[IBL] comments on mid-season ballot

[Larry Merithew]

I've offered most of my opinions already on the BF-based rules. I'll offer something else for everyone to consider.

Say a starting pitcher needs to average 25 BF/game to make his usage. It doesn't matter if he gets those 25 BF in 7 IP (meaning he's pitching well), or if he does it in only 3 IP (meaning he's getting clobbered.)

Two effects result: (a) it's actually easier to plan ways for most pitchers to get their usage (barring injury); (b) crappy pitchers will repeatedly tax the bullpen (which emulates MLB quite well.)

I'll leave it to the individual owners to decide if it changes their methods to any extent.

For me, it's created an interesting situation. For the bulk of the first half of the year, I played by the BF rules. What happened? It became easy for me to overuse a couple of OAK pitchers. I've since had to limit Chavez to about 2 IP per SERIES at present, and I've had to send Neshek to the inactive list, just to keep both of them from the risk of exceeding 133%. (If it weren't for a long-term injury, I could add Phelps NYA to that group) Since going back to the current rules, I've been struggling to get enough usage for some of the other relievers I want to retain for next year.

On the lf/rf rating: many other TT games I've seen have some rating mechanic in place for CF who want/need to play a corner OF position, while some have a way to penalize a corner OF who plays CF without an initial rating. In the case of the old SIBB, all outfielders were given ratings for the corner OF spots, while only players who spent time in CF received a CF rating. "Monday Morning Manager", "The World's Greatest Baseball Game", and "When the Grass Was Real" simply provided an overall OF rating, to be applied to any of the 3 positions. Of course, some like Strat claim to "faithfully re-create" the actual season, so they prevent you from using a player out-of-position at all.

This change just moves TIG in the direction of common practice.

Formal logging requirements: Agreeable to this one. There's been a couple of times I've needed to check pitcher usage to set up my MIS, but haven't received a GRS. When I checked the IRC log, I wasn't able to find the series in question. On the other side of the coin, I've had a series here and there where I forgot to set up logging for part or all of a game. Once in a while mistakes are one thing, consistent lack of regard for other owners is another (if it even exists here.) I see this as more of a preventative measure, rather than a correction of any abusive practices.   

Release restrictions: slightly favorable. Nothing is so frustrating to an owner trying to improve his team, than to find a desirable FA, get ready to make a claim, only to find him worthless due to exhausted/severely limited usage going forward. An idea for the future: a "waiver system", wherein a player having reached at least 75% usage can't be released until he has been announced in the newsletter as being available, along with how much remaining usage the player has.

Stadium change limits, playoff roster change limits: hasn't had an effect on me directly yet, so hard to form an opinion. 

Just some thoughts...

"Long-winded" Larry
SFP

From: chartjes at littlehart.net
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:12:51 -0400
To: members at ibl.org
Subject: Re: [IBL] comments on mid-season ballot

I have used them in FTF games when the other owner has agreed and have had no problems with it.
It does mean you run your pen differently, but it is not so radical you can't make it work.
When Sean told me about this system initially I agreed that it would curb abuse of starting pitchers AND eliminate the usage abuses we create with pitchers with bad cards.
Owners better get used to treating the free agent pile like AAA and shuffling around players to make sure you have fresh arms available. 

Sent from my GrumpyPhone
On Jul 25, 2014, at 7:45 PM, Mike Monostra <monostram1 at gmail.com> wrote:

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/20140725/60fe8a47/attachment.html>