?
We play a different game.
MLB plays a playoff game to decide a winner.
It's also a moneymaker for these teams.
The playoff games are exciting for the teams and fans involved.
Not so much for NFBC'ers.
Thousands and thousands of NFBC teams come down to these last few days of the season.
Each with the thought that Sunday is it. Few of us play for a playoff game. (A small thought on the last Sunday's FAAB)
It is a long hard grind, a playoff game only extends that grind.
Worse, the playoff game is fraught with luck.
A fantasy team having five playoff players to another's zero, is not a more skillful team. Just lucky in that they now have more chances to gain points.
Several drafters wrote that they were thankful for no playoff games this year.

It has long been the NFBC's view that EVERY game counts. And it does, in Major League Baseball.
For our game and hobby, the extra games should be as they are called, PLAYOFF GAMES
The slate of regular season games that ends on a Sunday in September is enough.
Every one of those games should be the games that count.

Just giving it the old college try!!!

[Red Sox Nation-]

+1 Please consider this.

[Baseball Furies]

I'm happy that this was posted, however, this should be considered far from an optional possibility that we are going to give "the old college try". There is obviously no good reason not to make this much overdo rule change. If this is still under consideration to keep things as they are, myself and others who have lost out on thousands of dollars of potential winnings as a result of these "extra games" as a result of nothing other than dumb luck after a six month grind, we would like to know the logic and rationale as to why. The entire fantasy football season schedule for the regular season and the playoffs is entirely based on an arbitrarily concocted schedule by the NFBC, so the idea of making a slight alteration on when to officially end the fantasy baseball season should not be a big deal. And I'll go way out on a limb here and state that it is doubtful there is a single high stakes player who is putting up serious bucks every year into these competition who likes the idea of being at the mercy of again the pure dumb luck of their roster in terms of what players they may or may not have for these extra games. So if this rule change is not already under serious consideration, and there is still some doubt about it, I move that a client survey be sent to all of your high stakes players for vote on this which would be the best way if truly this can't be seen as necessary without getting feedback from everyone. Thanks.

[Bronx Yankees]

I’d support changing the rules to end the season after Game 162. I agree that any lead or ranking changes occurring due to a play-in game is more a function of luck than skill. The season-long grind is long enough without the finish line being pushed back an extra day or two at the very end. Also, if this proposed rule change is rejected, then at a minimum no lineup changes should be allowed for any play-in games. Thanks.

Mike

[King of Queens]

If we are not going to count games that are considered part of the MLB regular season, I would be favor of scrapping the last week or two. You want to talk about luck? No one has any idea who is starting or even playing down the stretch.

The additional game has been part of our rules since 2004. Every owner (at least those with FAAB remaining) can make moves the prior week in the hopes that a 163rd game is played. As an example, one smart owner picked up Frankie Montas for the final week. If Oakland had to play in a tie-breaker, he was lined up to start the Monday game. SMART.

[DOUGHBOYS]

If we are not going to count games that are considered part of the MLB regular season, I would be favor of scrapping the last week or two. You want to talk about luck? No one has any idea who is starting or even playing down the stretch.

The additional game has been part of our rules since 2004. Every owner (at least those with FAAB remaining) can make moves the prior week in the hopes that a 163rd game is played. As an example, one smart owner picked up Frankie Montas for the final week. If Oakland had to play in a tie-breaker, he was lined up to start the Monday game. SMART.

The additional game rule has been in our rules since 2004. It doesn't make it any more right.
This also effects leagues without FAAB, where moves cannot be made. Handcuffed and can make zero SMART moves.

[King of Queens]

A fantasy team having five playoff players to another's zero, is not a more skillful team. Just lucky in that they now have more chances to gain points.

How about owners of Tigers and White Sox players that only got a maximum of 161 games? Were they unskilled? Or just unlucky?

It's all part of the game.

[DOUGHBOYS]

A fantasy team having five playoff players to another's zero, is not a more skillful team. Just lucky in that they now have more chances to gain points.

How about owners of Tigers and White Sox players that only got a maximum of 161 games? Were they unskilled? Or just unlucky?

It's all part of the game.

Nothing can be done about that.
SOMETHING can be done about this.

[King of Queens]

A fantasy team having five playoff players to another's zero, is not a more skillful team. Just lucky in that they now have more chances to gain points.

How about owners of Tigers and White Sox players that only got a maximum of 161 games? Were they unskilled? Or just unlucky?

It's all part of the game.

Nothing can be done about that.
SOMETHING can be done about this.

Or, more likely, NOTHING will be done.

[DOUGHBOYS]

How about owners of Tigers and White Sox players that only got a maximum of 161 games? Were they unskilled? Or just unlucky?

It's all part of the game.

Nothing can be done about that.
SOMETHING can be done about this.

Or, more likely, NOTHING will be done.

Yep, you know the drill

[Gekko]

If we are not going to count games that are considered part of the MLB regular season, I would be favor of scrapping the last week or two. You want to talk about luck? No one has any idea who is starting or even playing down the stretch.

The additional game has been part of our rules since 2004. Every owner (at least those with FAAB remaining) can make moves the prior week in the hopes that a 163rd game is played. As an example, one smart owner picked up Frankie Montas for the final week. If Oakland had to play in a tie-breaker, he was lined up to start the Monday game. SMART.

As always, the voice of reason!

[DOUGHBOYS]

When the rule was written in 2004, there were no DC's.
These teams cannot use any FAAB moves to help themselves for possible playoff games.

[Gekko]

I’d support changing the rules to end the season after Game 162. I agree that any lead or ranking changes occurring due to a play-in game is more a function of luck than skill. The season-long grind is long enough without the finish line being pushed back an extra day or two at the very end. Also, if this proposed rule change is rejected, then at a minimum no lineup changes should be allowed for any play-in games. Thanks.

Mike

Mike - I'm a bit surprised at your take. Maybe I'm in the minority; however that last sunday of faab, I'm always giving more consideration to picking up players on teams that could be involved in a playoff game. picking up players that could play in an additional game would be a skill.

[Philippe27]

I'd be in favor of removing the last week of the season on top of those tiebreaker games. You can call it skill but I just kept hoping that last week that my pitchers wouldn't get scratched for no reason.

If that doesn't change, I decided my strategy next year would be to dominate all my leagues so that the last week doesn't matter anyways.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I like playing till seasons end.
I don't think that 2020 would be the year to change that.
This was the last year of the 40-man rosters in September.
Next year should be better for the last few weeks.
Don't want to throw the baby out with the wash when the wash is getting better.
But playoff games, ugh

[Bronx Yankees]

I’d support changing the rules to end the season after Game 162. I agree that any lead or ranking changes occurring due to a play-in game is more a function of luck than skill. The season-long grind is long enough without the finish line being pushed back an extra day or two at the very end. Also, if this proposed rule change is rejected, then at a minimum no lineup changes should be allowed for any play-in games. Thanks.

Mike

Mike - I'm a bit surprised at your take. Maybe I'm in the minority; however that last sunday of faab, I'm always giving more consideration to picking up players on teams that could be involved in a playoff game. picking up players that could play in an additional game would be a skill.

Hey, Mark. My take is that a change in league rank due to a play-in game is a lot more a function of luck than skill.

Yes, there can be some skill involved, and you give the perfect example of that. I do it, too. If there’s a chance for a play-in game, that becomes a factor in the final FAAB. If the player you acquire in the final FAAB puts you over the top, you can claim skill, and I’d agree because everyone in your league had a chance to acquire that guy and you were the one who did so.

But, what I think happens a lot more often is that the difference makers were not acquired in the final FAAB, but long before that time. In my experience, virtually all starting pitchers and closers who would be used in a play-in game already are owned and have been for months, if not since the original draft. Similarly, most of the hitters on both teams - and all of the better ones - have been rostered since the draft or at least well before a play-in game was contemplated. Thus, yes, you can try to FAAB one of the few available hitters or middle relievers, but the vast majority of players worth owning are long gone.

What I’ve seen happen much more frequently than a Week 26 FAAB pickup making a difference is that one team fighting at the end may have the starting pitcher, closer and/or multiple hitters active for the play-in game while the other team fighting at the end has none or otherwise is at a decided disadvantage. Importantly, if and when one of these guys makes a difference at the end - a much more common occurrence in my opinion - the team gaining the advantage simply is lucky that the player or players he drafted in March or acquired in FAAB months prior got to play an extra game. The fact is, we draft guys, and acquire guys in FAAB up until the very end, based on our expectations for them through Game 162. Nobody drafts a player, or acquires them in FAAB before late-September, based on any expectation of getting Game 163 stats. Thus, I think counting Game 163 stats rewards luck much more often than skill.

I’m always surprised how many NFBC leagues come down to the final weekend or even the final day of the season. I’ve won and lost leagues at the very end. If anyone beats me after Game 162, they deserve it. If I lose a league due to a play-in game because my opponent has three hitters playing that he drafted in March and I have none, I feel like I lost due to crappy luck, not some skill that my opponent had any clue in March (or August) that those guys would get an extra game to accumulate stats. Similarly, if I won a league like that, I’d happily take the credit and the money, but it’d be much more a function of being lucky than skilled if Game 163 put me over the top.

At least, that’s how I see it.

Mike

[DOUGHBOYS]

I’d support changing the rules to end the season after Game 162. I agree that any lead or ranking changes occurring due to a play-in game is more a function of luck than skill. The season-long grind is long enough without the finish line being pushed back an extra day or two at the very end. Also, if this proposed rule change is rejected, then at a minimum no lineup changes should be allowed for any play-in games. Thanks.

Mike

Mike - I'm a bit surprised at your take. Maybe I'm in the minority; however that last sunday of faab, I'm always giving more consideration to picking up players on teams that could be involved in a playoff game. picking up players that could play in an additional game would be a skill.

Hey, Mark. My take is that a change in league rank due to a play-in game is a lot more a function of luck than skill.

Yes, there can be some skill involved, and you give the perfect example of that. I do it, too. If there’s a chance for a play-in game, that becomes a factor in the final FAAB. If the player you acquire in the final FAAB puts you over the top, you can claim skill, and I’d agree because everyone in your league had a chance to acquire that guy and you were the one who did so.

But, what I think happens a lot more often is that the difference makers were not acquired in the final FAAB, but long before that time. In my experience, virtually all starting pitchers and closers who would be used in a play-in game already are owned and have been for months, if not since the original draft. Similarly, most of the hitters on both teams - and all of the better ones - have been rostered since the draft or at least well before a play-in game was contemplated. Thus, yes, you can try to FAAB one of the few available hitters or middle relievers, but the vast majority of players worth owning are long gone.

What I’ve seen happen much more frequently than a Week 26 FAAB pickup making a difference is that one team fighting at the end may have the starting pitcher, closer and/or multiple hitters active for the play-in game while the other team fighting at the end has none or otherwise is at a decided disadvantage. Importantly, if and when one of these guys makes a difference at the end - a much more common occurrence in my opinion - the team gaining the advantage simply is lucky that the player or players he drafted in March or acquired in FAAB months prior got to play an extra game. The fact is, we draft guys, and acquire guys in FAAB up until the very end, based on our expectations for them through Game 162. Nobody drafts a player, or acquires them in FAAB before late-September, based on any expectation of getting Game 163 stats. Thus, I think counting Game 163 stats rewards luck much more often than skill.

I’m always surprised how many NFBC leagues come down to the final weekend or even the final day of the season. I’ve won and lost leagues at the very end. If anyone beats me after Game 162, they deserve it. If I lose a league due to a play-in game because my opponent has three hitters playing that he drafted in March and I have none, I feel like I lost due to crappy luck, not some skill that my opponent had any clue in March (or August) that those guys would get an extra game to accumulate stats. Similarly, if I won a league like that, I’d happily take the credit and the money, but it’d be much more a function of being lucky than skilled if Game 163 put me over the top.

At least, that’s how I see it.

Mike

The voice of reason

[Baseball Furies]

Mike - I'm a bit surprised at your take. Maybe I'm in the minority; however that last sunday of faab, I'm always giving more consideration to picking up players on teams that could be involved in a playoff game. picking up players that could play in an additional game would be a skill.

Hey, Mark. My take is that a change in league rank due to a play-in game is a lot more a function of luck than skill.

Yes, there can be some skill involved, and you give the perfect example of that. I do it, too. If there’s a chance for a play-in game, that becomes a factor in the final FAAB. If the player you acquire in the final FAAB puts you over the top, you can claim skill, and I’d agree because everyone in your league had a chance to acquire that guy and you were the one who did so.

But, what I think happens a lot more often is that the difference makers were not acquired in the final FAAB, but long before that time. In my experience, virtually all starting pitchers and closers who would be used in a play-in game already are owned and have been for months, if not since the original draft. Similarly, most of the hitters on both teams - and all of the better ones - have been rostered since the draft or at least well before a play-in game was contemplated. Thus, yes, you can try to FAAB one of the few available hitters or middle relievers, but the vast majority of players worth owning are long gone.

What I’ve seen happen much more frequently than a Week 26 FAAB pickup making a difference is that one team fighting at the end may have the starting pitcher, closer and/or multiple hitters active for the play-in game while the other team fighting at the end has none or otherwise is at a decided disadvantage. Importantly, if and when one of these guys makes a difference at the end - a much more common occurrence in my opinion - the team gaining the advantage simply is lucky that the player or players he drafted in March or acquired in FAAB months prior got to play an extra game. The fact is, we draft guys, and acquire guys in FAAB up until the very end, based on our expectations for them through Game 162. Nobody drafts a player, or acquires them in FAAB before late-September, based on any expectation of getting Game 163 stats. Thus, I think counting Game 163 stats rewards luck much more often than skill.

I’m always surprised how many NFBC leagues come down to the final weekend or even the final day of the season. I’ve won and lost leagues at the very end. If anyone beats me after Game 162, they deserve it. If I lose a league due to a play-in game because my opponent has three hitters playing that he drafted in March and I have none, I feel like I lost due to crappy luck, not some skill that my opponent had any clue in March (or August) that those guys would get an extra game to accumulate stats. Similarly, if I won a league like that, I’d happily take the credit and the money, but it’d be much more a function of being lucky than skilled if Game 163 put me over the top.

At least, that’s how I see it.

Mike

The voice of reason

Exactly. +1. Thanks Mikey. Well put.

[King of Queens]

it’s beyond ridiculous that MLB needs a tie-breaker game at all. It’s the only major sport where this happens. Even sports with long regular seasons like basketball or hockey have intricate formulas (H2H, conference record, SOS, record vs common opponents) to determine who’s in and who’s out. Nevertheless, it’s a quirk that exists only in baseball. So we live with it.

Every team is scheduled to play in 162 games, but in actuality, that is not always the case. 12 times since 2004, a team has played 163 games. 28 times since 2004, a team has played in 161 games. Sometimes this affects several teams in the same year. Last year saw 4 teams play 163 games. 2016 and 2008 featured 6 teams in each year play 161 games. Again, this is a quirk that exists only in baseball. So we deal with it.

If MLB is going to treat this as a regular season game, then whatever you want to call it (play-in, tie-breaker, Game 163) is still a part of the regular season. Say you’re a Pete Alonso next year, and he has 73 homers as of 162 games. If the Mets play an extra game, and Alonso hits a 74th homer in Game 163, shouldn’t that record HR count for you? This feels almost like it could be a Billy Crystal movie. Call it 74*

We have had discussions over the years about the best way to handle the additional game(s). Should there be a separate scoring period, or lumped in with the previous period? Do we need a separate FAAB for that game? What happens if multiple ties occur? Under MLB rules, it’s possible that a tram could have a Game 164 or even 165. The season has ended on a Sunday for the past several years — what if MLB goes back to ending the season on Wednesday? I have no skin in that game. Carry on.

Bottom line for me is that if we are playing to the end of the regular season, we have to include these games when they occur. If you’re cutting the season short because of randomness or luck (which seems to be the main argument here), then cut out the last 2 weeks of the season as well. But whatever you feel, please don’t say you want to “play to the end”— but not the end that MLB considers to be the end.

[Gekko]

I guess I see more useful players on the faab wire than maybe you do that could end up being useful in a playoff game scenario.

Off the top of my head, I picked up JRAM and Montas in as many leagues as possible in late September. Part of my bid-setting process was the thought that they could receive an extra game of stats. I know there were decent players on the Rays available on the waiver wire in September as well.

Like glenn said, if people want to chop out the most “lucky” part of the season, get rid of the final week and any possible playoff games. Very hard to predict games played during that stretch.

As for me, I’m fine with the way it is.

[DOUGHBOYS]

It is beyond ridiculous that MLB has playoff games. Yet, here we are following along as if we have to as well.
We are our own game.
In the NFFC, they cut off the last week of the season because of the luck factor. The same can be done with these PLAYOFF games.
WE ARE NOT ATTACHED.
I would consider going along with ending our season before the last week of scheduled games, but I do think it will be better next year without the 40-man rosters that have put doom and gloom on fantasy baseball in September.

When the rule was implemented we started with 150 NFBC teams. 150!
That many can sign up in a week now.
Things have changed since then.
A lot of those teams are Draft Champions that have no recourse with FAAB as to 'play' the playoff games.
It probably won't, but it is a rule that needs changed.

[Ultrarunner]

I benefited one year from the playoff game. One extra HR from Dioner Navarro took a team from 4th to 3rd.

And while I enjoyed that, I’m in the court that the play-in games (game 163+) should not count. End with the end of the “regular” season

[Baseball Furies]

It is beyond ridiculous that MLB has playoff games. Yet, here we are following along as if we have to as well.
We are our own game.
In the NFFC, they cut off the last week of the season because of the luck factor. The same can be done with these PLAYOFF games.
WE ARE NOT ATTACHED.
I would consider going along with ending our season before the last week of scheduled games, but I do think it will be better next year without the 40-man rosters that have put doom and gloom on fantasy baseball in September.

When the rule was implemented we started with 150 NFBC teams. 150!
That many can sign up in a week now.
Things have changed since then.
A lot of those teams are Draft Champions that have no recourse with FAAB as to 'play' the playoff games.
It probably won't, but it is a rule that needs changed.

Thanks Dough for continuing to be the voice of reason. The most valid point that you make is that we are our own game! We are not and should not be at the mercy of what either the NFL or MLB does or does not do with their scheduling. The arguments being made so far about having these extra games beyond 162 are extremely weak especially with as much money on the line that there is. Yes, anyone can have the forethought to game the system on the odd chance that these games will come into play, but for the most part, the vast majority of the competition by that point in the season will not. Most of these games will then be decided as they usually are by who just so happens to be on any given player's roster at the time. The MLB season is 162 games (and like you said, with the 40 man roster change coming this will help come September), and I'm for playing it out until every one them is done and not cutting out weeks like football does which basically invalidates the whole game for me right there, but that's another story.

So we can all go back and forth on this, but for once I would like to see a serious effort made to address this rule change via mass survey if need be so that the paying clientele of the NFBC have their say which should be of paramount importance to ownership. So what's the thinking and what's going to be done on this? I can tell you that as of 2020, the MTM Ultimate, like KJ's MLBCL has been operating for the last couple of years, will NOT be counting any games beyond 162, and the season will end after Sunday's slate of games.

[Philippe27]

I don't have too many Twitter followers but created a poll here: https://twitter.com/PhilDussault27/stat ... 0457032705 . Feel free to share it and hopefully get more opinions on this topic.

[COZ]

I vote to get rid of Game 163. How we include a game in a season long contest where it is not even known whether the game will be played until late afternoon/evening on the last Sunday of the season AT THE END OF THE CONTEST & then proclaim “sorry folks all games count,” is silly. It adds nothing to the contest & reeks of a gimmicky DFS-manufactured type drama of which most players don’t want after 6 months. Picking up players a week before a game that may not even occur is pure happenstance, and is done only in an attempt to try to garner an extra pitching start, etc. This puts some players at a disadvantage to others who, by pure happenstance, not skill, don’t have players playing in the play-in games. The NFBC, in my opinion, should adopt a rule that the contest includes only games that are REGULARY scheduled at the start of the season & any make-up games of regularly scheduled games but not play-in or tie-breaker games.