[IBL] comments on mid-season ballot

[Noel Steere]

As I mentioned to Sean separately, I think at a minimum we need to include some form of variability to starter fatigue from the get-go, as that's currently the only instance were the offense knows exactly when a reliever will fatigue (I say "only", but it's also every game :-)).

I also think the BF rest rules, while much more realistic, will along with the possible new rule about roster restrictions on dropping/adding players cause some serious roster crunches due to an inability to get enough innings.  If we're going to more closely emulate MLB usage (not even sure that's such a great idea for a sim, since MLB bullpen strategies are so lopsided towards fewer and fewer BF per appearance), we should more closely emulate their resources and expand the rosters to 40 players.

Re Stadiums:  A lot of analysts use 3 year averages, which would help with variance.  Personally, I think we should do 3 year weighted averages for everything, including player cards, with current year weighted 4, last year a 2, and two years ago a 1.  Rookies and two year players get a AAA player sort of stat line for years before they came up.  But I know that's really a conversation for another time. :-)

Still, three year averages for parks is something to consider.

Thanks,

Noel

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 25, 2014, at 1:26 PM, Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2014-4) switching to BF fatigue/rest
> 
> I'm strongly in favor of switching.  I played the first 5-6 weeks using the new BF rules exclusively and it painfully reinforced just how bad the old PtP rules suck.  In addition to providing much more realistic RP usage from game-to-game, it also creates more diversity in RP roles and makes the true workhorse relievers much more valuable.
> 
> IMO, changing pitcher usage to pseudo-BF is a must so please vote for "c" as well.  Without this bad pitchers will be significantly handicapped because they would need outs for usage but will be forced to rest based on BF.
> 
> For those who are interested, the methodology behind the ratings is posted here:
> http://www.ibl.org/~sweda/2014/07/bf-fatiguerest-methodology/
> 
> 
> 2014-5) lf/rf rating
> 
> Also strongly in favor.  This doesn't change any of the rules about starting in LF/CF/RF.  Voting yes will eliminate silliness like a CF being forced to use an out-of-position rating that is worse than their CF rating.  Please read the explanation on the ballot and let me know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Additional info on the ratings here:
> http://www.ibl.org/~sweda/2014/03/combined-lfrf-rating/
> 
> 
> 2014-6 & 2014-7)
> 
> Submitted by one of our new owners, Jerry Depew.  Good example of how fresh eyes can catch things.  :)
> 
> FWIW, the rules for outfielders playing out-of-position at lf/rf would basically never be necessary if 2014-5 passes.
> 
> 
> 2014-8) logging requirements
> 
> We don't have any standards for irc logging of MIS games, it is important to pass this.
> 
> 
> 2014-9) release restrictions
> 
> Very good idea IMO.  This reduces what you can get out of a burn-n-churn strategy in the FA pool and should not negatively impact roster flexibility for those who aren't employing such a strategy.
> 
> 
> 2014-10) park change frequency
> 
> I'm inclined to keep things the way they are, not sure I like the idea of teams being able to constantly flip parks based on roster composition.
> 
> 
> 2014-11) force 2 week de-activation in playoffs
> 
> I'm not sure why this is necessary, I'd like to hear from somebody in favor as to why.
> 
> 
> 
> Sean
> 
> 
>