[IBL] A rule for discussion (SLG_Rob)
Robert Barnes
roblbarnes67 at gmail.com
Tue May 1 11:53:10 EDT 2018
I love that's it's possible in this IBL game for those odd, bizarre things
to happen even as frustrating as it is in-game. I recall an Orioles game
vs. Red Sox. Where Chris Davis was the winning pitcher after 18 innings and
going 0-7 or 0-8 batting. But you know both teams scurried to their
transactions to make pitchers available the next day. I think we should
too.
Can't we have some sort of emergency instruction in MIS to cover for the
unlikely event of these and injury emergencies? Then it's not a matter of
having to write the other manager for instruction. It could simply be
similar to position hierarchy than many have in there MIS already.
Rob_SLG
On Tue, May 1, 2018, 9:16 AM <members-request at lists.ibl.org> wrote:
> Send Members mailing list submissions to
> members at lists.ibl.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.ibl.org/mailman/listinfo/members
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> members-request at lists.ibl.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> members-owner at lists.ibl.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Members digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: A rule for discussion (Sean Sweda)
> 2. Re: A rule for discussion (Andrew Selder)
> 3. BF rule change needed for extras (George Blas)
> 4. Re: A rule for discussion (Andrew Selder)
> 5. Re: A rule for discussion (Doug Palmer)
> 6. Re: A rule for discussion (Nelson Lu)
> 7. Re: A rule for discussion (Billy Compton)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 10:56:04 -0400
> From: Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org>
> To: Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com>, Chris Hartjes
> <chartjes at littlehart.net>, IBL Members <members at lists.ibl.org>
> Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion
> Message-ID: <57F3CCE3-6A07-44BE-ACA5-46EFD4B7C55A at ibl.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> IIRC, I believe one stated objection was not wanting to stop playing MIS
> games to ask their opponent about activations/deactivations. At the time
> I
> pointed out that owners were already required to do the same thing if
> their
> opponent suffered an injury that left the team without a legal roster.
>
> On May 1, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you happen to remember what the argument against that rule was? I?m
> > trying to imagine the downside or the way to game the system by
> utilizing
> > such a rule.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On May 1, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Chris Hartjes <chartjes at littlehart.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> We had a vote on a rule change like this a few years back and it got
> >> voted down.
> >>
> >> ?
> >> Chris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 07:52:42 -0700
> From: Andrew Selder <aselder at me.com>
> To: Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com>
> Cc: IBL teams <members at lists.ibl.org>
> Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion
> Message-ID: <24195153-8539-4E79-9046-A2712279161D at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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 injuries 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/bb496183/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 10:54:05 -0400
> From: George Blas <glblas7 at gmail.com>
> To: Members <members at ibl.org>
> Subject: [IBL] BF rule change needed for extras
> Message-ID:
> <CA+Aq=JKGrcDPngZ8X4B94cyM+9d-=xhm3vo3c9fB-NJ=
> 6eRx1Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I also typed up something last night on what Doug mentioned. Hopefully it
> makes sense:
>
> This is a reminder that a BF system does not work and is not practical once
> there is a long extra inning game, etc. under the current system. BAL and
> POR played a 17 inning game, which shredded the pen for that game and the
> following game. My pen is also completely ruined for the following week 5
> despite my best efforts (and an injury as well).
>
> It makes no sense to not have some kind of rule to be able to swap RPs up
> and down from the minors when necessary like real life/MLB/MILB -
> especially under a BF system.
>
> By the end of my series I had no pitchers left to pitch at all (nor did
> BAL), a pen ruined for the following week (2-3 days worth), no position
> players even left to pitch as an emergency pitcher in the 10th (luckily the
> game ended there), and basically lost the last game because of it. The
> whole thing was completely beyond ridiculous - anyone who's been in the
> same situation can empathize with.
>
> Anyway my point is I think this needs to be addressed/debated/changed.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/1e262a70/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 07:53:49 -0700
> From: Andrew Selder <aselder at me.com>
> To: Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org>
> Cc: Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com>, IBL Members
> <members at lists.ibl.org>
> Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion
> Message-ID: <7C0C7985-9E24-44B3-A18F-3424460347E7 at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed;
> markup=markdown
>
> If we re-voted on this rule, I?d add games cancelled after they have
> started to the list.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 1 May 2018, at 7:49, Sean Sweda wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Thoughts? Decent idea? Or is it one of those things that happens so
> >> infrequently, that we don?t need to bother?
> >
> >
> > Two years ago I proposed the following rule change:
> >
> >
> > 2016-01) Allow teams to make in-series pitcher transactions due to
> > extra innings or double-headers
> >
> > add section 4.1.2:
> >
> > 4.1.2 Special Pitcher Activations
> >
> > A team may replace pitcher(s) on the active roster with pitcher(s) on
> > the
> > inactive roster after any game that extends beyond the 9th inning,
> > after the
> > completion of a suspended game played on the same day as another game,
> > or
> > anytime during a series with a double-header (including between DH
> > games). Any
> > pitcher activated in this fashion must have been eligible to be
> > activated for
> > the current week (as per 3.2.2).
> >
> > Teams may not sign free agents in this situation, only players on the
> > inactive roster at the start of the series are eligible replacements.
> > Special transactions should be reported with the GRS for the series.
> > Players deactivated in this manner must remain inactive for the next
> > two
> > weeks, just as if they were deactivated after the conclusion of the
> > series.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately the proposal failed, and it wasn't particularly close
> > (12 votes against passage). If there's reason to believe that several
> > of the teams that voted NO have changed their minds we can vote on
> > this again.
> >
> > Sean
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 11:01:00 -0400
> From: Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com>
> To: Andrew Selder <aselder at me.com>
> Cc: IBL teams <members at lists.ibl.org>
> Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAJMUcG92_Gc5A5hByaqYp-jUcS_ZgZAVrfiro33X5U80akK9Pw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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 injuries 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/20180501/98310bb4/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 08:09:54 -0700
> From: Nelson Lu <nlu at me.com>
> To: Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com>
> Cc: Andrew Selder <aselder at me.com>, IBL teams <members at lists.ibl.org>
> Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion
> Message-ID: <1FA6060A-1128-4444-BF39-4BF412A7B071 at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> 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 injuries 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?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 11:15:18 -0400
> From: Billy Compton <wkcompton at gmail.com>
> To: Nelson Lu <nlu at me.com>
> Cc: Doug Palmer <aeronutty43 at gmail.com>, Andrew Selder
> <aselder at me.com>, IBL teams <members at lists.ibl.org>
> Subject: Re: [IBL] A rule for discussion
> Message-ID:
> <CAGuWze8=JkzMHGQKyeBAGGMJ=jmScz8UkM4o=u4qMwvAB8W=
> ZQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.html
> >
>
> End of Members Digest, Vol 52, Issue 2
> **************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180501/611695c1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Members
mailing list