The Joy of Ambiguous Fantasy Rules
This post requires some “class participation”, so if you’re reading along I would really appreciate you weighing in on what has become a highly active debate within Ottoneu leagues. Even if you don’t play Ottoneu, the concept of ambiguous fantasy league rules applies to all, and today I’m looking for potential (creative) solutions on how to enforce the following rule:
Rule 1a: Each team should maintain at all times a roster of 22 major-league players that can fill out a starting lineup. The remaining 18 roster spots can be used for reserves, consisting of both major and minor leaguers.
With Ottoneu leagues consisting of 40-man rosters (and 12 teams), the clear intent (“spirit”) of the rule is to set a consistent, foundational level of roster activity and economics for all teams so that owners (even those that find themselves “out of the money”) remain engaged. It’s not surprising this is “Rule #1”, and I’m guessing pretty similar to rules in your fantasy league.
But it’s not so simple. However, some needed context before we proceed, from Rule 1e:
A team’s starting lineup consists of one slot at each infield position (catcher, first base, second base, third base, and shortstop), five outfielder slot, one additional middle infielder (second base or shortstop) slot, one additional hitter from any position (utility slot), five starting pitcher slots, and five relief pitcher slots.
There’s your 22. As Rule 1a makes clear, that leaves you with 18 roster spots build the rest of your roster as you see fit.
So here’s where I need your help: What happens when a team intentionally chooses not to roster 22 major league players, per Rule 1a? Is that roster illegal? If so, how should a commissioner enforce it, and when? If not, does it even matter?
I’ll list a few of the common arguments on both sides of this debate and let you use the comments section to let us know where you’d come down. But what we’re really after here today is crowd-sourcing solutions for a debate that can leave leagues in flux, so your recommendations are welcome.
But let’s make some assumptions first:
- Assume you cannot change the Rule 1a. It stands as is, so the debate is how to interpret and how to enforce it, not how to change it.
- Assume you’re rebuilding your team. You aren’t competitive this year but are doing everything for the future.
- Ottoneu purposely leaves the enforcement of this rule up to individual leagues, so your suggestions below are relevant and potentially useful.
Point (A)
-
“The rule is really just a guideline. Rebuilding owners should be allowed to build and run their rosters any way they choose, even if that means rostering less than 22 major-league players. I shouldn’t be mandated to (re)build in a specific way.”
-
“How strict are we interpreting this? What if I only have 4 OF or RP? Are you telling me I have to drop one of my prospects just to pick up a replacement level reliever that has zero future value?”
-
“What if my only MLB 3B hits the DL? Do I now have an illegal roster because I can no longer “fill out a starting lineup”? Are you going to spot check my roster every day to verify?”
-
“If I’m rebuilding and have paid my league fees, I should be able to rebuild any way I like, even if that includes carrying 30 prospects. As long as I’m doing what I think is best for the future of my team, I shouldn’t be restricted.”
-
“So what if I break it? What’s the penalty? It’s vague, and if there’s no real penalty, then it’s not a real rule.”
Counter-Point (B)
-
“It’s not only a rule, it’s the very first rule, so if you break it, you’re illegal, and you should be required to make every effort to legalize your roster immediately.”
-
“Allowing teams to break this rule has a detrimental effect on parity and balance, as it raises replacement levels and essentially makes a 12 team league function more like an 11 or 10 team league.”
-
“Why would an owner even want to carry more than 18 minor leaguers? That’s just poor strategy, and is doomed to fail. The rule is good for the league but also designed to help prevent owners from over-correcting the rebuilding process since prospects are inherently risky.”
So how do you interpret this rule? Where do you side? And based on your answer, how would you enforce it?
Seriously, I’m taking all recommendations here, as this debate rages on. Do you have similar rules in your league, or have you dealt with the challenge of interpreting and enforcing ambiguous rules?
If you want to read more context on this issue you can check out more of the debate here, but I look forward to your comments, because this one is a challenge.
Trey is a 20+ year fantasy veteran and an early adopter of Ottoneu fantasy sports. He currently administers the Ottoneu community, a network of ~1,200 fantasy baseball and football fans talking sports daily. More resources here: http://community.ottoneu.com
Ottonea makes it tricky because of all the minor leaguers. Typically, i’d say you have to have someone active on your team at every position. That could include a DL’d player. Sometimes that happens and you just can’t have a healthy body playing a position…but you should have to a starting roster spot should be assigned to one player….
As for a way to enforce… any illegal lineup, person directly below you in rankings choose which player to snag from your roster (with certain criteria involving what kind of player).
best punishment is a fine or loss of accumulated stats
I agree that loss of accumulated stats while 22 MLB players aren’t on the roster (or DL) is appropriate.
The issue with that solution is that a rebuilding team violating the rule doesn’t care if they lose accumulated stats. The penalty would have to be something that impacts them next season.
Starting a DL-ed player is fine. There are scenarios where a team attempting to be competitive may even be stuck doing this.
If you field an illegal roster, you (a) fail to score points (or whatever) during that period, (b) are ineligible for any prizes awarded during that period, and (c) may be subject to fines for periods during which you field an illegal roster.
Just like a real MLB team can’t just decide not to field a roster because they suck and all the players they care about are still in the minors, a fake baseball team has the same restriction.
I don’t completely understand how Ottoneu works so this may be a dumb question, but if they’re rebuilding would they care about a loss of points or prizes for that period?
No, Gina, no they wouldn’t. That’s part of the issue, any penalty that doesn’t impact a rebuilding team for the following season is toothless.
I listed three options because circumstances may differ. If current year standings were truly irrelevant, then fines are the order of the day
in ottoneu starting a DL players is no different than starting no one in a slot because the matchup sucks.
Claiming that one should be able to rebuild any way they like is ridiculous. You always have to rebuild within a certain set of parameters. When the astro’s were terrible, they couldn’t just decide not to field a major league team, or a team without a catcher. If you’re not gonna field the 22 necessary players, you should be frozen until you correct your roster. If you have a problem with that, you should be kicked from the league.
Counterpoint to that. The Astro from a few years ago and the Braves, Marlins, Phloies, Brewers, Reds dont have Major league players. It seems to me that They have AAA players in their active mlb roster.
No, they have shitty MLB players on their rosters, which you can mimicking in ottoneu
@joecatz: I disagree.
They only have ‘shitty MLB players’ because they get to define ‘MLB player’ by putting a jersey on him and paying him $500K/yr.
Most players those teams fielded would be high minors players in other systems.
I say this as someone who doesn’t play in this type of format: it would seem to make sense to tweak the settings so that no one would ever be motivated to roster so many minor-leaguers at one time. But that is probably not a helpful/plausible idea.
We had a similar situation occur a few years ago in a long-term keeper league I’m the commish of. Where we fell on the issue was that a team did have to comply, but having DL’d players or minor leaguers in those spots was ok as long as they met the eligibility requirements for the roster slot. So a team CAN’T cut all their OF for pitching prospects, but they CAN roster Andre Ethier or Manuel Margot to “fill” OF slots.
Additionally, we said the players have to be put in those spots. This was particularly an issue when one team began benching their entire pitching staff in an effort to control the ratio stats by avoiding tough matchups.
The great thing about Ottoneu is it sets the parameters then gives each owner a set of resources, penalties and guidelines to work within while trying to figure out a strategy for forming a dynasty. Rule 1A is most certainly a guideline because you cannot realistically enforce it as a rule. Just like in Major League Baseball, you just can’t force an owner to field a competitive team. Every division (and every Ottoneu league) is different based on the philosophies of the people that run the teams.
Moreover, why would anyone want to try and enforce that rule? The flexibility afforded by Ottoneu Rule 1A creates a unique set of circumstances for each league. The challenge for the league members is to figure out how to navigate the circumstances special to their league in building a champion. Counterpoint B2 says the rule should be enforced to keep leagues balanced. That takes away from the challenge of the game if you ask me. If everyone acted rationally, what would be the fun in that? The variance in philosophies, player evaluation strategies and prospect evaluation makes the game interesting to me.
“Just like in Major League Baseball, you just can’t force an owner to field a competitive team.” Didn’t MLB force the owners of the Expos to sell and take over management of the team until the sale was completed due to mismanagement? Or am I misremembering this situation.
You’re misremembering. MLB agreed to purchase the Expos from Loria after the team failed to secure funding for a new stadium. If Loria had been forced to sell due to mismanagement, they wouldn’t have allowed him to purchase the Marlins. (When, in fact, they gave him a loan to help him purchase the Marlins.)
If you open up the discretion to, say, not have anyone in the catcher slot, then you’re creating a situation where all the owners who don’t have Buster Posey are thinking to themselves ‘well, I could have this crappy catcher, or I could stash a minor league player or have another streaming SP slot, goodbye catcher!’. The logic for that would be pretty obvious to everyone.
And then you’ve changed the whole dynamics of your league – you may as well just not have that catcher slot in the first place.
Isn’t there a case for Saltalamacchia as the best catcher in baseball
It’s a rule not a guideline, and it’s not ambiguous. MLB players are required, and in the example you mention, if you have to drop a prospect for a replacement level RP, that’s a cost of doing business. Drop your worst prospect.
In law the main reason why ambiguous court decisions, statutes and regulations are so problematic is that part of the function of law and rules is to enable people to structure their conduct accordingly. Leagues that deviate from the clear words in the rule need to be clear in what their version is, and need to do so before the season. Again, to fairly enable participants to structure their conduct. If your league wants to deviate, so be it, but be clear as to how, and establish it before the season, so that everyone is on the same footing.
Without some clear, majority-decided interpretation of this rule before the season, the rule needs to be applied as written, because it’s not ambiguous at all. Participants may have very valid reasons for wanting their own tailored version of the rule, and to me the arguments for doing that are persuasive, but unless that’s clearly established and available to everyone equally before the season, the rule needs to applied as written.
I basically agree with you. But while this is listed as a rule, and clearly spells out how rosters should be constructed, the key word to me is “should.” Since it doesn’t say that rosters “must” be constructed that way, and since it doesn’t specify the enforcement/penalty/restrictions, I don’t think there’s much you can do. Without the clear, majority-decided interpretation of the rule, I think the most a commissioner can do is say “hey, you should have 22 major leaguers.”
Not that you want to hear the same point from me again (I realize I’ve repeated myself all over this comment section), but I disagree that the word “should” introduces any ambiguity. There is no plausible explanation as to why they would title a suggestion or tip as Rule 1a, at the top of a list of otherwise mandatory rules. The “ambiguity” such as it is was introduced after the fact by owners who, though enterprising, want to break the rules to help their teams.
The one plausible explanation for should vs must is that it allows you the freedom to put in a guy like Snell or Aaron Blair when they are not yet promoted and not not miss their start. It allows wriggle room to have them in the active roster even tho their promotion is not for a few days. Or if you leave them in after they are demoted for just the one start. You are not illegal in that case.
Also, I wish ESPN had a way to add minor league slots to your roster – that would make this all much simpler.
As for enforcement, the team should get a week to fix it, and if they don’t, then the commissioner should have the ability to fix it for him/her, and that means dropping minor leaguers and replacing them with major leaguers as appropriate by position. If the owner wants a say in whom gets dropped, they have a week to do it himself/herself.
The rule says “should”. It’s not a requirement. There’s nothing ambiguous about it. It’s a terrible rule, but the meaning is clear. If you want something to be a requirement you must use “must” or “shall”.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
If you want someone to stop this behavior without actually changing the rule you’re going to have to do some convincing rather than accusing and punishing, I.e. “I agree you have the right by the rules to have less than 22 active major leaguers, but here’s why I think we all benefit if we all agree to have 22 actives. In the interest of the league can you volunteer to keep 22 active, pretty please?”
I mean if MLB teams had a rule that said “you SHOULD have 9 players on the field on defense and you SHOULD have 25 men on your major league roster is there any doubt the Marlins would be a modern day King And His Court?
“Jose, you pitch. Giancarlo you play right center. Christian your play left center. Marcel you play first. JT you catch. Everyone else you’re fired.”
Yes, “must” or “shall” would have been better. But this is not a legislative staff writing these rules. Your interpretation renders it just a recommendation — in essence strategic advice. Why would they put strategic advice in Rule 1a? Is Rule 2 “you should look for high-K relief pitchers for your RP slots”? Probably not. It’s a rule, and if you’re being reasonable, instead of trying to game things, there is no question as to what it means.
Agree with “must” or “shall”. Any kind of authoritative professional guidance uses those words for a mandatory requirement. “Should” generally indicates something that is strongly suggested unless there are unusual circumstances of some kind.
I’m sure there are some professionals involved in writing the Ottoneu rules, and if there aren’t, then there should be. Because there are certainly plenty of professionals playing.
They would do that because they created a new game and messed up when writing the rules. All league rules need to be amended over time.
I’m not arguing the merit of the rule, but there is no interpretation in the English language where should means must. It’s likely a mistake by the rule drafters. Innovative owners are taking advantage, just like any sport or game. That’s how competition works.
The NBA used to have no 3 second rule, then Wilt came along. This is the same thing. If owners are not violating rules they can’t be punished because you disagree with their behavior. They opted into the league under the rules as written. And the rule says “should.”
Agree to change the rule for next year to MUST in your leagues and offer some carrot to convince dissenting owners to play along, but without a rule change there is no requirement for 22 active players.
But that’s the point. It’s not innovative to break a rule. It’s just cheating. With regard to your NBA example, which isn’t a good one because it involves the absence of a rule and not a language loophole, but just for the sake of argument, it wasn’t a situation where most teams assumed there was a 3-second rule and therefore eschewed that strategy. It was just that Wilt was a new type of player with a new game that no one had thought of. Here, most owners would correctly interpret this rule and have 22 MLB players on the roster, and the few more aggressive rebuilding owners break the rule, because it does have an appeal as a strategy — and because there’s no clear way to stop it. Other owners certainly have and will consider this, but stop short of it because of the rule. You are mistaking a willingness to break the rules with “innovation.” If there was a quick and effective enforcement mechanism, this wouldn’t be an issue.
I think cowdisciple was trying to argue in support of your side, but he actually proves my point. He says the word should “generally indicates something that is strongly suggested unless there are unusual circumstances of some kind.” Rebuilding a team with upside minor leaguers is an unusual circumstance? Of course not. It’s a very reasonable and foreseeable line of action, one which every owner does to some extent when their team is not built to win now. It is not unusual in the slightest. It’s a fundamental part of the game.
Your interpretation that the rulemakers would put what amounts to a strategic suggestion (in your interpretation) is simply implausible, I might say wildly so. It’s a rule, and it’s meant to put a limit on team construction. Most owners follow it because it’s clear, not because they’re not “innovative” enough.
As a followup – I can’t see trying to enforce this rule as written retrospectively. Since the rule is ambiguously worded and contains no enforcement mechanism, each league is going to have to come to a consensus on what it means, identify enforcement mechanisms, and apply it either going forward or next year. I can’t see anything else working, especially if there is money involved.
Applying it next year would give players who can’t agree with the league consensus a chance to opt out.
But really the rules badly need to be revised, especially if there is going to be money involved.
You enforce the rule as it’s written, unless it’s not clear what it means. Here there is a very clear meaning that every owner understands immediately. It’s not until owners want to break rules to help their rebuilding efforts that it’s labeled “ambiguous.”
What is the equally plausible explanation? That in Rule 1a the writers are saying, “hey it would help you win if you have 22 MLB players on your roster.” They’re not giving tips in something titled Rule 1a.
But since the rule is written with no enforcement, how do you enforce it as written?
Why do you keep saying this? If it were clearly as you state this article would not be here and we would not be commenting on it.
I agree it is unambiguous. Unambiguously a strong suggestion and not a requirement. It’s a perfectly valid interpretation of the language to state that it’s not a requirement. In fact more so than the opposite. That being the case no one is breaking the rule no matter how many active players they have.
When money is on the line you can’t be making up requirements that aren’t there. The rules are the rules and only the rules as written.
Even if 100% of readers view that rule and think, “hmm, well they really should have put “must” there. They didn’t. It says should.
The rest is just noise. If you are in a money league the only fair thing to do is strict reading of rules. This game has little history and therefore there really is no spirit of the rules. You can’t take someone’s money, see him implement a strategy you don.’t like then force him to make changes to his roster because you’ve decided you know what was in the heads of whoever wrote these rules.
Even if the writers came on this thread and said “we meant must.” That changes nothing. At the time this strategy was implemented the owner had plenty of reason to believe it was legal because that’s what the words say. If the writers wanted “spirit” interpretations they should have written The Ott
Nosseum — I keep saying this in response to squirrely arguments trying to support what’s clearly a purely self-interested interpretation. This article is here not because the rule is ambiguous but because owners are creative in trying to help their teams and have come up with specious arguments in service of that. I respect the motivation though not the conduct. Again, if Rule 1a is a “strong suggestion” as you say, what would be the purpose of that? Do participants not know that you need to put players in your lineup in order to win? Do participants think you should put NFL players in the lineup? Do you really think they’d use Rule 1a to give a strategic tip? What other Rules are listed that are “strong suggestions”? Any? I don’t play, so I don’t know. I suspect there are none. And I suspect that you didn’t arrive at this new conclusion as to its meaning until you were rebuilding your team and wanted to use the spots. I fully agree with you that “If you are in a money league the only fair thing to do is strict reading of rules.” The rules say you need 22 MLB players. This new reading is based on tortured reasoning that owners are trying to use to justify their rebuilding strategy, which though creative is against the rules as everyone understood them.
cbrett42 — Enforcement is tricky, but locking teams or having the commish come in and drop players following a grace period are good solutions, as people have suggested here. I don’t know how the money works in these leagues and fines sound difficult to administer, but I think by locking a roster or having an owner risk getting players force-dropped, owners will start abiding by the rule.
The manager should be able to manage the team as they see fit, unless they are *explicitly* breaking league rules by doing so. If they want to roster 40 minor leaguers, let them – they pay the price by not being competitive. If a rule is unclear or ambiguous, then there should be some mechanism by which it is made explicit. Until such time, be your bad self.
Again, what is the equally plausible explanation for what was intended with this rule? You guys are misusing the term “ambiguous” to suit your own interests. Ambiguous means an equally plausible explanation on the other side. What is your explanation?
To be more clear, I am saying that in this case these owners are *explicitly* breaking league rules. The rule is not ambiguous, however much the drafting could stand to be improved.
Point (A) is whiny and reeks of people self-interestedly disregarding rules they agreed to and re-interpreting them for their own benefit.
Rebuild, but rebuild within the rules. Carry exactly 18 prospects, and yes, you need at least five ML RPs even if they are replacement level. The rule seems to exist for good reasons (i.e., the integrity of the standings, etc.), so it should be enforced. There should definitely be a penalty of some kind–perhaps a fine of some kind against the salary cap/auction budget (I don’t play ottoneu and don’t know exactly how it works) if you hit certain thresholds of illegal roster time, such as a week.
100% this.
Additionally: The third argument in counterpoint (b) is pretty dumb. Why should the rules try to prevent players from executing a poor strategy?
If you believe the strategy is poor, why would you want the rules to prevent them from trying it?
We had this very issue come up in our league this spring. What ended up deciding it for us was Rule 1.c.
“At no time should a team willingly go over roster and salary cap limits. If a team knowingly does this, they will face penalties at the discretion of their league’s commissioner.”
To us, this turns the “should” in rule 1 into something much closer to “must”. This rule gives leagues wide latitude regarding enforcement, we chose loss of a roster spot and public shaming as an enforcement mechanism. It’s working so far, but in our league it was really a minor issue anyway.
Interesting and fairly persuasive.
I hate the term “knowingly” in there, though. The fewer judgment calls the commissioner has to make, the happier everyone will be. If that’s the agreed-on rule, I would prefer to just enforce it without regard to player intent.
I agree with that 100%. Anytime one person is interpreting/enforcing a vague rule someone in the league will be unhappy. As a compromise, what we ended up doing was to give an owner a week to come into compliance after being notified of a roster violation. To me, this satisfies the “knowingly” portion of the rule.
Also, does this mean the commissioner is responsible for policing everyone’s roster? What happens if a roster is noncompliant for months before anyone notices?
As someone who doesn’t play Ottoneu, this is helpful information. I agree that it turns the “should” into something closer to a “must.” Though I’m appalled that such a popular platform has such vague language. The “should” in 1.a., “should” again in 1.c., “knowingly” (which is hard to prove, though I like your league’s decision to give a week after a notification has been sent)…
I don’t mind that it leaves the penalties up to the league commissioner, but I think the best case is that penalties are defined prior to the start of the season. If the commissioner considers something to be egregious, I can see determining new penalties/enforcement mid-season, but then those need to be applied consistently going forward. (Which it sounds like your league does.)
I actually disagree that the “should” in Rule 1.c. is any stronger than the “should” in 1.a. To me, the equivalent of “should/must” in 1.a. is “should/may”. “At no time may a team go over roster and salary cap limits” is much stronger. 1.c. is further weakened by giving commish discretion in penalizing offenders rather than outlining specific penalties. As far as I can tell, both rules are equally toothless.
Our current 4X4 Otto first place team needs 3 RP, 2 OF, and a 2B. The season is not yet three weeks in, and I am confident that even though he has excellent players and uses them, the counting stats will grind him down. In other words missing 3 bats and 3 RPs will gradually destroy his HR, R, and K totals when those guys regress to their admittedly high mean.
Even so, when I win an auction Otto locks me down immediately until I cut somebody. Perhaps a gentle remedy would be to allow teams that can’t field a full team two weeks to comply. After that, lock their lineups. Having 20 empty bench slots does one good thing for that owner: He doesn’t have to spend even $20 to fill them, and then some more when he cuts a player to add a better one.
Yes, something has to be done to force compliance with 1A.
We have similar concerns in our home keeper league. Here are some possible solutions:
– Owner is given a 1 week grace period (we have weekly lineups). Sometimes, stuff happens.
– Penalty is 100% targeted to future years (an owner rebuilding doesn’t care). We do it through increased salary on potential keepers.
– Sample formula (# weeks out of compliance – 1) times $2 per player.
– Example, If you are out of compliance for just 2 weeks (maybe you can’t decide which prospect to drop), you get $2 added to every keeper option you have.
– Example 2, If you are out of compliance all 25 weeks, you get $50 added to every keeper option you have.
– Relatively simple rule to administer and it changes the incentive to breaking the rule.
Our roto league has a rule where, if you are found out of compliance, you get a grace week and then you can only make moves that fix your roster.
So, yeah – you can create a roster of minor leaguers at the beginning of the year, but then you are done.
I think it’s important to enforce 1A, because it has an effect on the player pool.
I like this solution. I was going to suggest that the enforcement could be not allowing any moves unless they bring the roster into compliance.
I also like the fact that your league has specified the enforcement. The combination of the “should” in the rule and the lack of specified enforcement is a big problem for me, to the point where I would probably do nothing in the current season, and amend the league rules prior to the next season.
Assuming that punishment is appropriate to enforce the rule (the discussion of “should” versus “must” or “shall” makes a good point), there are some things that would impact all teams – including ones on the rebuild. I’d have a series of escalating penalties. First, no stats accrued for the period there’s an “illegal” roster. Second, if a team carries an illegal roster for more than [x] amount of time (a week?) they are locked from making trades. Third, if they have an illegal roster for more than [x+y] amount of time (two weeks? three?) they are locked from add/drops. Presumably even a rebuilding team wants to be able to manage their roster with an eye towards next year. Handicap that ability and you probably get compliance with the rule.
Is there a re-draft of any sort in this league? Penalties can be assessed for re-draft position. Another idea would be to create a “Best Interest of the League” Clause and set forth penalties to be incurred at any point within the next X years, to be deducted from winnings.
Use minimum limits on games played and innings pitched. If a team fails to reach the min, recalculate the standings without that team. If it’s a keeper league, take away the team’s keepers.
I’m in a league where we can trade draft picks and have keepers…..so there are some teams that build for one year and then tank. Our rules are that you must have an active lineup – we start 12 hitters and 7 pitchers with a bench of 5. We also have a minor leaguer spot in addition to the 5 bench spots. I had an owner this year (who was part of making this rule two years ago!) decide he was going to grab 8 minor leaguers and break the rule. He could have a maximum of 6 (5 bench and 1 minor leaguer spot) so I asked him to drop 2 minor leaguers (his choice) but he refused to follow the rules so I locked his team and he is kicked out of the league. When you know what the rule is and blatantly break the rule with a “what are you going to do about it?” attitude, you don’t belong in the league any longer.
I’ve given this a lot of thought over the past few days and I’m absolutely convinced that the issue here is not in the rule or the player but in the way the lineup code is written.
if there were 18 bench spots and 22 lineup spots and you simply could X out a player you didn’t want to start that day this would be a non issue.
It’s really just a matter of a player not being able to have a spot filled with a bench piece if he has a lineup spot available.
Just a quick “thank you” to everyone who commented today. Comments were excellent, constructive, and practical, which is just what I was looking for. Well done, all. Thank you!
Penalties could be simple.
If a team is out of compliance for X number of days, then he is docked Y amount of $ from next year’s auction budget.
If the team is out of compliance for X + Z number of days, then a minor league player will be randomly selected (via random.org or similar random list generator) to be dropped from the teams roster and the spot must be filled with a player to get the team into compliance.
This is not like trying to deduce Original Intent of the US Constitution because the writers have been dead for about 200 years. I would guess the people who wrote the rules in question here are still around ASK THEM WHAT THE INTENT WAS AND CHANGE THE RULES TO MATCH.
Yahoo uses an “NA” status for minor leaguers. Rather than trying to force a certain number of major league players you could simply limit the maximum number of NA players.
I also agree, as previously mentioned, that teams out of compliance because they are rebuilding do not care about the current season and can only be punished by subtracting $ from the following year’s budget.
At the most basic level, if the program doesn’t prevent you from doing something, then it isn’t illegal. You’re allowed to have 40 minor leaguers.
Taking it a step further, your league has every opportunity to enforce this rule as written. That’s a league-by-league choice. Beware, it requires extensive policing. FanGraphs Staff Two does not enforce this rule. Brandon Warne and Marc Hulet have both maintained prospect rosters each of the last two seasons. Warne is contending now and Hulet is rebuilding.
Brad, when you say “have maintained prospect rosters” I assume you mean > 18 minor league players? It is certainly true that this can be left up to individual leagues to police/enforce, but I’ve seen plenty of strong arguments above that the very first rule of the game shouldn’t be ignored. It can be case by case, but I’ve played in leagues where half the owners ignore and half the owners feel strongly it is a requirement, which makes it a tough call.
I read the article, but admittedly skimmed the comments.
My ‘dynasty’ league adopted many rules and regulations very very similar to Ottoneu leagues. Salary and salary increases, same requriements, etc. We just have the traditional corner infield spot as well to make it 23 active players. And it’s also 12tm NL only, so its super deep.
We’ve done 2 big changes that can be something you consider for Ottoneu situations.
1) Each team has a minimum amount of At-bats and Innings Pitched it must meet. If a team fails to meet those [accumulated by it’s active lineup] it is fined $50 FA money for each category it misses. If you miss both minimums, you are fined a total of $100. Our minimums are 600 innings and 3800 Abs. Trust me, being fined $50 or $100 is a good enough deterrent that teams will have just enough active players to avoid that.
2) We have an in-season salary cap. Our draft day auction cap is $300 for our 40 man rosters. But in-season, there is a cap of $415. This allows contenders to make deals and acquire talent, but discourages one team from overloading and making others ‘give up’ early.
We’ve had a few other rule adjustments and things to assure competitive balance and fairness. But they don’t really pertain to the discussion here. And really, this is a comment section, I’m sure most stopped reading this after 2 sentences.
I have declared in advance that I will veto trades made by 1a illegal teams that don’t move them closer to being legal. If everyone were on board (they’re generally not!), the league would collectively restrict the team’s capability to improve from an illegal position, or make a dump trade that will unbalance the league even more.
I think this makes sense, and it somewhat related to the ultimate decision that one of my leagues made when we couldn’t find agreement on interpreting or enforcing Rule 1a: We decided to enact an annual relegation vote following every season, where every owner votes to keep or remove every other owner in the league. Technically you could vote to eject an owner for any reason under this rule, but it was really designed to address the gray area of teams choosing not to follow Rule 1a without requiring the commissioner to spot check lineups weekly, etc. Similar to a veto vote, teams that receive 7 or more removal votes at season’s end would be replaced for the following season, so there’s some incentive not to ignore the spirit of the rules and completely tank your season.
I’m not really familiar with Ottoneu rules. Can the team not just pick up a (major league) free agent to complete the active roster? i.e. is there a maximum roster size (which includes disabled and minor league players?
How does the season start? Does the team have to have the valid 22-man major league roster then? If so, then it’s easy – never let them make a move that leaves them without a valid roster. If not, that’s a really weird auction – can I just buy 40 minor leaguers for $1 each if I want?
In my league you must have a valid roster at all times. This CAN include DL players (and often does – say my 1B goes on the DL on Thursday – I can’t pick up a replacement until the weekly free agent bids are processed on Monday).
There are very rare circumstances where you can end up with an incomplete roster – in that case you MUST pick up a free agent to complete your roster. If you don’t, you automatically get the free agent hitter (who fits positionally) with the most AB (or pitcher with the most IP) at the minimum free agent bid.
Here is a real time example: https://ottoneu.fangraphs.com/159/setlineups
If you can’t see the link, my team won the league last year and I’m doing a rebuild. SABR Points League. Last year, one injury lead to several trades of prospects for win-now help that put me over the cap by a good spot. Traded the high-salaried vets in the winter for prospects. Now my bench is all prospects, and my starting lineup consists of YGrandal, WMyers, BHPark, AHicks, DTravis, JBruce, MeCabrera, ELongoria, OHerrera, FLindor, KMarte, MKepler, 4 young SP, 4 active RP, and CKleber (DL).
My team is currently in last place (1,389 pts). Less than 200 from 11th. Depending on how the prospects do, will probably end up last. 2017, can’t wait to see how that works out.
Is competitive balance of our league skewed? Is competitive balance in the National League skewed because the Reds, Phillies, Braves, and Brewers are in the same mode? Yes, a bit, but each team has to do what they think is best to build a champion.
All I’ve said about this to my league members is turning down trades this season because I still have to roster a starting lineup. No complaints about my roster that I’ve heard.
Bottom line, the rule says should, and I think that is by design. It leaves gray area, and commissioners can step in to correct a situation if the league feels the experience is being downgraded.