[IBL] FW: Opinions on the alternate pitching fatigue rules?

[Larry Merithew]

From: bear60ibl at hotmail.com
To: sweda at ibl.org
Subject: RE: [IBL] Opinions on the alternate pitching fatigue rules?
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 20:29:34 -0400




In my case, I played my first series of the year against MOR with the new rules. For the most part, there seems to be little or no difference.

The rest of the year so far, I've been going by the official rules, with an idea of how BF rules could have affected usage. (Half my games so far have been against newer associates or via MIS.) There were some times I might have pulled a pitcher earlier, some where I would have used a different pitcher.

The biggest spot I saw it having an effect so far would have been in a 16-inning game against GTY, and a blowout loss where Fister (normally 8 fatigue) fatigued after 3.2 IP. That last one would have changed my bullpen use and availability for the entire series, not to mention the chance of messing everything up for the following week.

Overall, I'd say the most noticeable effect is that teams would find it nearly impossible to survive with only 8 or 9 men on their staff. Even 10 could be a challenge if the composition is wrong. (Example: knowing Phelps can never pitch consecutive games means hoping you don't need another long relief appearance the next day.)

I agree with Doug that it will place a greater emphasis on how you handle the 6th, 7th and 8th innings (middle relievers/set-up men.) By product is that it more competition for top of the rotation starters, so you don't wear out your bullpen with too many blowouts. It also increases the value of a fifth starter, since it'll be less tempting to run King Felix out every time on only 3 days rest.

Just some random thoughts.

Larry
SFP ("Where bullpens are fueled by nitroglycerin")


> From: sweda at ibl.org
> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 19:55:37 -0400
> To: members at lists.ibl.org
> Subject: Re: [IBL] Opinions on the alternate pitching fatigue rules?
> 
> I disagree, if batters reaching safely count against rest requirements then to be fair they should also count toward usage.
> 
> In any case, this is a debate that should happen at a more appropriate time.
> 
> Sean
> 
> On Apr 13, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Nelson Lu wrote:
> 
> > I am not so sure that changing the usage rules are necessary.  As it stands, if we go over to the BFP rules that Sean proposed, the bad pitchers will have difficulty getting usage regardless of whether we change it to an IP or PA based usage rule because letting bad pitchers pitch forever means that they will miss many more days than under the current rules, and therefore can’t pitch as often.  And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that; bad pitchers should be difficult to get usage for.
> > 
> > On Apr 13, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> I've been using them in every game so far.  I've found that in most cases its easier to predict the stints of your relievers because you don't have the uncertainty of innings/baserunners.  The new rules eliminate a lot of RP abuse that we've come to accept as "normal", so I'd recommend everybody giving it a try even if it's just a few exhibition games.  
> >> 
> >> FYI, if we switch to using the new system we are going to have to change pitcher usage from IP to something resembling BF, (IP + H + BB) is probably the simplest solution.  Without that change its going to be much, much harder to get bad pitchers to 75%.
> >> 
> >> Sean
> >> 
> >> On Apr 13, 2014, at 7:06 PM, Doug Palmer wrote:
> >> 
> >>> All,
> >>> 
> >>> I'm curious if anyone has played a series with the alternate fatigue rules?  Chris (MAD) and myself played our series with the new numbers and my first opinion of it was that it was both fun and challenging at the same time.
> >>> 
> >>> I liked that I could anticipate when the fatigue would occur (the 27th batter for most all of my starters).  It did seem to put an emphasis on the middle relievers/set up men, but that mimics the major leagues (which I'd assume is the intent).  But more importantly, it took the early blowout/chew up my bullpen factor out of play.  Starters went about 7 innings, a couple relievers ate up the rest. 
> >>> 
> >>> Bottom line, it FELT like I had more control over my staff (albeit, a 3-game series is a small sample size).  Now, whether or not it survives these initial impressions over the long haul, we'll see.  But I'm mostly curious if anyone else has played a series this way and what they felt/saw/experienced.  If you haven't yet, I'd recommend that you try it, if only for 1 series, to get a feel and develop an opinion. 
> >>> 
> >>> And as a side note, you should all feel better in knowing that the Crabs are no longer above .500 and that the world is working its way back towards a "normalcy".  So, all you looking for further signs of the apocalypse can rest assured that for now at least, the world isn't ending.
> >>> 
> >>> Doug Palmer
> >>> Baltimore Sand Crabs
> >>> IBL
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
 		 	   		   		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20140413/98582bab/attachment.html>