[IBL] A rule for discussion

[Billy Compton]

I'm open to revisiting this rule.  I wasn't around when this was voted on
last.

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Nelson Lu <nlu at me.com> wrote:

> To tell the truth, I don’t remember the exact reasons, but my immediate
> gut feeling was that I probably did vote against it.  I think that part of
> the reason was that I do think that managing with very limited resources
> *is* what we are intended to do in this league - trying to be resourceful
> in creative ways when situations call for them, and that in ye olde days
> that’s how they did it in real life as well (although not any more).  (I
> believe I voted the “fix illegal rosters during series” amendment as well
> for similar reasons - that we have the emergency rules to cover the
> situation.)
>
> That having been said, as George pointed out, with the BF system, one
> difficulty in doing this has now become even more difficult now.  I’m open
> to revisiting it, and certainly, as Kris has taken over the team
> practically, I’d defer to him on the vote.  (And soon, I do think he should
> be considered the full owner.)
>
> > On May 1, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > first of all, Andrew just broke the Internet with "I agree with Doug
> ....." LOL
> >
> > My proposal narrows the circumstances that the aforementioned vetoed
> rule advocates.  If a team doesn't have enough eligible pitchers (no rested
> starter like Andrew demonstrated or simply sheer numbers like I had) that
> they should be allowed to get enough arms (or arm).  I don't know how it
> violates the spirit of the game or of the rules by allowing a team to have
> either an eligible starter or enough pitchers to compete.  Yes, sometimes
> it's the stupidity of the manager that gets one into these situations, but
> more times than not, it's the freak incidents like weather, injuries or
> very, very long ballgames.
> >
> > I'd like to hear from the owners who voted no as to the reasoning and
> whether or not the narrowing of the circumstances changes their mind
> >
> > Doug/BAL
> >
> > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Andrew Selder <aselder at me.com> wrote:
> > A similar thing happened to BOW in wk 3 BOW at WMS.
> >
> > Game 1 was a blowout, so Mike brought in a long reliever (who was also a
> rated starter) to finish out the game. Game 2 was then rained out after 4
> innings, so that’s a starter burned. Game 3 (first game of double header)
> was similarly rained out after 2 innings. All this combined with a couple
> rain outs the previous week meant that BOW did not have a rated starter
> available for game 3.
> >
> > I agree with Doug that mid week transactions in situations like this
> make perfect sense.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > On 1 May 2018, at 4:27, Doug Palmer wrote:
> >
> > IBL’ers,
> >
> >
> > Had a series of events in this weeks BAL/POR series that bordered on the
> ridiculous and turned what was an exciting, back and forth matchup into a
> farce.  And I would like to throw a proposal out there for consideration.
> >
> > In G2 of the series, George (POR) had an inordinate amount of bad luck
> with injuries as he had 2 pitchers go down with injuries within the first 3
> innings.  Not the “roll when he’s pulled” variety but rather, “roll now and
> check”.  That, in and of itself, is bad luck but we’ve all been there.  The
> game went back and forth and eventually went to extra innings.  During the
> course of the game, I used up relievers as did George.  Although the score
> was 4-4 heading into extras, there were a lot of men left of base and usage
> was becoming an issue.  Then the game went 17 innings.  8 pitchers used by
> POR and 5 used by BAL.  Most all of the pitchers used had eaten up their
> usage so that they would be unavailable the next game.  Now, for me, you
> could chalk it up to not having enough long men or maybe not carrying
> enough pitchers (I carry 11) but that’s not the case with George (he also
> carries 11 but had more long men it seemed).  He got screwed by the rapid
> fire inju!
>  ries combined with the extra innings.  I got burned by losing a reliever
> in G1 due to a blowout (so I went into the rest of the series down 1
> pitcher) and then burned by having 2 pitching slots occupied by starters
> that couldn’t pitch due to being tired.  But that’s not the craziness!
> >
> > The bull&^%$$ comes in G3.  Due to the 17 inning affair, I went into G3
> with only 2 pitchers available.  George only had 4.  Would that EVER happen
> in a real game?  That a team would go into a game with only 2 or 4 pitchers
> capable of pitching?  Of course not.  Oh, and the kicker to all of this,
> with 2 outs in the top of the 9th, BAL tied it with a grand slam which sent
> the game to extras.  Yeah.  2 pitchers available and extra innings.  Better
> still, POR ran out of players.  An exhausted pitcher had to play left
> field.  And had the game gone another inning, POR would have had to forfeit
> as he had no bench players (to pitch) and would have been out of available
> pitchers.  I was 1 inning away from losing my reliever and having to use an
> outfielder as a pitcher.  But this was ridiculous.  It lost it’s cuteness
> and became outright frustrating that the rules are such.  And not only did
> it affect this series, now we’re both screwed (to varying degrees) for the
> next series.
> >
> > We referred to the constitution and 3.5 outlines that you can replace
> injured players, but that’s only to create a legal lineup (luckily Sean was
> around last night and watched our game).  NOT to address losing your
> pitching staff.  What I would like to consider and would like to start a
> discussion about would be to add a rule into the constitution which would
> allow a team to make emergency call ups if, at the beginning of a game,
> they have 4 or fewer available pitchers (to reach a situation where they‘d
> have no more than 5).  It would not be mandatory, but it would give the
> owner the option to make emergency call ups.  The players deactivated would
> be subject to the 2 week rule, just like it is now, so an owner may not
> want to bring up a total of 5, but would have that option.  But it would
> prevent a situation like the one that happened last night.  It would ONLY
> affect pitchers as we already have a rule (3.5 in the constitution) that
> affects positional players.
> >
> > What should have been a good and fun series with late inning heroics and
> come from behind victories instead left a sour taste in my mouth (I won’t
> speak for George here, but I didn’t get the sense that he was having fun
> there, losing players left and right).
> >
> > Thoughts?  Decent idea?  Or is it one of those things that happens so
> infrequently, that we don’t need to bother?
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/ae4906ec/attachment-0001.html>