Possible NFBC Rules Changes For 2011

team z · Post by **team z** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:01 am

I think we all know why the NFBC has a no trade rule. I think the NFBC needs to now adopt a strict list of player who may not be dropped. And not be depended upon the "opinions" of uninvolved so called "commissioners".

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:05 am

If it could happen, i would like to have the ability to replace any player during the week who's placed on the DL after Monday's lineups are set.

Zazie · Post by **Zazie** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:14 pm

The rules for 12-team and 15-team events already specify that there is a 900 innings-pitched minimum. What change are people wanting to see?

I would be in favor of a rule saying that any player can be dropped for any reason, but, if dropped, no player drafted in the first 10 rounds (15-teamer) or 12 rounds (12-teamer) can be picked up by another owner using FAAB money.

I agree with Greg's idea to make the rules the same for Monday moves deadlines and Friday moves deadlines.

I don't like the fancy moves in which people can take advantage of DL'ed pitchers to manipulate their lineups. I'm not sure how best to fix it, though. Maybe by making a rule that if anybody starts a DL'ed pitcher on a given Monday, that pitcher can't be taken out of the lineup during that week.

High Octane Baseball · Post by **High Octane Baseball** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:46 pm

Keep the rules how they are..make the few changes that Greg talked bout.

I do like the twist of adding a FAAB twist to the draft spots..

Baseball Furies · Post by **Baseball Furies** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:33 pm

Most of the rules as they stand are ok. I like the idea of being able to make changes to your line-up once a week, but adding a DL spot or two is not unrealistic especially if it were restricted to let's say a 1st-10th rd. drafted player. When these guys go down it's bad enough, let alone being further paralyzed (and penalized)by not being able to make a roster move without having to potentially clear space by dropping someone from your reserves. Rules like this and others which help balance out the luck element of injuries and the like (another vote here for the Vickery FABB Bidding system with limits as per Tout), are good for the game especially when there is so much invested by us all in terms of time and money on these contests. An innings minimum that prevents starting pitching from being irrelevant is a must as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise it becomes a matter of simply exploiting a loop-hole in the system in order to win rather than utilizing a comprehensive strategy that takes into account all player position factors as the games founders surely meant it to be. I'm sure I'll come up with something else...

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:56 pm

Originally posted by jim.s:

Set KDS position by an auction of FAAB rather than randomly. This could be done at least for the higher value leagues. This is done in a private league I play in and is a great feature. There are sevral ways you could run the auction -- the simplest would be a sealed FAAB bid with highest getting first pick, second highest second etc. Alternatively you could have a live online auction for each KDS slot. Not for the main event, but for the ultimate and super leagues I like this idea, but I think it should be done live online.

Ryan C · Post by **Ryan C** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:52 pm

Don't know why people keep bringing up Vickery.

Actually I do, because nobody wants to spend more than they need to and in this system that is not possible. You will. You will spend WAY more then you have to on players. BUT.....

....you have $1000 FAAB dollars to spend. That's more than enough for the season once you learn how to spend it. I don't agree with changing this at all. To me it separates the men from the boys in these leagues. It is a signature feature of the NFBC style league. It is a frustrating aspect and one that has a steep learning curve. Yes it would be easier on Sunday's, but if Vickery were adopted then the overall budget would likely have to shrink. I personally would rather have the $1000 FAAB dollars to spend.

The NFBC is still about the drafting well. Nail your draft and get lucky with injuries and you won't have to worry as much about FAAB. I think some calling for Vickery are under the false impression that free agents can help fix a rotten draft. With the exception of the yearly Jose Bautista it just isn't so.

If you have a rotten draft, you are going to feel the need to chase the big ticket items on FAAB. You will be subject to the guessing game of pricing. For example, if you drafted Chris Davis last year, odds are you felt you had to get Justin Smoak when he got called up. Then you had to weigh that feeling and place a bid knowing he wouldn't be cheap. In the end whatever you paid for Smoak was the cost of drafting Chris Davis. The fact that Smoak wasn't worth it either just compounded that draft mistake.

Again - I see the present FAAB system as a signature element of THIS format. I still haven't heard a good argument for changing it. The fact that it frustrates many in my opinion means that it is working just fine.

[ January 15, 2011, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Ryan C ]

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:04 pm

Agree Ryan, like the FAAB system and virtually all main event rules as is. They've been tweaked over several years and it's a good setup.

[ January 15, 2011, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Money · Post by **Money** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:22 pm

One rule that has to be changed is the time that lineups are due. Last year we had an inconsistent time for Monday's and Friday's. They need to consistent. I realize that most agree on this, I just thought it should be brought up so it's not forgotten.

Rainiers · Post by **Rainiers** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:41 am

I like the minor changes Greg has suggested he will make.

One other change I would want considered is a change in the draft order after the first two rounds.

Speaking as someone that has had the fifteenth pick in his last couple drafts, the current system seems unfair. As Shawn Childs and others have pointed out, the drafter in the first position has an advantage that is never relinquished throughout the draft.

One way to level the playing field would be to stop the snake after two rounds, and simply go to a straight draft for rounds 3-30, with the person getting the fifteenth pick in the first round getting the first pick in rounds 2-30, and the person with the first overall pick getting the last pick in those rounds.

This would even out the playing field somewhat, but not completely.

It would eliminate something else that I've grown to hate, the double picks and waiting 28 picks before your next one.

Alternately, I could get behind the idea of auctioning off draft positions with FAAB money or anything else that would reduce the influence blind luck has with the beginning of the draft

[ January 16, 2011, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Rainiers ]

jim.s · Post by **jim.s** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:25 am

Auctioning draft slots with FAAB seems to me to be a no-brainer. I don't understand the objections to it (expect for the effort, which is worth it in high stakes leagues). If you like the luck of KDS draws, why not also assign random amounts of FAAB just for fun?

bill1car · Post by **bill1car** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:26 am

1) Make sure the IP minimum is high enough so SP has to be relevant.

2) Often, a player has a minor injury and is out for a week or so without being put on the DL. Please keep the Friday line-up change rule.

3) Anytime a batter or pitcher goes on the DL, we should be able to replace them in our line-up before the next days games begins.

4)When roster size increases are considered, I always fear how much weaker the free agent pool will be. Maybe staying at 30 but adding one DL spot would be appropriate.

5) Using FAAB dollars to bid for draft spots is an interesting idea. Adds a little more strategy and fairness to the league.

6)My last suggestion is one that is difficult to enforce. Also, the NFBC does not want to turn away future business. Have consequences for owners who upset the integrity of a league by not managing their teams. If an owner clearly stops trying (starting players on DL for multiple weeks) ban them from the NFBC for one year. I would enjoy being part of a league where there is at least an effort to weed out the owners with poor "fantasy sports ethics". An argument against this is that just because someone gets too busy or discouraged one year, does not mean it will happen again. But, you know how human nature usually works. If someone tends to give-up when things do not go well it is likely to happen again.

Less than Dave · Post by **Less than Dave** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:43 pm

I agree I really think we need to make conditional bids be able to be higher than the main bid because there may be someone I want less than someone else, but I know he's going to go for more than the guy I want more so we need to reflect that and not have to bid higher just to get the first guy.

Another small addition I'd like in sorting free agents is sorting pitchers by games started. You can sort by innings pitched to try to weed out the starters, but it can sometimes be more work than I'd like. If we had a "Games started" category it would make it much easier to sort through free agent pitchers.

I am very much opposed to using the FAAB (Free Agent Acquisition Budget) to bid on draft slots... I think KDS works just fine and I don't want LESS money to spend throughout the season... it's already tough enough as is. Plus, it wouldn't be FAAB, it would be FAAADSB (Free Agent Acquisition And Draft Slot Budget). I don't know if I would want to play a game that used the FAAB budget to bid on draft slots.

I'd be ok with adding a DL slot or an extra bench spot... and the innings pitched minimum being raised would be a good idea too. I don't know about allowing Friday pitching changes, that kinda changes the whole game... that's how WCOFB did it, which was fine but that's just not NFBC ion my opinion. Daily changes would be bad though, hopefully you never consider doing that.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:28 am

Originally posted by Less than Dave:

I agree I really think we need to make conditional bids be able to be higher than the main bid because there may be someone I want less than someone else, but I know he's going to go for more than the guy I want more so we need to reflect that and not have to bid higher just to get the first guy.

Another small addition I'd like in sorting free agents is sorting pitchers by games started. You can sort by innings pitched to try to weed out the starters, but it can sometimes be more work than I'd like. If we had a "Games started" category it would make it much easier to sort through free agent pitchers.

I am very much opposed to using the FAAB (Free Agent Acquisition Budget) to bid on draft slots... I think KDS works just fine and I don't want LESS money to spend throughout the season... it's already tough enough as is. Plus, it wouldn't be FAAB, it would be FAAADSB (Free Agent Acquisition And Draft Slot Budget). I don't know if I would want to play a game that used the FAAB budget to bid on draft slots.

I'd be ok with adding a DL slot or an extra bench spot... and the innings pitched minimum being raised would be a good idea too. I don't know about allowing Friday pitching changes, that kinda changes the whole game... that's how WCOFB did it, which was fine but that's just not NFBC ion my opinion. Daily changes would be bad though, hopefully you never consider doing that. Conditional bids will NOT be allowed to be higher than primary bids.

We can look at sorting by Games Started.

KDS is fine as it is. We will NOT have bidding for draft slots in the NFBC.

No extra DL or bench spots. Only 7 reserves is what makes the NFBC so tough.

No Friday pitching changes this year. No daily moves ever in the Main Event.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:54 am

Originally posted by Rainiers:

Speaking as someone that has had the fifteenth pick in his last couple drafts, the current system seems unfair. As Shawn Childs and others have pointed out, the drafter in the first position has an advantage that is never relinquished throughout the draft.

I don't remember ever saying this. I think a team can win from anywhere in baseball.

Liquidhippo · Post by **Liquidhippo** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:06 am

Originally posted by Baseball Furies:

Most of the rules as they stand are ok. I like the idea of being able to make changes to your line-up once a week, but adding a DL spot or two is not unrealistic especially if it were restricted to let's say a 1st-10th rd. drafted player. When these guys go down it's bad enough, let alone being further paralyzed (and penalized)by not being able to make a roster move without having to potentially clear space by dropping someone from your reserves. Rules like this and others which help balance out the luck element of injuries and the like (another vote here for the Vickery FABB Bidding system with limits as per Tout), are good for the game especially when there is so much invested by us all in terms of time and money on these contests. An innings minimum that prevents starting pitching from being irrelevant is a must as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise it becomes a matter of simply exploiting a loop-hole in the system in order to win rather than utilizing a comprehensive strategy that takes into account all player position factors as the games founders surely meant it to be. I'm sure I'll come up with something else... Agree 100% on the merits of Vickery, but I don't foresee it gaining support here.

[ November 07, 2011, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Liquidhippo ]

Cocktails and Dreams · Post by **Cocktails and Dreams** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:35 am

Free agent rules need work. Absolutely should be able to bid more on a conditional guy than a primary guy.

If you want one player more but know he will cost less than your 2nd wish and want to have a shot at both, why in the world should you have to way overpay for your first guy to put in a competetive bid on the 2nd guy?

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:01 am

Agreed, I'm in favor of this change.

I know some folks do not know what we are talking about.

Example-We need a 2b and we know a just called up Giavotella will go for a couple of bucks, while a dropped Orlando Hudson could fetch $15 or $20.

We may want Giavotella more because it'll save us $$$ and like his potential.

As is, we can't put in a secondary bid on Hudson, because more $$$ reflects to the system that we want him more.

We want a 2b and Giavotella is the better answer, but we're handcuffed.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:41 am

Question for those that are in favor of conditionals larger than primary bids -- how would you assign free agents in this scenario?

OWNER A

Primary Bid -- Red $4

Conditional -- Blue $6

OWNER B

Primary Bid -- Blue $4

Conditional -- Red $8

OWNER C

Primary Bid -- Red $6

Conditional -- Blue $8

Scenario A -- Primary bids take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Blue and OWNER C gets Red?

Scenario B -- Primary bids do not take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Red and OWNER C gets Blue?

751542 · Post by **751542** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:53 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Question for those that are in favor of conditionals larger than primary bids -- how would you assign free agents in this scenario?

OWNER A

Primary Bid -- Red $4

Conditional -- Blue $6

OWNER B

Primary Bid -- Blue $4

Conditional -- Red $8

OWNER C

Primary Bid -- Red $6

Conditional -- Blue $8

Scenario A -- Primary bids take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Blue and OWNER C gets Red?

Scenario B -- Primary bids do not take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Red and OWNER C gets Blue? 6376527662766`141`0`65763756756427062=

nummerish

..good point as always!

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:41 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Question for those that are in favor of conditionals larger than primary bids -- how would you assign free agents in this scenario?

OWNER A

Primary Bid -- Red $4

Conditional -- Blue $6

OWNER B

Primary Bid -- Blue $4

Conditional -- Red $8

OWNER C

Primary Bid -- Red $6

Conditional -- Blue $8

Scenario A -- Primary bids take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Blue and OWNER C gets Red?

Scenario B -- Primary bids do not take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Red and OWNER C gets Blue? Scenario B is what we have now.

Scenario A is the other option.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:58 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

Question for those that are in favor of conditionals larger than primary bids -- how would you assign free agents in this scenario?

OWNER A

Primary Bid -- Red $4

Conditional -- Blue $6

OWNER B

Primary Bid -- Blue $4

Conditional -- Red $8

OWNER C

Primary Bid -- Red $6

Conditional -- Blue $8

Scenario A -- Primary bids take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Blue and OWNER C gets Red?

Scenario B -- Primary bids do not take precedence over conditionals so OWNER B gets Red and OWNER C gets Blue? Scenario B is what we have now.

Scenario A is the other option. [/QUOTE]Scenario B is not quite what we have now - for no other reason than these are illegal bids - though the system would rearrange them and the end result would be the same.

What the pro-change want to happen is if the bids were

OWNER B

Primary Bid -- Blue $4

Conditional -- Red $8

OWNER C

Primary Bid -- Red $6

Conditional -- Blue $8

then B gets Blue and C gets Red

Here, there are no conflicts and the end results is straightforward. Once you start getting into scenarios where conditionals

I think on paper the concept makes sense, but with 15 teams and multiple player bid upon per teams, each with conditionals, the level of coding to keep jumping back when there are conflicts and the possibility of an infinite loop render it prohibitive.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:58 am

Owner A

Giavotella-$4

Hudson- $6

Owner B

Hudson-$8

Giavotella- $4

Owner C

Giavotella- $6

Hudson $8

Owner C wants Giavotella as a primary, he is awarded his player

Leaving Hudson to B as his primary player with the largest bid

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:59 am

If I remember correctly, Greg had this coded and ready to go at one time....

Red Sox Nation- · Post by **Red Sox Nation-** » Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:02 am

Originally posted by Cocktails and Dreams:

Free agent rules need work. Absolutely should be able to bid more on a conditional guy than a primary guy.

If you want one player more but know he will cost less than your 2nd wish and want to have a shot at both, why in the world should you have to way overpay for your first guy to put in a competetive bid on the 2nd guy? I'd also love to see this change. Greg can the software handle this? If not does STATS have enough time to work on this? Thanks

Jason