[IBL] What if.....no 2020?

[Mike Monostra]

My thoughts on this:

I think Sean has a fair point with a very abbreviated season being an
issue. If they were to play 80-100 games, I don't think there's a big issue
as that's a reasonable size sample to allow us to prorate to a 162-game
season. As Rusty pointed out, that was done for the two strike-shortened
seasons back in the 90s. However, if they were to only play somewhere in
the neighborhood of 50 games, that's a fairly small number to prorate over
a 162 game season. It may be something worth discussing further if MLB
moves in that direction.

As far as the no MLB scenarios are concerned, I don't mind Sean's plan with
the caveats allowing for a shorter season, different usage caps, etc.
Anything that would give lower-level teams a better chance to win.

In terms of the fun factor, I'd love to do a 2019 re-draft for just one
season, I think it'd be something different. Random rosters has too many
issues in my opinion and taking over real MLB teams doesn't appeal to me
(who'd want to manage BAL, DET, KC or MIA)? Doing a re-draft would require
a lengthy draft this winter that would likely have to be done via lists
over the course of a few months, but I wouldn't mind that. However, I think
we need to take in account Sean's comments regarding the league structure.
Remember, while we are going be with a re-draft season, MLB would
(presumably) be conducting a real 2021 season. How would rebuilding teams
be able to pick up breakout free agents or trade for future pieces? It's a
very valid point and, if we were to do a re-draft or some other form, I
think we need to somehow allow owners to still sign players and make trades
with the "permanent" rosters. It may be too complicated to balance two sets
of rosters at once.

Along those lines, I'd argue the balance of "this year vs. future" has
already been thrown off by the pandemic. I'm going through this season a
bit differently than I normally would if MLB were playing and I'm sure I'm
not the only one. The reason I bring this up is that once we know for sure
what MLB is doing, I think we need to conduct a vote as soon a feasibly
possible so everyone can know what the plan is moving forward. I thank Doug
for bringing this up because we'll likely know the final status of the MLB
season sooner rather than later.

NJR Mike

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM D <genny429 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all -
>
> I have enjoyed and appreciated all the thoughts and comments.  For the
> little it is worth with so much uncertainty, I wanted to note one point of
> agreement with, and one question about, what Sean wrote:
>
> Sean wrote: " I  think whichever direction we go we have to give owners
> the ability to opt-out if they aren't interested."
>
> I agree with that.
>
> Sean wrote: "Teams that sit out the 2021 season would retain all of their
> players on their roster without usage requirements."
>
> The question, I think, only indirectly relates to that.  I am assuming
> that no matter what happens going forward, we are playing this IBL season
> under binding usage requirements.  That is, we will lose in advance the
> next draft (whenever that may be) anyone who does not make usage or exceeds
> 133% during this IBL season.
>
> I am not advocating one way or another for that assumption.  Perhaps there
> are good arguments, pro and con.  I just wanted to confirm as playing under
> a binding usage regime would be different than under a regime where -- if
> no MLB games are played this year -- we'd make rostering choices in advance
> of the next draft without regard to this IBL year's usage.
>
> Thanks much
>
> - David (oxy)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:54 PM Russell Peltz <peltz38 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought of a couple other things.
>>
>> One is that we have precedent for abbreviated MLB seasons.  MLB played
>> about 115 games in 1994 and about 144 in 1995 due to a player strike, and
>> the 1994 playoffs were not played at all.
>> In both cases, the IBL played a full 162 game season with playoffs.
>>
>> My other thought was an additional possibility for playing if MLB 2020 is
>> not played -- we could create cards based on 2020 projections (ZIPS,
>> Steamer, some other projection system or a combination of systems).
>> Then our season would be sort of a "what if" scenario, more closely
>> simulating what might have happened had the season been played.
>>
>> -Rusty
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 2:27 PM Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been thinking a lot about how to handle no 2020 MLB.  The solution
>>> I
>>> would propose looks something like this:
>>>
>>>
>>> The 2021 IBL season would be played with 2020 cards (2019 MLB).  Owners
>>> would decide whether they want to participate or sit out the season.  I
>>> think whichever direction we go we have to give owners the ability to
>>> opt-out if they aren't interested.  In the end, we need people who are
>>> motivated to play their games if we want to meet our deadlines.
>>>
>>> Teams that sit out the 2021 season would retain all of their players on
>>> their roster without usage requirements.  Teams that sit out the season
>>> can
>>> still sign free agents and make trades.  If a team that sits out the
>>> 2021
>>> season trades a player away during the season they may not re-acquire
>>> that
>>> player until the start of the 2023 season.  This is explicitly to
>>> discourage player "rentals" during 2021.
>>>
>>> The 2021 season would not be a full 162 game schedule.  Perhaps a series
>>> of
>>> short "sprints" of round-robin play to win spots in the postseason?
>>> I'm
>>> not really sure what the best solution looks like, it depends a lot on
>>> how
>>> many teams are playing.  The goal would be to implement a schedule that
>>> increases the role of randomness.
>>>
>>> We would also come up with some single season rule changes for 2021
>>> that
>>> make it easier to compete.  Perhaps teams that did not make the playoffs
>>> in
>>> 2020 would be allowed to designate a certain number of players as
>>> "usage
>>> immune", meaning they could go under/over our usage thresholds and still
>>> be
>>> retained.  Perhaps these teams would also be allowed a higher max cap
>>> on
>>> usage (currently 150%) so they could abuse short sample size players to
>>> a
>>> larger degree. The key principle for these rule changes would be to
>>> give
>>> the teams that didn't have as many good 2020 cards a better chance to
>>> win
>>> games in 2021.
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason why I think this is the way to go is that it maintains the
>>> "this
>>> year" vs. "the future" balance that underpins our league structure.
>>> Any
>>> season played with ephemeral rosters (e.g. re-draft the players for a
>>> single season) is going to break that fundamental dynamic because those
>>> teams have no future.  In my view we need a resolution for 2021 that
>>> maintains a functional market for both buyers and sellers throughout
>>> both
>>> the 2020 and 2021 seasons.
>>>
>>> Anyway that's a rough sketch of the idea.  I haven't wanted to get too
>>> far
>>> into the weeds on this stuff because there are still so many unknowns.
>>> FWIW, I think no 2020 MLB is actually a less thorny issue than a very
>>> abbreviated 2020 MLB.
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20200601/bfb435c5/attachment.htm>