Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

Is this ethical?


IceGoat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I run a big money Roto league every year. This year we have 12 teams, the top half of teams is competitive, the bottom half is inactive. Currently, my team is tied in 2nd, merely a point out of 1st place. The top 3 finishers (who are all bunched up right now) will get money. 

 

I noticed last night that one of the dead teams is not on pace to reach the 180 pitcher start min, which is needed to qualify for ERA and WHIP. My team and the team tied with me are ahead of him in ERA while the 1st place team is behind him. At the end of the season, when the dead team fails to qualify, he will drop down to the bottom of the standings in ERA, thereby giving the current 1st place team a potential league clinching point. 

 

Would it be collusive or unethical if I reached out to the dead manager and asked if he could throw some of his benched starters (like Kershaw) into his lineup? As it sits right now, all he has is Bumgarner (a part of a 6 man rotation), Trevor Bauer and Homer Bailey. He has Salazar in his starting lineup but I fear he will relegated to a bullpen role the rest of the way. 

 

Now, I am chasing 3 dead (well one is mostly dead) teams in RBI. The other two top teams have already passed this trio. I am just about to eclipse one of them while the other two have eluded me for sometime. At best I'll probably only be able to gain 2 points in the RBI category. Potentially just the one. 

 

Ethically speaking, if I were to reach out to the one dead manager, I should have to reach out to the ones I am chasing in RBI, too. Should I do nothing? Or am I right to believe you should actually have to pass a team in the category to advance in it, not a gain a point by virtue of another guy failing to hit a min?  

Edited by IceGoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's collusive.  No, you can't do anything about it.  You agreed to the rules (including the minimum, and what happens if you don't reach the minimum) when you joined the league.  If it wasn't made clear to you and the rest of the players, then your commissioner did a bad job.

 

Editing to add: I see you're the commisioner, so, uh, yeah, that's going to look even worse.

Edited by tonycpsu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

Yes, it's collusive.  No, you can't do anything about it.  You agreed to the rules (including the minimum, and what happens if you don't reach the minimum) when you joined the league.  If it wasn't made clear to you and the rest of the players, then your commissioner did a bad job.

 

Editing to add: I see you're the commisioner, so, uh, yeah, that's going to look even worse.

 

Yes, I suppose you're right. I would have felt dishonest reaching out to this dead team. Hopefully this guy will have a random spurt of activity but I fear his neglect may decide the league. 

Edited by IceGoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't do squat about it. It's unfortunate you have league participants or lack thereof I should say, but you can't reach out to them to give them a " nudge" or anything of that nature. If there were some precedent set in the rules or previous league rules regarding this behavior then you have a path to resolution. But with nothing set forth in a rule policy, all you can do is run your own team the best you can and hope things work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sucks but as the others say it would be collusion. You need to introduce a rule saying losing owners need to remain active or else they will be replaced. That way you could send out warnings and reminders of the rule toward the end of the season which would hopefully get the inactive owners going again without it being collusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the advice. Well, I did say, before the season, if you are inactive I reserve the right to replace you, but I just let the dead teams lie this year. I was thinking the fair way to do this would to personally e-mail the 4 or so managers whose inactivity may influence the standings and ask if they could perfunctorily make moves the rest of the way. This would include the managers who inactivity stands to benefit my team, as well. I doubt I do anything though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a money league  would have made it a point to make sure all the league members were active....checking periodically/activity checks. If I found they went inactive i would be sending emails. Trying to guilt them into keeping active making sure they understood the concept that a rotisserie league needs everybody active so one team doesn't get a free pass to the money.

 

so how long has these guys been inactive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I think doing something now is simply just self-serving.  However, it IS an issue that needs to be addressed.    Perhaps after the season is over or next year when you are getting members together start discussing league activity and making it known that dead teams will not be getting an invite back.  This is something that really should have been addressed and kept up with throughout the season . In the leagues I commish I occasionally send out a league-wide email or put up a post reminding people about activity.  One league I'm in (don't commish) is a 20 team league.  We have not only maximum games played and IP but minimums as well and you are penalized in the next years draft for not meeting them.   Perhaps something like this will get the results you are looking for.

 

Honestly if you think about the way you have it set up its an ineffectual policy.  If a team is so inactive that they don't meet league minimums then they probably don't care about losing the points for that category.   Or you could have a team that is so dominant that they miss the minimums and get punished anyway (I have a team this year in a 12 team league. Despite projecting out to 120+IP BELOW the IP threshold I have a 12 in ERA, WHIP, K's and W's and a 10 in Saves).   Punishing ~this~ season for inactivity is a little like telling somebody "If you get caught stealing we'll force you to return the item you stole.  Now that'll show you!!!"   

 

If you do ANYTHING now, make a public league wide address about activity. That way its to everybody.  It could hurt or  help anybody, including you.  You do mention you are chasing some people in RBI's that are in the same situation (if they get active they keep the points and you don't gain on them).   But honestly I think your best course of action for the next 2 weeks is inaction.  Let this season ride out and address it after the fact.   Unless other managers raise the concern to you, just let this season finish like it started and work on changes for next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For this year you need to let things lie and hope it falls your way.  For the future our league has done a couple of things that help address this issue:

 

1. When a team fails to meet minimum IP or AB, they get zero points in The rate categories.  But the other teams do NOT move up in the standings in those categories. The inactive team is penalized but nobody benefits.  I believe this is in the original roto constitution from Okrent et al.  

 

2. We put in a "dump tax" of a $5 increase to league fees the further down you finish. Top 5 are in the money. 6th place pays an extra $5 in league fees. 7th place pays an extra $10, 8th place an extra $15, and so on. Right now I am fighting to hold on to ninth place. 

 

In your situation rule #1 would have prevented this issue.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2017 at 9:32 PM, IceGoat said:

Hi all,

 

I run a big money Roto league every year. This year we have 12 teams, the top half of teams is competitive, the bottom half is inactive. Currently, my team is tied in 2nd, merely a point out of 1st place. The top 3 finishers (who are all bunched up right now) will get money. 

 

I noticed last night that one of the dead teams is not on pace to reach the 180 pitcher start min, which is needed to qualify for ERA and WHIP. My team and the team tied with me are ahead of him in ERA while the 1st place team is behind him. At the end of the season, when the dead team fails to qualify, he will drop down to the bottom of the standings in ERA, thereby giving the current 1st place team a potential league clinching point. 

 

Would it be collusive or unethical if I reached out to the dead manager and asked if he could throw some of his benched starters (like Kershaw) into his lineup? As it sits right now, all he has is Bumgarner (a part of a 6 man rotation), Trevor Bauer and Homer Bailey. He has Salazar in his starting lineup but I fear he will relegated to a bullpen role the rest of the way. 

 

Now, I am chasing 3 dead (well one is mostly dead) teams in RBI. The other two top teams have already passed this trio. I am just about to eclipse one of them while the other two have eluded me for sometime. At best I'll probably only be able to gain 2 points in the RBI category. Potentially just the one. 

 

Ethically speaking, if I were to reach out to the one dead manager, I should have to reach out to the ones I am chasing in RBI, too. Should I do nothing? Or am I right to believe you should actually have to pass a team in the category to advance in it, not a gain a point by virtue of another guy failing to hit a min?  

There is a very slippery slope here that I tend to probably be in the minority when its discussed among commissioners on the boards.  I had a similar issue with football and H2H back in 2012.  I think the commissioner holds a certain responsibility to be fair and consistent.  So yes, if you want to contact all "dead" owners about playing to the end, staying active etc.  I think thats fine, in part because its stands to both help and hurt you, so you can make the case you are doing whats best for the league.  

 

* I think anytime you have dead ownership it lends itself to getting "help" which as commissioner I have made it very clear that I will not do because I think saying something to someone when you are commissioner comes with more weight than some random owner, which is not fair to the other random owners, but because I will not do that as commissioner, I expect that others will not do it either and if I catch wind of it, you or I will not be back.   That was my position after it happened in 2012 and its been a non issue since. 

 

* I think in the future, maybe get rid of the innings thing, if someone wants to go all relievers, let them in roto.  A few bad outings kills their ratios and they are already in a deep hole for K and wins.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...