[IBL] 2016 mid-season ballot

[Larry Selleck]

Hello,

Thanks for the .02 Alex ... with the recent drop in the UK £, that is worth
a lot more over here!

I agree that the Special Pitcher Activation, whilst more reflective of real
life, will be a lot more complex to administer, can cause a lot more
complexity in MIS (lots of "if DH or extra inning game, then active XYZ),
and is open to abuse by being able to swap out 1, 2 or even more of your
pitching staff in the middle of a series  ... hmmm, I can collect lots of
RP a stash them as inactive knowing I'll have plenty of opportunities to
swap them on and off the roster. Could also, in theory, go into a series
with a scheduled DH with just 2 active SP and swap for an inactive SP after
each game.  I am using more extreme examples to make a point, but it is all
possible.  I agree with Alex that I think it needs more discussion and
should be re-visited in the off-season.

Larry

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Alex Campbell <arc213 at gmail.com> wrote:

> my .02 for anyone who cares.
>
> Regarding: Special Pitcher Activations in case of extra
> innings/doubleheaders.  I am voting NO; my reasons are as follows:
>
> if you have a doubleheader in a given week; plan for it by increasing the
> number of relievers.  And if you have a marathon extra inning game and your
> bullpen gets used up, then that is part of the game.  I see a lot of teams
> that try to get by with 5 (and even one or two that carry 4) relief
> pitchers and if you are carrying a short pitching staff you should pay the
> price if you go in to an extra inning game.  Emergency transactions are
> allowed already in the case of injury; that is understandable.  Since we
> get to make transactions every 3 games, I think this is over kill.
>
> In the NC, we have a lot of MIS play. If I have an extra inning game I
> don't want to have to wait for the opposing owner to respond to an email
> deciding whether or not they want to make a transaction.
>
> I am willing to revisit this in the off-season but I don't think it should
> be instituted during the middle of a season.
>
> as far as equitable handling of pitcher rest, i am voting yes on both
> options.
>
> AC
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:16 PM, Sean Sweda wrote:
>>
>> > This is very brief ballot to address a couple of issues.  If passed,
>> these rules will take effect immediately.
>> >
>> > Schedule:
>> >
>> > Tue 7/19 thru Thu 7/22, Discussion Period
>> > Fri 7/22 thru Thu 7/29, Debate Period
>> > Fri 7/29 votes due
>> >
>> > The Discussion Period is for questions about wording, how the rule(s)
>> work, etc., in order to allow for an opportuntity to edit for clarity and
>> address unintended consequences.  If you wish to advocate for, or argue
>> against a proposal please wait for the Debate Period.  If any of the
>> proposals are edited as a result of the Discussion Period an updated ballot
>> will be sent out.
>>
>>
>> Since there have not been any questions about the rule proposals I'm
>> going to close the Discussion Period.  The proposals will remain as
>> written.  The Debate Period is now in effect, feel free to discuss the
>> merits of the proposals on the mailing list.
>>
>> full text of ballot is available via list archive:
>> http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/2016-July/001807.html
>>
>> ** REMINDER **
>> VOTING INSTRUCTIONS:
>>
>> Votes are due Friday, July 29.  Votes must be YES/NO/ABSTAIN.  In
>> addition to voting on both 2016-02a/b, you should indicate a preference
>> should both pass.
>>
>> Votes should be emailed to:  vote at ibl.org
>>
>> Please use the template below for voting:
>>
>> 2016-01)
>> 2016-02a)
>> 2016-02b)
>> 2016-02 PREFER a or b)
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20160722/59adc2eb/attachment.html>