Tom Kessenich really liked this idea during a recent phone conversation and advised me to make a post. There has been some discussion about dead teams, etc. The big question is: In addition to the weekly memorabilia prizes, is there a way to keep everybody interested all the way through the season no matter what position their team is in?? We all want everyone to stay involved for obvious reasons.
Here is my solution: CREATE CATEGORY PRIZES. It's so obvious I can't believe no one has thought of it before! (If anyone else is doing this, I am not aware of it.)
Why not 5 $500 flat prizes for the top overall teams in each of the 10 categories? That would only be an extra $25,000 total. Most or all of that could be shaved off the overall 2nd -8th. I like the $500 limit as it stays under the tax radar! What I like about this is that there would be an extra 50 yearly prizes, so even teams that are mostly horrible would still fight for the one or two categories in which they are strong. Interest would be maintained until the end. This would also add a wrinkle to the drafting strategy and make things real interesting.
I don't see any downside to this idea as almost every team would have a chance for at least a $500 prize which could help salvage a bad year.
Greg and Tom could crunch the numbers to their satisfaction, but I would suggest a split of 50% (League Prizes) 40% (Overall prizes) and 10% for the category prizes. What does everybody else think? Is this an awesome groundbreaking fantasy idea, or am I not thinking clearly??
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
I've played in a league with prizes for each category. It works very well. Although we Cherry Picked the owners and have had only one drop out since it's inception. Keepers and trades help keep interest (not possible for NFBC).
A prize for 1st half leader awarded at the Allstar break and another 2nd half leader(Overall-starting from zero-from the Allstar break to seasons end) works particularly well for Keeping the owners active. I would suggest $100 category prizes and $1000 each for 1st Half and 2nd half ($3000 For overall.) Then think hard about $50 for categories and $500 for 1st half 2nd half in the individual league's.($1500)
A prize for 1st half leader awarded at the Allstar break and another 2nd half leader(Overall-starting from zero-from the Allstar break to seasons end) works particularly well for Keeping the owners active. I would suggest $100 category prizes and $1000 each for 1st Half and 2nd half ($3000 For overall.) Then think hard about $50 for categories and $500 for 1st half 2nd half in the individual league's.($1500)
"All of Life is part of the Divine"---Ancient Hindu saying
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Category prizes awarded only at the end of the year. Wanted to make that clear.
This does affect FAAB action and League standings as owners decide to make a run at a category. They load up on speed(SB's), Starters (W's and K's), or Closers (Saves) mostly, but there are other manipulations of rosters made to win category prizes at the cost of overall finish and it affects the leagues by distorting total points as other categories suffer as well as putting better players to choose from (that wouldn't usually be there) back in the FAAB pool.
This does affect FAAB action and League standings as owners decide to make a run at a category. They load up on speed(SB's), Starters (W's and K's), or Closers (Saves) mostly, but there are other manipulations of rosters made to win category prizes at the cost of overall finish and it affects the leagues by distorting total points as other categories suffer as well as putting better players to choose from (that wouldn't usually be there) back in the FAAB pool.
"All of Life is part of the Divine"---Ancient Hindu saying
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
I don’t see how category prizes will be a panacea to cure the ills caused by owners dropping out. July is probably the month when owners start dropping out. The typical reason is that interest is lost managing a team hopelessly down in the standings. Given the NFBC’s no-trade policy (a correct one I might add), any team in that situation realistically has ZERO chance of gaining a league category top let alone an overall category top. Category prizes are nothing more than redistributing the wealth amongst the top teams. It essentially gives another ten teams a chance for a few extra bucks. I’m sure Tom & Greg hoped that weekly awards could lessen the dropout rate. Until someone is able to determine how many teams have actually dropped out, who is to say that the NFBC really has a serious problem.
Category prizes also may lead to an odd league draft by some techo-geek that decides to go for category prizes. Imagine a league where a team drafts four speed guys and four closers in his first eight picks. He should win two categories for sure and, if he ignored starting pitchers and went for solid ratio middle relievers, he could even win both ERA & WHIP. That would give him more money back than he put in. It would also all but eliminate the rest of the teams in his league from having any remote chance to win the overall prize. I don’t think any of us would want to be in that league.
I see two ways to keep interest. The first was already mentioned. Having some type of post all-star game standings would help those team who were decimated by injuries. In this tradeless format, injuries are huge and can completely destroy a team. In my league, one team had the misfortune to draft Nomar, Wilson and Giambi with three of their first four picks.. So much for their season. Also, how many teams watched their season crumble when Mark Prior stayed injured? Who would have realistically known that Jason Schmidt would come back and likely win the Cy Young while Mark Prior lingered and lingered on the injured list? Both pitchers were risks at the time of our draft.
A second way is to augment the free agent pool and try and tighten the category races. Having slightly fewer active players and small rosters can do this. Fewer active players means less cumulative statistics. This creates tighter and more volatile categories. I compete in an 18 team league with only nine active offensive players. Trust me when I say moving up and down a category on a weekly basis is pretty easy even now with the season ¾ completed. We all know the waiver wire is thin but there are a few gems from week to week. Mostly we are just covering injuries with waiver wire pickups at this point in time. Imagine an additional 60 players on the wire. This could be accomplished by cutting roster sizes back to 25 players. In conjunctions with this cutback, I would suggest reducing active pitchers by two and reducing active hitters by two. I would keep the two-catcher requirement since adding additional catchers to the free agent pool does not gain much plus having to draft two catchers forces owners to think more about draft strategies. I would simply eliminate the corner and middle infield positions along with one of the outfield position. I would add back a second utility slot. This would give owners the option for power or speed at their utility spots.
Just a few more things to think about.
Category prizes also may lead to an odd league draft by some techo-geek that decides to go for category prizes. Imagine a league where a team drafts four speed guys and four closers in his first eight picks. He should win two categories for sure and, if he ignored starting pitchers and went for solid ratio middle relievers, he could even win both ERA & WHIP. That would give him more money back than he put in. It would also all but eliminate the rest of the teams in his league from having any remote chance to win the overall prize. I don’t think any of us would want to be in that league.
I see two ways to keep interest. The first was already mentioned. Having some type of post all-star game standings would help those team who were decimated by injuries. In this tradeless format, injuries are huge and can completely destroy a team. In my league, one team had the misfortune to draft Nomar, Wilson and Giambi with three of their first four picks.. So much for their season. Also, how many teams watched their season crumble when Mark Prior stayed injured? Who would have realistically known that Jason Schmidt would come back and likely win the Cy Young while Mark Prior lingered and lingered on the injured list? Both pitchers were risks at the time of our draft.
A second way is to augment the free agent pool and try and tighten the category races. Having slightly fewer active players and small rosters can do this. Fewer active players means less cumulative statistics. This creates tighter and more volatile categories. I compete in an 18 team league with only nine active offensive players. Trust me when I say moving up and down a category on a weekly basis is pretty easy even now with the season ¾ completed. We all know the waiver wire is thin but there are a few gems from week to week. Mostly we are just covering injuries with waiver wire pickups at this point in time. Imagine an additional 60 players on the wire. This could be accomplished by cutting roster sizes back to 25 players. In conjunctions with this cutback, I would suggest reducing active pitchers by two and reducing active hitters by two. I would keep the two-catcher requirement since adding additional catchers to the free agent pool does not gain much plus having to draft two catchers forces owners to think more about draft strategies. I would simply eliminate the corner and middle infield positions along with one of the outfield position. I would add back a second utility slot. This would give owners the option for power or speed at their utility spots.
Just a few more things to think about.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 4317
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Sorry. I don't like any of the ideas proposed on this thread. The only thing you'll do is open up a whole new set of problems, along with doing virtually nothing to keep teams active.
You will never solve the "dead team" isuue. NEVER!
You will never solve the "dead team" isuue. NEVER!
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Viper,
I agree with you, we have category prizes in another league I'm in and it does nothing to sway the dead teams. The reason they're dead, they're near the bottom - they're poor in ALL the categories ! They have nothing to shoot for. I posted this in another section:
>>Not that there are any issues this year but how about a $ prize for the greatest point gain from July 1 on thru the end of the season ? (the overall pt total not for the 15tm league) Maybe 2k? (i like spending other people's $ as you can see) That way teams that get whupped by the DL stick have something to play for for the 2nd half of the season. It's one way to keep people active with their teams until at least August. Just a thought<<
My only concern would be teams purposely tanking the 1st half of the season ? It seems idiotic but I guess it could happen. I figure 99% of the teams give it their best shot at least for the 1st couple of months. At least with a 2nd half prize most owners will have a reason to keep an active team until football season.
Q
I agree with you, we have category prizes in another league I'm in and it does nothing to sway the dead teams. The reason they're dead, they're near the bottom - they're poor in ALL the categories ! They have nothing to shoot for. I posted this in another section:
>>Not that there are any issues this year but how about a $ prize for the greatest point gain from July 1 on thru the end of the season ? (the overall pt total not for the 15tm league) Maybe 2k? (i like spending other people's $ as you can see) That way teams that get whupped by the DL stick have something to play for for the 2nd half of the season. It's one way to keep people active with their teams until at least August. Just a thought<<
My only concern would be teams purposely tanking the 1st half of the season ? It seems idiotic but I guess it could happen. I figure 99% of the teams give it their best shot at least for the 1st couple of months. At least with a 2nd half prize most owners will have a reason to keep an active team until football season.
Q
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
I would have a pretty strong preference for adopting category prizes. It has been pointed out that this would redistribute prize money among top teams. Redistributing prize money is a good thing because the prize fund was top heavy to start with. Allthough the concern about a team trying to lock up two categories putting their league at a huge disadvantage overall is true, I think that the proposed $500 cap per prize makes that an obviously unsucessful strategy and there is no defense against people trying harebrained strategies even without category prizes, anyway. I think that adding another element of strategy is desirable also. I would look at keeping down the dropout rate more in terms of retaining their business for next year's contest rather than the probable minimal effect on their current league standings. There have been alternate proposals such as shorting rosters or keeping the same rosters but submitting smaller weekly lineups. They would both seem to help owners to be less at the mercy of random injuries. However, I would consider these separate issues. I vote strong yes for category prizes.
[ August 18, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TBill ]
[ August 18, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TBill ]
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
[ August 18, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Nevadaman ]
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
I must address some of Viper's points that are clearly in error.
"Category prizes are nothing more than redistributing the wealth amongst the top teams. It essentially gives another ten teams a chance for a few extra bucks."
This is nonsense. I analyzed the top five teams in all ten categories to check this statement. This is how the prize money would be distributed if the season ended today:
Overall Rank (#Prizes Won)
1-10 (6) 11-50 (23) 51-100 (7) 101-195 (14)
This is a nice distribution that would spread money around to teams successful in the categories.
"Category prizes also may lead to an odd league draft by some techo-geek that decides to go for category prizes. Imagine a league where a team drafts four speed guys and four closers in his first eight picks. He should win two categories for sure and, if he ignored starting pitchers and went for solid ratio middle relievers, he could even win both ERA & WHIP. That would give him more money back than he put in. It would also all but eliminate the rest of the teams in his league from having any remote chance to win the overall prize. I don’t think any of us would want to be in that league."
Please, you've got to be kidding!! I would give my left nut to be in that league. If a team drafted only to win a couple categories they would take themselves out of the running for the overall prize as well as the league prize. I would love it if a lot of teams did that. I don't know about you, but I'm drafting with the big prizes in mind. Completely unbalanced teams cannot win the 100 grand.
"In this tradeless format, injuries are huge and can completely destroy a team.....A second way is to augment the free agent pool and try and tighten the category races. Having slightly fewer active players and small rosters can do this. Fewer active players means less cumulative statistics. This creates tighter and more volatile categories. I compete in an 18 team league with only nine active offensive players. Trust me when I say moving up and down a category on a weekly basis is pretty easy even now with the season ¾ completed. We all know the waiver wire is thin but there are a few gems from week to week. Mostly we are just covering injuries with waiver wire pickups at this point in time. Imagine an additional 60 players on the wire. This could be accomplished by cutting roster sizes back to 25 players. In conjunctions with this cutback, I would suggest reducing active pitchers by two and reducing active hitters by two. I would keep the two-catcher requirement since adding additional catchers to the free agent pool does not gain much plus having to draft two catchers forces owners to think more about draft strategies. I would simply eliminate the corner and middle infield positions along with one of the outfield position. I would add back a second utility slot. This would give owners the option for power or speed at their utility spots."
Now you're thinking more clearly. I kind of like the idea of having fewer starting players. This would allow for a better substitution strategy and greatly reduce the injury/luck factor. However, I agree with T-Bill that this is a separate issue. The category prizes would still be beneficial to the NFBC as it would create a lot more winners and therefore, more interest. Also, with more of these prizes, it is likely to attract more first-timers IMO. (Less risk in their mind.)
"Category prizes are nothing more than redistributing the wealth amongst the top teams. It essentially gives another ten teams a chance for a few extra bucks."
This is nonsense. I analyzed the top five teams in all ten categories to check this statement. This is how the prize money would be distributed if the season ended today:
Overall Rank (#Prizes Won)
1-10 (6) 11-50 (23) 51-100 (7) 101-195 (14)
This is a nice distribution that would spread money around to teams successful in the categories.
"Category prizes also may lead to an odd league draft by some techo-geek that decides to go for category prizes. Imagine a league where a team drafts four speed guys and four closers in his first eight picks. He should win two categories for sure and, if he ignored starting pitchers and went for solid ratio middle relievers, he could even win both ERA & WHIP. That would give him more money back than he put in. It would also all but eliminate the rest of the teams in his league from having any remote chance to win the overall prize. I don’t think any of us would want to be in that league."
Please, you've got to be kidding!! I would give my left nut to be in that league. If a team drafted only to win a couple categories they would take themselves out of the running for the overall prize as well as the league prize. I would love it if a lot of teams did that. I don't know about you, but I'm drafting with the big prizes in mind. Completely unbalanced teams cannot win the 100 grand.
"In this tradeless format, injuries are huge and can completely destroy a team.....A second way is to augment the free agent pool and try and tighten the category races. Having slightly fewer active players and small rosters can do this. Fewer active players means less cumulative statistics. This creates tighter and more volatile categories. I compete in an 18 team league with only nine active offensive players. Trust me when I say moving up and down a category on a weekly basis is pretty easy even now with the season ¾ completed. We all know the waiver wire is thin but there are a few gems from week to week. Mostly we are just covering injuries with waiver wire pickups at this point in time. Imagine an additional 60 players on the wire. This could be accomplished by cutting roster sizes back to 25 players. In conjunctions with this cutback, I would suggest reducing active pitchers by two and reducing active hitters by two. I would keep the two-catcher requirement since adding additional catchers to the free agent pool does not gain much plus having to draft two catchers forces owners to think more about draft strategies. I would simply eliminate the corner and middle infield positions along with one of the outfield position. I would add back a second utility slot. This would give owners the option for power or speed at their utility spots."
Now you're thinking more clearly. I kind of like the idea of having fewer starting players. This would allow for a better substitution strategy and greatly reduce the injury/luck factor. However, I agree with T-Bill that this is a separate issue. The category prizes would still be beneficial to the NFBC as it would create a lot more winners and therefore, more interest. Also, with more of these prizes, it is likely to attract more first-timers IMO. (Less risk in their mind.)
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Ok Nevadaman, follow me on this one.
You may want to be in a league where one team drafts 4 or even 5 closers but you do realize that this mean the remaining 14 teams will be scrambling for the 25 remaining closers. You realistically need 2 closers to get a decent enough score in saves to compete for the big money. This team will be taking the Gagne’s and Rivera’s of the world so getting a stud save man is but a pipe dream. Also, if the prime base stealers are taken prematurely, then same situation exists. Within your league, you will be fine. This techno-team will have no shot at winning a league or overall title. At $500 a category, they would be shooting for 4 category prizes and nothing else. It seems a stupid way to approach a league like this but I would hardly be surprised if one or two teams took this approach. Your league-winning chances increase as you are realistically competing against just 13 other teams. Unfortunately, you are now in trouble in two categories in the overall hunt. Balance, health, free agent smarts and luck are the four factors required to place overall. Remove balance and you also remove your chances. It is different as you go for a league prize but overall will be history.
I have nothing against spreading out the money a bit after first place overall. I would like to keep all the league prizes the same however.
I felt the concern of this thread was reducing as much as possible the likelihood that a team goes “dead’. To that end, I don’t see how category prizes accomplish anything. If the concern is to allow more people to get some money, then category prizes are a means to accomplish that goal.
You may want to be in a league where one team drafts 4 or even 5 closers but you do realize that this mean the remaining 14 teams will be scrambling for the 25 remaining closers. You realistically need 2 closers to get a decent enough score in saves to compete for the big money. This team will be taking the Gagne’s and Rivera’s of the world so getting a stud save man is but a pipe dream. Also, if the prime base stealers are taken prematurely, then same situation exists. Within your league, you will be fine. This techno-team will have no shot at winning a league or overall title. At $500 a category, they would be shooting for 4 category prizes and nothing else. It seems a stupid way to approach a league like this but I would hardly be surprised if one or two teams took this approach. Your league-winning chances increase as you are realistically competing against just 13 other teams. Unfortunately, you are now in trouble in two categories in the overall hunt. Balance, health, free agent smarts and luck are the four factors required to place overall. Remove balance and you also remove your chances. It is different as you go for a league prize but overall will be history.
I have nothing against spreading out the money a bit after first place overall. I would like to keep all the league prizes the same however.
I felt the concern of this thread was reducing as much as possible the likelihood that a team goes “dead’. To that end, I don’t see how category prizes accomplish anything. If the concern is to allow more people to get some money, then category prizes are a means to accomplish that goal.
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Reread you original post. Five prize per category. That makes for 50 additional awards. Hmmm. I have to say that my team would have made a significant course change a few weeks back. It is currently 6th overall in ERA. I would have “dumped” all marginal starters for better ERA middle men. The team has no chance for a league or overall money but the $500 ERA money would be readily attainable. I would not have started in that direction but a mid-season course change would have made a lot of sense. That would clearly be my team’s course of action and yet that would impact the overall standings because some reasonable starters would suddenly become available in my league. I’m not sure if that is what would be desired.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 4317
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
I saw one team vote in favor of something. I strongly vote NOT to implement any of the changes on this thread. They are all flawed and do nothing to help the "dead" team issue. If I wanted to spend the time, I could shoot more holes in these ideas than I could at a claybird in a sporting clay tournament.
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
$500 for the leader of individual leagues $1000 for the overall leader at the Allstar break. Same $$$ for the 2nd half prize-- You get something for leading at the break and 2nd half prize keeps interest up.
As far as category prizes go. $50/$100 for 1st place only. Larger dollars only makes the categegory hunters go unbalanced earlier. It's more of a "Good Job" award. Getting something for being the best in your league or overall should get more than a pat on the back but no major $$$.
I would like to see the $100,000 prize stay (It's such a NICE number of $$$$) but a little more cash for the 2nd, third, and fourth finisher. This is the year to win with only 195 teams. The winner will DERSERVE the 100 Grand with a full field.
As far as category prizes go. $50/$100 for 1st place only. Larger dollars only makes the categegory hunters go unbalanced earlier. It's more of a "Good Job" award. Getting something for being the best in your league or overall should get more than a pat on the back but no major $$$.
I would like to see the $100,000 prize stay (It's such a NICE number of $$$$) but a little more cash for the 2nd, third, and fourth finisher. This is the year to win with only 195 teams. The winner will DERSERVE the 100 Grand with a full field.
"All of Life is part of the Divine"---Ancient Hindu saying
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Viper, I didn't realize your team would have been ideal for what I was talking about! Wouldn't the rest of your year be more interesting if you were at least live for $500? I don't think dropping your worst couple starters would affect the league to any great degree. They would be very similar to guys already available on the wire. I will say that I'm a reasonable man and if $500 is too much, make it $250 and give out 100 total category prizes! No one in their right mind would draft a team with those kinds of potential dollars in mind. I just thought that category prizes would be a good way to get more teams involved once their chances at the bigger prizes were gone. I still think that involving more teams in the prize pool is good for the NFBC long term and that is my only concern. I love the league and want it to succeed. This is not an ego thing with me and I don't make posts just to be argumentative. I really believe in the merits of this particular idea but am open to any and all good ideas (including yours about the possible roster changes)
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Originally posted by Nevadaman:
Viper, I didn't realize your team would have been ideal for what I was talking about! Wouldn't the rest of your year be more interesting if you were at least live for $500? I don't think dropping your worst couple starters would affect the league to any great degree. They would be very similar to guys already available on the wire. I will say that I'm a reasonable man and if $500 is too much, make it $250 and give out 100 total category prizes! No one in their right mind would draft a team with those kinds of potential dollars in mind. I just thought that category prizes would be a good way to get more teams involved once their chances at the bigger prizes were gone. I still think that involving more teams in the prize pool is good for the NFBC long term and that is my only concern. I love the league and want it to succeed. This is not an ego thing with me and I don't make posts just to be argumentative. I really believe in the merits of this particular idea but am open to any and all good ideas (including yours about the possible roster changes) What if he (perfectly understandably...) dropped Randy Wolf, Eric Milton, Tom Glavine, Kenny Rogers and Russ Ortiz... in order to pick up middle relievers. It would unquestionably be a great move for him to shoot for $500 if his team was significantly out of it.
Then, just for the sake of argument... let's say I used up all my FA money and picked up all those 5 clearly-not-waiver-wire SP and because of the extra rotating and perfect alignment of 2 start pitchers I squeezed out an extra 4 wins and won the overall title.
It would reek of conspiracy - and yet be totally logical.
You really want $100,000 decided by some stupid $500 sidebar?
I don't... I don't mean to squash your idea, but you'd be opening a big door to allow folks to do oddball things for perfectly logical reasons... and screw the contest in the process. There shouldn't be any conflicting interests like this...
Dyv
Viper, I didn't realize your team would have been ideal for what I was talking about! Wouldn't the rest of your year be more interesting if you were at least live for $500? I don't think dropping your worst couple starters would affect the league to any great degree. They would be very similar to guys already available on the wire. I will say that I'm a reasonable man and if $500 is too much, make it $250 and give out 100 total category prizes! No one in their right mind would draft a team with those kinds of potential dollars in mind. I just thought that category prizes would be a good way to get more teams involved once their chances at the bigger prizes were gone. I still think that involving more teams in the prize pool is good for the NFBC long term and that is my only concern. I love the league and want it to succeed. This is not an ego thing with me and I don't make posts just to be argumentative. I really believe in the merits of this particular idea but am open to any and all good ideas (including yours about the possible roster changes) What if he (perfectly understandably...) dropped Randy Wolf, Eric Milton, Tom Glavine, Kenny Rogers and Russ Ortiz... in order to pick up middle relievers. It would unquestionably be a great move for him to shoot for $500 if his team was significantly out of it.
Then, just for the sake of argument... let's say I used up all my FA money and picked up all those 5 clearly-not-waiver-wire SP and because of the extra rotating and perfect alignment of 2 start pitchers I squeezed out an extra 4 wins and won the overall title.
It would reek of conspiracy - and yet be totally logical.
You really want $100,000 decided by some stupid $500 sidebar?
I don't... I don't mean to squash your idea, but you'd be opening a big door to allow folks to do oddball things for perfectly logical reasons... and screw the contest in the process. There shouldn't be any conflicting interests like this...
Dyv
Just Some Guy
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
The problem with your scenario is that by now all the great middle relievers are already on someone's roster. It's not like you can just pick up K-Rod type guys with a simple free agent bid. With rare exceptions, all that's left on the wire are mediocre players. They won't help you win an ERA title, so why would you drop Tom Glavine and his sub-3 ERA or any other frontline pitcher? That makes no sense at all to me! It would make sense to drop a starter with a big era, but that won't really help anybody else. I just don't see a big problem here. Besides, if a good pitcher did become available, everybody would bid big dollars for him and that would reward teams that saved their free agent money. That makes the free agent strategy much more interesting and not a totally bad thing. I find that by the all-star break, almost everybody on the wire is dog sheet. If the wire had second rate players instead of third rate players, I don't see the harm!
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Dyv: A very interesting and thought provoking post. My answer would be this: If I was currently in the running for the $100,000 prize, I wouldn't want any change that might upset the applecart giving anyone incentive to screw up a good thing. But this isn't being proposed for this year. It's being proposed for next year when everyone would start fresh with equal rules. Also, not adopting this rule does not insure that oddball things will not happen. Case in point: My pitching totally blew up this year, leaving me with only Worell as a closer. I have 2 save points and very little chance to get to 3. It is very tempting to jettison him to pick up a hitter trying to salvage some ego points in hitting. I have seen similar reckless moves by people with nothing to lose. Although your POV has merit, I still think category prizes can be done in a beneficial manner.
[ August 19, 2004, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: TBill ]
[ August 19, 2004, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: TBill ]
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Dyv, I've reread your post and a few other thoughts come to mind. I think we can agree that when someone goes to the wire and decides who to drop, they always drop their worst player(s) - or player(s) on the DL that can't play. I think it is infinitely more likely that an owner who decides to use relievers and drop starters will release a crappy hitter or a guy on the DL before Russ Ortiz, Randy Wolf, etc. Do you agree? Almost every team (especially the bad teams) have DL and/or nearly worthless players on the bench. I'm just saying that it would make sense to drop those players first. I think everyone would be reluctant to make moves that help their opposition when they don't have to. Am I wrong?
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
You drop your most expendable player. He might not be your worst player. In the scenario being described, a Russ Ortiz might be your most expendable player because a low ERA is all you are concerned with and he is likely to raise rather than lower it. He almost without question would not be your worst player.
This is the first thread in months that has reached page 2.
I am against adding variables that can cause owners to do screwy things. There are several legitimate drafting strategies that can skew things but these are done by owners whose draft strategies are different. At least, they believe that their methods will help in their quest for a league title. Adopting variations to the game that cause owners to do oddball things during the season is counter-productive.
This thread started trying to find ways to limit the number of dead team. I still feel that a larger free agent pool, slightly smaller rosters and/or awards for post all star game performances are the only ones mentioned that would accomplish this goal. Some people will quit regardless. You can’t do anything to keep them in the game. These other options – or some combination of them – might help. I don’t see how any of them have a negative aspect involved with them. This is unlike the category award that could lead to undesirable results. This wheel isn’t broken and it does not require fixing. Doing nothing could be the very best course of action. Some pre-emptive maintenance might help assuming that maintenance does not create other problems.
P.S. I moved into 4th in ERA. Show me da money!!
[ August 19, 2004, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: viper ]
This is the first thread in months that has reached page 2.
I am against adding variables that can cause owners to do screwy things. There are several legitimate drafting strategies that can skew things but these are done by owners whose draft strategies are different. At least, they believe that their methods will help in their quest for a league title. Adopting variations to the game that cause owners to do oddball things during the season is counter-productive.
This thread started trying to find ways to limit the number of dead team. I still feel that a larger free agent pool, slightly smaller rosters and/or awards for post all star game performances are the only ones mentioned that would accomplish this goal. Some people will quit regardless. You can’t do anything to keep them in the game. These other options – or some combination of them – might help. I don’t see how any of them have a negative aspect involved with them. This is unlike the category award that could lead to undesirable results. This wheel isn’t broken and it does not require fixing. Doing nothing could be the very best course of action. Some pre-emptive maintenance might help assuming that maintenance does not create other problems.
P.S. I moved into 4th in ERA. Show me da money!!
[ August 19, 2004, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: viper ]
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Originally posted by Nevadaman:
The problem with your scenario is that by now all the great middle relievers are already on someone's roster. It's not like you can just pick up K-Rod type guys with a simple free agent bid. With rare exceptions, all that's left on the wire are mediocre players. They won't help you win an ERA title, so why would you drop Tom Glavine and his sub-3 ERA or any other frontline pitcher? That makes no sense at all to me! It would make sense to drop a starter with a big era, but that won't really help anybody else. I just don't see a big problem here. Besides, if a good pitcher did become available, everybody would bid big dollars for him and that would reward teams that saved their free agent money. That makes the free agent strategy much more interesting and not a totally bad thing. I find that by the all-star break, almost everybody on the wire is dog sheet. If the wire had second rate players instead of third rate players, I don't see the harm! There are 3-5 guys on waivers in my league I'd love to get in my roster if I could focus on ERA/WHIP and exclude Wins/K's... Glavine is the kind of player I would probably bench before I dropped - that's true... but others I chose as examples because they have high win totals, but not necessarily great ERA/WHIP. If I wanted to trim my numbers, I would drop them easily.
For kicks, change the example to Ugueth Urbina, Shawn Chacon and Jose Mesa. I don't need saves anymore... I can go out and pick up Giovanni Carrara (the guy the Dodgers almost made closer instead of Gagne a few years back...) - he's got fantastic stats for this season and career and probably now the key setup man with Dreifort 'dreiforting' again this season.
Really - it could foul things up easily... ?
Dave
The problem with your scenario is that by now all the great middle relievers are already on someone's roster. It's not like you can just pick up K-Rod type guys with a simple free agent bid. With rare exceptions, all that's left on the wire are mediocre players. They won't help you win an ERA title, so why would you drop Tom Glavine and his sub-3 ERA or any other frontline pitcher? That makes no sense at all to me! It would make sense to drop a starter with a big era, but that won't really help anybody else. I just don't see a big problem here. Besides, if a good pitcher did become available, everybody would bid big dollars for him and that would reward teams that saved their free agent money. That makes the free agent strategy much more interesting and not a totally bad thing. I find that by the all-star break, almost everybody on the wire is dog sheet. If the wire had second rate players instead of third rate players, I don't see the harm! There are 3-5 guys on waivers in my league I'd love to get in my roster if I could focus on ERA/WHIP and exclude Wins/K's... Glavine is the kind of player I would probably bench before I dropped - that's true... but others I chose as examples because they have high win totals, but not necessarily great ERA/WHIP. If I wanted to trim my numbers, I would drop them easily.
For kicks, change the example to Ugueth Urbina, Shawn Chacon and Jose Mesa. I don't need saves anymore... I can go out and pick up Giovanni Carrara (the guy the Dodgers almost made closer instead of Gagne a few years back...) - he's got fantastic stats for this season and career and probably now the key setup man with Dreifort 'dreiforting' again this season.
Really - it could foul things up easily... ?
Dave
Just Some Guy
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Originally posted by Nevadaman:
Dyv, I've reread your post and a few other thoughts come to mind. I think we can agree that when someone goes to the wire and decides who to drop, they always drop their worst player(s) - or player(s) on the DL that can't play. I think it is infinitely more likely that an owner who decides to use relievers and drop starters will release a crappy hitter or a guy on the DL before Russ Ortiz, Randy Wolf, etc. Do you agree? Almost every team (especially the bad teams) have DL and/or nearly worthless players on the bench. I'm just saying that it would make sense to drop those players first. I think everyone would be reluctant to make moves that help their opposition when they don't have to. Am I wrong? Perhaps? In this case, the opposition is anyone else competing in ERA. Are you telling me if it was you that you wouldn't drop Ugueth Urbina for fear of fouling up the 'sanctity' of the event? That's great - most people would do anything to go for the $500 they can reach and to hell with everyone else.
Benches are filled for a variety of reasons - maybe I want to keep my SP in reserve, but focus on ERA/WHIP - so I snag middle relievers and what is truly expendable is my closers... I'm mired in the middle in saves... I don't care if I lose 10 points in the overall standings because I'm in 123rd place... my league race is out of reach because I'm 35 out. Ugueth Urbina would be the FIRST one off my roster!?
I'm not saying a 'skins' contest wouldn't be fun - but instead of making it a year long thing, make it a week-to-week thing...
At the next NFBC, see if Greg will let you collect a Skins Fund.
Cost = $20 per team to enter. We have 20 weeks (or more, or less) where it's pre-determined by a list which categories are up each week.
Week 1: Most HR (tie breaker = highest batting avg.)
Week 2: Most Wins (tie breaker = best ERA)
Week 3: Most Stolen Bases (tie breaker = most hits)
Week 4: etc.
You get 70 teams to kick in $20 each... that's $1400 in prize money. Maybe we find a sponsor to do something else cool (Upper Deck??)
Now we have a fun contest. Nobody would tank saves to win the 'k's category on a given week would they? Who would drop Urbina or a 1 week shot at something?
Just my .02 - I hate being put in a compromising position where I have two different objectives... both legitimate and one contradicts the other.
Dave
Dyv, I've reread your post and a few other thoughts come to mind. I think we can agree that when someone goes to the wire and decides who to drop, they always drop their worst player(s) - or player(s) on the DL that can't play. I think it is infinitely more likely that an owner who decides to use relievers and drop starters will release a crappy hitter or a guy on the DL before Russ Ortiz, Randy Wolf, etc. Do you agree? Almost every team (especially the bad teams) have DL and/or nearly worthless players on the bench. I'm just saying that it would make sense to drop those players first. I think everyone would be reluctant to make moves that help their opposition when they don't have to. Am I wrong? Perhaps? In this case, the opposition is anyone else competing in ERA. Are you telling me if it was you that you wouldn't drop Ugueth Urbina for fear of fouling up the 'sanctity' of the event? That's great - most people would do anything to go for the $500 they can reach and to hell with everyone else.
Benches are filled for a variety of reasons - maybe I want to keep my SP in reserve, but focus on ERA/WHIP - so I snag middle relievers and what is truly expendable is my closers... I'm mired in the middle in saves... I don't care if I lose 10 points in the overall standings because I'm in 123rd place... my league race is out of reach because I'm 35 out. Ugueth Urbina would be the FIRST one off my roster!?
I'm not saying a 'skins' contest wouldn't be fun - but instead of making it a year long thing, make it a week-to-week thing...
At the next NFBC, see if Greg will let you collect a Skins Fund.
Cost = $20 per team to enter. We have 20 weeks (or more, or less) where it's pre-determined by a list which categories are up each week.
Week 1: Most HR (tie breaker = highest batting avg.)
Week 2: Most Wins (tie breaker = best ERA)
Week 3: Most Stolen Bases (tie breaker = most hits)
Week 4: etc.
You get 70 teams to kick in $20 each... that's $1400 in prize money. Maybe we find a sponsor to do something else cool (Upper Deck??)
Now we have a fun contest. Nobody would tank saves to win the 'k's category on a given week would they? Who would drop Urbina or a 1 week shot at something?
Just my .02 - I hate being put in a compromising position where I have two different objectives... both legitimate and one contradicts the other.
Dave
Just Some Guy
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 4317
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Originally posted by viper:
This thread started trying to find ways to limit the number of dead team. I still feel that a larger free agent pool, slightly smaller rosters and/or awards for post all star game performances are the only ones mentioned that would accomplish this goal. Some people will quit regardless. Sorry I don't write long-winded posts that spell out all of the reasons why this won't solve the problem of dead teams. Teams are dead for a reason. Having smaller rosters and awards won't do a thing to solve it. Sorry.
Actually, I once thought the problem could be solved or even mitigated, but I came to realize that it never will. Even Greg's weekly prizes don't solve the problem. Sorry if I've come across as harsh, but it won't work. In my opinion, you could be doing more productive things with your time.
This thread started trying to find ways to limit the number of dead team. I still feel that a larger free agent pool, slightly smaller rosters and/or awards for post all star game performances are the only ones mentioned that would accomplish this goal. Some people will quit regardless. Sorry I don't write long-winded posts that spell out all of the reasons why this won't solve the problem of dead teams. Teams are dead for a reason. Having smaller rosters and awards won't do a thing to solve it. Sorry.
Actually, I once thought the problem could be solved or even mitigated, but I came to realize that it never will. Even Greg's weekly prizes don't solve the problem. Sorry if I've come across as harsh, but it won't work. In my opinion, you could be doing more productive things with your time.
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
In my opinion, you could be doing more productive things with your time. I need that quote on my wall...
Dyv
In my opinion, you could be doing more productive things with your time. I need that quote on my wall...
Dyv
Just Some Guy
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
For the first time in the history of the civilized world, I agree with Gekko on something. You are not going to rid the leagues of dead teams no matter what you do. Just a hunch, but I have a feeling that a lot of these ideas would go away if their teams were doing better. Don't get me wrong, things can always be improved but just changing things just because after only 1 year doesn't make much sense to me.
Groundbreaking Idea for 2005 and Beyond!!
Sooner, I object to your insinuation that I'm trying to change the league because I'm not doing well and it would benefit me personally. First off, I have one of the most balanced teams in the entire challenge. I wouldn't be eligible for any of the prizes I'm talking about. I was top 25 for most of the year, then injuries caught up and killed me like they did to so many others. I still like Viper's roster idea because it takes some of the bad luck out of the game and adds more skill to the contest.