[IBL] comments on mid-season ballot

[Mike Monostra]

I haven't used the new fatigue rules, so I can't offer input on them.
However, I would like to hear from others if we are indeed ready. I'm
skeptical about emulating real-life MLB bullpen usage personally. I think
Noel raises valid points about rosters and transactions that need to be
looked at.

What I want to know from people who are using the new system is simply: are
we ready?

NJR Mike


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Noel Steere <noel.steere at rcn.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20140725/57ac9b5a/attachment.html>