Many have asked, so here it is…….

[Money]

I've had multiple requests for the particulars regarding my earlier posts. I have sent the same message to each and I have copied and pasted it below. It is a matter of public record that any NFBC team owner can access. This in no way changes my life but does with the way I view this game. If I can save someone the aggravation of going through this it will have been worth it. Quite possibly, but I doubt it, some may think twice before taking a similar approach. These are only 3 examples, I look at each separately and on their own merits. I in no way think they are part of some collaborated effort.

Here is what I sent, full disclosure:


I have no problem sharing as all lineups for the entire season are a matter of record that anyone in any NFBC league can access. I do not regret going to the public forum with this. As you noticed no one chose to justify anything they did. I must say that more teams than not played it out and played it ethically. I will avoid those who choose to play by a different code of ethics. They feel it is their right to determine who cashes and who doesn't. Here are a few of the examples.

Week 25 and in a 6 team cluster for strike outs (15 K's ahead of the team we were battling ) and win points available and with ratio's blown out one team team decides to bench two start pitchers Verlander and Niece (4 home starts) for middle relievers Joe Smith and O'Flaherty. We could not even fathom the thought process. I understand Verlander had struggled but this is not a legitimate lineup. These guys were playing all along.

Another team in the last week benches a 2 home start Collemnter. He was one of the hottest pitchers going in September. He was one point ahead of the eventual winner in Wins and could catch him in K's. Multiple players could have taken his spot, even relievers (papelbon) as he had no upside in saves. This guy had also been in the lineups previous weeks.

Another team had 2 clear points to catch in saves. He had no chance in wins and no upside in K's. He was closely ahead of most contending teams teams in ratio's. No win upside and we were 20 behind him in K's. Again 2 clear points in saves. What does he do? Picks up two half ass double starters (I'm fine with that) but benches Kimbrall and Holland. He killed the ratio's and lost his shot at the save points with no opportunity to gain. It was the only week of the year that those two closers were not in his lineup. He did this clearly to preserve his K point that we could possibly get to. The lineup insured that he would lose ratio points to multiple teams in contention.

When I contacted the first team he told me that he was simply not paying attention. The other two had nothing to say. I won't view the hobby the same ever again. There are other examples, these are a few that stuck out to me.

This was not part of my response to those that I responded too:

The bottom line is that as you play for higher stakes, please be prepared to deal with things you've never had to deal with before. Unfortunately I think this crap takes place in all denominational levels of this game, although to much lesser degree. I've played in many leagues over the years and will challenge anyone to question any lineup I ever set that was not in the best interests of my team. It's a shame that some play the game a different way.

[King of Queens]

When I contacted the first team he told me that he was simply not paying attention. The other two had nothing to say.

Hey Joe, I have plenty to say. If and when you guys ever contact me, I'll be happy to give you my explanation.

Until then, please try not to be a paranoid, delusional asshole.

[BK METS]

Reviewing the lineups, it is apparent that you are not being totally honest with your accusations. The team that had Collmenter did not bench him for the final 2 start week only. He had benched him 3 weeks earlier and just never put him back in his lineup. There is a huge difference, in my mind, that this owner just didn't make any pitching moves over the final few weeks, since he was out of it.

Also, the team with O'Flaherty and Joe Smith, had been playing these guys off and on and probably just got frustrated with Niese, who was pitching badly and Verlander, who had just pitched and given up 6 runs in his previous outing.

Lastly, the team that benched his closers had only 1 point to gain in saves, since he was 4 saves behind the team 2 spots ahead of him, with one week to go, while he had some points to possibly gain in ERA/WHIP and picked up Lobstein and started Keuchel in place of the closers. This move is not something that should be considered suspicious, in my mind.

I am an outsider looking in and I really think you are being paranoid, Joe. There is nothing here that makes me think that any of these teams purposely tanked their team.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

[Money]

Reviewing the lineups, it is apparent that you are not being totally honest with your accusations. The team that had Collmenter did not bench him for the final 2 start week only. He had benched him 3 weeks earlier and just never put him back in his lineup. There is a huge difference, in my mind, that this owner just didn't make any pitching moves over the final few weeks, since he was out of it.

Also, the team with O'Flaherty and Joe Smith, had been playing these guys off and on and probably just got frustrated with Niese, who was pitching badly and Verlander, who had just pitched and given up 6 runs in his previous outing.

Lastly, the team that benched his closers had only 1 point to gain in saves, since he was 4 saves behind the team 2 spots ahead of him, with one week to go, while he had some points to possibly gain in ERA/WHIP and picked up Lobstein and started Keuchel in place of the closers. This move is not something that should be considered suspicious, in my mind.

I am an outsider looking in and I really think you are being paranoid, Joe. There is nothing here that makes me think that any of these teams purposely tanked their team.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

With all due respect Alan this is not a standpoint that most would support. My guess is you live on the East Coast and you are all very good customers of the NFBC. I believe that they (the NFBC) would like to attract players from all over the country. Right now it appears the east coast players think this is there own private organization. It appears that you are throwing out the first line of defense.

Gain in ERA and WHIP by adding Lobstein and Kueschel and benching Kimbral and Holland. You do not believe that.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

When I contacted the first team he told me that he was simply not paying attention. The other two had nothing to say.

Hey Joe, I have plenty to say. If and when you guys ever contact me, I'll be happy to give you my explanation.

Until then, please try not to be a paranoid, delusional asshole.

How about you just explain it on here. Then you can clear it with everyone who asks. Here are the facts. You were in play big time in saves. You were also in play from not dropping in ratios. You could not gain in K and you could not gain in wins. So you opt to pick up awful two start pitching on the wire the last night. And put them in the lineup while leaving in two guys who were not even pitching. And take out Kimbrel and Holland. Those are the facts. I believe you were trying to lose points for some reason. And I also think I know what the reason was. But please do enlighten us. There are a LOT of people that are curious. Since that is the case, I would think it would be more appropriate to try and save face on here, than me calling you out on the phone or next time I see you. If you didn't take such an interest in the topic, then it would be easier to give you a pass. But since you opt for the approach you took, no free passes. My guess is it will be crickets, as there simply is no explanation for playing Keuchel(out of year at the time) and the Cardinal arm(who was not scheduled) over Kimbrel and Holland when you were in races in saves(with one of the contendors) and ratio battles(with multiple contendors) Your attitude suggests your mission was accomplished in losing those ratio points. So please do explain. Thanks.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Reviewing the lineups, it is apparent that you are not being totally honest with your accusations. The team that had Collmenter did not bench him for the final 2 start week only. He had benched him 3 weeks earlier and just never put him back in his lineup. There is a huge difference, in my mind, that this owner just didn't make any pitching moves over the final few weeks, since he was out of it.

Also, the team with O'Flaherty and Joe Smith, had been playing these guys off and on and probably just got frustrated with Niese, who was pitching badly and Verlander, who had just pitched and given up 6 runs in his previous outing.

Lastly, the team that benched his closers had only 1 point to gain in saves, since he was 4 saves behind the team 2 spots ahead of him, with one week to go, while he had some points to possibly gain in ERA/WHIP and picked up Lobstein and started Keuchel in place of the closers. This move is not something that should be considered suspicious, in my mind.

I am an outsider looking in and I really think you are being paranoid, Joe. There is nothing here that makes me think that any of these teams purposely tanked their team.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

Let me set up the story a bit. For one, I agree with you on the Verlander team. That was his explanation and although it cost him several points, there is no ill will. Steve is as classy as it gets, and I could understand getting so pissed at a guy ruining your team that you are just done. Was a bit frustrating though when he all of a sudden was not done(and Niese as well) with them later on and got enough wins to pose a problem for us, while already giving up the k points. But his explanation was pure and he didn't even need to give one IMO. He wasn't trying to screw anyone. Not what guys like him do. Not even want to rehash it again with him, just trying to give a little perspective on the frustration that Joe was discussing.

As for the Colmenter team, I don't agree with the logic. Doesn't seem like him. Option 1. Don't set a lineup so as to not affect the standings in any way, even if it is not remotely close to your best. Option 2. Don't look at the standings and set your best team based on if it were a weekly contest(my approach) Option 3. Look at standings and try and figure out where you can gain or lose and set accordingly(many people's approach) You are affecting the standings no matter what you opt to do, even if you choose 1. It just changes who benefits. People should not benefit by playing against an intentionally set bad lineup IMO. And had I not dealt with some interesting things with him in a main event league that I was on fringe of contention for overall in, I would be a little less skeptical. I hope he really did think that is best way to decide this, even though I don't agree. The frustrating thing here is that had others done that we would have cashed. Kind of frustrating when everyone's strategies break again you, especially the team benching the closers.

[King of Queens]

When I contacted the first team he told me that he was simply not paying attention. The other two had nothing to say.

Hey Joe, I have plenty to say. If and when you guys ever contact me, I'll be happy to give you my explanation.

Until then, please try not to be a paranoid, delusional asshole.

How about you just explain it on here. Then you can clear it with everyone who asks. Here are the facts. You were in play big time in saves. You were also in play from not dropping in ratios. You could not gain in K and you could not gain in wins. So you opt to pick up awful two start pitching on the wire the last night. And put them in the lineup while leaving in two guys who were not even pitching. And take out Kimbrel and Holland. Those are the facts. I believe you were trying to lose points for some reason. And I also think I know what the reason was. But please do enlighten us. There are a LOT of people that are curious. Since that is the case, I would think it would be more appropriate to try and save face on here, than me calling you out on the phone or next time I see you. If you didn't take such an interest in the topic, then it would be easier to give you a pass. But since you opt for the approach you took, no free passes. My guess is it will be crickets, as there simply is no explanation for playing Keuchel(out of year at the time) and the Cardinal arm(who was not scheduled) over Kimbrel and Holland when you were in races in saves(with one of the contendors) and ratio battles(with multiple contendors) Your attitude suggests your mission was accomplished in losing those ratio points. So please do explain. Thanks.

My ratio the final week was 1.197 -- if I really wanted to lose points, I would have picked up a bunch of crappy starters and played them in place of the pitchers I used.

To have any chance at 3rd place, I needed as many innings pitched the final week to move up in ERA and ratio. My wedding anniversary was that Monday, so admittedly I did miss the "Keuchel shut down for the season" blurb. He was pitching great in September and was scheduled to face the Mets. Lobstein had two starts including one against the Whitesox. Marco Gonzales was pitching well and had a shot to start the final week for STL -- he was pitching more effectively than Kazmir, so I used him.

You say you think you know the reason I made these moves. Is it Joe's East Coast Customer theory? Is it the fact that every time you've reached out to me privately, I've been happy to help you out? Really Chad, you guys are going to have to let this go. You're both making yourselves look very bad here.

[King of Queens]

As for saves, I don't think I could have passed anyone other than Berall. Don't forget-- Holland was hurt. He ended up pitching the final week and getting 3 saves. Just as easily, the Royals could have shut him down.

1 potential point in saves vs 3-6 points in ERA and ratio. It's a decision I'd make everytime.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

3-6 points in ratios? You have to be joking unless you are talking about losing that many points. You could not gain them. No way, no how. Especially benching your guys that are best at them.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Holland hurt? Nope, he worked a perfect ninth the day before you put nobody pitching in for him.

[King of Queens]

3-6 points in ratios? You have to be joking unless you are talking about losing that many points. You could not gain them. No way, no how. Especially benching your guys that are best at them.

3 to 6 points combined in ERA and ratio. Plus a point in wins, and outside chance at a point in strikeouts. It only works if DiDonato or Bama had a crummy final week AND I get a shitload of quality innings (not 3 or 4 from a RP). Neither one happened.

As I'm sure you know, benching closers is very common in the final week. It's like hockey teams pulling their goalies -- it's a longshot, but it's the only shot.

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Yes I am aware, but you are not being truthful at all in this description of being able to gain 3-6 combined ratio points. You could lose that many though and may have. I quit watching after multiple people seemed to pass you, including a contender or two.

[King of Queens]

Yes I am aware, but you are not being truthful at all in this description of being able to gain 3-6 combined ratio points. You could lose that many though and may have. I quit watching after multiple people seemed to pass you, including a contender or two.

Chad, it's very simple. I will spell it out for you:

If I get 70 IP of kick-ass pitching the final week, I move up.

Bama and DiDonato had incredible pitching the final week. So THEY moved up.

Period.

You can second guess my moves all you want, but it doesn't change anything. I honestly had no motives other than moving myself into 3rd place. I failed to accomplish that.

Now please let this go.

[King of Queens]

I will add this: it appears the reason you fell from 2nd to 4th was the direct result of DiDonato passing you in both HRs and RBIs. Looks like you left a couple of HRs on the bench that final week.

Instead of pointing the finger at your fellow owners, why not blame yourselves for losing $60,000

[Money]

I'll be done after this one. K o Q, you had no chance of cashing. You had no upside in ratios's even with 70 kick ass innings. You had upside in saves. You absolutely had no where to go in W's and K's. You passed on two of the best relievers in the game who would've provided you 2 more points. Justify as you want, others should just be aware that there are games within the games.

I'm done with this at this point as nothing more can come from it.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Really guys?? This has resurfaced again on the public forums?? Amazing. You said you've talked personally with two of the owners you questioned about their starting lineups and are cool with it, so why not just call Glenn personally and ask him about his last week starting lineup?

Just to set the record straight, heading into that final week you guys were in second place. Glenn was in fifth place. Third place is worth $25,000. What you are saying is that three teams set their final week starting lineups to knock you from second place, while not caring what happened to their spots in the standings that final week, correct? And to be truthful, you were questioning lineup decisions of other teams well before that, so this isn't just a last week thing, correct?

Honestly, this has gone further than I ever expected. Joe says that everyone should watch out for these shenanigans when you get to the higher priced leagues, but as we all know if we want to look for every single point we could do this in every single league. We could question every single lineup decision every week for folks and feel like they are out to get ME. But I don't think people set their starting lineups with YOU in mind. I think they try to gain points in order to move up in the standings. Or as Joe found out, even in high dollar leagues some folks have other things going on in their lives and they don't change their lineups at times.

This was such a fantastic league that I'm disappointed it has ended this way and it certainly doesn't give credit to the owners who battled to finish second and third...or first for that matter. This league was so tight in every category that there is second guessing to go around everywhere, including in your own lineups. But to publicly call out certain owners for their lineup decisions when they also are fighting for a money finish, well, that's a new one. You could have a thread on this every week, I guess, and not in just the big money leagues.

If you think this has satisfied those who have asked you about this Joe, then so be it. But it seems like it's another calling out of one certain owner (or a region of owners) when you started with three, and Chad concurs. Do we have more to accomplish here now that he's explained his lineup decisions? You let us know or I'm sure this thread will easily get out of hand today.

Disappointed.

[Quahogs]

When I contacted the first team he told me that he was simply not paying attention. The other two had nothing to say. I won't view the hobby the same ever again. There are other examples, these are a few that stuck out to me.

This was not part of my response to those that I responded too:

The bottom line is that as you play for higher stakes, please be prepared to deal with things you've never had to deal with before. Unfortunately I think this crap takes place in all denominational levels of this game, although to much lesser degree. I've played in many leagues over the years and will challenge anyone to question any lineup I ever set that was not in the best interests of my team. It's a shame that some play the game a different way.

Joe, I had nothing to say? The first contact I had with you was your MB post after the season and your subsequent email. In said email exchange you apologized and accepted my explanation. Now it looks like you have the flame thrower out again. It took Alan 3 minutes to analyze and he came up with the same reasoning. Verlander was awful all season and both were awful the previous week. Addition by subtraction. But they both pitched great and back in they went for the final 2 weeks where my team added around 100 k's since then.

I get that you are bitter Joe. But I've said my piece on this privately and now publicly. On that note I'll finish with a pic which may help.



"Will you go to lunch? Go to lunch. WILL you GO to LUNCH? "

[Hells Satans]

Well, I'm convinced that Steve went out of his way to lose to screw me out of potential winnings. Way to go, Quahogs.

[Hells Satans]

Maybe we can have a NFBC Ombudsman to determine who should start. Instead of the Mendoza line, we can have a Collmenter line. At the time Steve sat Verlander, he had a 4.80 ERA and 1.43 WHIIP. Above or below the Collmenter line? Is Collmenter above or below the Collmenter line? Do I have to start John Danks if he has 2 starts? He's Collmenteresque.

I nominate Meatloaf.

[Quahogs]

Well, I'm convinced that Steve went out of his way to lose to screw me out of potential winnings. Way to go, Quahogs.

Got tired of you winning. Be damned if you were going to win the Platinum too.

Smoked you in our NFFC head to head contest this week though ! High FIVE to ME !

[Hells Satans]

Well, I'm convinced that Steve went out of his way to lose to screw me out of potential winnings. Way to go, Quahogs.

Got tired of you winning. Be damned if you were going to win the Platinum too.

Smoked you in our NFFC head to head contest this week though ! High FIVE to ME !

Stupid Foles.

[Quahogs]

Growing up, most of us had some fun playing with these figures...





While Joe on the other hand...

[DOUGHBOYS]

Ok, here's the idea....

12 team draft, 50 rounds.
Each individual puts in $500. I don't think the NFBC should profit in the running of this league since it would be a test league.
That puts the pot at $6,000.

We have six drafters forming a team east of the Mississippi.
We have six drafters forming a team west of the Mississippi.
Individual points would count towards a 'team score'.
Most points scored by a team wins the $6,000, to be split six equal ways, doubling their money.
This event would be unlike other competition in these ways....

Point shaving or gouging of points would be not only welcomed, but encouraged!
It would also ensure that nobody would intentionally 'forget' their teams after having a bad start to a season.
All six teams can get together in talking over each others lineup and the best chance for a team win.
This format could provide a different game within a game down the stretch of the season.
And unlike anything we have currently.

[King of Queens]

Good idea, Dan. Unfortunately, Michigan is East of the Mississippi.

[Tarpon30]

Come on now!!! This league is full of extremely intelligent owners...can't we just move the Mississippi?