Pitching Changes

[DOUGHBOYS]

In 2004, the NFBC Main Event was created. It had rules that appealed to the quality players around the country. Rules that made the drafting of players, the most essential element in being successful.
Until then, players could make mediocre teams well again, simply by gyping other teams in trades. The higher price associated with playing in the high stakes event had the effect of keeping the 'riff raff' out of our game.
For those that have been playing for many, many years, the ultimate game.

There are rules in the NFBC Main Event that we all cannot agree upon.
For some, it may be the seven player bench.
For others, it may be 20-10 eligibility rule.
For me, it is the 2-catcher rule, which I still find silly.
But, that all does not matter, there is not going to be any rule that 300 fantasy players will all agree upon.

For most, changing rules, is abhorrent to the fantasy player. We get comfortable with the same rules.
We know what we have to do to try and win the Main Event.
The element of change is usually shot down by the knee-jerk reaction that 'this game is good as is'.


At the same time, the game of baseball is changing.
The hitting aspect of the game ebbs and flows.
A generation of steroid abusers.
More emphasis on the home run.
The over-stuffed gorillas like McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa replaced by newer models. These players can hit for power, yet still run.
Trout, Harper and now Judge and Bellinger.
The NFBC rules and drafters keep in tune with the new generation of hitters.

For pitchers, it is more difficult.
And becoming moreso with each passing year.
Pitching has changed over the years. We have lived to see four-man rotations turn into 5-man rotations.
Even teams toying with 6-man rotations, especially during the latter part of August and September.
300 inning pitchers to 200 inning pitchers.
And now, 200 inning pitchers are dying.

With the creation of the NFBC in 2004, there were 41 major league pitchers who threw 200 innings.
This gave an average Main Event team, two or three 'Aces' that could be depended upon to bolster their pitching staff.
Since that time, pitch counts, specialization, and Managers wishing to use a 'new arm' from the bullpen instead of the 'old arm' facing the same lineup for a third time, have conspired to limit innings further.
From the 41 pitchers who registered 200 innings in 2004, we have seen that number dwindle to 28 in 2015 and again to just 15 in 2016.
15!
That leaves one 200 inning pitcher per NFBC team.
Watered down, for sure.

Those numbers will keep falling. Every organization has bought into pitch counts.
Heck, only two pitchers this year are averaging even seven innings a start (Sale and Scherzer)
The 'quality start' statistic once scoffed and jeered, rising from a Kia to a Cadillac.
Pitching, unlike hitting hitting is not ebbing and flowing. It is plummeting.
Besides the statistical source of starting pitchers throwing less innings, there is the continual increase of injuries to these pitchers.
(My own note- Does anybody else see the irony (or cruelty) of injuries increasing while the pitches decrease)
Even the best of MLB fans cannot name the current staffs for the White Sox, Mariners, or A's.

I believe it is time to at the least, open up discussions in how the NFBC can get ahead of the changes in baseball.
One change may be to reduce pitching from a minimum of nine pitching roster spots to eight or seven.
This would open up FAAB a little more and give teams more of a choice than the Bartolo Colon's or Bronson Arroyo's of the baseball world.
Our roster of nine pitchers is watered down, even on the best of teams.
Maybe eight pitchers starting and eight bench spots?
Another change that would rankle myself and other traditionalists, would be to lower the innings limit.
This would encourage the drafting of more relief specialists.
It would put more emphasis on the roto decimal categories over the counting categories of Wins and strike outs.
Eliminating the Wins category altogether or changing it to another category, another option.
Or maybe there is another idea or maybe we need no change at all.

I push no agenda and am not screaming for rule change.
I do believe that a good conversation is needed in regards to the changes of pitching now and when this contest started 14 years ago.
The Boards have been dead for the last month or so, so I don't expect an influx of replies,
This is just a bug in the ear or a foot in the door for when most of the NFBC players who do come back to the Boards.
Thanks for the listen.

[Edwards Kings]

Nice write-up Dan.

An alternative and in keeping with recognizing the rise of the middle reliever, how about adding holds as a statistical category. May have to adjust the innings limit though it would decrease the reliance on two classes of pitchers (starters and closers). Of course, the bitching may change.

"Can you believe they made Dickpeterjohnson the closer...dammit I needed those holds!"

In other words, while I do not necessarily advocate any changes, if we were to consider something, I would be more amenable to category changes/a few more categories than changes to the roster make-ups.

And of course would have to add a category to batting (another discussion).

[Cocktails and Dreams]

A DL spot or two would help with the pitching, and would help keep things a little more level in general. As I experienced a few years ago in the main event, when you have 7 good players on DL at the same time, you either have to drop good players, or have no roster flexibility, or both. They healthier teams have their good players, AND the roster flexibility to hammer you. How does this relate to the pitching? I think that the pitching depth is often the first thing that is forced to be compromised when injuries set in. Then you don't have enough pitchers to dodge dangerous matchups etc. You cannot sacrifice the batters or you have no chance. So it has to be the pitching. I think DL spots would be perfectly fair for everyone. The negative is it shrinks up the free agent pool even more. I personally don't care for shrinking staff size down. The more players and decisions involved, the better IMO.

[Bronx Yankees]

Interesting topic. In responding, I'll confess upfront that I typically am somewhat resistant to change and probably am a traditionalist when it comes to fantasy baseball (and many other things). Also, I really like the existing NFBC rules.

Initially, I don't see a big need to change the number of pitchers in a starting lineup. Yes, all of us are starting some pitchers we probably would prefer not to start (or even roster), and the pitching available in FAAB generally has been less than stellar, but one could argue that it just makes managing pitching more challenging for all of us. I'm also not sure that reducing the number of starting pitchers is desirable, primarily because it would impact the relative weighting of pitchers versus hitters come draft time. I guess I'd need to think it through some more.

I'm also not a fan of adding a category for holds (which would necessitate adding a hitting category to maintain the existing balance). I agree that middle relievers are becoming increasingly important. I suppose if folks felt strongly about recognizing this development, I'd be more comfortable with changing the saves category to saves plus holds (although, as indicated above, my first preference probably would be to maintain the status quo in terms of categories).

Of the proposed changes mentioned, the one I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to is possibly adding a bench spot. MLB changed its rules, and now we have 10-day DL stints that seemingly are adding to the number of players on the DL at any given time. (Note: this is just my sense; I haven't yet seen - but would be interested in - comparisons of number of days on the DL in 2017 compared to prior years.) Maybe I just drafted poorly, but it seems I've averaged about five DL players on my seven-player bench for most of this season. If days on the DL is increasing significantly, I suppose that could justify an extra bench spot. I would not opt for more than one extra bench spot because I do like the challenge of managing a limited bench. Again, this is not supposed to be easy.

I think there are ebbs and flows in baseball. Homers rose, then fell, then rose again. Stolen bases have fluctuated. Even in the last few years, pitching stats have moved, and scoring certainly seems to be making a rebound compared to recent years. The closer role is extremely volatile, but it seems like it always is in recent years. I guess I'm not a big fan of changing longstanding rules in response to these types of ebbs and flows. Where MLB changes its rules - e.g., the new 10-day DL period - that might justify an extra bench spot, but only if the data indicates that there has been a material increase in injured players. I recognize that 30 is a nice round number, but could drafts go to 31 rounds (kind of like Baskin Robbins' ice cream flavors)? This is not necessarily something I'm advocating now, but I'm more open to tweaking the bench in response to an MLB rule change than adjusting the fantasy categories or starting lineups.

Just my two cents. Reasonable minds definitely can differ on this topic.

Mike

[JohnP]

Pitching does seem worse than ever but what do the numbers tell us?

I think to win the main event you should be targeting that magical 80th percentile in all categories. If pitching has rapidly deteriorated then it would seem that the 80th percentile 6 years ago for example would be a higher / better number than today? Not sure. Whatever the case....here are the 80th percentile pitching numbers for the main event contest since 2011:

Year - wins / saves / ks / era / whip

2011 - 101 / 88 / 1339 / 3.561 / 1.225
2012 - 101 / 84 / 1346 / 3.635 / 1.224
2013 - 99 / 87 / 1375 / 3.475 / 1.209
2014 - 99 / 89 / 1415 / 3.321 / 1.191
2015 - 98 / 88 / 1375 / 3.517 / 1.202
2016 - 96 / 89 / 1389 / 3.670 / 1.222

2017 to date for ratios: 3.827 / 1.236

The numbers are closer than what I would have predicted.

Agree on the 2 Catcher thing. Agree on the need for a DL spot and how the lack of such has an effect on P. Thanks for starting the discussion Dan!

[Cocktails and Dreams]

Good point on the 10 day DL causing havoc Mike. This is also impacting pitching. It obviously cannot be proven but teams are using this to their benefit on pitchers. Seems like a lot of pitchers are magically hurt after their start. Lets put them on the DL, which gives us an extra arm in the pen for 5 or 6 days until they would have started, and it gives guys a few extra days if teams want to manage their workload. This is causing more guys on the DL and forcing people to tap into the crappy FAAB pool of pitching, especially if they have several injured batters and legit injured pitchers. It might make more sense to just add a bench spot like Mike suggested. Everyone is damn near always going to have an injured player anyway. DL designation may not be necessary.

[Edwards Kings]

Pitching does seem worse than ever but what do the numbers tell us?

I think to win the main event you should be targeting that magical 80th percentile in all categories. If pitching has rapidly deteriorated then it would seem that the 80th percentile 6 years ago for example would be a higher / better number than today? Not sure. Whatever the case....here are the 80th percentile pitching numbers for the main event contest since 2011:

Year - wins / saves / ks / era / whip

2011 - 101 / 88 / 1339 / 3.561 / 1.225
2012 - 101 / 84 / 1346 / 3.635 / 1.224
2013 - 99 / 87 / 1375 / 3.475 / 1.209
2014 - 99 / 89 / 1415 / 3.321 / 1.191
2015 - 98 / 88 / 1375 / 3.517 / 1.202
2016 - 96 / 89 / 1389 / 3.670 / 1.222

2017 to date for ratios: 3.827 / 1.236

The numbers are closer than what I would have predicted.

Agree on the 2 Catcher thing. Agree on the need for a DL spot and how the lack of such has an effect on P. Thanks for starting the discussion Dan!

Good numbers but somewhere I have the numbers that go back before the first "Year of the Pitchers". If memory serves, our 80% targets were around 3.800 and WHIPs of 1.300 with 1,200 for K's. Then the pitching changed. Guys with 7.0 or 7.5 K per 9 became the soft-tosser end of the spectrum rather than the average. Now this year continues a gentle trend, as your numbers so, back closer to where we started. But the K's are still up there. And Wins and Saves haven't budged much since 2004.

Anyway and I am not saying you were advocating a change, the movement in pitching stats doesn't warrant a change in rosters.

Anyways, not sure I am for a DL spot(s) is the answer, but enjoying the conversation.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I like the ideas.
To follow up on roster expansion, I have a couple of thoughts.

What if we kept drafts at 30 rounds and we all were given a 'free' free agent once FAAB begins. This would keep the drafting traditional and provide bench help for mounting injuries.
This could stand alone or...
We could even have a penalty for having to use that extra bench spot.
This would come in the form of a $25-$100 assessment against our FAAB totals.
It would leave us with the choice and challenge of using the extra spot or trying to stay away from the extra player and penalty that would go along with it.

Just thoughts.
Keep the ideas coming....

Edit- On second thought, the penalty may be too much info for newer players and more of a nuisance for participants.
Probably not a good idea.....

[JohnP]

1 Catcher slot. 1 extra Reserve. Same amount of draft rounds.

[DOUGHBOYS]

1 Catcher slot. 1 extra Reserve. Same amount of draft rounds.

I would personally be 100% behind this.
There are a lot of NFBC'ers who think the 2-catcher system adds more 'strategy'.
For me, I believe there would be more strategy with one.

[Bronx Yankees]

1 Catcher slot. 1 extra Reserve. Same amount of draft rounds.

I would personally be 100% behind this.
There are a lot of NFBC'ers who think the 2-catcher system adds more 'strategy'.
For me, I believe there would be more strategy with one.

This might be a way to keep 30 round drafts and add a bench spot. I do kind of like having two catchers, however, because I think it forces more decisions, and is more challenging to manage. I tend to dislike proposed rule changes that make things easier.

That being said, given the current sorry state of the position, and the fact that starting two catchers creates far more position scarcity than at any other position, I do understand the desire of some to lose the second catcher. Dan, I am curious as to why you think there is more strategy with just one catcher. I would say there is more strategy with two catchers (e.g., do you over-draft a second catcher to get a decent one or just wait on the position and take the dregs? do you roster a guy with a little pop at the risk of batting average), but am open to being convinced otherwise. Inasmuch as there probably are 15 good-to-decent catching options, doesn't going to just one catcher position make things much easier (and less "strategic")?

Also, is there any concern that potentially going to 13 hitters and 9 pitchers instead of 14/9 throws off the hitting v. pitching balance that we seem to have with the current system? This was one of my concerns about going to 8 starting pitchers. Maybe I'm stuck on the current system because I have grown so accustomed to it. Remember, I usually do not like change.

One side note: in discussing how bad the catchers position is, I recall how wrong many of us were about 1B this year. A bunch of folks, myself included, thought that 1B was very top-heavy, and that after the second tier or so, there really wasn't much left to choose from. Of course, we just all undervalued 2017 studs like Ryan Zimmerman, Logan Morrison, Yonder Alonso, Mark Reynolds, Cody Bellinger, Trey Mancini (recently eligible), etc. (all available in Round 20 and later). Who knows? Perhaps in a year or two, the catcher position will look stronger than it does today.

Mike

[KJ Duke]

I'm not against innovating and improving in general, but I agree with Bronx that making the game easier doesn't make it better. I'm firmly in the camp of having 2 catchers and 30-man rosters. I had at least one team this yr that was up to 6 DL guys and was forced into a tough drop, not to mention hampered on speculating on other players I liked. But those types of decisions make this game challenging; I'm not persuaded it needs to be changed.

[King of Queens]

Maybe we should go back to 29 rounds. Make it extra challenging

https://web.archive.org/web/20040402101 ... /rules.asp

[Ando]

Just a couple of years ago, we were allowed to swap pitchers on Friday for a portion (can't remember the length) of September.

Since we are all monitoring batters for Friday - Sunday in addition to the Disabled List being used more frequently (just an observation, no statistical evidence), maybe open up the pitchers as well for weekend changes.

[Wolfpac]

I'm not against innovating and improving in general, but I agree with Bronx that making the game easier doesn't make it better. I'm firmly in the camp of having 2 catchers and 30-man rosters. I had at least one team this yr that was up to 6 DL guys and was forced into a tough drop, not to mention hampered on speculating on other players I liked. But those types of decisions make this game challenging; I'm not persuaded it needs to be changed.

I'm with The Duke! Keep it the same all these tough decisions add to the complexity of this game.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I don't advocate change right away. However, I do think it is something that can and should be discussed.
I know how fantasy players get their back up when it comes to any kind of change at all.

Mike, I believe that the two catcher system is born out of tradition and is non-sensical.
If we had a one catcher system from the beginning, folks would laugh and scoff at 2 catchers being started.
It would be like advocating two tight ends in football right now.
Who would want that?
It wouldn't make fantasy football 'harder'.
Tradition affected fantasy baseball in that way, but not fantasy football.
If anything, the two catcher system limits or eliminates strategy. We do like to say it makes the game more difficult.
The two catcher system, it is a 'draft and forget' position.
Once you have drafted your two catchers, it is a given that you will hold those catchers most of the year or replace them with crappy catchers.
While other positions offer hope for for injured players rostered, we plug in a catcher, hoping for even a one rbi or run and not too much of a batting average drag.
There is a chance that we may get lucky with a Zunino or somebody hot, but for the most part, there is very little 'strategy' involving catchers once drafted.
With the one catcher system, in season management does become a strategy.
Do you carry two decent catchers, one as a backup?
How high do you draft your one catcher?
Even 'streaming' catchers becomes an option or strategy.
There is also a better chance of replacement with FAAB, but you'd have to decide if having more faith in the catcher drafted or the hot catcher on FAAB.
It makes for many more decisions in-season.
We have had two catchers so long, that most would fear changing it to one catcher.
Bringing up that change would meet much resistance.
I don't find the 2 catcher system 'harder', I find it boring, dull.
The one catcher roster would ultimately be more demanding and 'harder'.
That all said, I do not think that the two catcher system is the problem.

As said in the original post, there is no ebb and flow with pitching. We are getting decreasing innings from pitchers.
Six innings is the new eight innings.
And sooner, rather than later, it'll be the winning plateau of five innings pitched.
125 pitches was a max at one time. Now, relievers are warming up before 100 pitches are thrown.
It's a game changer in baseball and eventually it will be a game changer for our game.

Pitchers are also falling more by the wayside with in-season injury.
The 10 game dl rule has also contributed to pitchers being 'conveniently' rested for a turn.
This week, the only team to have their Opening Week starting staff still in place was the St Louis Cardinals.
Sure, we play a game of attrition and we're use to injuries.
We roll with what baseball gives us.
We're good at what we do and do not want change.
But baseball is changing.
Eventually, we will have to as well.

[KJ Duke]

Dan, no argument about the game changing but all that means is that we have to change with it.

Pitcher roles changing? Draft differently, FAAB differently, strategize differently. No resting on your laurels of what worked 8 years ago. That's a good thing. But changing the rules to address it has no real impact for me, other than requiring us to reassess each of those things which we need to do anyway. With the game changing we already have to reassess. I just don't get the connection between pitcher roles changing and the need for a rule change for fantasy. If anything, the rule change needs to come at the MLB level, such as how they award pitcher wins. Maybe 4 IP from a starter is good enough, maybe a reliever that blows a lead shouldn't be eligible for a win, maybe a shut-down middle reliever that clearly out-pitches the starter should be awarded wins in some situations. But none of those things, still, would necessitate a rule change for fantasy in my mind, just further re-assessment of how we draft/manage.

As for the 2-catcher system, maybe part of it is tradition for me but I am happy to toss tradition in other aspects so I'm not sure that plays much of a role. Catchers, two of them, is interesting because they are in short supply. Unlike every other hitting slot they are hard to replace which makes the draft more interesting. It's a bit like having roto categories like saves and steals; they are in short supply so you have to be strategic in how and where you spend for them. You can't just take the best player on the board, unless you want to punt. And you can punt, which gives you strength elsewhere as the suckers are spending on these scarce but less productive options. That makes the draft, and FAAB, more dynamic. It's why I like 2-catcher rosters, saves, steals, TE's, kickers and defenses in fantasy. I'm playing in a one-catcher league this season. It's boring like C isn't even a position, and it feels like a piece of the game and strategy has been removed. Thus, I don't think I'll ever be a fan of 1-catcher leagues.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I don't agree on both ends, KJ.
(Whatever happened to us? We used to agree on everything )

Our game is predicated on starting pitching.
Baseball is changing to involve the relief pitchers more and more.
I believe that the 'Utility pitcher' will become a thing of the future.
Pitchers like Andrew Miller, Chris Devenski, and others will move to the forefront.
Our game has little in the way of rewarding such pitchers.
Four of our five categories are based on Starters.
Our game is slanted far in the direction of starting pitching.
Baseball is veering away from Starters and more towards specialists.
I'd rather be proactive in starting discussions now, than reactive later.

I play in a one catcher league too, thoroughly enjoy it.
The reasons have already been stated.
I don't feel that this needs too much time here.
There are far too many Main Event players that would resist the change to a one catcher system.
I do find it silly and so, so dull.

[ToddZ]

If the landscape remains the way it is now, middle relievers will organically become more useful as fantasy owners realize having Miller/Devenksi/Betances etc. instead of streaming an SP7 may earn more ratio points than are lost in W and K.

There are two rules in the NFBC I'd change.

1. Having DL and reserve on the same list -- teams with fewer injuries also have more reserve spots to work with for in-season moves. The big question is how big a dedicated DL should each team have. That's less important to me than having it separate.

2. Allowing players drafted then dropped to remain in that league's pool, even if the player is a prospect that never played in MLB yet. In an overall competition, the available inventory for all leagues should be the same. Again, I don't care as much about how the available pool is determined as I am it's the same for all teams within each overall competition.

[KJ Duke]

I don't agree on both ends, KJ.
(Whatever happened to us? We used to agree on everything )

Did it happen around the same time CO legalized?

Baseball is changing to involve the relief pitchers more and more.
I believe that the 'Utility pitcher' will become a thing of the future.
Pitchers like Andrew Miller, Chris Devenski, and others will move to the forefront.
Our game has little in the way of rewarding such pitchers.
Four of our five categories are based on Starters.

No doubt RP is evolving, but these guys are getting drafted or picked up in 15 team lges. Miller, Devenski, Kahnle, pre-closer Rivero, Edwards, all of these types can contribute. Likewise, only 2 of the cats are really based predominantly on SPs as the ratios make the aforementioned MR types valuable, especially when a few seemingly good SPs get blown-up for 5-6 ERs every night. Mixing these guys in - because you can't just pickup sub-1.00 WHIP SPs in FAAB like you can MRs - to help with ratios makes the game more interesting, and the evolving nature of their role gives them potentially more value too.

[KJ Duke]

There are two rules in the NFBC I'd change.

1. Having DL and reserve on the same list -- teams with fewer injuries also have more reserve spots to work with for in-season moves. The big question is how big a dedicated DL should each team have. That's less important to me than having it separate.

If DL was added, and I'm not completely against it, I'd rather it be a 5 or 6-man bench with 1-2 DL slots, as opposed to shrinking the available FAAB pool with bigger rosters. My main resistance to this has to do with timing issues around designating injured players as officially injured, we all know that was a PITA last time the NFBC had a DL rule.

2. Allowing players drafted then dropped to remain in that league's pool, even if the player is a prospect that never played in MLB yet. In an overall competition, the available inventory for all leagues should be the same. Again, I don't care as much about how the available pool is determined as I am it's the same for all teams within each overall competition.

A reasonable argument here, but that's a quirk I like even if the alternative is arguably more equitable.

[ToddZ]

If DL was added, and I'm not completely against it, I'd rather it be a 5 or 6-man bench with 1-2 DL slots, as opposed to shrinking the available FAAB pool with bigger rosters. My main resistance to this has to do with timing issues around designating injured players as officially injured, we all know that was a PITA last time the NFBC had a DL rule.

I think this can be handled much like eligibility for the FAAB run is currently determined.

Players are eligible for DL designation so long as they were listed on the DL posted by mlb.com (as an example) dated by the Saturday preceding the FAAB run. This is something that should be available via the stat stream used to fuel the standings.

Part of doing FAAB is placing players on the DL. If this opens up a reserve spot, we don't need to include a drop. The system disallows claims resulting in too many reserves.

We'll need a means to police taking players off the DL -- "X" grace periods (could be zero) and if the player isn't moved to active or reserve, he's automatically released. Again, the time stamp would be provided by the stat service. The time stamp information is available, it's a matter of programming.

[KJ Duke]

If DL was added, and I'm not completely against it, I'd rather it be a 5 or 6-man bench with 1-2 DL slots, as opposed to shrinking the available FAAB pool with bigger rosters. My main resistance to this has to do with timing issues around designating injured players as officially injured, we all know that was a PITA last time the NFBC had a DL rule.

I think this can be handled much like eligibility for the FAAB run is currently determined.

Players are eligible for DL designation so long as they were listed on the DL posted by mlb.com (as an example) dated by the Saturday preceding the FAAB run. This is something that should be available via the stat stream used to fuel the standings.

Part of doing FAAB is placing players on the DL. If this opens up a reserve spot, we don't need to include a drop. The system disallows claims resulting in too many reserves.

We'll need a means to police taking players off the DL -- "X" grace periods (could be zero) and if the player isn't moved to active or reserve, he's automatically released. Again, the time stamp would be provided by the stat service. The time stamp information is available, it's a matter of programming.

Because of the additional issue of having to move players off the DL, this sounds exponentially more problematic in a big contest than the pitcher DL tag. If I'm the operator, a no-brainer not-worth-the-risk for a marginal (if any) game benefit.

[Yah Mule]

Interesting topic. In responding, I'll confess upfront that I typically am somewhat resistant to change and probably am a traditionalist when it comes to fantasy baseball (and many other things). Also, I really like the existing NFBC rules.

Initially, I don't see a big need to change the number of pitchers in a starting lineup. Yes, all of us are starting some pitchers we probably would prefer not to start (or even roster), and the pitching available in FAAB generally has been less than stellar, but one could argue that it just makes managing pitching more challenging for all of us. I'm also not sure that reducing the number of starting pitchers is desirable, primarily because it would impact the relative weighting of pitchers versus hitters come draft time. I guess I'd need to think it through some more.

I'm also not a fan of adding a category for holds (which would necessitate adding a hitting category to maintain the existing balance). I agree that middle relievers are becoming increasingly important. I suppose if folks felt strongly about recognizing this development, I'd be more comfortable with changing the saves category to saves plus holds (although, as indicated above, my first preference probably would be to maintain the status quo in terms of categories).

Of the proposed changes mentioned, the one I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to is possibly adding a bench spot. MLB changed its rules, and now we have 10-day DL stints that seemingly are adding to the number of players on the DL at any given time. (Note: this is just my sense; I haven't yet seen - but would be interested in - comparisons of number of days on the DL in 2017 compared to prior years.) Maybe I just drafted poorly, but it seems I've averaged about five DL players on my seven-player bench for most of this season. If days on the DL is increasing significantly, I suppose that could justify an extra bench spot. I would not opt for more than one extra bench spot because I do like the challenge of managing a limited bench. Again, this is not supposed to be easy.

I think there are ebbs and flows in baseball. Homers rose, then fell, then rose again. Stolen bases have fluctuated. Even in the last few years, pitching stats have moved, and scoring certainly seems to be making a rebound compared to recent years. The closer role is extremely volatile, but it seems like it always is in recent years. I guess I'm not a big fan of changing longstanding rules in response to these types of ebbs and flows. Where MLB changes its rules - e.g., the new 10-day DL period - that might justify an extra bench spot, but only if the data indicates that there has been a material increase in injured players. I recognize that 30 is a nice round number, but could drafts go to 31 rounds (kind of like Baskin Robbins' ice cream flavors)? This is not necessarily something I'm advocating now, but I'm more open to tweaking the bench in response to an MLB rule change than adjusting the fantasy categories or starting lineups.

Just my two cents. Reasonable minds definitely can differ on this topic.

Mike

I agree. We're making this all very complicated and the solution of simply adding another roster spot is right there in front of us. I started a week recently with eight guys officially on the DL, although one was a pitcher who came off the DL and made a start. So I can understand why people want the added flexibility. I really don't think another 15 guys being removed from the FAAB pool will be that significant. Round numbers are nice, but it's really an aesthetic concern and function should always be the goal.

[Edwards Kings]

We're making this all very complicated and the solution of simply adding another roster spot is right there in front of us. I started a week recently with eight guys officially on the DL, although one was a pitcher who came off the DL and made a start. So I can understand why people want the added flexibility. I really don't think another 15 guys being removed from the FAAB pool will be that significant. Round numbers are nice, but it's really an aesthetic concern and function should always be the goal.

Sorry for all the DL spots, and I understand your point. But I am not sure I agree 15 guys being removed from the FAAB pool wouldn't be significant. Raw numbers, we are into ML rosters about 60% (450 players on our rosters and reserves versus 750 MLB players on each teams 25 man roster). Now take out the approximately four pitchers on a team no one wants (middle reliever/situational lefty/5th man types) and one offensive player no one wants (second catcher/glove only utility/Alcides Escobar) and that percentage already moves up to 75% penetration. I know this does not count DL players we cannot afford to release or those ML players we hope to see soon, but I am just trying to draw a general picture.

In short, the pool is thin (properly) reflecting the no-trade aspect of the competition. Those 15 guys are key. Hell, not sure I can find 15 guys in the FA pool I actually want on my team right now. Take 15 out and Escobar starts looking like a stud.