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

[imap.mail.rcn.net]

So in effect, we can never have a rule implemented a year out?

Put this on the dock for next year then:

- All changes voted into the rules are to take effect the season after they are voted on.

And until that’s voted on, I call on members to vote “No” in any rules changes.

Thanks,

Noel

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 2, 2020, at 11:51 PM, Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
>