Twice a Week Moves

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:21 am

We have talked ad nauseum about rule changes that may help the NFBC grow and go forward in the future. All rule changes are like playing with house money, the NFBC is great as is, and alot of folks have ideas on how to enhance the experience.

The dl rule has also been talked about ad nauseum. Some folks like it, some want it gone, some want to alter it. I'd like to replace it with twice a week moves, NOT INVOLVING PITCHERS.

Twice a week moves has been talked about on the Boards lately and has no loopholes that anyone is aware of or been brought to my attention anyway.

It would work like this- Instead of replacing dl'ed players on Friday, we would have the option to substitute any position players on Friday. The moves would not require alot of time since we would only be dealing with three or four bench players. It would give us the freedom to replace somebody that is hurt and not on the d.l., a player who is expecting a baby, a suspended player, a player sent down to the minors; you get the idea.

This, in no way, is a move towards daily changes, I do not want daily moves and I know Greg has stated that daily moves will never be a part of the Main. Actually, it is a lateral move since we have a Friday deadline already in place to change the d.l.'ed players.

I think this would qualify as a major change and not one that is taken lightly. Honestly, I think it is too major to be implemented for next year, but I do think it will be a part of the NFBC's future.

There is simply no way to determine the interest simply by stating our opinions on the Boards. So to gauge interest NFBC-wide, I am asking Greg to make the twice a week moves available for satelites. And include them in e-mails sent out to all NFBC participants. First, for half season leagues and if interest can't be judged from those, again next year for full year satelites.

The half season satelites will be perfect to see if there are any unforseen bugs both from playing the game and on STATS part.

Thanks for listening.

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:27 am

What about PITCHERS that are:

1) DL’d during the week

or

2) expecting a baby, suspended, sent down to the minors, etc

[ May 04, 2009, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko II ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:33 am

Pitchers would have no dl rule. The pitchers in the lineup on Monday are your pitchers for the week. No loophole.

It has to be this way to avoid streaming of pitchers, which alot of folks would be against.

[ May 04, 2009, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:35 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Pitchers would have no dl rule. The pitchers in the lineup on Monday are your pitchers for the week. No loophole. aren't you just robbing peter to pay paul? excluding all pitchers and including all hitters?

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:51 am

No, most instances involve position players, since they play everyday. Occasionally, there will be a pitcher that takes a hit, but not near as often as with position players.

Alot of two start pitchers lose a start due to weather, something nobody can do anything about.Same effect here.

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:54 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

No, most instances involve position players, since they play everyday. Occasionally, there will be a pitcher that takes a hit, but not near as often as with position players.

Alot of two start pitchers lose a start due to weather, something nobody can do anything about.Same effect here. the first time a pitcher gets DL'd during the week without him making a start, the firestorm on Greg will commence.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:00 am

No system will be foolproof. I feel this option is the best.

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:08 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

No, most instances involve position players, since they play everyday. Occasionally, there will be a pitcher that takes a hit, but not near as often as with position players.

Alot of two start pitchers lose a start due to weather, something nobody can do anything about.Same effect here. the first time a pitcher gets DL'd during the week without him making a start, the firestorm on Greg will commence.

[/QUOTE]

viper · Post by **viper** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:14 am

I like the current system but sometimes the simplest system is the best. Making moves just once a week truly eliminates all the ways people can manipulate the rules. The reason for the Friday roster exceptions was to protect teams from having to spend the entire week with a dead roster spots. Is this better or worse than people manipulating the rules in ways that are not immediately considered?

There could be satellite leagues with different roster movement rules. There could even be some daily move satellite leagues. But for the majority of leagues, more frequent roster movements is not desirable. I'm probably online as often as anyone - as witnessed by by noon post - but I have grown to prefer weekly move leagues. I also think I am in the majority on the matter. Whatever is decided will not keep me from participating. I have nothing against using the rules to your advantage but prefer rules where this cannot happen. Hopefully any rule modifications will not have to be filled with exceptions and loopholes.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:19 am

There may be a firestorm from you, Mark. But some folks do not want the d.l. rule, period.

Like I've said there is no "golden" rule. You want d.l.'ed pitchers to be included, we know.

This idea is for satelites to see how it would work for twice weekly moves for position players.

We will see if dl'ed pitchers will be a problem after the league is set up.

[ May 04, 2009, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:21 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

The moves would not require a lot of time since we would only be dealing with three or four bench players. If I have to reconsider all my bench players every week, I'd cut back on the number of teams I manage. Also agree with GG on not being able to replace pitchers, don't see the logic in discriminating against a hurt pitcher. Pitchers are people too!

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:26 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

The moves would not require a lot of time since we would only be dealing with three or four bench players. If I have to reconsider all my bench players every week, I'd cut back on the number of teams I manage. Also agree with GG on not being able to replace pitchers, don't see the logic in discriminating against a hurt pitcher. Pitchers are people too!

[/QUOTE]You are not reconsidering all bench players, just the offensive players. I have every confidence that a mind like yours can handle that task

Pitchers are not included because they create the loopholes. Once a week management for all pitchers would be fair for everyone AND it wouldn't tax your mind on Friday with more roster moves.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:39 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

The moves would not require a lot of time since we would only be dealing with three or four bench players. If I have to reconsider all my bench players every week, I'd cut back on the number of teams I manage. Also agree with GG on not being able to replace pitchers, don't see the logic in discriminating against a hurt pitcher. Pitchers are people too!

[/QUOTE]You are not reconsidering all bench players, just the offensive players. I have every confidence that a mind like yours can handle that task

Pitchers are not included because they create the loopholes. Once a week management for all pitchers would be fair for everyone AND it wouldn't tax your mind on Friday with more roster moves.

[/QUOTE]Most of my bench players are hitters, and having to reconsider 4, 5, 6 hitters and their matchups each weekend would be time-consuming enough that I'd cut back on leagues.

As for pitchers, I have trouble finding enough quality arms to cover 9 slots each week, much less be worried about streaming them (I see many streamers shooting themselves in their streamin' foot

).

And for the record, I continue to believe benching a pitcher is not a loophole, but a strategy.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:43 am

I share your opinion about pitchers. But the reality is that most others do not share our views.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:04 am

I think there are two viable options that are better than the current rules. These two should be put to a vote by ALL those who play, not just the few on the message boards.

1)Weekly moves only - lineups set as they are now up to game time on Mondays.

2)Twice Weekly moves

a) Monday - Thursday with current Monday deadline

b) Friday - Sunday with deadline of game times on Friday. Moves would be allowed for ALL hitter and/or pitchers from current reserves.

Either choice is good for all players.

Sure there is more complexity with twice weekly moves but is that what the majority of entrants want or do they want the simple weekly only moves?

The third alternative would be current weekly lineups with DL moves only for an active NON DL player in Monday's lineup that could be replaced on Friday - a version of what we have now, but frankly both more limiting than #2 and not as much freedom in managing as #1

....just this player's opinion

RedRyder · Post by **RedRyder** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:22 am

Originally posted by Captain Hook:

I think there are two viable options that are better than the current rules. These two should be put to a vote by ALL those who play, not just the few on the message boards.

Greg, any chance of sending out some type of survey to gage what folks think? A survey would help reach those that don't go on the MB.

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:32 am

Originally posted by RedRyder:

quote:Originally posted by Captain Hook:

I think there are two viable options that are better than the current rules. These two should be put to a vote by ALL those who play, not just the few on the message boards.

Greg, any chance of sending out some type of survey to gage what folks think? A survey would help reach those that don't go on the MB. [/QUOTE]this would be interesting, i'd venture to say the majority would vote to keep everything status quo in the live events and do some experimenting with the SAT leagues.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:40 am

Which is all I asked for.

I didn't ask for changes in the Main. That'll come later, probably much later. I'm asking to test this with a half year satelite to check out responses.

I'd be willing to bet we're at least two years away from any major reform. After reading the Boards today, probably longer.

[ May 04, 2009, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:02 am

If you could change all hitters and newly DL'ed pitchers that'd be pretty good. Unclear on if you want to ditch the DL rule altogether in favor of this.

Seems like there is still an addition that could make this more ideal. Maybe if you can change any pitchers who did not pitch that week. I guess people will complain that people will use it to skip tough starts but if others want to micromanage their teams into the ground that's okay with me. Or, to look at it another way, everyone would have the same advantage.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:06 am

Originally posted by Kentucky Reign:

quote:Originally posted by RedRyder:

quote:Originally posted by Captain Hook:

I think there are two viable options that are better than the current rules. These two should be put to a vote by ALL those who play, not just the few on the message boards.

Greg, any chance of sending out some type of survey to gage what folks think? A survey would help reach those that don't go on the MB. [/QUOTE]this would be interesting, i'd venture to say the majority would vote to keep everything status quo in the live events and do some experimenting with the SAT leagues. [/QUOTE]The majority always wants the status quo. Nature of the beast. Greg needs to decide what is best. A majority would not have voted in 3RR in football, yet it probably has a 90% approval rating. We need a leader that will assess the options and makes a decision, not a vote.

RedRyder · Post by **RedRyder** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:41 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Kentucky Reign:

quote:Originally posted by RedRyder:

quote:Originally posted by Captain Hook:

I think there are two viable options that are better than the current rules. These two should be put to a vote by ALL those who play, not just the few on the message boards.

Greg, any chance of sending out some type of survey to gage what folks think? A survey would help reach those that don't go on the MB. [/QUOTE]this would be interesting, i'd venture to say the majority would vote to keep everything status quo in the live events and do some experimenting with the SAT leagues. [/QUOTE]The majority always wants the status quo. Nature of the beast. Greg needs to decide what is best. A majority would not have voted in 3RR in football, yet it probably has a 90% approval rating. We need a leader that will assess the options and makes a decision, not a vote. [/QUOTE]A survey is not intended as a vote. It's a means to gather information. And that information might have to be taken with a grain of salt depending on how many participants actually answered the survey. But at least it would be a way to reach out to "ALL".

KJ, I might be on the 10% side regarding 3RR

[ May 04, 2009, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: RedRyder ]

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Mon May 04, 2009 8:05 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

There is simply no way to determine the interest simply by stating our opinions on the Boards. So to gauge interest NFBC-wide, I am asking Greg to make the twice a week moves available for satelites. And include them in e-mails sent out to all NFBC participants. First, for half season leagues and if interest can't be judged from those, again next year for full year satelites.

. Virtually every single event offered by NFBC is a sell-out. If a twice-a-week league sells out, no surprise. Only a non sellout would provide info and I would be very surprised if that happened. Even people that don't like the rule would play. It would probably take a few years of offering these leagues to determine if many players are playing or just the same 15-20 each year.

751542 · Post by **751542** » Mon May 04, 2009 9:15 am

i know 2x a week moves would spark a fire. i would prefer 2x a week moves personally but maybe the middle of the road is to allow to swap out a player "as soon as" he hits the d.l....the new "jules rule" imo this is a great fit for the nfbc.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon May 04, 2009 9:39 am

Originally posted by rucrew2:

Even people that don't like the rule would play. [/QB][/quote]

It is these people I would like to see play it. I am convinced that they will go in, at the least, dubious of the rule, but come out liking it.

[ May 04, 2009, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:34 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Which is all I asked for.

I didn't ask for changes in the Main. That'll come later, probably much later. I'm asking to test this with a half year satelite to check out responses. I see a major flaw in this logic, as I feel those folks most in favor of this new setup would be the ones who sign up to test it...and the responses would therefore be a foregone conclusion IMO.