I’ve had this debate with several industry peers for years. I play in leagues both ways, but I strongly prefer an unlimited in size disabled list over one with a defined maximum.
My most recent engagement on the subject was this past weekend with friend and industry league competitor Scott Pianowski of Yahoo, when I took exception to this pronouncement.
One of the modern fantasy baseball skills: deciding which of your broken guys is actually worth one of the finite DL slots. (And yes, limited DL is a good thing. Unlimited storage has unintended consequences.)
— scott pianowski (@scott_pianowski) May 19, 2018
As I noted, the reality is that both of the top industry showcase leagues, Tout and LABR, continue to provide unlimited DL spots. However, it is not as if the leagues have not evolved to limit DL abuses by tightening up rules, especially in relation to stashing players.
No longer can owners of players who come off the DL hide them on the fantasy DL for three weeks waiting for other moves. Now, players must be activated or released in the very next period after coming off the real DL.
This is an example of changing other rules to help achieve the desired result without resorting to the dramatic institution of limited DL spots.
Another move implemented in recent years in Tout was to reduce the number of reserve spots from six to four. Again, this helps address the most common gripe made by those who support unlimited DL, which is a distillation of the player pool.
My consistent response is to suggest focus on the core problem, not one symptom, and here, the core problem is the player pool, not the DL. Reader Mark Hamrick knows the score.
But then you deplete the pool so much, to the point that there's nothing to grab.
— scott pianowski (@scott_pianowski) May 19, 2018
I know I'll never win this argument. I think we help the injury team more by giving him options to add, not by giving him an unlimited amount of parking lots. Many teams use DL tags on players who aren't even good. It's also a part of the rules rife for snags, gamesmanship.
— scott pianowski (@scott_pianowski) May 19, 2018
As noted, Scott went on to assert that some owners place players on the DL “who aren’t even good”.
My response is, “So what”. If the player is no good, no one wants him, anyway, and they certainly would not acquire him while injured, so precisely what harm was caused? I honestly cannot think of any.
As far as Scott’s assertion that “snags” and “gamesmanship” are inherent with an infinite DL, I am unfamiliar with any such specific examples. They are not occurring in my leagues and shouldn’t be in others that are well-managed, either. Again, what is the core problem?
In my corporate days, we called soft objections like these “FUD” – fear, uncertainty and doubt. Instead, deal with real problems, not imagined ones. If you see risks ahead, address them proactively.
At least Pianowski realizes by now that his resistance is futile. At that point, the discussion ended.
Now, let’s put my exchanges with Scott aside and get personal.
As an owner with eight players costing $77 on draft day currently on my NL LABR DL, I am very grateful for at least having the unlimited DL at my disposal. In addition to A.J. Pollock ($23), Adam Eaton ($21), Eric Thames ($16) and Chase Anderson ($9) on the shelf, I have also endured DL stints by Anthony Rizzo ($32) and Eugenio Suarez ($21) already this season. In fact, I had 10 players out due to injury several weeks ago.
In other words, every single one of my top dollar offensive players drafted has already been on the disabled list – and we are only in mid-May. Being able to keep just three or four of them, for example, would have been devastating. Instead, I would have been forced to leave a number of injured players active, to avoid having to release them. As a result, I would end up in last place even sooner due to a bunch of zero stat lines.
Now, one could argue that I took risk by drafting two players with injury histories in Pollock and Eaton, and I accept that, but what about the other eight?
Currently, I am in the unenviable position of being tied for 13th place in a 15-team league. My chances of winning are likely already shot. However, I should at least be offered the opportunity to keep the best players for whom I acquired fair and square on draft day.
You might ask what my response is to the complaint that my picking up replacements for injured players dilutes the free agent player pool for the other owners – almost all of whom are looking down upon me in the standings, by the way.
Well, here it is.
“That is just too damn bad.”
And besides, I am not blocking you from anyone. Decent free agents still emerge all season long. The worst case is that they are just less plentiful. Nothing would stop you from bidding more FAAB if you want the best available talent more than I do. Man (or Woman) up.
Tell you what. Would you rather trade rosters? I didn’t think so, so just stop with the whining, please. At least you still have a chance to win. I am simply fighting to regain respectability, and I deserve a fair shot to do so!
Brian Walton was the 2009 National League Tout Wars champion, scoring the most points in the league’s history. He also holds the all-time NL Tout single-season records for wins and saves. His work can also be found daily at TheCardinalNation.com. Follow Brian on Twitter.
This kind of stuff makes me crazy: “…owners with bad injury luck shouldn’t be further penalized by being forced to drop a valuable player on the DL (that another luckier owner can then snatch up) once they hit their DL limit.” It is true there is “bad injury luck,” though sometimes, as in the case with the injury-prone Pollock, maybe the key is not drafting. But, there is no “further penalty.” Players getting injured is NOT a penalty. It is just what happened, and trying to link rules with luck and perhaps questionable draft day decisions as punitive is flat out specious.
I’ve never understood the “depleting the pool” argument. For every player on the DL, there’s a player on the 25-man roster to replace him. Sure, he’s often not very good, but sometimes he’s better. So, maybe, the pool is depleted with respect to quality, but the quantity remains fixed. What’s left is the same for everyone. I don’t think lesser quality replacements is a cogent argument against unlimited DL spots. Adjust to the available inventory and lower your bar for acceptable players.
“Maybe the pool is depleted with respect to quality”? Todd, that doesn’t make any sense. Look at the players on the DL at any point in the middle of a season. OF COURSE the league would have better talent if everyone were healthy. That shouldn’t even be a debate.
If DL is limited, you force owners into tougher decisions AND you also give them more reasonable, playable options if they encounter injuries. I wonder if you guys have ever tried this (if not, it’s adorable that you can not try something and just assume it sucks). I’ve played extensively both ways and I think limited DL is a better game. And while I don’t have a lot of people on my side, some are. I know Chris Liss is one of them.
“Man up” – that’s really your argument, Brian? I could say “man up” to your injured team, but it would be just as weak.
Anyway, to anyone who hasn’t played with limited DL, I suggest you try it. And let me know how you liked it. Maybe you won’t like it. And when our teams get crushed with hurt guys, it’s going to sting. But I think giving someone a pool of playable replacements gives the hurt team more things to work with than having all the storage in the world but let players to pick through.
The NFBC (as one example) has seven (or six, depending on the league) reserves with no DL – which is basically the same as a limited DL since hitting moves are allowed on Friday – so yeah, I’ve been dealing with these tough decisions here and other leagues. Specific to NFBC, having to carry an injured player is a double-whammy. Not only are you using a lesser player in the active lineup (in many cases, sometimes you actually upgrade), you have fewer hitters to play matchups on Friday and/or fewer pitchers to deploy on good matchups on Monday.
Scott, this is your point I am completely missing: “But I think giving someone a pool of playable replacements gives the hurt team more things to work with than having all the storage in the world but let players to pick through.”
I don’t see how the pool has more playable replacements. Maybe it’s a matter of league size. My point is the pool of active players is the same regardless of the size of the DL. Yeah, there are more DL players in the available pool a team could pick up when he is off the DL, but they can also activate their own players when they’re healthy. Maybe some opt to keep a DL guy on their reserve, pushing someone else to the free agent pool, but I don’t think that appreciably improves the quality of the pool, at least not enough to move the needle to limited DL.
It may actually be both methods end up in the same place, with a shuffling of DL players to different rosters once healthy.