Should The NFBC Address 700 IP Minimum?

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:17 pm

jim, I don't see any points about how the lack of spending distorts the contest - hence the reason that so many following this strategy are 'in the money' - what is your response?

jim.s · Post by **jim.s** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:32 pm

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

jim, I don't see any points about how the lack of spending distorts the contest - hence the reason that so many following this strategy are 'in the money' - what is your response? In NFBC leagues I am playing in there are 3 teams other than mine playing all-reliever. As of today, none of the three are in the money (although they are all above average). The strategy is far from a sure thing. Also it is rare to get more than about 110 points, although that can win sometimes.

Of course I think it's a good strategy (for the reasons that you give), or I wouldn't play it. I assume those who play all starters like that strategy also.

Anyone is free to play either of these strategies if they think it will help them win.

Head 2 Head · Post by **Head 2 Head** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Jim - I agree with you that many try it and few can do it well. You and Mike Konemann are two of the all-reliever names that I recognize. Mike is winning a Sat that I am in with him. He has about 25 point lead over second place. I think it is a good way for any average player to finish in the top half. I know that pitching is always my weakness as they are hardest for me to project, so eliminating that risk should make the average team above average. I still fell that throwing two Cats makes finishing first difficult.

[ September 20, 2010, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Head 2 Head ]

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:28 pm

If Jim S. was running a marathon for money, and there was a hidden wooded area in the middle of the race, and someone drove by and offered to give him a ride for a few miles, knowing that the rules did not stipulate against it, instead of pondering whether it ruined the spirit of the 26-mile run, he'd be barking at the driver to turn off the radio so he could take a nap for a couple minutes before being dropped off 5 miles down the road.

At the finish line, running in solidly in second place, he'd comment to passers by, "This is the third marathon I've cashed in in the past three years. Other people take rides in that hidden area, and still don't cash. I am simply better than them at it. Please don't cut down those trees!!!"

Don M · Post by **Don M** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:03 am

Do you think MLB should ban intentional walks? How about bunts?

Anyone should be able to use any strategy they want.

There should be no minimums and no maximums.

If you think someone else's strategy is so good then use it. The object is to win.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:12 am

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

jim, I don't see any points about how the lack of spending distorts the contest - hence the reason that so many following this strategy are 'in the money' - what is your response? Chris, I don't think everyone who tries this strategy is in the money or has always been in the money. If dumping two categories was such a winner, why wouldn't everyone try it? And in your cases cited for this year, those who are trying this in the Diamond and Ultimate Leagues have had some success, but those innings pitched are not catching up to a couple of those teams and taking them out of the money. It's a long season and these strategies carry a lot of risk, as we're finding out down the stretch.

I've always allowed creative managing in the NFBC and I'm asking for input from those who want to allow this or close the gap somewhat. But to make an assumption that everyone who tries this makes money is foolish and not accurate at all. It's a very risky strategy to dump two categories even in the private leagues when everyone knows it's coming and not everyone has been successful at it.

But either way, I'm open to discussing the merits of increasing, decreasing or leaving the 700 IP minimum where it is. Let's just discuss the merits with accurate facts.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:17 am

Originally posted by Head 2 Head:

Jim - I agree with you that many try it and few can do it well. You and Mike Konemann are two of the all-reliever names that I recognize. Mike is winning a Sat that I am in with him. He has about 25 point lead over second place. I think it is a good way for any average player to finish in the top half. I know that pitching is always my weakness as they are hardest for me to project, so eliminating that risk should make the average team above average. I still fell that throwing two Cats makes finishing first difficult. And this is a good point. You can finish in the top half, but can you win a league title? It's not easy. Jim is succeeding in one big money league and isn't winning every league he's in. As he stated, others who have used the same strategy in the same leagues as him are fighting for money finishes but just out of the money right now.

That being said, is 700 too high, low or just right? It's just a number that we've progressed to through the years, so I'm open for discussion to adjust it. But I don't think we need a 1,400 IP minimum or completely replicate an MLB team or roster or IP or ABs. That's not exactly what Rotisserie Baseball is about. It's about adjusting as the season goes on and finding any way possible to get the most total points by season's end and in some cases we all adjust and concentrate on certain categories rather than others to make up a few points. MLB teams don't do that, nor do they have to. But they do trade prospects for veterans or whatever it takes to get a few more Wins, no different than what you're doing down the stretch for every last point.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:23 am

Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

If Jim S. was running a marathon for money, and there was a hidden wooded area in the middle of the race, and someone drove by and offered to give him a ride for a few miles, knowing that the rules did not stipulate against it, instead of pondering whether it ruined the spirit of the 26-mile run, he'd be barking at the driver to turn off the radio so he could take a nap for a couple minutes before being dropped off 5 miles down the road.

At the finish line, running in solidly in second place, he'd comment to passers by, "This is the third marathon I've cashed in in the past three years. Other people take rides in that hidden area, and still don't cash. I am simply better than them at it. Please don't cut down those trees!!!" I don't think this is fair to Jim or anyone else who uses a different strategy than the masses. The game is set up with rules in place and everyone is adhering to them. Those who don't reach 700 IP will be punished per the rules. Again, if folks think this is such an easy strategy, beat these guys at their own game. In the Ultimate Auction and the Diamond League, TWO teams tried this strategy, thus somewhat trumping the idea that you can win every hitting category. It made it even tougher in those leagues to win with this strategy, yet all owners stayed with it and paid to try it out.

As many have noted, in the main event it's virtually impossible to win the overall with this strategy. So are folks implying that we should outlaw this in satellite leagues and high-dollar private leagues? Online Championship too? I'm not at that point yet, but convince me if you'd like. I'm more into looking at the number and seeing if folks feel we need to adjust it, forcing all teams to use more SPs than they currently do. But if you give me facts that this is bad for all of our games, we can all consider it.

In the meantime, I don't think it's fair to criticize those who have excelled or won with a different strategy than the masses, especially when it's certainly within the rules to win that way.

bustouts · Post by **bustouts** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:31 am

I think the 700 innings minimum is fine. It allows for different strategies for winning. You still need 9 active pitchers to reach the limit and u must excel at the 3 remaining pitching categories and the 5 hitting categories to have a chance. I never would consider it because I think it takes the "perfect storm" to win with it.

ps Jim has made me a believer that it could work as he currently leads the Diamond.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:30 am

The minimum has been inching up since the beginning. I'd move to 900 and be done.

4.5 SPs @ 150 = 675

4.5 RPs @ 50 = 225

Getting to 900 as shown above is an easy target with half starters even with injuries and pitchers who don't get deep into games.

Allowing teams to have one-half of the lineup relievers keeps strategic options open while also requiring some skill in evaluating and rostering SPs.

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:09 am

Greg, I was only using an example to criticize the rule that leads to this behavior. Sorry Jim for the personal attack. The rules are allowing you to do this strategy, and that is the focus of the question.

After reading comments on this thread, I am fully in the camp of clearly stating the league innings minimum at the top of every satellite being offered, perhaps as part of it's name, and you'll very quickly see where people gravitate.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:51 am

It's about adjusting as the season goes on and finding any way possible to get the most total points by season's end and in some cases we all adjust and concentrate on certain categories rather than others to make up a few points. Greg, I agree with you when it comes to an individual league, but when you are talking about the most points in the overall, don't people who hoard saves make it more difficult for people in that specific league to compete in that category and therefore win the overall?

[ September 21, 2010, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:59 am

Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

Greg, I was only using an example to criticize the rule that leads to this behavior. Sorry Jim for the personal attack. The rules are allowing you to do this strategy, and that is the focus of the question.

After reading comments on this thread, I am fully in the camp of clearly stating the league innings minimum at the top of every satellite being offered, perhaps as part of it's name, and you'll very quickly see where people gravitate. You know, I'm not sure it's a fair test. If there were a bunch of options I'd figure a bunch of these guys would play in the low limit leagues, thereby making it easier to win with a traditional strategy and I might join, even though I would prefer the high limits normally.

Also, I think all leagues should have the same limit in an overall competition so even if options are offered for the satellites, a firm decision still needs to be made for the main event.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:39 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:It's about adjusting as the season goes on and finding any way possible to get the most total points by season's end and in some cases we all adjust and concentrate on certain categories rather than others to make up a few points. Greg, I agree with you when it comes to an individual league, but when you are talking about the most points in the overall, don't people who hoard saves make it more difficult for people in that specific league to compete in that category and therefore win the overall? [/QUOTE]Brian, I don't know of many teams that do this in the overall competition and honestly I don't think that's really the focus of this competition. This strategy is being used in the auction leagues and high-dollar leagues and I guess the satellite leagues, but not so much in the overall.

If someone loads up early in the draft in one area, it makes folks scramble in the draft but certainly not impossible to win the overall. If power is flying off the board, you do what you can to get speed or pitching. Same if SPs go early. I think there are many ways to win the overall and one team loading up on saves isn't going to kill anyone's chances of winning the overall, not with 50% of closers losing their jobs each season. Then you just need to be the best in FAAB.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:40 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

The minimum has been inching up since the beginning. I'd move to 900 and be done.

4.5 SPs @ 150 = 675

4.5 RPs @ 50 = 225

Getting to 900 as shown above is an easy target with half starters even with injuries and pitchers who don't get deep into games.

Allowing teams to have one-half of the lineup relievers keeps strategic options open while also requiring some skill in evaluating and rostering SPs. There, now you've given me an intelligent discussion on why it could be moved up to a number like 900. That's what I'm looking for. I'm not saying we have to go from 700 to 900, but this at least brings a solid discussion to the table.

jim.s · Post by **jim.s** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:34 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

The minimum has been inching up since the beginning. I'd move to 900 and be done.

4.5 SPs @ 150 = 675

4.5 RPs @ 50 = 225

Getting to 900 as shown above is an easy target with half starters even with injuries and pitchers who don't get deep into games.

Allowing teams to have one-half of the lineup relievers keeps strategic options open while also requiring some skill in evaluating and rostering SPs. There, now you've given me an intelligent discussion on why it could be moved up to a number like 900. That's what I'm looking for. I'm not saying we have to go from 700 to 900, but this at least brings a solid discussion to the table. [/QUOTE]700 already requires about 1/3 of your IP to come from SP. Without "some skill in evaluating and rostering SPs" one could not be cometitive in a high skill league even at 700 IP min.

Moving above 700 will pretty much eliminate this strategy. If that's what you want to accomplish, why not also restrict the "punt saves" (or other catagories) strategy?

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:05 pm

I'm winning a league with a 700 innings pitched minimum now.

Finding starting pitching to 'fill out' the innings is not difficult.

I would think that a 900 innings minimum would incorporate the drafting of a top starter or two, other than that the tactic should be valid.

A little more difficult in giving up quality hitting, but still doable.

I have found a lot of advantages using the minimum innings pitched. I didn't look at it as tanking two categories, rather, virtually guaranteeing myself 47 points on the pitching side, well above average, while having the beef on offense to do well in those categories.

Little competition for my set-up guys or hot relievers saves faab money.

More depth offensively.

Little studying required of starters.

A swell tactic to win. Damned swell.

That said, I guess I've been doing fantasy the 'normal way' too long. I feel as though I'm back dooring or loopholing my way to a Championship.

Rainiers · Post by **Rainiers** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:36 pm

I align myself with those that want a more realistic NFBC competition, and would require NFBC teams to have starters.

I would suggest that every team get 162 game starts (gs) for pitchers. Or a high innings pitched minimum, at least a 1000 IP...my classic league everyone is over 1200 IP already...the 162 gs is easy to reach for a NFBC player as it only requires 6 starts per week.

If you don't want to do it for every auction and satellite league, do it for some and not others. I'd like to play in an auction league next year that didn't allow it.

I don't want to try and compete by playing a strategy that looks and feels like a loophole, even if it is completely within the rules. Nor do I want to play against someone who is playing a numbers strategy that might succeed in NFBC but would fail miserably in MLB. Either way it would simply feel like I was simply playing a numbers game. I could play Suduko if I wanted to do that.

jim.s · Post by **jim.s** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

I'm winning a league with a 700 innings pitched minimum now.

Finding starting pitching to 'fill out' the innings is not difficult.

I would think that a 900 innings minimum would incorporate the drafting of a top starter or two, other than that the tactic should be valid.

A little more difficult in giving up quality hitting, but still doable.

I have found a lot of advantages using the minimum innings pitched. I didn't look at it as tanking two categories, rather, virtually guaranteeing myself 47 points on the pitching side, well above average, while having the beef on offense to do well in those categories.

Little competition for my set-up guys or hot relievers saves faab money.

More depth offensively.

Little studying required of starters.

A swell tactic to win. Damned swell.

That said, I guess I've been doing fantasy the 'normal way' too long. I feel as though I'm back dooring or loopholing my way to a Championship. "Virtually guaranteeing 47 points on pitching" sure isn't my experience. Right now I have 39, 42, 38 and 46 points in the four highest stakes leagues. And the league with 46 is because another player is using the same strategy and I have 4 pts between W and SO.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:25 am

The league I played in was not NFBC quality so 'virtually guaranteeing' is a little strong.

It remains a very viable tactic.

Looking at it as tanking two categories is skewed, since better than average numbers can be expected out of the other three categories. How's that

Some folks say that it is the same as tanking saves or some other category. It isn't. The tanking of saves usually comes as a decision after draft day because of circumstances during the season, be it injuries or team decisions.

The minimum innings pitched team is a calculated and pre-determined plan before draft day.

I have a healthy respect for the tactic itself, but as said before, just not as much pride in victory.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:59 am

Originally posted by Sebadiah23:

If Jim S. was running a marathon for money, and there was a hidden wooded area in the middle of the race, and someone drove by and offered to give him a ride for a few miles, knowing that the rules did not stipulate against it, instead of pondering whether it ruined the spirit of the 26-mile run, he'd be barking at the driver to turn off the radio so he could take a nap for a couple minutes before being dropped off 5 miles down the road.

At the finish line, running in solidly in second place, he'd comment to passers by, "This is the third marathon I've cashed in in the past three years. Other people take rides in that hidden area, and still don't cash. I am simply better than them at it. Please don't cut down those trees!!!" A more completely out of line post I have not seen in awhile.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:20 am

i think all of the posts regarding the "all reliever strategy" that want to up innings to include starters are sort of contradicting themselves. jim s. is- for the most part- an "expert" at this. he seems to know how to go about it. all others may have tried it once or twice and had success- but they certainly are not as knowledgable as jim must be on how to assemble the offense. the points about free agent $ etc. are just basically saying that this startegy gives an edge they don't want to see someone have. bottom line- like jim said- either allow the "all reliever stategy" or do away with it. raising the innings to 900 does that- but kinda acts like it doesn't. raise it to 1200 and do away with it- or leave it at 700. i vote leave it at 700 and i will try and beat it.

LONG GONE · Post by **LONG GONE** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:19 am

Offer league's with 700 innings and league's with 900 inning. Let the owners play in the league of choice.

Many owners may feel like they have been fleeced of their money when a reliever strategy wins, places or shows. That is bad for growing fantasy baseball.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:57 am

Originally posted by LONG GONE:

Many owners may feel like they have been fleeced of their money when a reliever strategy wins, places or shows. That is bad for growing fantasy baseball. Kelly, is this REALLY how owners feel? Let's ask the Diamond League owners if they feel fleeced or if they feel like they are chasing a top owner for the $75,000 prize. C'mon, now.

I don't have any problem having this debate, but to summarize everyone's feelings on this topic isn't correct. And I don't want to have different contests with different rules. The NFBC rules should apply to all formats and owners should be ready for all strategies.

The Mighty Men · Post by **The Mighty Men** » Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:27 am

Originally posted by headhunters:

i think all of the posts regarding the "all reliever strategy" that want to up innings to include starters are sort of contradicting themselves. jim s. is- for the most part- an "expert" at this. he seems to know how to go about it. all others may have tried it once or twice and had success- but they certainly are not as knowledgable as jim must be on how to assemble the offense. the points about free agent $ etc. are just basically saying that this startegy gives an edge they don't want to see someone have. bottom line- like jim said- either allow the "all reliever stategy" or do away with it. raising the innings to 900 does that- but kinda acts like it doesn't. raise it to 1200 and do away with it- or leave it at 700. i vote leave it at 700 and i will try and beat it. Well said.