<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><strong><font color="#0b5394">Excellent, thanks Sean. I really appreciate the dialogue and analysis. This will be my last reply on the ballot question, and any last word win our exchange will be yours. This is probably one too many, and if I have already outworn my welcome with you or anyone else on the question, I apologize. <br></font></strong></div><div dir="ltr"><br>
> MLB teams are probably good at figuring out which outfielders are skilled <br>
> enough to play either corner equally well. But that doesn't necessarily <br>
> mean those who MLB teams play only in LF or RF would also play the other <br>
> equally well. It could be they limit them to one or the other corner <br>
> because that's where they are best.<br>
<br>
I'm sure it is possible that some players exist who cannot play one corner <br>
as well as the other. My point is that if there were something intrinsic <br>
about the positions that made one more difficult than the other it would be <br>
observable. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div><strong><font color="#0b5394">Unless what is observable in the data reflects selection bias, the part of my reply selected out. ;) <strong><font color="#0b5394"> </font></strong></font></strong></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Furthermore, the frequency that MLB teams move players between <br>
corner spots supports the concept that the default expectation is no <br>
difference.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><strong><font color="#0b5394">I don't think MLB teams think there is no difference between moving a rightfielder to left field and vice versa. Plenty move freely between the two positions, and plenty do not. There are a number of reasons teams move players between corners, both in-game and as a matter of roster construction. Certainly some leftfielders and some rightfielders are versatile enough to play both equally well, and when an MLB team choses to use a corner OF that way, IBL already captures it. </font></strong></div><div dir="ltr"><strong><font color="#0b5394"> </font></strong><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
> This makes sense to me, and I think, if I am reading it correctly, that <br>
> it provides some support for giving CFs IBL starts in the corners<br>
<br>
Except that CFs will have different defensive ratings in the corners. That <br>
would be like giving SS additional starts at 3B or 2B. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div><strong><font color="#0b5394">The CF argument is a reply to one justification for the proposal, namely that data shows that defensive skill in corner OF spots is transferable. If that is true of corner OF, it is also quite likely true of CF moving to a corner --- good CFs make good, perhaps even very good, corner OFs (and I think that's what you indicated the data shows). There are other rationale for the proposal, but if this is move to have IBL reflect the transferability of defensive skills in the corners, then the empirical defensive versatility of CFs should, it could be argued, be recognized too. </font></strong></div><div><font color="#0b5394"><br></font></div><div><font color="#0b5394"><strong>The reason a CF may not have corner OF starts isn't defensive shortcomings, its the usage decisions and roster construction of MLB teams in real-life. If an MLB team has only one good CF, the guy is likely to play CF fulltime. If the MLB team does happen to have two players who are great defensively in CF, they can choose to play one in CF and move one to a corner and quite likely assume, with support in the data, that the defense will transfer. IBL could reflect that for CFs the same way the proposal does for corners.</strong></font></div><div><strong><font color="#0b5394"><br></font></strong></div><div dir="ltr">The defensive ratings in LF/RF are now identical so the starts that are being added don't <br>
fundamentally alter the player's defensive impact.<br>
<br>
</div><div><strong><font color="#0b5394">I don't know, this seems like a narrow idea of "defensive impact" in the context of the IBL ruleset. Defensive impact in IBL is tied up with start eligibility. Players who have versatility in where they can start (both at which positions and how much at each position) have more defensive impact given how IBL start and usage rules work together to cabin roster construction. Having a corner available as a late inning defensive replacement is a very different defensive impact, broadly construed, than having him available to start games (or more games) in the opposite corner, because the greater availability itself has impacts across the roster. And not just with FT left-fielders or right-fielders. The defensive impact in the outfield, again broadly construed, of a player with say 30 starts in LF would expand from 60 starts in LF under the current ruleset to 120 corner starts under the proposal. PAs at 133% will still be a limitation, but the OF eligibility expansion is substantial.<strong><font color="#0b5394"> </font></strong></font></strong></div><div><strong><font color="#0b5394"><br></font></strong></div><div><strong><font color="#0b5394">Even if the proposal stops at corner OFs, and even if MLB teams view any leftfielder as being an equally capable rightfielder, the proposal would, imo, have a significant impact on player valuation, roster construction, and start/usage gameplay within the IBL ruleset. I wrote originally and persist now because I think those impacts worth exploring.</font></strong></div><div dir="ltr"><br>
> Making it easier on new owners is obviously a totally righteous rationale.<br>
<br>
I was merely trying to point out the flip side for those who enjoy the <br>
challenge of roster juggling. It was a reminder that simplification <br>
benefits less experienced members.<br>
</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div><strong><font color="#0b5394">Agreed. And I really appreciate the importance of that rationale being added to the mix of considerations.</font></strong></div><div dir="ltr"><br>
FWIW, as I see it this rule change is a referendum on whether continuing to <br>
treat LF/RF as distinct positions makes sense and whether eliminating that <br>
distinction would make things more (or less) enjoyable.<br>
<br>
</div><div><strong><font color="#0b5394">That's a reasonable frame in the abstract, but the change also isn't being proposed in a vacuum. It would, imo, represent a material and abrupt shift in player valuation and roster construction after a season and offseason of valuing players and constructing rosters for 2020 based upon the existing ruleset.</font></strong></div><div dir="ltr"><br>
> In any event, if you've read this far, can I ask that the rule proposal <br>
> include asking owners whether to defer implementation for a year if the <br>
> change passes?<br>
<br>
I do not believe it is good policy to modify a ballot item after votes have <br>
already been cast. If you believe timing is a critical issue vote NO now <br>
and request for it to be voted on again for 2021.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><strong><font color="#0b5394">OK, thanks. It would be nice then to have had an opportunity to consider and comment on ballot proposals before the voting is opened. But I understand this is a game and more process is most costly -- by far -- to Rusty and Sean, who already devote a ton of their own time so we all can play and enjoy IBL, so all good.</font></strong></div><div dir="ltr"><strong><font color="#0b5394"><br></font></strong></div><div dir="ltr"><strong><font color="#0b5394">I look forward to any comments you or others add. FWIW, as things stand, I'd vote no. If the league were given the opportunity to decide when the rule will be implemented if passed, I'd vote to defer it one year. If the proposal fails this year and is brought up again at the same time next year for immediate implementation, after a season and off-season trading period played under the existing ruleset, I'll again vote no as the lead-time and reliance interests will cut the same way. </font></strong><br></div><strong><font color="#0b5394"></font></strong></div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#0b5394"><font color="#0b5394"><br></font></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#0b5394"><font color="#0b5394"><strong><font color="#0b5394">I hope the comments I've made have been delivered and received respectfully, and maybe been of some help in exploring the implications of the proposal for the new owners making their way into IBL. Thanks Sean, as always I appreciate your time, expertise, and patience with me!</font></strong></font></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#0b5394"><font color="#0b5394"><strong><font color="#0b5394"><br></font></strong></font></font></div><div><font color="#0b5394"><font color="#0b5394"><strong><font color="#0b5394">- David </font></strong></font></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#0b5394"><font color="#0b5394"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br></font></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#0b5394"><font color="#0b5394">
</font></font></div></div></div></div>