Minimum starts

[Spyhunter]

Greg,

I continue to see more and more players trying to pull the inactive pitcher strategy. I would vote that we add a minimum # of starts to next year's rules. Or next year, I will just follow suit and draft 3 closers and pitchers who won't pitcher, thereby probably giving me 47 pitching points and allowing me to focus the rest of my picks on hitting, thereby making my hitting better than it should be. Is this what we all want? Isn't starting pitching one of the BIGGEST parts of baseball?



Regards,

Spy

[viper]

It's not clear that this is a winning strategy.



(1) you need to have three closers who don't get hurt or your saves score fails. Plus you better hope no one else drafts three closers or the "15" may not happen.



(2) To get closers with top notch ERAs and WHIPs (needed to get those 15s), you must draft all THREE fairly early in the draft. This means your hitting will not be as good as multiple other teams in your league.



In NY7, two teams undertook this idea. One went the closer and lower minor leaguer route. His closers were Gagne, Rivera and Mota. He did get Brazaban off waivers but his saves score is just an "8". He has acquired the perfect 15, 15 in ratios and the expected 1,1 in wins and strikeouts.



Another team used a similar strategy but got two closers and numerous closers-in-waiting. This should yield a very high score in saves but get a 2 in Ks and Wins. His ratio scores are currently 9 & 4 with a 2 & 2 in wins and Ks. His save score is 13.



Both teams currently have 42 hitting points. This idea cannot win an overall prize and requires an inordinate amount of luck to even place in your league. The reason is the need to draft quality closers early. You are better prepared for injuries and your bench should be better but that does not make up for other factors.



In a single league universe (AL only or NL only), this idea has a chance but not in a mixed universe.



At least that is my take on things.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

Greg,

I continue to see more and more players trying to pull the inactive pitcher strategy. I would vote that we add a minimum # of starts to next year's rules. Or next year, I will just follow suit and draft 3 closers and pitchers who won't pitcher, thereby probably giving me 47 pitching points and allowing me to focus the rest of my picks on hitting, thereby making my hitting better than it should be. Is this what we all want? Isn't starting pitching one of the BIGGEST parts of baseball?



Regards,

Spy I'll evaluate everything at season's end, but at this point I doubt I'll go toward a minimum number of starts rule or even a larger minimum number of innings pitched. For the overall contest, I've allowed for many different strategies and some are working and others aren't. But I'll look it all over and come up with a plan immediately after the 2005 season is completed so that we can have the rules in place starting the day after the regular season is completed. But again, right now I don't envision many rules changes.

[crazytown]

There are 12 teams out of the overall 300 that have a total of 10 saves or less. I didn't look at any of their rosters but would assume they are using a lineup of all starting pitchers. I understand that a SP is probably more a part of most games but in this fantasy league, one of the five pitching stats is saves. When are we going to enact the rule that every team must have at least one closer. It's a category just like wins. There are some closers that will end up with more K's than some starters and therefore be valuable in all 5 categories assuming they pick up a win or two.

I vote that every team must have two closers. There are 15 teams in each league and 30 in the majors. Greg and his guys will designate the Official closer list. You must have 2, no more no less. Every week Greg will update the list as the closers lose their jobs or get injured.

As far as I know, none of the all reliever guys are doing all that well. Why anyone would say that next year they will do this, is beyond me.

So stop your whining and play by the rules that currently exist or don't play.

On another note, I do believe that you can win a mixed league using this strategy and hope to prove it by trying again next year. Four of my top 6 picks, yes 4 of 6, were Nomar, Gagne, Bonds, and Kaz Matsui. And I'm still in the middle of the pack in my league. Imagine if I could actually draft!

Thanks for taking the time to read this nonsense.

Have a nice day,

Dan

GM/President of Baseball Operations

CRAZYTOWN

[Ken]

Having the freedom to try different strategies is a fun part of this game, forcing everyone to conform to the same strategy is a bad idea. The no starters strategy only works if no one else does it in your league and that sets up a possible draft showdown if 4 or 5 owners haven't drafted any pitching other than closers through 15 or so rounds. You suddenly realize it can't work for all of you and someone has to blink first.

Next year many people may go into the draft thinking they'll try this strategy but if too many others in the same league try it it will backfire and the astute owner who sees this happening can get great pitching value late in the draft.



Leave things as they are.

[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.

[Dyv]

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

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by crazytown.gov:

There are 12 teams out of the overall 300 that have a total of 10 saves or less. I didn't look at any of their rosters but would assume they are using a lineup of all starting pitchers. I understand that a SP is probably more a part of most games but in this fantasy league, one of the five pitching stats is saves. When are we going to enact the rule that every team must have at least one closer. It's a category just like wins. There are some closers that will end up with more K's than some starters and therefore be valuable in all 5 categories assuming they pick up a win or two.

I vote that every team must have two closers. There are 15 teams in each league and 30 in the majors. Greg and his guys will designate the Official closer list. You must have 2, no more no less. Every week Greg will update the list as the closers lose their jobs or get injured.

As far as I know, none of the all reliever guys are doing all that well. Why anyone would say that next year they will do this, is beyond me.

So stop your whining and play by the rules that currently exist or don't play.

On another note, I do believe that you can win a mixed league using this strategy and hope to prove it by trying again next year. Four of my top 6 picks, yes 4 of 6, were Nomar, Gagne, Bonds, and Kaz Matsui. And I'm still in the middle of the pack in my league. Imagine if I could actually draft!

Thanks for taking the time to read this nonsense.

Have a nice day,

Dan

GM/President of Baseball Operations

CRAZYTOWN I don't understand why we would have to enact this rule unless all 12 of those teams were leading their leagues and heading the top 12 of the overall contest. At that point, even a dummy like myself could see that something was wrong. I might be wrong here, but of the Top 20 teams in the overall contest, everyone has at least 34 team saves and the overall leader has 86. So it's apparent that most of the top teams are staying competitive in that category. Of the Top 20 overall teams, everyone except one has at least 1,000 pitching points, so they are balanced offensively and pitching-wise. The teams that have no closers are obviously more offensive-heavy in points than pitching heavy.



I'm not adverse to changing the rules to make the competition more even when it's needed, but I think allowing different strategies is good in a national contest. Maybe a higher minimum innings pitched total is needed. Maybe allowing just players on MLB 40-man rosters is needed. We'll see. But by looking at the bottom teams in saves, I don't see where they are gaining an advantage at all. In fact, I'm not sure if any of those 12 teams you mentioned are in the money right now.



As for daily transactions, we won't have that in the main national contest. Maybe it's something we could offer in a side contest. Allowing twice-weekly lineup changes would be the next step if we ever went to more than just weekly lineup changes.

[la Jolla]

several years ago i played in a league that was won by the team "hankerchiefs" employing the all reliever method, so it can work.....thing is, everything has to fall perfectly in order for that to happen...the plus side is that one can load up on hitting and gain an advantage there, while cherry picking middle relievers late in the draft with good ratios and set out for a hopeful 42-47 pts in pitching....coming out of the draft a team built like this will match up very well in a league of 15 teams, those trying to compete in the 300 overall have absolutely no chance, even if the strategy works perfectly....NOW IN REALITY, this strategy is very difficult to pull off over the course of the season...the closers you draft have to remain healthy, keep the closers job all season and achieve the ratios they are expected to achieve...far from easy.....i drafted 2 such teams this year and the results are quite different yet both failures....one team has dominated in the hitting categories and is currently pulling a whopping 18 pts in pitching...i am dead last in whip and in the bottom of the pack in era as well...at the draft i came away with francisco cordero and foulke...thought i would be fine, we all know what happened there.....my other team i got lucky enough to grab wickman late in the draft, but hold my breath every time he pitches, and again f. cordero...i had crain, riske, ayala etc.....all guys that were putting up great ratios most of the year....then bang...in a 2 week stretch my whip went from 1.22 to 1.31 and basically put a fork in me because on this team my hitting is not performing anywhere close to expectations....i do not believe there needs to be any rule changes to counter this strategy because it is not proven enough to win or have any advantage at all....with the closers carousel that exists in baseball and the extremely unpredictable middle relievers, there is no advantage to punting starters in my opinion, but i like the fact that people can try various methods in playing the game.....

[JohnZ]

I agree that everything has to go just right to win this way, but a change needs to be made.



Is the object of this to test one's overall baseball knowledge, or a test on how to manipulate whatever rules we are given?



The answer should be "A", then go after "B", not just "B".



Make it as close to the real thing as possible.



The real thing IMO means enough IP to cover at least 4 starting P's plus your pen.



Then everyone gets tested on all facets of baseball.



How can the National Champion be crowned such if he gets to eliminate a decent amount of the decison process?

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by UFS:

How can the National Champion be crowned such if he gets to eliminate a decent amount of the decison process? We haven't had a national champion yet that has eliminated a decent amount of the decision process. Thus far, balanced teams have won league titles, not those who try to dump certain categories.



John, you've been around long enough to know that people try all kinds of strategies in this game, which is great. People have tried to dump saves in LABR for years. Having set pitching positions is an option, but not one that I've employed in this game. The topic of this thread was MAKING people have closers on their rosters, not avoiding having closers. In my research today, of the 30 closers with 10 or more saves thus far, 12 of them were not closers on Opening Day. Forty percent of MLB teams have switched to new closers during the first four months of the season, which is an amazing number. So you could avoid closers on Draft Day and still get enough FAAB pickups to compete in that category. How great is that?

[ToddZ]

Is the object of this to test one's overall baseball knowledge, or a test on how to manipulate whatever rules we are given?

Neither. The object is to amass as many rotisserie points as possible.



Tools at our disposal are the statistics and positional qualifications of the pool of Major League ballplayers and the rules/scoring system of the rotisserie game itself.



The object is to best convert the stats of the players into rotisserie points within the framework of the rules of the game.



That involves knowing baseball as well as knowing things non-baseball.



I call it the Scrabble Theory.



Who wins a game of Scrabble? The person with the best vocabulary? Perhaps. This is akin to knowing baseball the best. But what if the two combatants have the exact same vocabulary, now who wins? The person who gets the best letters? Perhaps. This is akin to avoiding injuries and having your set up man become closer or your reserve OF become a starter--that is it involves luck. Now what if luck evens out, who wins? The most clever--the player who best uses the board in terms of double and triple workd scores, the player who builds off another word and gets credit for both words.



This is akin to using the strategies being discussed in this thread. It has nothing to do with your vocabulary, or "knowing baseball", but is an integral element to the game of fantasy baseball.

[Leaderboard Sports]

Fantasy baseball was never meant to be like real baseball or we wouldn't have 2 catchers, CI's, MI's, 5 outfielders, and we would be making daily roster moves. I don't understand people wanting to change the rules to make it more like real baseball and then cry bloody murder if someone suggests daily roster moves.



The contest will never be about who is the best "closest to real life" baseball manager until there are daily roster moves, expanded benches, and a 9 man starting lineup. Until that happens the contest will be won by the person who best adapts his baseball knowledge to the NFBC rules.



Since daily roster moves likely won't happen I see no reason to make other changes to the rules. When rules are changed to counter strategies where do you draw the line? Do you come up with a rule to keep someone from loading up on middle infielders early if that strategy proves to be succesfull?



Every no start strategy user throws 6 or 7 more starters into the draft for the rest of the teams in that league to draft. When the same player pool is used, any strategy, whether punting speed, punting saves, punting starts, punting outfielders, or whatever, makes players available to the rest of the league that wouldn't have been there otherwise. This creates an advantage for the owner who recognizes what's going on during the draft and adjusts his strategy to counter. If 3 or 4 teams are punting starters then you put off drafting starters till late and end up with a strong team. I would hate to see all teams forced to be similar by rule changes. I prefer you leave the rules alone.

[viper]

This may take it to an extreme but I have always felt the three most important things in fantasy sports are:



1) read and understandand the rules

2) re-read the rules

3) never forget rule #1



[ July 24, 2005, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: viper ]

[CC's Desperados]

In year one of the NFBC, there were minimum innings pitched in the auction leagues. The problem was their were only three leagues. In year two, they dropped the minimum innings pitched. I'm not sure why. In the auction formats, the closer strategy can be executed at a higher rate of success than the draft. The question is should someone be able to manipulate the stats. I guess that has been the question since the beginning of fantasy baseball. I can roll starters and hope to do well in K's and wins take my chances in whip and ERA. I can bag wins and K's buy two closers and finish with about 60-65 pecent pitching points. My best example of a comparison is the four corners offense in college basketball. If I don't play the game, I have a better chance of winning. Everyone should have to at least try to play. The minimum innings solves all these problems. I thought year 1's number was fine.

[Spyhunter]

I agree - a minimum number of inning pitched would be a great solution to this issue. I guess I have just have a real problem with people intentionally putting non-active players into a role and somehow winning ERA and Whip...



Spy

[crazytown]

Greg,



My point regarding the teams with not many saves is this: Obviously they have all starters or middle relief on their team otherwise they would have more saves. Nobody is saying to them, you must draft certain players(closers). Since saves is one the categories.

If a min. IP is used, teams will possibly be forced to take a SP depending on what the min inning pitch amount is. But yet nobody is telling other teams that they must be competitive in the SAVE category. That is my point.

Also, I will definitely be trying my all closer strategy again next year. But instead of taking only 3 in my first 8 rounds, I will take 4 in the first 10. Just to protect against injury(Gagne this year).

[Dyv]

Originally posted by crazytown.gov:

Greg,



My point regarding the teams with not many saves is this: Obviously they have all starters or middle relief on their team otherwise they would have more saves. Nobody is saying to them, you must draft certain players(closers). Since saves is one the categories.

If a min. IP is used, teams will possibly be forced to take a SP depending on what the min inning pitch amount is. But yet nobody is telling other teams that they must be competitive in the SAVE category. That is my point.

Also, I will definitely be trying my all closer strategy again next year. But instead of taking only 3 in my first 8 rounds, I will take 4 in the first 10. Just to protect against injury(Gagne this year). Good luck with that, Deadmoney.com...



Dyv

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by crazytown.gov:

Greg,



My point regarding the teams with not many saves is this: Obviously they have all starters or middle relief on their team otherwise they would have more saves. Nobody is saying to them, you must draft certain players(closers). Since saves is one the categories.

If a min. IP is used, teams will possibly be forced to take a SP depending on what the min inning pitch amount is. But yet nobody is telling other teams that they must be competitive in the SAVE category. That is my point.

Also, I will definitely be trying my all closer strategy again next year. But instead of taking only 3 in my first 8 rounds, I will take 4 in the first 10. Just to protect against injury(Gagne this year). The people who draft all starting pitchers run the risk of finishing low in ERA and WHIP, two of 10 categories, and no assurance that they will win Wins or Strikeouts, while definitely finishing last in saves. Most people believe a balance of statistics is the best recipe for winning league titles and the overall title, but you are correct that others are trying different strategies.



It's possible that getting four closers in the first 10 rounds will be excessive since this is a no-trade league, but it's possible that you would lock up saves, ERA and WHIP with that strategy. Good luck with it as our minimum innings pitched in the NFBC next year won't be exhorbitant if I change it at all from this year.



The auction leagues, however, may require a little retooling in 2006. Maybe something like 100 IP minimum, but we'll see. I'll crunch the data soon and see how everything looks. I have to look at Perry's NL Auction League team soon to see how that strategy is panning out.

[CC's Desperados]

It's simple Greg. Offer 1000 Minimum innings pitched auction leagues and 1/3 of an inning and let the player choose where they want to play.

[Gordon Gekko]

let's say 3 teams (IN THE SAME MAIN EVENT LEAGUE) use the closer and/or injured pitcher strategy. i'm not concerned about them, as they will likely cancel each other out.



BUT, all of the SP in the league will be distributed amongst only 12 teams...



anyone think this could impact the OVERALL standings? i.e. the 12 teams will likely have better SP than an average team playing in a league that has ZERO teams using the closer and/or injured pitcher strategy.



imagine if the overall winner came from a league that had 3 or 4 teams with less than 50 IP, or even less than 150 IP. might not go over too well?

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by CC Desperados:

It's simple Greg. Offer 1000 Minimum innings pitched auction leagues and 1/3 of an inning and let the player choose where they want to play. 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.



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.



I like the discussion and we'll analyze everything again this year when the final results are in. Right now I'm more concerned about key drops and keeping the overall competition fair. Criticize me there if you'd like as I'm more vulnerable in that area, but just as confident that what I'm doing is the right thing.

[Spyhunter]

I don't see why a 250 inninng pitched would be a burden, this would force more than likely at 5 active pitchers. Espeically in the Auction league, if no innning pitched is added, or only like 100 innings, I will be taking 3 closers and a back up set of 2-3 MR and be going home with a nice finish...

[Cellar Dwellers]

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

let's say 3 teams (IN THE SAME MAIN EVENT LEAGUE) use the closer and/or injured pitcher strategy. i'm not concerned about them, as they will likely cancel each other out.



BUT, all of the SP in the league will be distributed amongst only 12 teams...



anyone think this could impact the OVERALL standings? i.e. the 12 teams will likely have better SP than an average team playing in a league that has ZERO teams using the closer and/or injured pitcher strategy.



imagine if the overall winner came from a league that had 3 or 4 teams with less than 50 IP, or even less than 150 IP. might not go over too well? Gekko,

You took the words right out of my mouth, that is the exact post I was about to make. That is the only reason why I think it's an issue, it has an impact on the other 19 leagues in the overall standings if one league has a surplus of good SP's. Other than that reason, I could care less what strategies are tried out by individual teams.

[JohnZ]

Originally posted by Cellar Dwellers:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

let's say 3 teams (IN THE SAME MAIN EVENT LEAGUE) use the closer and/or injured pitcher strategy. i'm not concerned about them, as they will likely cancel each other out.



BUT, all of the SP in the league will be distributed amongst only 12 teams...



anyone think this could impact the OVERALL standings? i.e. the 12 teams will likely have better SP than an average team playing in a league that has ZERO teams using the closer and/or injured pitcher strategy.



imagine if the overall winner came from a league that had 3 or 4 teams with less than 50 IP, or even less than 150 IP. might not go over too well? Gekko,

You took the words right out of my mouth, that is the exact post I was about to make. That is the only reason why I think it's an issue, it has an impact on the other 19 leagues in the overall standings if one league has a surplus of good SP's. Other than that reason, I could care less what strategies are tried out by individual teams. [/QUOTE]I agree also.



I'd like to see that stats of teams in leagues where this one done by more than one team.