Minimum starts

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:56 am

Okay, I'm an "all reliever" guy.

Why did I do it? Because I thought it has an edge; NO. I'll admit, I did it because I don't follow baseball all that much and I didn't want to learn about 150 pitchers. Given that, I thought I could overcome my ignorance with strategy.

The results.. well, forget ERA and WHIP as my sure thing relievers (like Foulke) blew up.

My hitting has been okay but like everybody else I can list my disappointments, especially Dave Roberts not getting the SBs he was supposed to. So now my quest is to have the "all Yankee" team, lol.

So I sit in the middle of the pack. Guess what, that's where I belong. If I had a balanced team I would be.... in the middle of the pack. My KNOWLEDGE of baseball is below middle but I'd like to think my fantasy savvy is above average so the net result is, middle.

So my choices are clear. Either care more about baseball or have a very long Spring and Summer waiting for Football again. Maybe do "Fantasy Tour de France". Hmm, maybe get a job. Ummmm... nah.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:59 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

Not at the time of draft....which means the FAAB then comes into play....which is no different in fairness than any other league with various staregies. not at the time of the draft? forgive me if i'm wrong, but all of these guys were likely drafted within the first 6 rounds of every NFBC draft.

Cordero, Francisco (TEX)

Foulke, Keith (BOS)

Benitez, Armando (SF)

Dotel

Gagne

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:18 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by nydownunder:

Not at the time of draft....which means the FAAB then comes into play....which is no different in fairness than any other league with various staregies. not at the time of the draft? forgive me if i'm wrong, but all of these guys were likely drafted within the first 6 rounds of every NFBC draft.

Cordero, Francisco (TEX)

Foulke, Keith (BOS)

Benitez, Armando (SF)

Dotel

Gagne [/QUOTE]Meaning they were all healthy, thus no manager would likley carry 8 or 9 starters on the roster on day 1.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:37 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

Meaning they were all healthy, thus no manager would likley carry 8 or 9 starters on the roster on day 1. can you talk some sense?!? i came out of the draft with 8 starters. i'm sure many others did as well. currently i have 10 starters on my team.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:39 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by nydownunder:

Meaning they were all healthy, thus no manager would likley carry 8 or 9 starters on the roster on day 1. can you talk some sense?!? i came out of the draft with 8 starters. i'm sure many others did as well. currently i have 10 starters on my team. [/QUOTE]What's your team, so I can use your draft as an example of what I am talking about.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:40 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

What's your team, so I can use your draft as an example of what I am talking about. masters of war. chicago league 3. thanks.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:12 am

Ok. Let's assume either of Foulke or Wagner was not available at Rd4 or Rd5. Would you still take another closer and if so would you take Dotel (best value left on the board under our scenario) at Rd5? If not what is your next move to replace that pick, SP or Offense? If Dotel, then obviously it was not a good (projected) value pick, thus decreasing you statistical potential. If you decide to go with a SP or Off, then one would expect you to forgo a Closer later (swap pick strategy), which will be of even less value than orginally predicted on closer statistical contributions because this isn't just a run on closers, it's a raid and you now know it!

Ok, back to a SP or Off? Whichever you decide (let's assume you swap pick strategy by a position), one can assume you will get a better Off player then than you would have later – relatively speaking. The net effect would be a positive statistical upgrade, especially if the pool of those players is larger (which arguably only applies to the SP's available because the closer strategy is also going for the jugular on Offense. As previously mentioned the negative side to your altered strategy is twofold: 1) you forgo to grabbing a closer later, which could prove disastrous in the overall competition, and 2) you then run the issue of filling your ACTIVE pitching roster with potentially 7 or 8 SP's to fill the void. Sure you may have gotten an upgrade because you decided to take an additional SP at Rd5 or swap it with Rd10, but the fact that you will now be using SP #7, and perhaps #8 rather than a quality low ERA/WHIP closer, impacts negatively on those stats. Not to mention Saves. And how about all that offensive depth disappearing because the closer strategy doesn’t need extra pitchers. You can’t tell me the Adam Laroche’s of the draft aren’t of some value these days.

Put more simplistically, your scenarios look like the following:

A) Rd5 Dotel – Rd5 Wagner = Net Value

B) Rd5 Off (OF) - Rd5 CL + Rd10 CL – Rd10 OF – Reserve no longer avail + Reserve available = Net Value

C) Rd5 SP – Rd5 CL + SP8 – CL2/MRP1 – Reserve no longer avail + Reserve available = Net Value

If your second closer is also of considerable lower value, then that net effect also needs to be included.

So it’s hard to imagine a significant advantage for the other managers. One could argue, it hurts more than it helps. It also can put your draft strategy into chaos!

In regards to Net Value: some managers in this comp (including I) do have formulaes which allow us to determine/project how many points a player will contribute in respect of the 75 points available. So for us, we would know the value impact rather easily (if projections are a usefull guide).

[ July 25, 2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:19 am

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:23 am

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:

Paul, just tell me you had fun implementing your strategy and following baseball a little bit thanks to the NFBC this year. Like you said, it kept you busy until the football season begins. Wish we could convince you to try the NFFC again this year, but at least good luck in the auction league in New York. We've filled up one of those and there's interest in that $1,250 league. We'll see what happens.

viper · Post by **viper** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:32 am

Only nine SPs Gekko. I came out with 10 and now have 12. Mix and match, baby, mix and match

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:10 pm

Originally posted by nydownunder:

In regards to Net Value: some managers in this comp (including I) do have formulaes which allow us to determine/project how many points a player will contribute in respect of the 75 points available. So for us, we would know the value impact rather easily (if projections are a usefull guide). i read all of your response (twice) and i still don't get it. i do appreciate all of the time you put into your response.

to get back to your conjecture that people don't select 8 or 9 SP on draft day is BS. the avg team in my league on draft day selected 8 SP.

again, if 3 teams don't select SP, there will be ~24 extra SP available for 12 teams to pick from. makes it sooo much easier to stream SP.

with all of that said, i think we lost sight of the main topic of this thread. PUT ME (OR A COUPLE OF OTHER OWNERS I KNOW OF) IN A LEAGUE WITH 3+ TEAMS TRYING THE CLOSER/HURT PITCHER STRATEGY, AND YOU'LL FIND THE $100,000 WINNER, AND A BLACKEYE FOR THIS EVENT. THANKS!

[ July 25, 2005, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:17 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

with all of that said, i think we lost sight of the main topic of this thread. PUT ME (OR A COUPLE OF OTHER OWNERS I KNOW OF) IN A LEAGUE WITH 3+ TEAMS TRYING THE CLOSER/HURT PITCHER STRATEGY, AND YOU'LL FIND THE $100,000 WINNER, AND A BLACKEYE FOR THIS EVENT. THANKS! I'd love to be in that league too!!

Until recetly, I was in the Top 20 in saves and I drafted 7 starters.

I have no problem with it in a 15 team league.

For the 300-team contest, there needs to be some IP requirement, like 750 IP. That's only TWO starters at 200 IP and 7 at 50 IP.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:27 pm

Originally posted by UFS:

I have no problem with it in a 15 team league.

For the 300-team contest, there needs to be some IP requirement agreed!

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:51 pm

Nah, it doesn't make sense to offer two sets of leagues. Filling 15-team leagues is tough enough with one set of rules. I'm also not convinced that 950+ minimum innings pitched leagues are the ideal setup as we're all in plenty of those. The NFBC allows for different strategies and I like that, although I didn't enjoy seeing all of the Class A pitchers selected this year. That was my doing as I eliminated the 40-man roster rule this year, unlike in 2004. I'm sure we'll bring that back in 2006.

Greg, I'm talking the auction leagues AL or NL. So let get this straight, you put up 5 or 6 choices for the mid-season and let the players choose what they wanted to play. You can't put a $1250 AL and NL league with both options. The players would show which they prefer.

There are a lot of "what ifs" involving the number of starters and closers each team can use. Right now balance is winning out, not "all closer" or "all starter" lineups. Should we institute minimum at-bats as well because someone thinks they can easily win batting average with few ABs and then load up on all pitchers? Sounds crazy, but anything is possible.

Aren't you the head of some fantasy sports commission? How could you write this statement? Batting average is 20 percent of the score, no one could ever compete in the other 4 catagories with mimimal at bats. As for the pitchers, why should someone with say 3 closers (33 percent of the staff) be able to control 60 percent of the points.

[ July 26, 2005, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: CC Desperados ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:57 pm

So when will you realize all 3 are doing it? 1st round? Nope, 2nd round? Nope. 3rd or 4th round? Perhaps. 5th and 6th? More than likely. So now you have another few rounds before it's all over (and for you to try and take advantage).

I sat down at the table in Las Vegas League 1 and was pretty confident owners at seat 2 and seat 3 were going that way. They did.

[ July 26, 2005, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: CC Desperados ]

a · Post by a » Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:29 am

Originally posted by Dyv:

quote:Originally posted by newkidintown:

All this talk about requiring minimum pitching innings is good to debate but the biggest problem with the NFBC is that it doesnt allow daily moves. This is supposed to be the cream of the crop of fantasy leagues and you are reduced to hoping your players dont get hurt monday night. Daily lineup moves, but weekly FA would be interesting. I think Greg doesn't want that frantic pace and our benches don't allow us to truly back up our entire team anyway.

I'd be all for extra moves in some fashion - even a 'half week' type move where you set your lineup each series Mon-Wed and then Thurs-Sun or something along those lines.

Dyv [/QUOTE]I proposed a twice a week lineup change in the first year of WCOFB. Every Monday and Friday. This is when traditional team series are usually scheduled. There is usually a day off during the week for every team, then, each series would be 3 games for per player.

This works in many levels:

1 - if your player gets injured or sent down on Monday, you are not stuck for a full week of zero stats.

2 - You can play manager and use matchups for series (ikes, Zambrano pitching in Colorado on Monday, but at Shea on Saturday, I'll sit him for the Colorado game).

3 - Forces better use of your bench.

4 - Gives more activity than there is now.

5 - Daily moves gives too much advantage to owners with no life, job, family.... (Always been opposed to streaming)

I would still only have FA once a week.

a · Post by a » Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:32 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by nydownunder:

Are we going to then start giving IQ tests to all participants and make sure those IQ's are dispersed evenly across each league? I mean where to we stop?

also, how does IQ relate to fantasy baseball success? thanks. [/QUOTE]Or Fottball success

LOL someone had to say it.

a · Post by a » Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:35 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by nydownunder:

Gekko

...5-6 quality pitchers in rounds 1-10. And 12 mangers are not going to carry an extra 2 pitchers (8 and 9) on thier roster because of the extra supply. And again, a 4th, 5th, and/or 6th pitcher can not replicate or beat an ERA or WHIP of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th relief pitcher. Your ERA and WHIP will go up. And don't forget SP's ERA and WHIP are 3x more impacting than a closer. sure...tell that to the following owners of these players...thanks.

Mesa, Jose (PIT)

Cordero, Francisco (TEX)

Brazoban, Yhency (LAD)

Foulke, Keith (BOS)

Kolb, Dan (ATL)

Graves, Danny (NYM)

Hawkins, LaTroy (SF)

Benitez, Armando (SF)

Dotel

Gagne [/QUOTE]Ah, hindsight is 20/20, isn't it. What was YOUR foresight on these players.....

a · Post by a » Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:47 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

The draft process is a freely-trading "market". Markets from time to time reach excess based on the popularity of certain ideas, but eventually they self-correct.

Just like certain players, certain strategies will always be over- or under-valued. We don't need "legislation", let the free market system do its thing and self-correct.

def of free market - "An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions."

a "more" free market draft system would let owners draft whatever players they want (not 2 catchers, 1 MI, etc...). management during the season would allow owners to decide how many batters and how many pitchers to play each week, not 14 and 9. that's free market.

legislation?? - what's wrong with dictating that you need 500IP or else your stats don't count? greg is already dictating you need two catchers, 1 MI, 9 pitchers, etc... [/QUOTE]Gordon, you are confusing Free-Market with structure. There is a free market within a structure. Greg gave the structure, you use the free market to use within the structure.

Using your logic, you could go all 24 spots on pitching, or all 24 on hitting. Or get 1 closer and 23 hitting . Hope that realiever has a 1-2-3 inning, collect top points in ERA, WHIP (and you know someone will have 0 saves for the year, so yo get points there). easily win all but AVe in batting. So you win 6 catagories = 90 points, lose 3 = 3 points and and hope for some points for Ave = 8 for 101 points for the season. Many teams would love that type of point total....

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:13 am

Originally posted by CC Desperados:

[Spy So when will you realize all 3 are doing it? 1st round? Nope, 2nd round? Nope. 3rd or 4th round? Perhaps. 5th and 6th? More than likely. So now you have another few rounds before it's all over (and for you to try and take advantage).

I sat down at the table in Las Vegas League 1 and was pretty confident owners at seat 2 and seat 3 were going that way. They did. [/QB][/quote]

So does that mean if you won the Championship, that A) it was because of these 2 guys, and B) Gekko never plays again?

a · Post by a » Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:17 am

May I ask straightforward questions and get straightforward answers without all the BS people try to throw around? All I want is a yes or no answers, nothing else. Is so, please read on.....

1-Will penalizing the team(s) that doesn't meet the min IP (if instituded) prevent an overall winner if it came from that league?

2-Will penalizing the team(s) that doesn't meet the min IP (if instituted) only target the ERA and WHIP? (thus moving other teams up spots because the stats do not count, an possibly creating a different winner. Don't forget, this WILL affect 2 catagories, ERA and WHIP, but keeps the saves)

3-Will penalizing the team(s) that doesn't meet the min IP (in instituted) mean that ALL thier pitching stats do not count? (thus moving other teams up spots because the stats do not count, an possibly creating a different winner. Don't forget, this WILL affect 3 catagories (saves, ERA WHIP, and mildly 2 others Wins and Ks)

4-Will penalizing the team(s) that doesn't meet the min IP (if instituted) also eliminate thier batting stats? (like the above, but more serious. I added this because the offending owner fielded an illegal TEAM, this is just for the lawyers sake and point out an legal loopholes that should be covered if Greg seriously considered it).

According to what has been floating around, it is being asked to have a min IP, and if a team deaon't meet them, you do away with thier stats. I just want to see exactly where people are going with this. Remember, penalizing a team(s) will be a bonus for everyone else BELOW them. Yes, All teams need to be listed in the ranking, you can't pull then out and not account for them.

I would hate to have someone lose the overall event because the 2nd place guy gained 2 points because of an disqualified team bumped them up 2 points, or worse yet, what if there were several teams DQed, this could really play havic with the overall standings? Imagine if the winner gained 8 points to win.... or more?

We all know the a closer stategy will not win overall, but what is being suggested won't stop the alleged problem on draft day...Adding extra SPs (which I do not see as that much of an issue).

la Jolla · Post by **la Jolla** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:03 am

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:41 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:

May I ask straightforward questions and get straightforward answers without all the BS people try to throw around? All I want is a yes or no answers, nothing else. Is so, please read on.....

1-Will penalizing the team(s) that doesn't meet the min IP (if instituded) prevent an overall winner if it came from that league?

2-Will penalizing the team(s) that doesn't meet the min IP (if instituted) only target the ERA and WHIP? (thus moving other teams up spots because the stats do not count, an possibly creating a different winner. Don't forget, this WILL affect 2 catagories, ERA and WHIP, but keeps the saves)

3-Will penalizing the team(s) that doesn't meet the min IP (in instituted) mean that ALL thier pitching stats do not count? (thus moving other teams up spots because the stats do not count, an possibly creating a different winner. Don't forget, this WILL affect 3 catagories (saves, ERA WHIP, and mildly 2 others Wins and Ks)

4-Will penalizing the team(s) that doesn't meet the min IP (if instituted) also eliminate thier batting stats? (like the above, but more serious. I added this because the offending owner fielded an illegal TEAM, this is just for the lawyers sake and point out an legal loopholes that should be covered if Greg seriously considered it).

According to what has been floating around, it is being asked to have a min IP, and if a team deaon't meet them, you do away with thier stats. I just want to see exactly where people are going with this. Remember, penalizing a team(s) will be a bonus for everyone else BELOW them. Yes, All teams need to be listed in the ranking, you can't pull then out and not account for them.

I would hate to have someone lose the overall event because the 2nd place guy gained 2 points because of an disqualified team bumped them up 2 points, or worse yet, what if there were several teams DQed, this could really play havic with the overall standings? Imagine if the winner gained 8 points to win.... or more?

We all know the a closer stategy will not win overall, but what is being suggested won't stop the alleged problem on draft day...Adding extra SPs (which I do not see as that much of an issue). This is actually a valid point. In leagues with minimum innings pitched levels, teams that don't reach those levels get 1 point in ERA and WHIP, but would keep their scores in Wins, Ks and Saves. They wouldn't drop to last place until the season is over, as you suggested here Phil. Scores would change after the season based on that, but that would be part of the game with a minimum innings pitched level. Everyone would have to understand that going in.

a · Post by a » Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:25 pm

Hi Greg, but remember, knowing it going in and someone directly affected then complaining, are 2 different things.

So the final outcome won't be determined until AFTER the season is over. Plus, what is to stop a person from intentionally missing the minimum to help an owner below him in the 2 catagories?

Imagine the outbreak around here if this actually occures????

hankstr · Post by **hankstr** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 5:35 am

Well if we vote for conformity (i.e. everyone must draft starting pitchers), then why not go all out and implement a dress code at the draft? Shouldn't we all look the same too? A specific rotissirie magazine should also be chosen and drafters should be required to make their picks according the the player ratings in that mag (e.g. the 7th pick of the draft MUST be the 7th ranked player in the magazine). Anyone not following the magazine jeopordizes everyone else's chance to win the championnship. Oh the excitement of all players using the same strategy. I can hardly wait until next year's draft.