<div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks much Sean, I appreciate the help on these. It is the perfect distraction from a certain football game that is a mere road-bump on the way to Spring Training. :) <br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> Here I just wondered if the 18 BF threshold threshold separate bulk <br>
> relievers who were used to follow openers from those who were bulk <br>
> relievers but did not follow openers.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure I understand the question. 18 BF is two times through the <br>
order, it seems like a fairly good demarcation point for allowing a relief <br>
outing earn a "start" since the ability to get through the order multiple <br>
times is a defining characteristic of a starting pitcher.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I should have been more clear on this. The rationale for the rule change was:</div><div><br></div><div>
"This allows IBL teams more flexibility utilizing pitchers who were used in a bulk-innings role following an "opener". Currently it is difficult to use a guy<span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"><i> who pitched primarily in this role</i></span> because they can rarely start and by our rules cannot enter the game prior to the 6th unless the pitcher is fatigued."</div><div><br></div><div>I thought the rule was meant to address those MLB pitchers who "pitched primarily in the role" of followers openers. I can see how an IBL team who does not have a MLB opener, but has a bulk-innings follower, might have trouble using the bulk innings guy as he is used in MLB given the IBL start rules. So I wondered if the 18 BF threshold was based upon a look at how many BFs "bulk inning followers" were typically accumulating in MLB. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I asked wondering if the proposed rule change might have an unintended effect: giving starts to more middle/long relief outings that have nothing to do with the MLB team using an opener. The rationale of the change made me think it wasn't intended to convert "typical" middle/long relievers into starters anymore than all short relievers would get starts because they are capable of "opening." <br></div><div><br></div><div>No worries about 18 BFs picked "as
a fairly good demarcation point for allowing a relief <br>
outing earn a "start" since the ability to get through the order multiple times is a defining characteristic of a starting pitcher." Even if not tied strictly to "bulk inning followers," 18 BFs is a substantial relief outing, and there probably were not many 18 BF or more relief outings in MLB. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> I assume that the actual MLB starts in LF and RF are still doubled to <br>
> determine "[the largest amount [of starts] qualified at either <br>
> position?" So if a guy started 20 in LF and 10 in RF in MLB, the new <br>
> rule would allow him to start up to 40 in LF and 40 in RF (vs. the <br>
> current 40 in LF and 20 in RF).<br>
<br>
Correct.<br>
<br>
> I assume a guy who started 10 games in LF and 0 games in RF in MLB would <br>
> under the new rule be allowed 20 starts in LF and 20 starts in RF (vs. <br>
> the current 20 in LF and 0 in RF)?<br>
<br>
Correct.<br>
<br>
FYI, data shows that the distinction between "left field" and "right field" <br>
is basically arbitrary. What I mean is that if you look at <i><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">players who <br>
have played both positions</span></i> there's no observable difference between their <br>
collective defensive performance in LF vs RF.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I need to give this more thought, but it seems like the data may reflect some selection bias. It would not surprise me that those players who actually play both LF and RF in MLB play them about equally well (if that's what the passage I put in red means). MLB teams are probably good at figuring out which outfielders are skilled enough to play either corner equally well. But that doesn't necessarily mean those who MLB teams play only in LF or RF would also play the other equally well. It could be they limit them to one or the other corner because that's where they are best.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> There is however an <br>
observable differential between defensive performance in CF vs LF/RF, <br>
players who play both CF and LF/RF perform better collectively on defense <br>
as LF/RF. So there really are only two outfield "positions" in the true <br>
sense of the word, CF and corner OF. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>This makes sense to me, and I think, if I am reading it correctly, that it provides some support for giving CFs IBL starts in the corners -- at least if one rationale for the rule change is that playing one OF position means you could play another OF position equally well. If we are going to assume that a full-time MLB left-fielder will play just as well in RF, I would as soon assume that a full-time MLB CF would play as well in a corner as he does in CF. I think you are saying that is what the data indicates as well. I don't think that means corners can play CF equally well, but I do think CFs can play corner. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">You see this reflected in MLB on a <br>
regular basis, with many players being moved interchangeably between LF/RF <br>
both in season and year to year. IMO, what this rule change does is <br>
recognize this reality with respect to starts.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>A player sometimes get moved from one corner to another because they are better in the other corner. Those players who are actually moved interchangeably in MLB already get that advantage in IBL at twice the actual starts (and their versatility in MLB will now have no value in IBL). I agree the rule change would reflect the reality that players get moved as a general matter, but it would depart from embedding the reality of actual usage patterns for each player in IBL simulation/roster construction. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I understand that many find juggling players to meet starts limitations and <br>
usage requirements to be an interesting challenge, sort of like solving a <br>
puzzle. However, keep in mind that anything we do to make the rules <br>
simpler and/or roster management easier makes the learning curve less steep <br>
for new owners. I spend a lot of time helping new players and it is a <br>
fairly common occurrence for someone to freak out about having a "logjam" <br>
at a position. Until you've actually managed to get through a season with <br>
3 full-time guys at one position it likely seems impossible.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Making it easier on new owners is obviously a totally righteous rationale. My comments were directed at the stated rationale of saving replays for owners who overlook start limitations (also a legit concern, no doubt). I'll understand if the rule gets passed on the rationale of making it easier for new owners. I think it makes it easier in a way that materially detracts from the game -- not because I like puzzles for puzzles sake, but because the current rules present (manageable) challenges that reflect actual MLB usage in more authentic and interesting ways. In the same way infield usage and SP starts present similar challenges. That's really my primary concern.<br></div><div><br></div><div>In any event, if you've read this far, can I ask that the rule proposal include asking owners whether to defer implementation for a year if the change passes? My view, strongly held but just one opinion fwiw, is that a change that alters player valuation like this should not be implemented without lead time given current rosters were constructed for IBL 2020 on reliance on the existing rules.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again Sean, I really appreciate the dialogue on the proposals and apologize for the (many) places I am not clearly communicating my thoughts or am just outright wrong!</div><div><br></div><div>- David<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div>