Legacy Materials
Legacy Rules
2007 Rules
2008 Rules
2009 Rules
LDB Rules Board Reporter
LDB Rules Board Decision Citation Format
Decisions by the Rules Board should be cited as: <title>, <season year> LDB <decision number of the season> (<month> <day>, <year>).
2010 Decisions
In re aRBI, 2010 LDB 1 (Apr. 6, 2010)
QUESTION: The Wiki says that aRBI shall be RBI-2GIDP, but the Commissioner stated in an email that aRBI shall be RBI-GIDP. Which formula are we using?
DECISION: The Board unanimously concludes that aRBI should be RBI-2GIDP, as stated in the Wiki. The rule as stated in the Wiki is entirely unambiguous, and therefore carries the day. We recognize that the Commissioner provided a different formula in an email, and that that formula is probably a better one. But the Wiki is the primary source for LDB's Rules, and where it can only be interpreted in one way, that interpretation should usually, and perhaps always, govern.
We should emphasize that, in this case, the rule written into the Wiki is workable and a relatively minor change from the other possible rule. Additionally, to the extent that anybody is harmed by the misunderstanding, that harm falls equally on people who relied on one source and people who relied on the other. Treating the rule stated in the Wiki as definitive thus does not create problems for the functioning of the League, and does not create or exacerbate any avoidable inequities among owners.
Of course, this does not stop the league from changing the rule mid-season, in accordance with the "In-season Rule Changes" provision of the Wiki. Such changes require unanimous consent.
R. Hughes, M. Brophy, and J. Dubner
In re Cancelled MLB Games, 2010 LDB 2 (Apr. 12, 2010)
QUESTIONS: (1) Do stats from cancelled MLB games count in LDB? (2) If they do not count, what should be the mechanism for getting them tossed?
DECISION: On the first question, the Board unanimously concludes that cancelled MLB games will not count in LDB. On the second question, the Board unanimously concludes that the Commissioner should first look for a way to solve the problem functionally. If a functional fix is not possible, the league will rely on owners reporting cancelled games.
Regarding the first question, the Rules are completely silent on the issue. However, our past practice with CBS was to not count these games. And, as we understand, most if not all fantasy service providers do not count cancelled games. Given our past practice and that the fantasy baseball industry generally does not count these games, we are persuaded that they should not count.
On the second question, we think a technical fix is optimal. If that's not possible, then owners should keep their eye out for canceled games, and email the league when one occurs. Given that most of the league checks scores repeatedly throughout the day, a regular practice of emailing the league when a canceled game is spotted should suffice to catch all canceled games. Note that you should email the league, rather than just Geoff, so that everybody else knows that they don't need to report that game.
We considered proposing a prize for reported games, e.g., a .4M reward to the first team that spotted any given canceled game. Ultimately, we determined that this was unnecessary.
R. Hughes, M. Brophy, and J. Dubner
In re Pitchers' AAA Starts, 2010 LDB 3 (Jun. 6, 2010)
QUESTION: The Rules designate this as a "3 IP, 6 ER, 9 H, 2 HR" penalty, but with no mention of WPA, RE24, or NQW penalties. Does this imply we want no penalty on those categories?
DECISION: The Board unanimously concludes that the rule was inadvertently incomplete as drafted, and should therefore be corrected. AAA starts will now consist of 3 IP, 6 ER, 9 H, 2 HR, -3 NQW, -0.40 WPA, and -4.42 RE24.
Charging -3 NQW to a pitcher with the stat line stated in the Rules strikes us as uncontroversial. If a pitcher goes 3 IP, 6 ER, 9 H, and 2 HR, he incurs a game started, but no win or quality start. He almost certainly accumulates a loss as well, leaving him with -3 NQW under our scoring structure.
WPA and RE24 were more difficult to decide, since both are context specific. We thought it most appropriate to construct a fictional, realistic three inning sequence based on the stat line listed in the Rules and adopt the resulting WPA and RE24 values. This is the scenario we decided on:
Top 1: AAA starter allows 1 run Bottom 1: Starter's team gets back a run Top 2: AAA starter allows no runs Bottom 2: Starter's team gets no runs Top 3: AAA starter allows 2 runs Bottom 3: Starter's team gets no runs Top 4: AAA starter allows 3 runs, pulled with bases empty, no outs
In this situation, the AAA starter incurs -0.40 WPA and -4.42 RE24.
As an aside, we apologize for not deciding this matter quicker, as dictated by the Rules.
R. Hughes, M. Brophy, and J. Dubner
In re Payouts, 2010 LDB 4 (Jul. 7, 2010)
QUESTION: We never really settled what we're going to do about payouts. Can you guys come up with an appropriate structure?
DECISION: The Board unanimously concludes that we will use the same payout structure as last year, but with slight modifications that shift the prize pool in the league champion's favor, while also rewarding teams with second, third, and fourth place finishes. Teams will start being paid back their league fees after 102 wins instead of last year's 100. The remaining prize pool will be split 60-20-10-10% between the first through fourth place finishers, respectively, instead of last year's 65-35% split between the top two.
We find basis for our decision in several unsettled discussions about payout structure, which showed support for last year's payout structure, but with a desire to shift payout to the league champion and top four finishers, especially the league champion. We also found competing ideas for more radically altering the payout structure, but no consensus on them, and some of them were logically unworkable. That said, we think it prudent to keep the system we have, modify it for the changes we find widespread support for, and leave the more radical changes for the offseason.
Under last year's system, each team paid in $60 for the season. After a team won 100 points toward its season record, that team earned $1.00 back for each win thereafter, the break-even point being 160 points. Teams making the playoffs were guaranteed to be at least made whole on their $60 buy-in. Many teams, of course, fell short of 160 wins and did not get back all they paid in. The unpaid funds constituted the prize pool, which the champion and runner-up split 65-35%.[1]
Based on our calculations, we conclude that increasing the requisite points for beginning repayment to 102 and splitting the winnings amongst the top four teams 60-20-10-10% creates a much more desirable net winnings result.
In all other respects, the payout structure should remain the same.
Under this scheme, last year's standings would have resulted in the following net winnings distribution. Note that this is a somewhat extreme case, due to Starr winning so many in-season games above 162. On par, the disparity between the champion and runner-up would be even greater.
| New Pool | Old Pool | |
|---|---|---|
| Brophy | $105 | $99 |
| Starr | $50 | $68 |
| Ian | $22 | $7 |
| Jack | $22 | $7 |
| Geoff | $3 | $5 |
| Dubner | $1 | $3 |
| Vijay | $0 | $0 |
| Ilan | ($4) | ($2) |
| Jay | ($8) | ($6) |
| Nat | ($24) | ($22) |
| Ray | ($29) | ($27) |
| Anton | ($31) | ($29) |
| Ryan | ($39) | ($37) |
| Sean | ($67) | ($65) |
Note: we do not warrant the absolute correctness of these numbers, as we worked backwards from the Commissioner's payouts last year. In fact, there is rounding error in them and/or an unaccounted dollar for the requirement that Vijay be made whole on making the playoffs with 159 wins. But they should present a reasonable picture of the result.
[1] The goal of this structure was twofold: (1) make teams out of contention think twice about selling off and (2) encourage teams to continue making day-to-day management decisions to maintain league competitiveness through the entire season.
R. Hughes, M. Brophy, and J. Dubner
In re Playoff Pitching Staffs, 2010 LDB 5 (Aug. 29, 2010)
QUESTION: May a team place a pitcher currently on the DL on its playoff roster? What about a pitcher in the real-world minor league systems?
ANSWER: Only if the pitcher is scheduled to come off the DL during that stage of the playoffs. The rule requires teams to "bring three starters and two relievers to each playoff round." Because all pitching stats are calculated as rate stats in the playoffs, and there is no innings requirement, a team could game the rule by using 1 superstar and 4 disabled pitchers. Accordingly, it would be best to interpret "bringing" pitchers to the round as selecting pitchers who are on major league rosters; that is, not disabled pitchers or players in the minor leagues.
Because an owner might legitimately want to use a disabled pitcher who is scheduled to come off the DL, they may do so, provided they announce their plan to the league and identify a backup pitcher on their roster who will pitch if the disabled pitcher does not appear in a game that week.
J. Dubner and M. Brophy
DISSENT: I respectfully disagree with the rest of the Board. While the decision we are rendering makes fine sense, I think we are overstepping our bounds. The Rules state that, "[s]hould any ambiguity of these Rules arise, such ambiguity is resolved by the Rules Interpretation Board (Board)." The Board has struggled numerous times this season with what is 'ambiguous' and what is not, mostly at my behest.[1] The rest of the Board takes a much broader view of the Board's power than I think the Rules allow. While I agree it may be desirable to give the Board broad powers, I do not think the Board has the power to render this decision.
Looking over some of our past decisions, most of them involve a question where there was no workable solution within the text of the Rules (see payouts, AAA starts, and cancelled games data). The one decision where we declined to intervene was the aRBI question, where we found a clear, workable standard with no ambiguity. This case is much closer to the aRBI question than to any of the others. Under the Rules, "[t]eams will bring three starters and two relievers to each playoff round." There is nothing ambiguous about this sentence; a team should be able to select any players for the playoff roster, with or without DL or minor league status -- just as it may with offensive players. In fact, I think a short roster would be perfectly acceptable strategy that brings higher risk and reward.
Brophy finds ambiguity in this sentence for other reasons: it doesn't speak of bench sizes or whether players may be subbed in and out. But these are extrinsic questions to the matter at hand, for which I think there is no legitimate ambiguity. Brophy also pointed out that, taken to the extreme, a manager could put all injured players on the playoff roster, which would result in divide-by-zero errors in scoring. First of all, no manager would ever do this. Second, even if one did, the Board would simply need to determine what to do with such score, since the Rules give no guidance.
Dubner made a very compelling case for why allowing guys on the DL or in minors would not effect league intent, and I agree with him. I even think that giving the Board the mission of effecting league intent and broad power to fashion new rules without a league vote is a good idea for next season. But I don't think we have the power to do so right now and that this should go to a league vote.
[1] The irony of 'ambiguous' being ambiguous does not escape me. Neither does the fact that I wrote that portion of the Rules.
R. Hughes
In re Tiebreakers, 2010 LDB 6 (Sept. 3, 2010)
NOTE: Geoff just sent us an emergency question. Brophy and Starr were disqualified because it affects their playoff match-ups. Anton stepped in as #3.
QUESTION: After the UZR update, it turns out that Nat, Josh and Geoff are tied at the end of week 20. We have no provision for a tie breaker in standings in the Rules. Geoff provided the contents of an email from August last year announcing tiebreakers for 2009.
DECISION: We unanimously conclude that the system used in 2009 should control. Standing will be determined based on the following criteria, in descending order:
- Standings points
- Head-to-head record (if three teams are tied and their head-to-head record results in another three-way tie, we'll ignore this and move on)
- Wins (exclude tie wins and forfeit wins from standings points)
- Tie wins
- InTRA-divisional record
- (god help us all) Overall roto performance
- Commissioner's coin flip (with witnesses)
R. Hughes, J. Dubner, and A. Johnson
2011 Decisions
2012 Decisions
In re Robinson Cano's Contract Status, 2012 LDB 1 (Feb. 16, 2012)
QUESTION: Robinson Cano was erroneously marked as a K2 last year. He was actually a K3. Anton, who purchased him in the auction three years ago, has owned the player for all three years. He said that he had built his team around having Cano this year, but now he should be an RFA instead of a K3 (had he not been erroneously marked). Need a decision about what to do with Cano's status.
DECISION: We find ourselves in the odd situation of having to interpret rules that we no longer have, as they were lost on an old server. However, one of the pieces we have left of the rules is an amendment made during the previous offseason, the "Dubner Amendment," which clarifies the powers and mission of this board:
If the Rules are ambiguous or do not address an issue, the Board should craft a rule designed to best fulfill the goals and intent of the league, but should be mindful of the need to avoid harming or benefiting any individual team or subset of teams that has relied on a valid interpretation of the text of the Rules or would otherwise be affected in a way distinct from the rest of the league. Above all, the Board should be guided by common sense and its understanding of what makes LDB the most functional and the most fun, rather than legalistic or formalistic nuances.
Having no rules to read from, we have to draw on memory to answer this question. We recall no contingency for dealing with the situation where incorrect data entry prejudices a team owner. As such, we need to craft a commonsense decision that fulfills the intent of the league.
We are guided in part by the dispute at the beginning of the 2011 season as to what extent Jay should be penalized after not having set his lineup over multiple days. Part of that discussion focussed on the level of responsibility an owner in this league must have to know his own team. The consensus was that everybody in this league must have a higher responsibility than they would in an average league. We think that is true in this case: an owner should know, without relying on entered data, whether a player has been on his roster for two or three seasons.
We are also guided by situations in the past where the league has had to fashion workarounds in data gaps, especially with regard to fielding data. Given that our league software is far from enterprise-level, owners should expect some reasonable low level of data inaccuracy. That is true in this case as well. One cannot expect every contract status to be correct, especially when it was (likely) entered by hand at some point.
As such, Cano's contract status last season was K3, and he will be an RFA this year. Additionally, Anton must pay the $0.7 million in savings that he received with Cano's more favorable K2 contract designation last season.
We are mindful that we must "avoid harming or benefiting any individual team or subset of teams that has relied on a valid interpretation of the text of the Rules or would otherwise be affected in a way distinct from the rest of the league." We therefore do not opine here on the situation where an incorrect contract status requires an owner to pay back substantially more than $0.7 million in savings.
R. Hughes, I. Marcus Amelkin, and M. Starr