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

[Jed Rosenthal]

Strictly in terms of fun factor, if there is no MLB in 2020 (probably
unlikely but who knows), would anyone consider playing IBL 21 as a retro
season?  Like could we recreate cards circa 1985 MLB (or another season)
and have a full draft with everyone having a retro team for one season?  I
used to play Pursue the Pennant with retro seasons and it was great.  I
realize it would probably be a lot of work to recreate (is the data even
available?) but just throwing it out there.  Apologies in advance if this
sends us off topic...

- Jed


On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 9:15 PM Mike Monostra <monostram1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20200601/5efdbced/attachment-0001.htm>