Pitchers coming off DL, Peavy and Beachy

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:01 pm

GX, read what I've written over the last 48 hrs - what Ty wrote has no bearing whatsoever on anything I've said.

There are strategies and time commitments to managing many aspects of your team, it is not just pouring over stats (if it was Schandler might even have a chance

).

Some guys are around at the waiver deadline and some aren't - if you're not that could be a disadvantage. So what do we do about that - eliminate the waiver wire?

Everyone has the opportunity to implement this strategy when it presents itself, and if it never does they should feel more than lucky that their pitchers never got hurt.

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:02 pm

glenn x, KJ, chad..if u are looking to start your football fix, please sign up for the friday night nffc DC league. we still need a few owners.

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:20 pm

KJ, I know you consider this a strategy tool. You've been consistent about that for at least the last three years that I know of. I am not in any way saying that you are fighting for this ruling because it benefits you today.

However, I believe in the "spirit" of a law or rule. I don't believe the allowing of this strategy is in any way, shape, or form in the spirit of this rule. Still, I originally thought it should be allowed since there was no mention of disallowing it in the rules.

Since then however, we've been reminded that there was a precedent set. That is a strong point, very strong. When a precedent is set, in a sense a ruling has already been put in place for this strategy. That ruling is that it is not allowed. What is the basis for changing that ruling? What's changed? The year? Not good enough for me.

The reason Parson's point is so crucial to this debate now is that not only is a precedent being ignored, basic fairness is as well. How can two owners with the same player not be allowed to use the same strategy for that player within the same scoring period? It completely takes away any argument that this isn't an advantage borne from a programming glitch that is unfairly random.

For this to be allowed to stand, a precedent, the actual spirit of the rule, and now competitive fairness will all have to be ignored. I just don't believe we should go there.

Mark, my father's already registered for that draft. It was one of my Father's Day gifts to him. If the league is short a guy come crunch time, I'll jump in to fill it to make sure it goes off.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:37 pm

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

However, I believe in the "spirit" of a law or rule. I don't believe the allowing of this strategy is in any way, shape, or form in the spirit of this rule. Ahh, I thought we were done with the topic, but I guess not ... I'm in this deep so I'll keep it going.

The spirit of the rule is to benefit owners that have the bad luck of rostering DL'd pitchers. Thus, it is in my view within the spirit of the rule. I've been sitting on Beachy for weeks with no opportunity to accumulate stats from that roster position, so this week if the stars align perfectly I might get one extra start. Whoopdeedoo, that's all I'll need to win the whole damn thing now!!!

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

Still, I originally thought it should be allowed since there was no mention of disallowing it in the rules.

It still isn't in the rules, which is why Greg has said it will stand for this season.

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

Since then however, we've been reminded that there was a precedent set. That is a strong point, very strong. When a precedent is set, in a sense a ruling has already been put in place for this strategy. That ruling is that it is not allowed. What is the basis for changing that ruling? What's changed? The year? Not good enough for me. The precedent set was "I will do this for the remainder of 2009" ... and the intention was to formally address it in the rules during the next offseason. But it wasn't addressed for 2 years - which means a later and thus more relevant precedent was set in that is has been allowed for the last one and a half seasons. Furthermore, rules should not be dictated by message board posts, particularly from 2 years ago which most of us had forgotten about, and some of us weren't even playing then.

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

The reason Parson's point is so crucial to this debate now is that not only is a precedent being ignored, basic fairness is as well. How can two owners with the same player not be allowed to use the same strategy for that player within the same scoring period? They can use the same strategy Glenn. They had close to 48 hours to log-in and adjust their lineup. If they didn't make the effort it's no different than not spending the time on waiver bids, or watching games, or basic research or anything else that could be a beneficial use of their time.

This is no different than the political fariness debate of equal opportunity versus equality. Do we also need a rule restricting the amount of time and effort that Jupinka or Lindy put into the game because it creates an uneven playing field?

[ June 22, 2011, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:53 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Do we also need a rule restricting the amount of time and effort that Jupinka or Lindy put into the game because it creates an uneven playing field? Ummm yeah!!!!

Ando · Post by **Ando** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:11 pm

KJ,

The flaw that I see in your analogy with the FAAB deadline is this:

Everyone is/should be familar with the FAAB process and what it entails. If one has a major committment on a Sunday and can not monitor, they can still do the best to their abilities be it Sat. night/Friday, whatever. They know the 8pm EST rule coming into the contest and know what hurdles they may have to jump through in order to in their mind sufficient bid for free agents.

This loophole is different. I agree with you in that it's not necessarily a race to the clock in swithcing these qualified pitchers in and out. My point is that I'm guessing that prior to this thread that only about 10-20% of NFBC owners knew about this loophole. I had no idea about this until this post. To me, that is the biggest problem I have with it. This contest is hard enough; it shouldn't have to be like War Games where I have to also find ways to circumvent a computer loophole.

I'm sure Greg will fix this in '12 and we'll see the last of this. At least I hope so at any rate.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:24 pm

Ando, I wouldn't call it a computer loophole, more a logical anomaly. But you're correct in that many players probably hadn't thought of it. As such, I would be 100% in favor of specifically stating that it is a legal move in the official rules for next season.

whipsaw · Post by **whipsaw** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:45 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Ando, I wouldn't call it a computer loophole, more a logical anomaly. But you're correct in that many players probably hadn't thought of it. As such, I would be 100% in favor of specifically stating that it is a legal move in the official rules for next season. I'd love to know the difference between a computer loophole and logical anomaly. Care to tell us the difference other than connotation?

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:22 pm

Originally posted by whipsaw:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Ando, I wouldn't call it a computer loophole, more a logical anomaly. But you're correct in that many players probably hadn't thought of it. As such, I would be 100% in favor of specifically stating that it is a legal move in the official rules for next season. I'd love to know the difference between a computer loophole and logical anomaly. Care to tell us the difference other than connotation? [/QUOTE]

The questionably-named and so-called "loophole" does not occur because of a computer deficiency. The rule itself is allowed for as written in the rules, which I presume was done by a human named Greg.

An anomaly is a deviation from a trend or pattern. And, this particular anomaly is in fact allowed for by logic (if player is on DL, such player can be moved to bench prior to Friday with no aforementioned caveats that would pre-empt such a move even though such a caveat might be presumed); and as such, in that it does not follow the normal pattern of use by most players I would label it a logical anomaly.

[ June 22, 2011, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Money · Post by **Money** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:01 pm

Wow, this reminds me of the Alias debate. Some know, some don't know. I once again am one of the uninformed. This is probably the last straw for me, besides the fact that I'm unable to compete.

I hope they don't resolve the football dispute, that way I won't have to decide to go the route of Wallla Walla.

Good luck everyone.

whipsaw · Post by **whipsaw** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by whipsaw:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Ando, I wouldn't call it a computer loophole, more a logical anomaly. But you're correct in that many players probably hadn't thought of it. As such, I would be 100% in favor of specifically stating that it is a legal move in the official rules for next season. I'd love to know the difference between a computer loophole and logical anomaly. Care to tell us the difference other than connotation? [/QUOTE]

The questionably-named and so-called "loophole" does not occur because of a computer deficiency. The rule itself is allowed for as written in the rules, which I presume was done by a human named Greg.

An anomaly is a deviation from a trend or pattern. And, this particular anomaly is in fact allowed for by logic (if player is on DL, such player can be moved to bench prior to Friday with no aforementioned caveats that would pre-empt such a move even though such a caveat might be presumed); and as such, in that it does not follow the normal pattern of use by most players I would label it a logical anomaly. [/QUOTE]I was talking about what the words meant apart from this particular example but that's fine.

Bob Enzyte · Post by **Bob Enzyte** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:49 pm

First of all I want to say that I have used this strategy ever since the DL rule was adopted. This year I have used it with Peavy in weeks 7 and 13 and Greinke in week 6. In my mind it is just an added tool that I can use that is perfectly legal. The stars have to align to make it work. You have to have a pitcher on your bench that will pitch on the weekend with a decent match up, or a bullpen arm. And it is not a given that it will work.

Is this any different than say you have a pitcher who throws a gem on Wednesday but pulls a groin covering first base and is put on the DL? You have another starter to plug in for him on the weekend. You end up with two starts from two different pitchers, the same thing that this thread is about.

You don't have to stay by the computer all day to use this. Right after lineups lock on Monday make the change. Everyone who had Peavy or Beachy this week had equal opportunity to do this.

Since GG is so adept on volunteering his wisdom on free agent bids, maybe we can get him to alert everyone on pitchers coming off the DL.

I say keep it the way it is.

Sack · Post by **Sack** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:02 pm

Well stated Champ, couldn't have worded a response better myself! Nice to hear you chime in on the subject.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:15 pm

Thanks Lindy, I felt like I was fighting a 1-man battle for 2 days ... and you make another relevant point that further deflates one of the opposition's arguments.

rockitsauce · Post by **rockitsauce** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:36 pm

Originally posted by Bob Enzyte:

Since GG is so adept on volunteering his wisdom on free agent bids, maybe we can get him to alert everyone on pitchers coming off the DL.

[/QB]excellent suggestion sir...I have both Peavy & Beachy on different teams and would've loved a heads-up that I could employ this strategy.

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:14 am

Originally posted by Bob Enzyte:

First of all I want to say that I have used this strategy ever since the DL rule was adopted. I hope you didn't use it the year Greg said it was illegal

Outlaw · Post by **Outlaw** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:08 am

Greg/Tom- I'm new here (first time player) and spent a couple of grand in entrance Fees here this year. After reading all these comments and the last one from the current 1st place leader, I feel like most here have no clue or idea about the loophole. When you think of almost 1000 players/Teams and probably no more than 50 or so regular readers/posters on this forum I would say that all those that don't come here often, if at all, have any clue or idea about this "loophole". Since it seems to have been an ongoing discussion for at least a few years, it makes no sense why it does not get addressed. Greg, Tom and STATS as leadership/owners of this business should ensure its integrity and fairness for all players. I suggest the following to accomplsih this:

1. Close the loophole however you choose.

2. Change the written rules to be clearer regarding the whole "when to change a DL pitcher"

3. Email and post the new rules to every player.

Frankly I dont care what is done, but it needs to be clear for everyone and if it means writing an example into the rules, so be it.

Mike McElroy

TParsons · Post by **TParsons** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:33 am

I can't blame people for taking advantage of this. If I had noticed it, I probably would have as well. That still doesn't make it right. I don't understand how anyone can possibly rationalize that it is fair for Lindy, for example, to be able to replace Beachy on Monday for the 2nd period, and not allow another owner to replace the same exact player up until the 2nd period deadline. The 2nd period deadline is clear in the rules. That's the only thing about this entire thing that is clear. In effect, by allowing this, the rules are not being applied as stated. If Lindy can make the move on Monday, the other owner should be able to make the move on Friday.

I know that you guys say to get on it right after lineups lock on Mondays, but that's not always possible. Some of us travel for work. There are many other circumstances that might not allow us to be on the internet. For example, we have had some brutal storms here since baseball season began. My internet was out for over a week. I guess it's my fault in that case that I was using the clearly stated deadline from the rules in order to make my changes? I also recently had both my computer and phone crash on me within 24 hrs of each other and didn't have regular internet usage for several days. I never would have been able to take advantage of the loophole, even though I knew, according to the rules, I had to have my roster changes in by 6:55 on Friday, not before the DL tag was removed from the player that was in my week 1 lineup...and yes, it is a loophole. It needs to be addressed immediately. Either everyone can use it up until the deadline, or noone can. It's that simple, and I don't see how anyone can possibly rationalize any other treatment of the DEADLINE rule.

[ June 23, 2011, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: TParsons ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:01 am

There is nothing that can be changed about our setup involving the DL rule this year, and as Lindy said several people benefit from the DL rule in another way when they get a start from a player who then goes on the DL before Friday and they get another start on the weekend from a different SP. Not every loophole can be foreseen.

If it helps to put an example of this DL "loophole" we'll gladly do that in the next few NFBC newsletters we send out to every NFBC owner and alert them of how this works. We're not trying to hide anything; honestly it wasn't even on my radar before being mentioned on the boards here. We'll alert everyone because I'm sure it may be available again before season's end.

The bigger discussion is if we need to close this loophole and all the others. So carry on with these two discussions in place:

1) Do we want the pitcher DL rule to continue in all NFBC leagues or should that be changed slightly?

And 2) If we keep the DL rule, do we close this loophole or keep it the way it is? Do we also have to close the loophole that Lindy mentioned, allowing folks a second start on the weekend if a pitcher has already pitched during the week? This is getting the same benefit, yet that's what the DL rule was originally designed for: not getting a zero on the weekend from a player injured during the week. I'm travelling this week, so won't be real active here, but I look forward to the feedback.

Thanks and best of luck all. Tweaking the system through the first seven years has made the NFBC a better game and I'm confident we can solve this one as well.

TParsons · Post by **TParsons** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:08 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

There is nothing that can be changed about our setup involving the DL rule this year, and as Lindy said several people benefit from the DL rule in another way when they get a start from a player who then goes on the DL before Friday and they get another start on the weekend from a different SP. Not every loophole can be foreseen.

If it helps to put an example of this DL "loophole" we'll gladly do that in the next few NFBC newsletters we send out to every NFBC owner and alert them of how this works. We're not trying to hide anything; honestly it wasn't even on my radar before being mentioned on the boards here. We'll alert everyone because I'm sure it may be available again before season's end.

The bigger discussion is if we need to close this loophole and all the others. So carry on with these two discussions in place:

1) Do we want the pitcher DL rule to continue in all NFBC leagues or should that be changed slightly?

And 2) If we keep the DL rule, do we close this loophole or keep it the way it is? Do we also have to close the loophole that Lindy mentioned, allowing folks a second start on the weekend if a pitcher has already pitched during the week? This is getting the same benefit, yet that's what the DL rule was originally designed for: not getting a zero on the weekend from a player injured during the week. I'm travelling this week, so won't be real active here, but I look forward to the feedback.

Thanks and best of luck all. Tweaking the system through the first seven years has made the NFBC a better game and I'm confident we can solve this one as well. The difference is that with the loophole that Lindy mentioned, every owner with that player has the same opportunity to make the change right up until the DEADLINE. I'm very disappointed this isn't being handled more aggressively. I don't care if the loophole itself is closed or not. I care that owners of like players are not allowed to make the same change all the way up to the DEADLINE, as stated in the rules. If this is how it is handled, then the rules regarding the DEADLINE are incorrect. Teams are not given until the earliest of 6:55 or 5 minutes prior to game time. Is this rule regarding the deadline correct, or incorrect, Greg?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:50 am

Ty, you are allowed to switch out any pitcher from your starting roster who is designated as DL for a reserve player. Once he's off the DL, no, you can't remove him. If he's not on the DL at the time you want to make changes to your starting lineup, you can't just reserve him.

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:53 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

as Lindy said several people benefit from the DL rule in another way when they get a start from a player who then goes on the DL before Friday and they get another start on the weekend from a different SP. Not every loophole can be foreseen. I read Lindy's point as well and I also noticed how those in favor of keeping status quo have jumped on the fact that the point came from one of our most successful and respected owners. I also respect Lindy for what he's accomplished here. However, I think his point is a poor one. There is a big difference in what's being debated here vs. his example of a Wednesday starter being put on the DL after his Wednesday start. The DL rule was put in place to help those who lose a player from Mon-Thurs from getting zeros from a DL'd player from Fri-Sat. That is the essense of what the DL rule was meant to accomplish. It achieves that in the example Lindy provided. It doesn't in the example we're debating. The difference being the player in Lindy's example is on the DL on Friday, the player in the example we're debating is long off it by that time and therefore doesn't meet what the DL rule was put in place to protect.

Hells Satans · Post by **Hells Satans** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:59 am

I assumed the point of the DL rule was to allow you to switch out a pitcher who GOES ON THE DL during the week after you have put him in the lineup so you don't get screwed out of a start. This has nothing do that scenario. It seems to me that a pretty simple software change could be made that is consistent with that intent but eliminates what's is being done here:

You're only allowed to switch out a pitcher on Friday if :

1.) He goes on the DL AFTER lineups lock on Sunday night, and

2.) He hasn't appeared in a game as of Friday.

That takes care of the current scenario and the one Lindy brought up without changing the goal of the rule.

TParsons · Post by **TParsons** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:02 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Ty, you are allowed to switch out any pitcher from your starting roster who is designated as DL for a reserve player. Once he's off the DL, no, you can't remove him. If he's not on the DL at the time you want to make changes to your starting lineup, you can't just reserve him. What you're saying is the deadline, as stated in the rules, is incorrect then? The DL designation, or "tag" as Chad put it, has nothing to do with the deadline. What you are saying is that for these players an earlier deadline than what is clearly stated in the rules is being enforced here (whether naturally or unnaturally). That deadline is not congruent with what is clearly stated in the rules of the NFBC. It is clear that there is no rule in place regarding the switching out of such DL players, however there is a rule in place regarding the deadline used for 2nd period switches. It's VERY clear in the rules. Enforcing a deadline earlier than what is stated within the rules is ridiculous.

[ June 23, 2011, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: TParsons ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:06 am

Originally posted by Hells Satans:

I assumed the point of the DL rule was to allow you to switch out a pitcher who GOES ON THE DL during the week after you have put him in the lineup so you don't get screwed out of a start. This has nothing do that scenario. It seems to me that a pretty simple software change could be made that is consistent with that intent but eliminates what's is being done here:

You're only allowed to switch out a pitcher on Friday if :

1.) He goes on the DL AFTER lineups lock on Sunday night, and

2.) He hasn't appeared in a game as of Friday.

That takes care of the current scenario and the one Lindy brought up without changing the goal of the rule. Correct, that was the intent of the rule. This is a great way to define the rule and the software going forward. Great start.

This is similar to our eligibility rules, where we needed even more clarification years into the NFBC because "loopholes" left eligibility up to subjective rulings. We finally defined that better in our rules and this one needs the same care since I obviously didn't solve everything with my initial rules/software requests. Now we need to do that.