Twice a Week Moves

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue May 05, 2009 11:28 am

DOUGHY was strictly hitters exchanged on the weekend (if I remember correct)...not all players as it's written in #4.

I'm in agreement with Uncle Dan on the idea of not being forced to stream.

Probability and practicality aside...if you were hell bent on employing the stream...you could get 26 extra starts.

NOT TO MENTION streaming in a your closers, or your 3rd closer all year long!!!

Unlimited moves twice per week would alter the makeup of the game.

One move is the least popular.

[ May 05, 2009, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue May 05, 2009 11:54 am

My option isn't there, but it is a great option for those leaning one way or the other. If the position players can be switched on Friday while pitchers still adhere to the dl rule option were there I would vote for that one as well over the four that are there.

Both those options are swell.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 11:56 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Unlimited moves twice per week would alter the makeup of the game.

One move is the least popular. Agreed on the unlimited 2x Lance.

One move is least popular in the vote because its a compromise. I believe most players are on one side of this issue or the other - either they have the time and inclination to manage a lot, or they don't ...

... but the one-move compromise might actually be the best solution for all, because it offers a little bit to both sides without pissing off either side.

I proposed what I did because I thought it could be the best solution for all constituents, including Greg (and Q's modification is just as good in this light, too).

Go ahead and roll your eyes, but it's the truth.

[ May 05, 2009, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:00 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

My option isn't there, but it is a great option for those leaning one way or the other. If the position players can be switched on Friday while pitchers still adhere to the dl rule option were there I would vote for that one as well over the four that are there.

Both those options are swell. Dough, yours is probably a good option for a majority of players, but do you think its good for Greg knowing that a minority faction is strongly against it because of time contraints?

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:05 pm

I know you were taking to Lance, but I won't roll my eyes. It's a good solution. However, I feel the best solution and compromise now is the position players change on Friday and keeping the dl for pitchers.

Its a little between my plan and yours and, imo, better than what we have now. I think if any of these plans has a chance of succeeding that we'd have to get behind one of them and put it to a vote, mano a mano.

After seeing all the feedback and votes, this plan has the best chance of succeeding.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:20 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

I know you were taking to Lance, but I won't roll my eyes. It's a good solution. However, I feel the best solution and compromise now is the position players change on Friday and keeping the dl for pitchers.

Its a little between my plan and yours and, imo, better than what we have now. I think if any of these plans has a chance of succeeding that we'd have to get behind one of them and put it to a vote, mano a mano.

After seeing all the feedback and votes, this plan has the best chance of succeeding. If Greg stands to lose 10% of his league count in satellites, do you still think its the best solution?

I know there is an underlying assumption to answering that question, but I'd still like to hear your answer.

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:31 pm

Okay, but now over here, let's talk freely. I rank the ideas like this:

1. Lance's

2. Dan's

3. KJ's

Lance's idea is a step back but it does away with all of these arguments and it plays to the traditionalists that are the core of the NFBC format. Dan, your idea is very good. I just don't like excluding pitchers or giving them a specialty tag that creates a different set of circumstances. It gets too complicated. KJ, you are on to something, but only one move doesn't create a level playing field for people.

My idea is so far away from anyone else's that I am not going to argue it. It just gets bashed without any examples of how streaming would happen. My nephew hates chocolate ice cream, and he has never tried it. He just tells me that he doesn't like it and that is the only reason that he needs.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:34 pm

Not always, I know...but often times, the FRI, SAT, SUN schedule is pretty full of games...so I'd guess "streaming hitters" would be a fairly futile strategy.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:34 pm

Things got too cute with these drafts. The DL rule was and is a failure. It open the door for all these arguements. If it works don't fix it!

Dump the DL rule Greg! No worries about mid season rule changes. No extra work scanning the DL rosters every week. Everyone knows the rules from the start. Fair as it gets! Talk about trying this or that next season doesn't fix what has already happened to the rules.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:34 pm

From the discussion and survey, the best option isn't the least bit clear, but I think we can rule out a couple of options:

First, going back to the old days with no rule whatsoever to help with injured players. I think we can take this one off the board, as 80% want some kind of injury replacement rule.

Secondly, it seems the majority don't want unlimited streaming of pitchers either daily or twice a week.

It may take awhile, but by process of elimination I think the best options will emerge.

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:34 pm

I'm not reading this whole thread but I'll add my two cents. I think less moves is better that more moves. I like things the way they are now. I'd prefer to have no Friday moves regardless of circumstance. More moves would decrease the amount of overall participation IMHO.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:36 pm

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

Things got too cute with these drafts. The DL rule was and is a failure. It open the door for all these arguements. If it works don't fix it!

Dump the DL rule Greg! No worries about mid season rule changes. No extra work scanning the DL rosters every week. Everyone knows the rules from the start. Fair as it gets! Talk about trying this or that next season doesn't fix what has already happened to the rules.

80% of people disagree with you Walla Walla. I'm sure you've heard that one before, ehhh?

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:37 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

I know you were taking to Lance, but I won't roll my eyes. It's a good solution. However, I feel the best solution and compromise now is the position players change on Friday and keeping the dl for pitchers.

Its a little between my plan and yours and, imo, better than what we have now. I think if any of these plans has a chance of succeeding that we'd have to get behind one of them and put it to a vote, mano a mano.

After seeing all the feedback and votes, this plan has the best chance of succeeding. If Greg stands to lose 10% of his league count in satellites, do you still think its the best solution?

I know there is an underlying assumption to answering that question, but I'd still like to hear your answer. [/QUOTE]Your unwillingness to compromise baffles me. I can't answer your question. You've pulled figures out of mid-air and assume that is the way it'll be. Maybe we will lose a few teams due to people having so many teams and not wanting to change three players instead of one, which doesen't seem like a big deal to me. There could be more people that would rather play with this system making up for YOUR loss. We don't know.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:38 pm

KJ, Show me the numbers. Not posts but the numbers.

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:41 pm

Under the current state of things though, no moves other than the Monday lineup transaction is the only idea that doesn't create loopholes and arguments.

Seriously guys, any rule that has restrictions that disallows some of the players to use it is a bad rule. You either have to open Pandora's box completely or keep it shut.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:42 pm

Killer...4 posts time stamped at 4:34pm (PST)!

This is the most productive Cinco De Mayo I've ever had!

TIME TO DRINK!!!

Ariba, Yee Haw!

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:45 pm

I don't think that Greg is going to lose any numbers under any of these potential rules. The numbers are purely a factor of how he markets the NFBC.

Remember there are a lot of fantasy baseball players. Lance, check out your May issue of Fantasy Sports from FW Media on page 8. That smoke blower's @$$ is either Greg or Tom, courtesy of Ipsos Public Affairs.

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:47 pm

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Killer...4 posts time stamped at 4:34pm (PST)!

This is the most productive Cinco De Mayo I've ever had!

TIME TO DRINK!!!

Ariba, Yee Haw!

The bell has rung and I can crack open a Corona... Thanks

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:50 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

I know you were taking to Lance, but I won't roll my eyes. It's a good solution. However, I feel the best solution and compromise now is the position players change on Friday and keeping the dl for pitchers.

Its a little between my plan and yours and, imo, better than what we have now. I think if any of these plans has a chance of succeeding that we'd have to get behind one of them and put it to a vote, mano a mano.

After seeing all the feedback and votes, this plan has the best chance of succeeding. If Greg stands to lose 10% of his league count in satellites, do you still think its the best solution?

I know there is an underlying assumption to answering that question, but I'd still like to hear your answer. [/QUOTE]Your unwillingness to compromise baffles me. I can't answer your question. You've pulled figures out of mid-air and assume that is the way it'll be. Maybe we will lose a few teams due to people having so many teams and not wanting to change three players instead of one, which doesen't seem like a big deal to me. There could be more people that would rather play with this system making up for YOUR loss. We don't know. [/QUOTE]I'm not at all unwiling to compromise. If I accept your premise (I'm inferring here) that your rule proposal would have no effect on league count, I'd say it's a solid idea that I prefer to the current rule.

I don't know if we'd lose 10%, maybe it would 20% and maybe it would be 0%.

All I'm asking is, "IF" we stand to lose a 10% count in satellites would you think your solution is best, I'm not asking you to accept my estimation.

[ May 05, 2009, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:51 pm

Originally posted by Jackstraw:

Under the current state of things though, no moves other than the Monday lineup transaction is the only idea that doesn't create loopholes and arguments.

Seriously guys, any rule that has restrictions that disallows some of the players to use it is a bad rule. You either have to open Pandora's box completely or keep it shut. The only thing changing position players on Friday and leaving the dl in effect for pitchers, is changing position players on Friday. That rule is not too hard to grasp.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:51 pm

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

KJ, Show me the numbers. Not posts but the numbers. Look at the poll Walla.

20% favor no DL rule, 80% favor something else.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:54 pm

KJ, Same thing. Polls and Posts same thing. BS!

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:57 pm

Originally posted by Walla Walla:

KJ, Same thing. Polls and Posts same thing. BS! So what you're saying is ... if I poll a group of players to find out what they think, whatever they say is BS?

Which begs the question, how would you get the truth out of them, waterboarding?

Jackstraw · Post by **Jackstraw** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:58 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Walla Walla:

KJ, Show me the numbers. Not posts but the numbers. Look at the poll Walla.

20% favor no DL rule, 80% favor something else. [/QUOTE]54% prefer staying the same or going backwards.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:59 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

I know you were taking to Lance, but I won't roll my eyes. It's a good solution. However, I feel the best solution and compromise now is the position players change on Friday and keeping the dl for pitchers.

Its a little between my plan and yours and, imo, better than what we have now. I think if any of these plans has a chance of succeeding that we'd have to get behind one of them and put it to a vote, mano a mano.

After seeing all the feedback and votes, this plan has the best chance of succeeding. If Greg stands to lose 10% of his league count in satellites, do you still think its the best solution?

I know there is an underlying assumption to answering that question, but I'd still like to hear your answer. [/QUOTE]Your unwillingness to compromise baffles me. I can't answer your question. You've pulled figures out of mid-air and assume that is the way it'll be. Maybe we will lose a few teams due to people having so many teams and not wanting to change three players instead of one, which doesen't seem like a big deal to me. There could be more people that would rather play with this system making up for YOUR loss. We don't know. [/QUOTE]I'm not at all unwiling to compromise.

I don't know if we'd lose 10%, maybe it would 20% and maybe it would be 0%.

All I'm asking is, "IF" we stand to lose a 10% count in satellites would you think your solution is best, I'm not asking you to accept my estimation. [/QUOTE]It's like asking if Angela Jolie lost 10% of her body, would she still be attractive?

My first question back, would be, which part?

You say there is alot more work involved with three position players over one, I'm not buying it, and alot of other folks aren't buying it as well. A couple of guys who want to shorten their "workload" and have less teams will be more than made up by people who want to play the new version.

Sort of like Angelina lost her foot, but it was replaced and she's no worse for 'wear'.