[IBL] comments on mid-season ballot

[Mike Monostra]

In defense of the actual number/quality of pitchers used, also remember
this: We only have 24 teams, MLB has 30. In theory, this means we really
only used the top 80% of pitchers anyway. The remaining 20% is the long
list of FA pitchers you see on the site now. Like Sean said, I don't see a
concern for running out of BF.


On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:

>
> On Jul 26, 2014, at 1:07 AM, Noel Steere wrote:
>
> > And here I thought all my passionate discussions this week would be
> about the Middle East.  Thanks, Sean, for a welcome respite!  :-)
>
> ha!
>
> > Even if the old system is worse, that doesn't mean a serious flaw in the
> new system shouldn't be addressed.  You didn't really get around to
> discussing my suggestion of making that one change, and I'd love to hear
> your (and everyone else's) thoughts on making that one addition to the new
> rules (i.e., fatigue after one baserunner at or after BF reached).
>
> There are a variety of ways that variability can be introduced to fatigue
> point.  However, now is not the right time to debate hypothetical changes.
>  We are voting on the rules as they are written because those are what have
> been play-tested and it's not reasonable to ask people to vote on a moving
> target.  How about after the vote we come up with some optional BF
> modifications that people can try out during the second half?
>
> > Re comparison to bad MLB pitching staffs:  How many pitchers did those
> MLB teams use over the season?  Compare that number to the number of
> pitchers those IBL teams used.
>
> If bad IBL pitching staffs are facing around the same number of BF/game as
> bad MLB pitching staffs then why is there any reason to think that an IBL
> team would run out of BF-usage?
>
> Sean
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20140726/add27c31/attachment.html>