<div dir="auto">I love that's it's possible in this IBL game for those odd, bizarre things to happen even as frustrating as it is in-game. I recall an Orioles game vs. Red Sox. Where Chris Davis was the winning pitcher after 18 innings and going 0-7 or 0-8 batting. But you know both teams scurried to their transactions to make pitchers available the next day. I think we should too. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Can't we have some sort of emergency instruction in MIS to cover for the unlikely event of these and injury emergencies? Then it's not a matter of having to write the other manager for instruction. It could simply be similar to position hierarchy than many have in there MIS already. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Rob_SLG</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, May 1, 2018, 9:16 AM <<a href="mailto:members-request@lists.ibl.org">members-request@lists.ibl.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send Members mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members@lists.ibl.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.ibl.org/mailman/listinfo/members" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ibl.org/mailman/listinfo/members</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:members-request@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members-request@lists.ibl.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:members-owner@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members-owner@lists.ibl.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Members digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: A rule for discussion (Sean Sweda)<br>
2. Re: A rule for discussion (Andrew Selder)<br>
3. BF rule change needed for extras (George Blas)<br>
4. Re: A rule for discussion (Andrew Selder)<br>
5. Re: A rule for discussion (Doug Palmer)<br>
6. Re: A rule for discussion (Nelson Lu)<br>
7. Re: A rule for discussion (Billy Compton)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 10:56:04 -0400<br>
From: Sean Sweda <<a href="mailto:sweda@ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sweda@ibl.org</a>><br>
To: Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>>, Chris Hartjes<br>
<<a href="mailto:chartjes@littlehart.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">chartjes@littlehart.net</a>>, IBL Members <<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members@lists.ibl.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:57F3CCE3-6A07-44BE-ACA5-46EFD4B7C55A@ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">57F3CCE3-6A07-44BE-ACA5-46EFD4B7C55A@ibl.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed<br>
<br>
IIRC, I believe one stated objection was not wanting to stop playing MIS <br>
games to ask their opponent about activations/deactivations. At the time I <br>
pointed out that owners were already required to do the same thing if their <br>
opponent suffered an injury that left the team without a legal roster.<br>
<br>
On May 1, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Do you happen to remember what the argument against that rule was? I?m <br>
> trying to imagine the downside or the way to game the system by utilizing <br>
> such a rule.<br>
><br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
><br>
> On May 1, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Chris Hartjes <<a href="mailto:chartjes@littlehart.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">chartjes@littlehart.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> We had a vote on a rule change like this a few years back and it got <br>
>> voted down.<br>
>><br>
>> ?<br>
>> Chris<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 07:52:42 -0700<br>
From: Andrew Selder <<a href="mailto:aselder@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aselder@me.com</a>><br>
To: Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: IBL teams <<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members@lists.ibl.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:24195153-8539-4E79-9046-A2712279161D@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">24195153-8539-4E79-9046-A2712279161D@me.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br>
<br>
A similar thing happened to BOW in wk 3 BOW@WMS.<br>
<br>
Game 1 was a blowout, so Mike brought in a long reliever (who was also a <br>
rated starter) to finish out the game. Game 2 was then rained out after <br>
4 innings, so that?s a starter burned. Game 3 (first game of double <br>
header) was similarly rained out after 2 innings. All this combined with <br>
a couple rain outs the previous week meant that BOW did not have a rated <br>
starter available for game 3.<br>
<br>
I agree with Doug that mid week transactions in situations like this <br>
make perfect sense.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 1 May 2018, at 4:27, Doug Palmer wrote:<br>
<br>
> IBL?ers,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Had a series of events in this weeks BAL/POR series that bordered on <br>
> the<br>
> ridiculous and turned what was an exciting, back and forth matchup <br>
> into a<br>
> farce. And I would like to throw a proposal out there for <br>
> consideration.<br>
><br>
> In G2 of the series, George (POR) had an inordinate amount of bad luck <br>
> with<br>
> injuries as he had 2 pitchers go down with injuries within the first 3<br>
> innings. Not the ?roll when he?s pulled? variety but rather, <br>
> ?roll now and<br>
> check?. That, in and of itself, is bad luck but we?ve all been <br>
> there. The<br>
> game went back and forth and eventually went to extra innings. During <br>
> the<br>
> course of the game, I used up relievers as did George. Although the <br>
> score<br>
> was 4-4 heading into extras, there were a lot of men left of base and <br>
> usage<br>
> was becoming an issue. Then the game went 17 innings. 8 pitchers <br>
> used by<br>
> POR and 5 used by BAL. Most all of the pitchers used had eaten up <br>
> their<br>
> usage so that they would be unavailable the next game. Now, for me, <br>
> you<br>
> could chalk it up to not having enough long men or maybe not carrying<br>
> enough pitchers (I carry 11) but that?s not the case with George (he <br>
> also<br>
> carries 11 but had more long men it seemed). He got screwed by the <br>
> rapid<br>
> fire injuries combined with the extra innings. I got burned by losing <br>
> a<br>
> reliever in G1 due to a blowout (so I went into the rest of the series <br>
> down<br>
> 1 pitcher) and then burned by having 2 pitching slots occupied by <br>
> starters<br>
> that couldn?t pitch due to being tired. But that?s not the <br>
> craziness!<br>
><br>
> The bull&^%$$ comes in G3. Due to the 17 inning affair, I went into <br>
> G3<br>
> with only 2 pitchers available. George only had 4. Would that EVER <br>
> happen<br>
> in a real game? That a team would go into a game with only 2 or 4 <br>
> pitchers<br>
> capable of pitching? Of course not. Oh, and the kicker to all of <br>
> this,<br>
> with 2 outs in the top of the 9th, BAL tied it with a grand slam which <br>
> sent<br>
> the game to extras. Yeah. 2 pitchers available and extra innings. <br>
> Better<br>
> still, POR ran out of players. An exhausted pitcher had to play left <br>
> field.<br>
> And had the game gone another inning, POR would have had to forfeit as <br>
> he<br>
> had no bench players (to pitch) and would have been out of available<br>
> pitchers. I was 1 inning away from losing my reliever and having to <br>
> use an<br>
> outfielder as a pitcher. But this was ridiculous. It lost it?s <br>
> cuteness<br>
> and became outright frustrating that the rules are such. And not only <br>
> did<br>
> it affect this series, now we?re both screwed (to varying degrees) <br>
> for the<br>
> next series.<br>
><br>
> We referred to the constitution and 3.5 outlines that you can replace<br>
> injured players, but that?s only to create a legal lineup (luckily <br>
> Sean was<br>
> around last night and watched our game). NOT to address losing your<br>
> pitching staff. What I would like to consider and would like to start <br>
> a<br>
> discussion about would be to add a rule into the constitution which <br>
> would<br>
> allow a team to make emergency call ups if, at the beginning of a <br>
> game,<br>
> they have 4 or fewer available pitchers (to reach a situation where <br>
> they?d<br>
> have no more than 5). It would not be mandatory, but it would give <br>
> the<br>
> owner the option to make emergency call ups. The players deactivated <br>
> would<br>
> be subject to the 2 week rule, just like it is now, so an owner may <br>
> not<br>
> want to bring up a total of 5, but would have that option. But it <br>
> would<br>
> prevent a situation like the one that happened last night. It would <br>
> ONLY<br>
> affect pitchers as we already have a rule (3.5 in the constitution) <br>
> that<br>
> affects positional players.<br>
><br>
> What should have been a good and fun series with late inning heroics <br>
> and<br>
> come from behind victories instead left a sour taste in my mouth (I <br>
> won?t<br>
> speak for George here, but I didn?t get the sense that he was having <br>
> fun<br>
> there, losing players left and right).<br>
><br>
> Thoughts? Decent idea? Or is it one of those things that happens so<br>
> infrequently, that we don?t need to bother?<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/bb496183/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/bb496183/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 10:54:05 -0400<br>
From: George Blas <<a href="mailto:glblas7@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">glblas7@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Members <<a href="mailto:members@ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members@ibl.org</a>><br>
Subject: [IBL] BF rule change needed for extras<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CA+Aq=JKGrcDPngZ8X4B94cyM+9d-=xhm3vo3c9fB-NJ=<a href="mailto:6eRx1Q@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">6eRx1Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I also typed up something last night on what Doug mentioned. Hopefully it<br>
makes sense:<br>
<br>
This is a reminder that a BF system does not work and is not practical once<br>
there is a long extra inning game, etc. under the current system. BAL and<br>
POR played a 17 inning game, which shredded the pen for that game and the<br>
following game. My pen is also completely ruined for the following week 5<br>
despite my best efforts (and an injury as well).<br>
<br>
It makes no sense to not have some kind of rule to be able to swap RPs up<br>
and down from the minors when necessary like real life/MLB/MILB -<br>
especially under a BF system.<br>
<br>
By the end of my series I had no pitchers left to pitch at all (nor did<br>
BAL), a pen ruined for the following week (2-3 days worth), no position<br>
players even left to pitch as an emergency pitcher in the 10th (luckily the<br>
game ended there), and basically lost the last game because of it. The<br>
whole thing was completely beyond ridiculous - anyone who's been in the<br>
same situation can empathize with.<br>
<br>
Anyway my point is I think this needs to be addressed/debated/changed.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/1e262a70/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/1e262a70/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 07:53:49 -0700<br>
From: Andrew Selder <<a href="mailto:aselder@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aselder@me.com</a>><br>
To: Sean Sweda <<a href="mailto:sweda@ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sweda@ibl.org</a>><br>
Cc: Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>>, IBL Members<br>
<<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members@lists.ibl.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:7C0C7985-9E24-44B3-A18F-3424460347E7@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">7C0C7985-9E24-44B3-A18F-3424460347E7@me.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed;<br>
markup=markdown<br>
<br>
If we re-voted on this rule, I?d add games cancelled after they have <br>
started to the list.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 1 May 2018, at 7:49, Sean Sweda wrote:<br>
<br>
> On May 1, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Thoughts? Decent idea? Or is it one of those things that happens so <br>
>> infrequently, that we don?t need to bother?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Two years ago I proposed the following rule change:<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2016-01) Allow teams to make in-series pitcher transactions due to <br>
> extra innings or double-headers<br>
><br>
> add section 4.1.2:<br>
><br>
> 4.1.2 Special Pitcher Activations<br>
><br>
> A team may replace pitcher(s) on the active roster with pitcher(s) on <br>
> the<br>
> inactive roster after any game that extends beyond the 9th inning, <br>
> after the<br>
> completion of a suspended game played on the same day as another game, <br>
> or<br>
> anytime during a series with a double-header (including between DH <br>
> games). Any<br>
> pitcher activated in this fashion must have been eligible to be <br>
> activated for<br>
> the current week (as per 3.2.2).<br>
><br>
> Teams may not sign free agents in this situation, only players on the<br>
> inactive roster at the start of the series are eligible replacements.<br>
> Special transactions should be reported with the GRS for the series.<br>
> Players deactivated in this manner must remain inactive for the next <br>
> two<br>
> weeks, just as if they were deactivated after the conclusion of the <br>
> series.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Unfortunately the proposal failed, and it wasn't particularly close <br>
> (12 votes against passage). If there's reason to believe that several <br>
> of the teams that voted NO have changed their minds we can vote on <br>
> this again.<br>
><br>
> Sean<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 11:01:00 -0400<br>
From: Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Andrew Selder <<a href="mailto:aselder@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aselder@me.com</a>><br>
Cc: IBL teams <<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members@lists.ibl.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAJMUcG92_Gc5A5hByaqYp-jUcS_ZgZAVrfiro33X5U80akK9Pw@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">CAJMUcG92_Gc5A5hByaqYp-jUcS_ZgZAVrfiro33X5U80akK9Pw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
first of all, Andrew just broke the Internet with "I agree with Doug ....."<br>
LOL<br>
<br>
My proposal narrows the circumstances that the aforementioned vetoed rule<br>
advocates. If a team doesn't have enough eligible pitchers (no rested<br>
starter like Andrew demonstrated or simply sheer numbers like I had) that<br>
they should be allowed to get enough arms (or arm). I don't know how it<br>
violates the spirit of the game or of the rules by allowing a team to have<br>
either an eligible starter or enough pitchers to compete. Yes, sometimes<br>
it's the stupidity of the manager that gets one into these situations, but<br>
more times than not, it's the freak incidents like weather, injuries or<br>
very, very long ballgames.<br>
<br>
I'd like to hear from the owners who voted no as to the reasoning and<br>
whether or not the narrowing of the circumstances changes their mind<br>
<br>
Doug/BAL<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Selder <<a href="mailto:aselder@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aselder@me.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> A similar thing happened to BOW in wk 3 BOW@WMS.<br>
><br>
> Game 1 was a blowout, so Mike brought in a long reliever (who was also a<br>
> rated starter) to finish out the game. Game 2 was then rained out after 4<br>
> innings, so that?s a starter burned. Game 3 (first game of double header)<br>
> was similarly rained out after 2 innings. All this combined with a couple<br>
> rain outs the previous week meant that BOW did not have a rated starter<br>
> available for game 3.<br>
><br>
> I agree with Doug that mid week transactions in situations like this make<br>
> perfect sense.<br>
><br>
> Andrew<br>
><br>
> On 1 May 2018, at 4:27, Doug Palmer wrote:<br>
><br>
> IBL?ers,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Had a series of events in this weeks BAL/POR series that bordered on the<br>
> ridiculous and turned what was an exciting, back and forth matchup into a<br>
> farce. And I would like to throw a proposal out there for consideration.<br>
><br>
> In G2 of the series, George (POR) had an inordinate amount of bad luck<br>
> with injuries as he had 2 pitchers go down with injuries within the first 3<br>
> innings. Not the ?roll when he?s pulled? variety but rather, ?roll now<br>
> and check?. That, in and of itself, is bad luck but we?ve all been there.<br>
> The game went back and forth and eventually went to extra innings. During<br>
> the course of the game, I used up relievers as did George. Although the<br>
> score was 4-4 heading into extras, there were a lot of men left of base and<br>
> usage was becoming an issue. Then the game went 17 innings. 8 pitchers<br>
> used by POR and 5 used by BAL. Most all of the pitchers used had eaten<br>
> up their usage so that they would be unavailable the next game. Now, for<br>
> me, you could chalk it up to not having enough long men or maybe not<br>
> carrying enough pitchers (I carry 11) but that?s not the case with George<br>
> (he also carries 11 but had more long men it seemed). He got screwed by<br>
> the rapid fire injuries combined with the extra innings. I got burned by<br>
> losing a reliever in G1 due to a blowout (so I went into the rest of the<br>
> series down 1 pitcher) and then burned by having 2 pitching slots occupied<br>
> by starters that couldn?t pitch due to being tired. But that?s not the<br>
> craziness!<br>
><br>
> The bull&^%$$ comes in G3. Due to the 17 inning affair, I went into G3<br>
> with only 2 pitchers available. George only had 4. Would that EVER<br>
> happen in a real game? That a team would go into a game with only 2 or 4<br>
> pitchers capable of pitching? Of course not. Oh, and the kicker to all<br>
> of this, with 2 outs in the top of the 9th, BAL tied it with a grand slam<br>
> which sent the game to extras. Yeah. 2 pitchers available and extra<br>
> innings. Better still, POR ran out of players. An exhausted pitcher had<br>
> to play left field. And had the game gone another inning, POR would have<br>
> had to forfeit as he had no bench players (to pitch) and would have been<br>
> out of available pitchers. I was 1 inning away from losing my reliever<br>
> and having to use an outfielder as a pitcher. But this was ridiculous. It<br>
> lost it?s cuteness and became outright frustrating that the rules are such.<br>
> And not only did it affect this series, now we?re both screwed (to varying<br>
> degrees) for the next series.<br>
><br>
> We referred to the constitution and 3.5 outlines that you can replace<br>
> injured players, but that?s only to create a legal lineup (luckily Sean was<br>
> around last night and watched our game). NOT to address losing your<br>
> pitching staff. What I would like to consider and would like to start a<br>
> discussion about would be to add a rule into the constitution which would<br>
> allow a team to make emergency call ups if, at the beginning of a game,<br>
> they have 4 or fewer available pitchers (to reach a situation where they?d<br>
> have no more than 5). It would not be mandatory, but it would give the<br>
> owner the option to make emergency call ups. The players deactivated<br>
> would be subject to the 2 week rule, just like it is now, so an owner may<br>
> not want to bring up a total of 5, but would have that option. But it<br>
> would prevent a situation like the one that happened last night. It<br>
> would ONLY affect pitchers as we already have a rule (3.5 in the<br>
> constitution) that affects positional players.<br>
><br>
> What should have been a good and fun series with late inning heroics and<br>
> come from behind victories instead left a sour taste in my mouth (I won?t<br>
> speak for George here, but I didn?t get the sense that he was having fun<br>
> there, losing players left and right).<br>
><br>
> Thoughts? Decent idea? Or is it one of those things that happens so<br>
> infrequently, that we don?t need to bother?<br>
><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/98310bb4/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/98310bb4/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 08:09:54 -0700<br>
From: Nelson Lu <<a href="mailto:nlu@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nlu@me.com</a>><br>
To: Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: Andrew Selder <<a href="mailto:aselder@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aselder@me.com</a>>, IBL teams <<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members@lists.ibl.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:1FA6060A-1128-4444-BF39-4BF412A7B071@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">1FA6060A-1128-4444-BF39-4BF412A7B071@me.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
To tell the truth, I don?t remember the exact reasons, but my immediate gut feeling was that I probably did vote against it. I think that part of the reason was that I do think that managing with very limited resources *is* what we are intended to do in this league - trying to be resourceful in creative ways when situations call for them, and that in ye olde days that?s how they did it in real life as well (although not any more). (I believe I voted the ?fix illegal rosters during series? amendment as well for similar reasons - that we have the emergency rules to cover the situation.)<br>
<br>
That having been said, as George pointed out, with the BF system, one difficulty in doing this has now become even more difficult now. I?m open to revisiting it, and certainly, as Kris has taken over the team practically, I?d defer to him on the vote. (And soon, I do think he should be considered the full owner.)<br>
<br>
> On May 1, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> first of all, Andrew just broke the Internet with "I agree with Doug ....." LOL<br>
> <br>
> My proposal narrows the circumstances that the aforementioned vetoed rule advocates. If a team doesn't have enough eligible pitchers (no rested starter like Andrew demonstrated or simply sheer numbers like I had) that they should be allowed to get enough arms (or arm). I don't know how it violates the spirit of the game or of the rules by allowing a team to have either an eligible starter or enough pitchers to compete. Yes, sometimes it's the stupidity of the manager that gets one into these situations, but more times than not, it's the freak incidents like weather, injuries or very, very long ballgames.<br>
> <br>
> I'd like to hear from the owners who voted no as to the reasoning and whether or not the narrowing of the circumstances changes their mind<br>
> <br>
> Doug/BAL<br>
> <br>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Selder <<a href="mailto:aselder@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aselder@me.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> A similar thing happened to BOW in wk 3 BOW@WMS.<br>
> <br>
> Game 1 was a blowout, so Mike brought in a long reliever (who was also a rated starter) to finish out the game. Game 2 was then rained out after 4 innings, so that?s a starter burned. Game 3 (first game of double header) was similarly rained out after 2 innings. All this combined with a couple rain outs the previous week meant that BOW did not have a rated starter available for game 3.<br>
> <br>
> I agree with Doug that mid week transactions in situations like this make perfect sense.<br>
> <br>
> Andrew<br>
> <br>
> On 1 May 2018, at 4:27, Doug Palmer wrote:<br>
> <br>
> IBL?ers,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Had a series of events in this weeks BAL/POR series that bordered on the ridiculous and turned what was an exciting, back and forth matchup into a farce. And I would like to throw a proposal out there for consideration.<br>
> <br>
> In G2 of the series, George (POR) had an inordinate amount of bad luck with injuries as he had 2 pitchers go down with injuries within the first 3 innings. Not the ?roll when he?s pulled? variety but rather, ?roll now and check?. That, in and of itself, is bad luck but we?ve all been there. The game went back and forth and eventually went to extra innings. During the course of the game, I used up relievers as did George. Although the score was 4-4 heading into extras, there were a lot of men left of base and usage was becoming an issue. Then the game went 17 innings. 8 pitchers used by POR and 5 used by BAL. Most all of the pitchers used had eaten up their usage so that they would be unavailable the next game. Now, for me, you could chalk it up to not having enough long men or maybe not carrying enough pitchers (I carry 11) but that?s not the case with George (he also carries 11 but had more long men it seemed). He got screwed by the rapid fire injuries combined !<br>
with the extra innings. I got burned by losing a reliever in G1 due to a blowout (so I went into the rest of the series down 1 pitcher) and then burned by having 2 pitching slots occupied by starters that couldn?t pitch due to being tired. But that?s not the craziness! <br>
> <br>
> The bull&^%$$ comes in G3. Due to the 17 inning affair, I went into G3 with only 2 pitchers available. George only had 4. Would that EVER happen in a real game? That a team would go into a game with only 2 or 4 pitchers capable of pitching? Of course not. Oh, and the kicker to all of this, with 2 outs in the top of the 9th, BAL tied it with a grand slam which sent the game to extras. Yeah. 2 pitchers available and extra innings. Better still, POR ran out of players. An exhausted pitcher had to play left field. And had the game gone another inning, POR would have had to forfeit as he had no bench players (to pitch) and would have been out of available pitchers. I was 1 inning away from losing my reliever and having to use an outfielder as a pitcher. But this was ridiculous. It lost it?s cuteness and became outright frustrating that the rules are such. And not only did it affect this series, now we?re both screwed (to varying degrees) for the next series.<br>
> <br>
> We referred to the constitution and 3.5 outlines that you can replace injured players, but that?s only to create a legal lineup (luckily Sean was around last night and watched our game). NOT to address losing your pitching staff. What I would like to consider and would like to start a discussion about would be to add a rule into the constitution which would allow a team to make emergency call ups if, at the beginning of a game, they have 4 or fewer available pitchers (to reach a situation where they?d have no more than 5). It would not be mandatory, but it would give the owner the option to make emergency call ups. The players deactivated would be subject to the 2 week rule, just like it is now, so an owner may not want to bring up a total of 5, but would have that option. But it would prevent a situation like the one that happened last night. It would ONLY affect pitchers as we already have a rule (3.5 in the constitution) that affects positional players.<br>
> <br>
> What should have been a good and fun series with late inning heroics and come from behind victories instead left a sour taste in my mouth (I won?t speak for George here, but I didn?t get the sense that he was having fun there, losing players left and right).<br>
> <br>
> Thoughts? Decent idea? Or is it one of those things that happens so infrequently, that we don?t need to bother?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 11:15:18 -0400<br>
From: Billy Compton <<a href="mailto:wkcompton@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">wkcompton@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Nelson Lu <<a href="mailto:nlu@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nlu@me.com</a>><br>
Cc: Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>>, Andrew Selder<br>
<<a href="mailto:aselder@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aselder@me.com</a>>, IBL teams <<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">members@lists.ibl.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAGuWze8=JkzMHGQKyeBAGGMJ=jmScz8UkM4o=u4qMwvAB8W=<a href="mailto:ZQ@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ZQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I'm open to revisiting this rule. I wasn't around when this was voted on<br>
last.<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Nelson Lu <<a href="mailto:nlu@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nlu@me.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> To tell the truth, I don?t remember the exact reasons, but my immediate<br>
> gut feeling was that I probably did vote against it. I think that part of<br>
> the reason was that I do think that managing with very limited resources<br>
> *is* what we are intended to do in this league - trying to be resourceful<br>
> in creative ways when situations call for them, and that in ye olde days<br>
> that?s how they did it in real life as well (although not any more). (I<br>
> believe I voted the ?fix illegal rosters during series? amendment as well<br>
> for similar reasons - that we have the emergency rules to cover the<br>
> situation.)<br>
><br>
> That having been said, as George pointed out, with the BF system, one<br>
> difficulty in doing this has now become even more difficult now. I?m open<br>
> to revisiting it, and certainly, as Kris has taken over the team<br>
> practically, I?d defer to him on the vote. (And soon, I do think he should<br>
> be considered the full owner.)<br>
><br>
> > On May 1, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Doug Palmer <<a href="mailto:aeronutty43@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aeronutty43@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > first of all, Andrew just broke the Internet with "I agree with Doug<br>
> ....." LOL<br>
> ><br>
> > My proposal narrows the circumstances that the aforementioned vetoed<br>
> rule advocates. If a team doesn't have enough eligible pitchers (no rested<br>
> starter like Andrew demonstrated or simply sheer numbers like I had) that<br>
> they should be allowed to get enough arms (or arm). I don't know how it<br>
> violates the spirit of the game or of the rules by allowing a team to have<br>
> either an eligible starter or enough pitchers to compete. Yes, sometimes<br>
> it's the stupidity of the manager that gets one into these situations, but<br>
> more times than not, it's the freak incidents like weather, injuries or<br>
> very, very long ballgames.<br>
> ><br>
> > I'd like to hear from the owners who voted no as to the reasoning and<br>
> whether or not the narrowing of the circumstances changes their mind<br>
> ><br>
> > Doug/BAL<br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Selder <<a href="mailto:aselder@me.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">aselder@me.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > A similar thing happened to BOW in wk 3 BOW@WMS.<br>
> ><br>
> > Game 1 was a blowout, so Mike brought in a long reliever (who was also a<br>
> rated starter) to finish out the game. Game 2 was then rained out after 4<br>
> innings, so that?s a starter burned. Game 3 (first game of double header)<br>
> was similarly rained out after 2 innings. All this combined with a couple<br>
> rain outs the previous week meant that BOW did not have a rated starter<br>
> available for game 3.<br>
> ><br>
> > I agree with Doug that mid week transactions in situations like this<br>
> make perfect sense.<br>
> ><br>
> > Andrew<br>
> ><br>
> > On 1 May 2018, at 4:27, Doug Palmer wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > IBL?ers,<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Had a series of events in this weeks BAL/POR series that bordered on the<br>
> ridiculous and turned what was an exciting, back and forth matchup into a<br>
> farce. And I would like to throw a proposal out there for consideration.<br>
> ><br>
> > In G2 of the series, George (POR) had an inordinate amount of bad luck<br>
> with injuries as he had 2 pitchers go down with injuries within the first 3<br>
> innings. Not the ?roll when he?s pulled? variety but rather, ?roll now and<br>
> check?. That, in and of itself, is bad luck but we?ve all been there. The<br>
> game went back and forth and eventually went to extra innings. During the<br>
> course of the game, I used up relievers as did George. Although the score<br>
> was 4-4 heading into extras, there were a lot of men left of base and usage<br>
> was becoming an issue. Then the game went 17 innings. 8 pitchers used by<br>
> POR and 5 used by BAL. Most all of the pitchers used had eaten up their<br>
> usage so that they would be unavailable the next game. Now, for me, you<br>
> could chalk it up to not having enough long men or maybe not carrying<br>
> enough pitchers (I carry 11) but that?s not the case with George (he also<br>
> carries 11 but had more long men it seemed). He got screwed by the rapid<br>
> fire inju!<br>
> ries combined with the extra innings. I got burned by losing a reliever<br>
> in G1 due to a blowout (so I went into the rest of the series down 1<br>
> pitcher) and then burned by having 2 pitching slots occupied by starters<br>
> that couldn?t pitch due to being tired. But that?s not the craziness!<br>
> ><br>
> > The bull&^%$$ comes in G3. Due to the 17 inning affair, I went into G3<br>
> with only 2 pitchers available. George only had 4. Would that EVER happen<br>
> in a real game? That a team would go into a game with only 2 or 4 pitchers<br>
> capable of pitching? Of course not. Oh, and the kicker to all of this,<br>
> with 2 outs in the top of the 9th, BAL tied it with a grand slam which sent<br>
> the game to extras. Yeah. 2 pitchers available and extra innings. Better<br>
> still, POR ran out of players. An exhausted pitcher had to play left<br>
> field. And had the game gone another inning, POR would have had to forfeit<br>
> as he had no bench players (to pitch) and would have been out of available<br>
> pitchers. I was 1 inning away from losing my reliever and having to use an<br>
> outfielder as a pitcher. But this was ridiculous. It lost it?s cuteness<br>
> and became outright frustrating that the rules are such. And not only did<br>
> it affect this series, now we?re both screwed (to varying degrees) for the<br>
> next series.<br>
> ><br>
> > We referred to the constitution and 3.5 outlines that you can replace<br>
> injured players, but that?s only to create a legal lineup (luckily Sean was<br>
> around last night and watched our game). NOT to address losing your<br>
> pitching staff. What I would like to consider and would like to start a<br>
> discussion about would be to add a rule into the constitution which would<br>
> allow a team to make emergency call ups if, at the beginning of a game,<br>
> they have 4 or fewer available pitchers (to reach a situation where they?d<br>
> have no more than 5). It would not be mandatory, but it would give the<br>
> owner the option to make emergency call ups. The players deactivated would<br>
> be subject to the 2 week rule, just like it is now, so an owner may not<br>
> want to bring up a total of 5, but would have that option. But it would<br>
> prevent a situation like the one that happened last night. It would ONLY<br>
> affect pitchers as we already have a rule (3.5 in the constitution) that<br>
> affects positional players.<br>
> ><br>
> > What should have been a good and fun series with late inning heroics and<br>
> come from behind victories instead left a sour taste in my mouth (I won?t<br>
> speak for George here, but I didn?t get the sense that he was having fun<br>
> there, losing players left and right).<br>
> ><br>
> > Thoughts? Decent idea? Or is it one of those things that happens so<br>
> infrequently, that we don?t need to bother?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/ae4906ec/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/ae4906ec/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
End of Members Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2<br>
**************************************<br>
</blockquote></div>