[IBL] Fwd: IBL Off Season Ballot - PLEASE RESPOND

[Sean Sweda]

On Feb 2, 2020, at 9:29 PM, D <genny429 at gmail.com> wrote:
> MLB teams are probably good at figuring out which outfielders are skilled  
> enough to play either corner equally well.  But that doesn't necessarily  
> mean those who MLB teams play only in LF or RF would also play the other  
> equally well.  It could be they limit them to one or the other corner  
> because that's where they are best.

I'm sure it is possible that some players exist who cannot play one corner  
as well as the other.  My point is that if there were something intrinsic  
about the positions that made one more difficult than the other it would be  
observable.  Furthermore, the frequency that MLB teams move players between  
corner spots supports the concept that the default expectation is no  
difference.


>> There is however an
>> observable differential between defensive performance in CF vs LF/RF,
>> players who play both CF and LF/RF perform better collectively on defense
>> as LF/RF.  So there really are only two outfield "positions" in the true
>> sense of the word, CF and corner OF.
>>
> This makes sense to me, and I think, if I am reading it correctly, that  
> it provides some support for giving CFs IBL starts in the corners

Except that CFs will have different defensive ratings in the corners.  That  
would be like giving SS additional starts at 3B or 2B.  The defensive  
ratings in LF/RF are now identical so the starts that are being added don't  
fundamentally alter the player's defensive impact.


> Making it easier on new owners is obviously a totally righteous rationale.

I was merely trying to point out the flip side for those who enjoy the  
challenge of roster juggling.  It was a reminder that simplification  
benefits less experienced members.

FWIW, as I see it this rule change is a referendum on whether continuing to  
treat LF/RF as distinct positions makes sense and whether eliminating that  
distinction would make things more (or less) enjoyable.


> In any event, if you've read this far, can I ask that the rule proposal  
> include asking owners whether to defer implementation for a year if the  
> change passes?

I do not believe it is good policy to modify a ballot item after votes have  
already been cast.  If you believe timing is a critical issue vote NO now  
and request for it to be voted on again for 2021.

Sean