Rule Question

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:21 pm

Regarding the minimum innings pitched rule:

"There is a 400 innings pitched minimum requirement for all NFBC leagues, including the auction legues, but no minimum requirement for number of starting pitchers or relief pitchers on each roster. Should any team not reach the required limit of 400 innings pitched by the end of the season, the rankings will be altered to show that team getting 1 point in both ERA and WHIP"

My question is this: will the teams that are ranked below the sub-400 innings pitched teams in ERA and WHIP move up in the standings, or will all teams retain their standings place regardless of the 1 point ERA/WHIP teams? It's an important distinction, and one that should be addressed now rather than later.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:18 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Regarding the minimum innings pitched rule:

"There is a 400 innings pitched minimum requirement for all NFBC leagues, including the auction legues, but no minimum requirement for number of starting pitchers or relief pitchers on each roster. Should any team not reach the required limit of 400 innings pitched by the end of the season, the rankings will be altered to show that team getting 1 point in both ERA and WHIP"

My question is this: will the teams that are ranked below the sub-400 innings pitched teams in ERA and WHIP move up in the standings, or will all teams retain their standings place regardless of the 1 point ERA/WHIP teams? It's an important distinction, and one that should be addressed now rather than later. All the teams would move up. If a team fails to get 400 IP in their league, they would move down at season's end to the bottom in ERA and WHIP. Simple as that. Standings would be adjusted accordingly.

Trust me, we'll keep an eye on this and do our best to make sure everyone knows how many innings they have. Again, last year with 1/3 IP as the minimum, I think we had three teams under 500 IP. We can't force anyone to get starters in their lineup, but we'll be aware of the potential ramifications to the entire overall contest if someone decides not to field a competitive lineup.

RichV · Post by **RichV** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:53 pm

This rule cost me a place in another contest this past year. I was ahead of the guy without enough innings in both era and whip. The team right behind me was not. When the team without enough innings dropped, that added 2 points to the team behind me. I lost a place in the standings. Needless to say, I wasn't happy.

Why not just take away the points from the team without enough innings, leave all the other numbers as is?

It seems the only time it's fair to drop a team to one point, and move everyone who was behind him up one point, is if he's leading the league in both ERA and WHIP. Otherwise, some teams get shafted for having good ERA's and WHIP's.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:08 pm

Originally posted by RichV:

This rule cost me a place in another contest this past year. I was ahead of the guy without enough innings in both era and whip. The team right behind me was not. When the team without enough innings dropped, that added 2 points to the team behind me. I lost a place in the standings. Needless to say, I wasn't happy.

Why not just take away the points from the team without enough innings, leave all the other numbers as is?

It seems the only time it's fair to drop a team to one point, and move everyone who was behind him up one point, is if he's leading the league in both ERA and WHIP. Otherwise, some teams get shafted for having good ERA's and WHIP's. Totally agree. If you just knock down the teams that don't meet the 400 innings pitched, and leave everything else alone, there can be no controversy. Perhaps it won't make a difference in the overall standings, but a problem could very easily arise in an individual league.

I'm going to need to monitor these message boards more closely next offseason -- this is a seemingly minor caveat to a rule change, but it should have been addressed.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

Why aren't the standings updated every week with a "prorated" minimum.

400/26 = 15.385 IP per week.

15 1/3 * 26 = 398.67, just use 15 1/3 IP each week.

There would be no surprises.

I don't understand the logic of waiting to the end of the season.

RichV · Post by **RichV** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:43 pm

It wasn't a surprise. It was a helpless feeling knowing the guy behind me was gonna gain 2 points and I wasn't. The opposite could hold true too. Pro-rate a guy at 1point each, the he hits 400IP, and bang, in the other direction.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:09 pm

Originally posted by RichV:

This rule cost me a place in another contest this past year. I was ahead of the guy without enough innings in both era and whip. The team right behind me was not. When the team without enough innings dropped, that added 2 points to the team behind me. I lost a place in the standings. Needless to say, I wasn't happy.

Why not just take away the points from the team without enough innings, leave all the other numbers as is?

It seems the only time it's fair to drop a team to one point, and move everyone who was behind him up one point, is if he's leading the league in both ERA and WHIP. Otherwise, some teams get shafted for having good ERA's and WHIP's. You make a good point about leaving all of the other teams as is within that league and the overall standings and just penalize the team in question. I'll follow through with STATS to see if we can do that as obviously we don't want a lame-brain owner to decide a league or overall title just by being inactive. Reducing that team's ERA and WHIP points earned in those categories from whatever to 1 each makes good sense.

Good question and follow-through Glenn and Rich.

I'll address this once I have a final answer from STATS.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Listening to feedback and acting on it when it makes sense for all parties involved. As always, nice job by you, Greg.

GoldenEagle · Post by **GoldenEagle** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:14 pm

Thanks for the followup KOQ and GA. I always thought that the "old rule" (Okrent?) was that no other team "moved up" or got a benefit (other than the offender lost points) when another team missed the IP minimum. The offending team wasn't actually "moved to the bottom" in the final standings, just that the points they would have otherwise gotten were simply "replaced" with a value of 1 (last place). So no teams actually "moved up" (or "moved down") if you look at it that way. If two teams missed the minimum in the same league, they'd both get a 1. And in either case the total points awarded in the league would not crossfoot to 150 any more (which is OK).

[ February 04, 2006, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: GoldenEagle ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:00 am

Yup, I didn't write this rule properly. I'll work with STATS this week to change this within the rules. Thanks everyone for making this correct before the season started.

RotoSpin.com · Post by **RotoSpin.com** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:32 am

But weren't all the teams below that team in the ERA and WHIP cats getting screwed out of their extra point(s) by someone who was "cheating" (not really cheating, just couldn't think of a better word)?

If the team with not enough IPs was in 3rd place in ERA with 13 points, wasn't the team in 4th place really owning the 3rd best ERA in the league and therefore being shorted a point since he would only be getting 12 points at the time?

I totally understand where you guys are coming from in that all of a sudden because some team doesn't hit the IPs, you lose a place in the standings because the team behind you got 1 and maybe 2 points seemingly for free, but I think that team was actually being short-changed 1-2 of his earned points the whole time and is simply getting the points he deserved...