https://nfbcforums.sportshubtech.com/
https://nfbcforums.sportshubtech.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20893
Yah Mule wrote:This is pretty much my opinion. Players who are injury prone have that already baked into their price. Risk aversion is part of the game. An owner who drafts risky players or doubles up on the tools of ignorance is exposing himself to additional risk. Why should he be allowed an extra resource to pursue this high variance strategy?Gb2715 wrote:justiceberry wrote:ps thanks for the advice Ando, i was hoping somebody would advise me on how to play fantasy baseball good
Really? He has a point. Injury prone players get a knock on their draft positions along with injury prone positions. If you want two stud catchers? Instead of say a 3b or an OF that is your choice but you put all your eggs in one basket with these two. I own Z in 1 league and Perez in none. The league with Z is an Al only auction. Yay. But I'll deal with it. If you DL these guys then someone else getting hurt next week for another team will put them in the same bad spot but their won't be those two replacements to bid on. So how is that fair?
Also should Trea Turner owners get a redo because he is batting 6th? I'm only half kidding here! Thank god I had Arenado ranked higher and got him everywhere I could.
Like everyone here who has played a large number of leagues, I've looked at my roster and seen seven red crosses on my bench. It sucks, but this is the business we have chosen.
Right now, a couple early injuries and my own fetish for rookies is going to compromise my movements in free agency this Sunday on a couple teams. I drafted Ronald Acuña and Willie Calhoun with my eyes wide open about service time rules. I knew I was going to be without those guys for two weeks and a month, respectively, in a best case scenario. I also knew that an early OF injury would be problematic. So, when I had the hubris to draft Aaron Hicks as well and he got injured like he does every year, do I deserve a DL spot to cover for my high risk behavior? How about a guy who has a pitching staff with Paxton, Hill, Salazar, Wacha and Garrett Richards? Why don't we fit that owner with a set of training wheels, too?
Nailed it! Could not agree more. And nobody mentions how having DL spots affects drafts. There is less risk in drafting a Mad-Bum or the other myriad injured guys knowing you can just instantly plop them on the DL & then go to work on FAAB & essentially carry extra players than your competitor who took a less risky approach. Knowing there will be injuries is baked into the decision to have seven precious bench spots. No DL spots ever.Can we get some data on the sucking catcher strategy winning in the NFBC?Ando wrote:I would suggest to the original poster that he develops a game strategy of roster construction that does not involve taking a C in the first 15 rounds. It puts the responsibility on the owner and makes those 2 positions of C less damaging if and when one or both get hurt.
My opinion (not statistically backed) is that position carries the highest risk of injury. I also feel that the best of that position plays 130-140 games tops. I do not feel 2 top 12 round picks is a wise decision based on those last two statements. Now, losing Z and Sal before April is a hilariously bad string of luck.
I have 2 ME teams. Both my C's are Lucroy and Swihart. Yes, my C2 is not even really a C anymore and if he gets 10 AB a week I'll be pleased. But he cost a 25th & 27th round pick. If he gets some half-ass quality of the 10 AB's a week, he'll stick around for me. If not, he'll be shit canned. .....well, maybe not....because owners like you need to swim in the C pool this weekend to replace Z, Sal, Suzuki, Flowers, etc.
Injuries are part of the game. They suck. And we aren't even talking about Pitchers here or teams manipulating the 10 day DL rule. But losing two catchers to the DL who are top 8-12 round picks is a problem I will never experience based on how I choose to play this game.
Therefore a trip to the DL is actually a win in batting average.Ando wrote:I have none, Shawn. You know this.
But it is contrary to the data and belief that a player with ~1700 PA in his career carrying a .209 AVG is somehow classified a "STUD".
I own him a lot this year...Ando wrote:Also, put me in the camp of folks who doesn't think Lucroy quite sucks yet. He sucked last year, but meeting somewhere in the middle this year between his '16 & '17 numbers is not quite suckdom for a C1.
Don't let Matt fool you. He has Sanchez, Contreras, and Posey envy.....justiceberry wrote:Greg, appreciate you taking time to give a thoughtful opinion as always.
the rest of you Neanderthals: its all in good fun :0
and i damn well better receive a blue ribbon for chipping in to the pot that the jason castro/blake swihart squad is likely taking home
He'd snap them up no problem in the contract league. Even uglier girls end on his squad when he has the open checkbook.DOUGHBOYS wrote:Don't let Matt fool you. He has Sanchez, Contreras, and Posey envy.....justiceberry wrote:Greg, appreciate you taking time to give a thoughtful opinion as always.
the rest of you Neanderthals: its all in good fun :0
and i damn well better receive a blue ribbon for chipping in to the pot that the jason castro/blake swihart squad is likely taking home
One might think so, but even there I keep true to myself: Barnes, Joseph, Hundley, and Brian McCann.CC's Desperados wrote:He'd snap them up no problem in the contract league. Even uglier girls end on his squad when he has the open checkbook.DOUGHBOYS wrote:Don't let Matt fool you. He has Sanchez, Contreras, and Posey envy.....justiceberry wrote:Greg, appreciate you taking time to give a thoughtful opinion as always.
the rest of you Neanderthals: its all in good fun :0
and i damn well better receive a blue ribbon for chipping in to the pot that the jason castro/blake swihart squad is likely taking home
I like the idea of available DL weeks. Using 26 weeks, that would be worst case the equal of removing 1 player per team over the course of the season. Not everyone would use it all season, so maybe instead of reducing the FAAB pool by 15 players it may be only 10-12.CC's Desperados wrote: Maybe a solution outside the box is that each Fantasy owner has on DL area of his teams, which has a value of 26 weeks. In essence, each team would gain one extra bench slot over the course of the season. By doing this way, a Fantasy owner could use up his injured area of his team when needed. If he had four players hurt in April for a month, all injured players could be placed on the DL. These players would then take away 16 weeks of his injured quota.
In this case, the injured team doesn't gain an edge on a healthy team as the team with no injuries will have the same Maybe a full 26 weeks of injured slots is too much. The last month of the season Major league baseball teams don't place many players on the DL due to roster expansion.
I'm with Greg on being very cautious about reducing the available FAAB pool but with just 13 or 15 DL weeks per team to manage it wouldn't have a huge pool impact, and as Shawn said it eases the current bad luck double-whammy.DOUGHBOYS wrote:Great Minds, KJ. I had 13 weeks.
But as said, I don't think it'll fly with this group.
The aim would be to help teams with multiple injuries at the same time and it would be unusual to have all of your DL players get hurt and not one of them be officially DL on Sunday. If you're waiting on only one guy to hit the DL, too bad. Timing on the DL stamp was far more problematic when we were waiting on every DL'd player twice week than it would be here for occasional use.Greg Ambrosius wrote:Just my two cents: We tried to rely on DL listings once before and it was a disaster. We all know that reports of a player going on the DL are posted on industry content sites well before they officially land on MLB's DL list. We know how that worked when owners got mad at STATS for not adding DL listings to players they knew were going on the DL, when in fact it was MLB's doing not STATS'. The same thing will happen here as we are at the mercy of MLB officially listing players on the DL. I see confusion and frustration coming with this type of addition to the rules.
And again, at any one time 15 teams could all have one DL'd player added to their roster, taking 15 players from the free agent pool. Is that a bad thing? I'll let others decide.
What’s the justification for “helping teams”?KJ Duke wrote: The aim would be to help teams with multiple injuries at the same time
Do you read what you write? Is every player hurt injury prone? Is getting hit with by a pitch the batter's fault? Why is it skill to avoid injured players? What turns this game into a lottery?Deadheadz wrote:What’s the justification for “helping teams”?KJ Duke wrote: The aim would be to help teams with multiple injuries at the same time
You want a safety net for managers who draft injury prone players?
It sounds like you want to take away the skill from the game and turn it into a lottery.
I do not like the expanded bench idea at all, I think 7 is an ideal number, BUT I love suggestion number 2, because it adds another dynamic layer of strategy! BrilliantToddZ wrote:1. No DL, but expand reserves to 10, draft seven, add last three via FAAB with no drops
Pool penetration is around 62 percent, leaving plenty of free agents. Sure, they're not the quality we're used to, but it's relative. Remember, this game originally called for 12 team AL or NL only rosters, that's 74 percent penetration, without reserves. Add six reserves and it's 93 percent.
2. Keep Monday moves for everyone and Friday moves for hitters, then allow discretionary moves for any reason for $20 FAAB.
At most, a team could do 50 moves, fewer than two a week and spend no FAAB.