reserve lists and the DH

[roche]

As an aside, I personally think reserve lists are to fantasy baseball as the designated hitter is to real baseball, but that is a story for another day.

I'm catching up on Todd's blog and came across this line.

Is this a topic for a future essay or would you care to elaborate and start a discussion?

Regarding reserve lists, I shudder when I think back to the bad old days of roto when you couldn't reserve a player except if he's officially on the DL. This led to many shenanigans like trading for injured players so that you can claim the newly-minted closer.

[Todd Zola]

I much prefer the shenanigans of making clever trades than having the safety net of a reserve list to hide pitchers the week they have a swing through Coors and Arizona and activating mediocre pitchers the week they work in SD and SF.

It's more a matter of what I prefer in terms of greater relevance to the success of a team. I feel no reserves puts more of an onus on the draft preparation and the draft. Reserve lists allow the opportunity to take more risks, or cover up for not being as prepared during the draft/auction.

I understand the game has changed, and I am not complaining (too much) or I would not have stayed involved. I also understand why the game has changed and that's fine. I grew up on and was weaned old-school and miss it is all.

I also disagree with the connotation of shenanigans with respect to the types of trading that sometimes occurred. The shenanigans are not a function of the type of league, but rather the participants in it. You'll find people in every type of league that push the limit and look to stretch the rules past the spirit they were intended.

[msugray]

As an aside, I personally think reserve lists are to fantasy baseball as the designated hitter is to real baseball, but that is a story for another day.

Regarding reserve lists, I shudder when I think back to the bad old days of roto when you couldn't reserve a player except if he's officially on the DL. This led to many shenanigans like trading for injured players so that you can claim the newly-minted closer.

I actually miss the "bad old days"!

There was added importance (positive and negative) placed on risk taking at the auction. The restrictive roster movement very much changed how the game was played. If you bought a bad player, he was gonna hurt you until you got an opportunity to replace him.
We mitigated the "trading of injured players" shenanigans by not allowing DL spots to be traded. Each team had to send an active player along with the DL player. Since our FAAB and waiver claim ability was much more limited than most leagues of today, teams were hesitant to spend their own FAAB to consumate a trade.

I do not like reserve lists and liberal FAAB ($1000 budget with $1 minimum bid). It adds to the luck portion of the game (which is already substantial). Teams can stream pitchers. Take a flier on a starter and not pay a penalty for his acquisition beyond the one or two bad starts you eat before deciding to drop him for another flier. Many leagues of today have turned into crap shoots. Just keep grabbing players throughout the season until a gem is stumbled upon. I think it devalues draft day.

There is not right or wrong league type. Head-to-head, points league, AL only, NL only, Mixed, draft and hold (no transactions), no-trade leagues, NFBC, sim leagues, etc. BUT:

I preferred the Chuck Woolery leagues...."Once you buy a prize, he's yours to keep."

It's also why I lament the slow decline of deep AL and NL only leagues.


EDIT: By the time I could get my rant out, Lord Zola had already said much of what my sentiments are. I have to type faster.

[viper]

I play in three "old days" league where your only reserve is a disabled player or one sent to the minors. Of course, you can cut someone to get that "hot" closer and that is your tough decision. I really enjoy all three of these leagues. When that C+ level player goes down and is supposed to be out 3-4 weeks, you see offers of a C or C- guys for the C+ guy along with his D level replacement.

[da_big_kid_94]

Reserve lists serve a valuable function depending on the type of league you're in. I can see where this may serve no purpose in a 10 team mixed league. Or in only leagues that allow you to keep the stats of inter league traded players. But in only leagues with double digit franchises that don't allowed for continued stat accumulations for inter league traded players, reserve lists are very important. For instance, there are leagues that will not allow Matt Weiters to be rostered unless he makes the Opening Day team. where else do you put him but on a reserve list? Hard to trade minor leaguers for something of value in a pennant drive unless you have a reserve list to stash them on. I would imagine that reserve lists would also ease the management of daily transaction leagues and may be important in H2H leagues (on that one, I'm making an educated guess)..

[da_big_kid_94]

I much prefer the shenanigans of making clever trades than having the safety net of a reserve list to hide pitchers the week they have a swing through Coors and Arizona and activating mediocre pitchers the week they work in SD and SF.

I wholeheartedly agree - but that's not the fault of the reserve list. That's the fault of leagues who allow you to bench an active player with no consequences. You're not supposed to be able to duck out on the tough matchups by simply benching a guy and leaving his slot open. You want to bench Ollie Perez because he's going through Arizona and Colorado? Fine - get whatever pig you have on your reserve roster and put him in Ollie's place. Simple - take the chance your pig doesn't blow up for you.

[Todd Zola]

I much prefer the shenanigans of making clever trades than having the safety net of a reserve list to hide pitchers the week they have a swing through Coors and Arizona and activating mediocre pitchers the week they work in SD and SF.

I wholeheartedly agree - but that's not the fault of the reserve list. That's the fault of leagues who allow you to bench an active player with no consequences. You're not supposed to be able to duck out on the tough matchups by simply benching a guy and leaving his slot open. You want to bench Ollie Perez because he's going through Arizona and Colorado? Fine - get whatever pig you have on your reserve roster and put him in Ollie's place. Simple - take the chance your pig doesn't blow up for you.

Not saying saying they don't exist, but I have never seen a league that allows an open spot. That said, there are tons of middle relievers to use as placeholders in lieu of an incendiary starter.

I do play in one league that allows weekly "free" moves from your active roster, but you have to dump your guy in the free agent pool. Say someone like Gil Meche has a date with the Yankees and Red Sox on the road, if you want to replace him, you lose him, or at least expose him to everyone.

[da_big_kid_94]

Not saying saying they don't exist, but I have never seen a league that allows an open spot. That said, there are tons of middle relievers to use as placeholders in lieu of an incendiary starter.

And I say unto thee;"Yahoo, Yahoo, Yahoo".

[Todd Zola]

Sorry, for me, Yahoo is akin to "if a tree falls in a forest..."

[viper]

the ESPN tree falls quietly too

[da_big_kid_94]

the ESPN tree falls quietly too

Really!?!? Now THAT surprises me! Yahoo I could understand ....but the WWL???

[roche]

the ESPN tree falls quietly too

I laughed out loud. Very nicely written. Bravo.

I do not like reserve lists and liberal FAAB ($1000 budget with $1 minimum bid). It adds to the luck portion of the game (which is already substantial). Teams can stream pitchers. Take a flier on a starter and not pay a penalty for his acquisition beyond the one or two bad starts you eat before deciding to drop him for another flier. Many leagues of today have turned into crap shoots. Just keep grabbing players throughout the season until a gem is stumbled upon. I think it devalues draft day.

I agree that the game has changed. It used to be all about draft day. The rest of year was spent looking at boxscores and waiting for Mondays to see the standings. The game now is much more hands-on. It's not a video game yet but I see lots of churning of rosters in the first few weeks after the draft. In the end though, there's still no recovering from a bad draft.

One thing that I can't go back to is monthly stats. Daily stats is worth all of the bad things.

[viper]

$1000 FAAB budgets seems high and are helpful for weekly starters. For that new closer that everyone bids on, i guess the total dollar amount isn't as important. I've seen several winning bids that exceeded $500. In the first year of the NFBC, after the auction, there are a late ST trade from the AL to NL [the player's name evades me - maybe Milton Bradley]. Todd may remember but I think the winning bid was around $950.

[Todd Zola]

The actual amount of a free agent budget is not particularly relevant, the usual amount is $100, but for some reason, the NFBC opted for $1000. A $950 NFBC bid would have been $80 or so with a $100 budget. I wouldn't make the comparison linear, as in theory, you can get 50 more $1 players with $50 out of $1000 left, but you could only get 5 more if you bid $95 out of $100. It is still all relative though.

[roche]

It appears that the general objection isn't the reserve list but rather the streaming of pitchers (and players). This is a fundamental change to the game of roto. In original roto, the movement rules were very restrictive and you couldn't get a guy off your roster unless he was injured or you traded him. Now, roto has gone 180 degrees and with the NFBC (the marquee/premier format), there is no trading and streaming pitchers is an absolute must. I don't think that the owners of the NFBC are going to mess with a winning business formula so these rules are likely here to stay. Streaming requires a hands-on approach which makes owners feel like they are "managing" their teams. Lots of people like that even if the "old-timers who sit around the hot stove during winter and talk baseball" don't.

but for some reason, the NFBC opted for $1000. A $950 NFBC bid would have been $80 or so with a $100 budget. I wouldn't make the comparison linear, as in theory, you can get 50 more $1 players with $50 out of $1000 left, but you could only get 5 more if you bid $95 out of $100.

$1000 FAAB means less possibility of a tie with FAAB bids. The chance of two or more owners all bidding 871(pick any number more than 1) for a player approaches zero.

[Todd Zola]

It appears that the general objection isn't the reserve list but rather the streaming of pitchers (and players). This is a fundamental change to the game of roto. In original roto, the movement rules were very restrictive and you couldn't get a guy off your roster unless he was injured or you traded him. Now, roto has gone 180 degrees and with the NFBC (the marquee/premier format), there is no trading and streaming pitchers is an absolute must. I don't think that the owners of the NFBC are going to mess with a winning business formula so these rules are likely here to stay. Streaming requires a hands-on approach which makes owners feel like they are "managing" their teams. Lots of people like that even if the "old-timers who sit around the hot stove during winter and talk baseball" don't.

but for some reason, the NFBC opted for $1000. A $950 NFBC bid would have been $80 or so with a $100 budget. I wouldn't make the comparison linear, as in theory, you can get 50 more $1 players with $50 out of $1000 left, but you could only get 5 more if you bid $95 out of $100.

$1000 FAAB means less possibility of a tie with FAAB bids. The chance of two or more owners all bidding 871(pick any number more than 1) for a player approaches zero.

My issue is with reserve lists which have enabled some riskier strategies. Reserves have been around a lot longer than the NFBC.

With respect to tie bids, touche, thanks.