2011 Rule Amendments

bryanmurphy9 wrote:

Knuckleball wrote:

Changing our current batting stats from HR, R, RBI, BB, RBI, SB to HR, R, RBI, OBP, SB-CS, and Fielding %.

If it's not broke, then don't fix it. Almost all fantasy leagues use these standard settings, they do so because it's the easiest and most simple stats to go by. It's just making the categories more complex when they don't need to be. I'm curious knuckleball, why do you think this change would make the league better? I am with Jake though that the Fielding % category just makes no sense for our league. One, for the reason he brought up with the DH's in the UT spot and owners have not drafted nor planned for this. Keep it simple!

I never said the system was broke, but I hear ideas from managers and just want to make sure they are out there to be discussed. Obviously if there is some like for some then the change can be made. And maybe not all of the changes I suggested would be better, but SB-CS appears a little more practical in the real world sense of judging how good a base stealer really is. As for OBP, I just figured that could be used in case we wanted to add an additional stat without losing an value from the stats we already have. If there is not a good sixth stat, then keeping BA and BB is not a problem.

Just my 2 cents, but if you wonder why you dont get the turnout you expect, its due to the incessant rambling and rule discussions - it seems never ending, disorganized, and not really needed.

People have lives, they get an email that polls are up, log in, vote, disappear for a bit to enjoy their own time. Then more polls are added, more conversations on changes, etc, etc.

These boards are also not very friendly to the new managers - they are somewhat disorganized and not easy to know whats actually important. For example, this extra stat stuff (nonsense if you ask me) should be in a general discussion format, not under league rules - these arent rules, but discussions on changes and can be ignored by those who dont care yet, but are mixed into areas you expect people to contribute.

Keep the headers clear, keep polls separate from discussions, and you'll have more success.

And I tend to agree with Murph about adding more rules unnecessarily. In any dynasty league, keeping the rules consistent is key. People reshape their teams with a set of rules and scoring in mind - we all know the stats and work accordingly. Sure, if something is exploited or broken, go ahead and fix, but keep the core of the league we joined the same or lose people. Moreover, in the future, I think all rule changes need to happen right after the prior season and we need to FREEZE any roster movement and trades until the rule amendments are done. That way you know what you are going after. A bad example is for me to stockpile catchers in the off-season, and then propose making this a two catcher league, etc.

Enough is enough

I totally agree with the above statements. My whole push for an off-season calendar, was because of the disorganization of this league. It just flat needs cleaned up, the commishes need to be on the same page (which I think is getting better), etc. In another league I was in, we had a set date when ALL rule ammendments had to be in by, then they were drafted up and various polls were set up. We had 2 weeks to vote on any amendments. The entire league was expected to partake in the voting process (why be apart of the league if you can't take the time to vote). Once the voting closed, that was it for rule amendments till the next off-season. Simple, easy, and to the point. Everyone knew ahead of time when we were voting, and how it worked. I agree with Thunder that I suspect one of the issues with sporadic turnouts for our voting process is we were told 2 weeks ago that some polls were going up and now 2 weeks later, were discussing some others. Let me say, I dont care about the outcome of any of the polls as much as I care about the organization of things and picture it paints to our league members & potential league members that our league decides things on the fly and has no real plan. It turns people away.

You can't change the categories now. That would be ridiculous. We drafted and built a certain way. And, those categories are so esoteric that only people that want to think they're smart use them. Simple is ALWAYS better.

I guess if there was some huge movement to change, you could do it for like 5 years from now, so we all had time to adjust on the fly. But, doing anything more short term is wrought with folks voting the way their teams are currently constructed rather than for any real purpose of making anything better.

Fielding %?!#$% Give me a break. Nobody cares.

Quote :

Fielding %?!#$% Give me a break. Nobody cares.

Are we seeing a pattern? I think so, couldn't agree more Jammy!!

I think it's a bit of an overreaction. Subtracting BB's for OBP would have such a minute impact in the grand scheme of things. SB-CS is pretty logical, as I illustrated above - but I'm perfectly OK not using it. It's not for people who "think" they are smart. Defensive metrics are essentially the only way to judge a players fielding ability with no bias. Like I said though, that has no place in a fantasy league of this nature.

And c'mon, you need five years to adjust from BB to OBP? The sky is not falling.

If you don't like the propositions - by all means, you don't have to, I didn't care for them myself - just vote no. It's pretty simple, that's why we're having a vote. I don't think you'd need five years and I don't think it's terribly drastic in either sense.

F fielding %. Here's an amendment....

Why not focus on one poll at a time instead of going the wild west route with whatever comes up in everyone's heads?

Achtung Baby wrote:

I think it's a bit of an overreaction. Subtracting BB's for OBP would have such a minute impact in the grand scheme of things. SB-CS is pretty logical, as I illustrated above - but I'm perfectly OK not using it. It's not for people who "think" they are smart. Defensive metrics are essentially the only way to judge a players fielding ability with no bias. Like I said though, that has no place in a fantasy league of this nature.

And c'mon, you need five years to adjust from BB to OBP? The sky is not falling.

If you don't like the propositions - by all means, you don't have to, I didn't care for them myself - just vote no. It's pretty simple, that's why we're having a vote. I don't think you'd need five years and I don't think it's terribly drastic in either sense.

I love responses like this - I make a comment and it applies to every little detail rather than the broad scope of the issue.

Anyway - to be as specific as you'd like - I actually prefer BB over OBP. I've always found leagues that use BA and OBP are missing the obvious - 1 includes the other (yes, I know HR, RBI and R overlap a bit, but not in totality. Runs are not totally reliant on HR, etc.). So, other than the Adam Dunn's of the world, you're basically duplicating stuff. I liked the idea of BB's put in here. Now it's 2 totally separate categories not reliant on the other, yet considering the value of someone who can get on base a lot (not to mention the simplicity of it, which is always better).

Anyway, I didn't want to start a big detailed discussion of each point. But, yes, for stuff like Fielding %, XBH, etc. you would need a prolonged period to adjust. Even the shift of OBP - I may have a guy that has neither a high BA or high OBP that is still useful b/c of his BB's (if your BA is low enough, it's possible). In a league this deep, we should be striving (withine reason) to make more players viable rather than making Albert Pujols that much more valuable....

jamcam13 wrote:

Achtung Baby wrote:

I think it's a bit of an overreaction. Subtracting BB's for OBP would have such a minute impact in the grand scheme of things. SB-CS is pretty logical, as I illustrated above - but I'm perfectly OK not using it. It's not for people who "think" they are smart. Defensive metrics are essentially the only way to judge a players fielding ability with no bias. Like I said though, that has no place in a fantasy league of this nature.

And c'mon, you need five years to adjust from BB to OBP? The sky is not falling.

If you don't like the propositions - by all means, you don't have to, I didn't care for them myself - just vote no. It's pretty simple, that's why we're having a vote. I don't think you'd need five years and I don't think it's terribly drastic in either sense.

I love responses like this - I make a comment and it applies to every little detail rather than the broad scope of the issue.

Anyway - to be as specific as you'd like - I actually prefer BB over OBP. I've always found leagues that use BA and OBP are missing the obvious - 1 includes the other (yes, I know HR, RBI and R overlap a bit, but not in totality. Runs are not totally reliant on HR, etc.). So, other than the Adam Dunn's of the world, you're basically duplicating stuff. I liked the idea of BB's put in here. Now it's 2 totally separate categories not reliant on the other, yet considering the value of someone who can get on base a lot (not to mention the simplicity of it, which is always better).

Anyway, I didn't want to start a big detailed discussion of each point. But, yes, for stuff like Fielding %, XBH, etc. you would need a prolonged period to adjust. Even the shift of OBP - I may have a guy that has neither a high BA or high OBP that is still useful b/c of his BB's (if your BA is low enough, it's possible). In a league this deep, we should be striving (withine reason) to make more players viable rather than making Albert Pujols that much more valuable....

you make a good point about BB vs OBP ... and Field % is too big of a change, but i think SB-CS is a great idea. theres a few green-light runners out there creating outs for their MLB teams, but they rack up SB's.. theyre a little more valuable in fantasy then in real life.. lame

jake wrote:

theres a few green-light runners out there creating outs for their MLB teams, but they rack up SB's.. theyre a little more valuable in fantasy then in real life.. lame

That's exactly why this is called "Fantasy" Baseball and we don't all have jobs for the Yankees. Like it's been said numerous times, keep it simple.