700 IP Minimum In 2009?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:21 am

This year the NFBC increased the minimum innings pitched total to 700 and it seems to have worked well. Heading into this week, only four teams from the main events, auction leagues or Ultimates were under that total and one likely already reached 700 innings by today. That leaves three teams still needing to reach 700 by next week and two of those teams are in 14th and 15th.

The totals through 24 weeks range from 1,693 innings to 612 innings. Only 12 teams were under 900 innings heading into Week 25 and it's likely that only four teams will finish with less than 800 IP. Most will be 1,000 or more.

With this data in hand, it's my intention to keep the minimum innings pitched at 700 for 2009. There is still some levity involved with your draft strategies at this level, yet at 700 IP it still does eliminate some strategies that were tried in the past. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, 700 IP will remain for 2009. Thanks and good luck all the rest of the way.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:35 am

greg - can you list those two teams (#14 and #15) AND the # of innings they have as of right now? thank you.

Bama · Post by **Bama** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:01 am

i think 700 ip min is too many. for the ones that like trying the no starter strategy it is too many inning for that. i think 500 is about the right number we should use.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:30 am

I still in favor of 800.

Mr Dalrae · Post by **Mr Dalrae** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:13 am

I think it should stay at 700 IP but would prefer to see it go to 800 IP.

Bama · Post by **Bama** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:17 am

I always have more innings than most in the league but for the people that would like to use all relievers i think they should be allowed to do so. why are we agaisnt this strategy.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:56 am

Originally posted by KLN:

I always have more innings than most in the league but for the people that would like to use all relievers i think they should be allowed to do so. why are we agaisnt this strategy. It is a loop hole. Starting pitching is part of the game. I don't think you should reward someone for not using starting pitching. You have 40,000 reason why they should not lower it.

ssmarsh · Post by **ssmarsh** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:40 am

I'm a non-NFBC lurker, but I'm intrigued by this. My roto league has used a 1,000 IP min for 9 years and only 2 teams have ever failed to make it. 700 innings seems like a really low number.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:47 am

Originally posted by ssmarsh:

I'm a non-NFBC lurker, but I'm intrigued by this. My roto league has used a 1,000 IP min for 9 years and only 2 teams have ever failed to make it. 700 innings seems like a really low number. Why haven't you graduated from the minor leagues to the majors? It's time to play the best game in town.

The 700 innings makes it difficult to play the all reliever stategy. It can be done, but it has more success in auction leagues.

[ September 18, 2008, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]

Bama · Post by **Bama** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:00 am

If the intent is to require starting pitchers then there should be a Sp and RP position instead of just P. for the main event i can see the need for a 600 to 700 min but for the individual auction and drafts i think everyone should be allowed to use whatever stategy that they think will make them competitive so in these leagues the min should be lower like 400 or 500 ip.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:47 am

Originally posted by KLN:

If the intent is to require starting pitchers then there should be a Sp and RP position instead of just P. for the main event i can see the need for a 600 to 700 min but for the individual auction and drafts i think everyone should be allowed to use whatever stategy that they think will make them competitive so in these leagues the min should be lower like 400 or 500 ip. Yeah, but what is the difference, really? Those strategies rarely work because you are punting two categories which means you have to absolutely dominate the others and your ability to do that is compromised as soon as Rivera gives up 8 runs in the first game of the season or as soon as you have a couple injuries to your offense and it becomes less of a juggernaut. It is a waste of money (and it screws up the rest of the league when you are competing for the overall). To me, you put up the restriction and you save a few people from themselves and the rest of the league from a pain in the a$$.

Also, the problem with the SP/RP thing is that you have Jonathan Sanchez and Zach Greinke, et al. with RP status all season and people trying to think their way around that stuff and it is just one more thing that becomes more complicated than it needs to be. How many free agent starters have RP status? Probably most of them. So come September, guys with previously crappy ERAs can load up on junkballers to help them get an edge in the other categories and you end up rewarding owners for sucking in ERA. Just one example. It is fine as is.

[ September 18, 2008, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Top Dawg · Post by **Top Dawg** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:32 am

The problem started in the auction leagues too. People got cute and drafted retired players and pitchers in A and AA ball simply to spend all their money on two closers and a hard to beat offense. It got too out of hand and seemed like the owners were trying to look for ways to bend the rules.

I like the 700 inning minimum and think that does the trick.

Pete

ssmarsh · Post by **ssmarsh** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:02 am

Why haven't you graduated from the minor leagues to the majors? It's time to play the best game in town.I'm too cheap and the no trading thing would make me more mental than I already am.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:30 am

Originally posted by ssmarsh:

quote:Why haven't you graduated from the minor leagues to the majors? It's time to play the best game in town.I'm too cheap and the no trading thing would make me more mental than I already am. [/QUOTE]The no trading is a step up from the yearly rip off feast in trading leagues. Once you play it, you will understand why.

crazytown · Post by **crazytown** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:37 am

The 700 minimum does not stop competitors from drafting all SP's and having 0 saves for the entire year. After all, aren't saves part of the game as well? Haven't heard or seen a valid argument on this point yet.

Thanks and have a nice day.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:06 pm

Originally posted by crazytown.gov:

The 700 minimum does not stop competitors from drafting all SP's and having 0 saves for the entire year. After all, aren't saves part of the game as well? Haven't heard or seen a valid argument on this point yet.

Thanks and have a nice day. If pitch 9 starters, you are punting saves. You should finish high in wins and K's. but you are no lock to finish near top in whip and era. Starters bring RISK. When you play the reliever angle, you are trying to avoid RISK. My feeling is everyone should pony up and have starters.

You try to play angles, why?

[ September 22, 2008, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:08 pm

Trading has its pros and cons for sure. I think the cons of not having it are that it takes away from the 'drafting the best player' approach when at the table and makes it tougher to patch holes during the year. It is also fun to negotiate trades.

But I agree with Shawn and also you don't have to deal with league or even commissioner votes, which I've been noticing are more collusive than just letting everything through. The whole why-allow-something-that-will-make-other-teams-better mentality. It would be undoable here, especially with the possible effects to the overall and you just get a better indication of who the better owners are without it, I think.

ssmarsh · Post by **ssmarsh** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:29 pm

The no trading is a step up from the yearly rip off feast in trading leagues. Once you play it, you will understand why.Maybe, maybe not. Not to hijack this thread, but trading is half the fun for me. My league has no FAAB and monthly access to FA's via drop/adds, so if you want to get better or replace injured players, you have to trade. It keeps things fun and more competitive to see who can pull off the best trades. But, since everyone has their own preference, to each their own...

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:52 pm

Originally posted by ssmarsh:

quote:The no trading is a step up from the yearly rip off feast in trading leagues. Once you play it, you will understand why.Maybe, maybe not. Not to hijack this thread, but trading is half the fun for me. My league has no FAAB and monthly access to FA's via drop/adds, so if you want to get better or replace injured players, you have to trade. It keeps things fun and more competitive to see who can pull off the best trades. But, since everyone has their own preference, to each their own... [/QUOTE]Trust me....we all have been there and enjoyed making a trade to fix a team. I don't miss all the wasted time trying to make a deal or having someone sell out and give away the farm for some prospect who will be ready in 6 years.

You are reading these boards for a reason. After you play a year here, we can talk again and see if you like the change. For now, good luck on the home court!!

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:51 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by ssmarsh:

quote:The no trading is a step up from the yearly rip off feast in trading leagues. Once you play it, you will understand why.Maybe, maybe not. Not to hijack this thread, but trading is half the fun for me. My league has no FAAB and monthly access to FA's via drop/adds, so if you want to get better or replace injured players, you have to trade. It keeps things fun and more competitive to see who can pull off the best trades. But, since everyone has their own preference, to each their own... [/QUOTE]Trust me....we all have been there and enjoyed making a trade to fix a team. I don't miss all the wasted time trying to make a deal or having someone sell out and give away the farm for some prospect who will be ready in 6 years.

You are reading these boards for a reason. After you play a year here, we can talk again and see if you like the change. For now, good luck on the home court!! [/QUOTE]Well said! I'm still in one local/trading league. After this season - no more. I figure I can add 2-3 more NFBC leagues for the amount of time it took me to compete well in the trading league. I'll also eliminate 2 pages of trading rules and a whole heap of aggravation.