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

Tue Jun 2 01:15:50 EDT 2020

I also thought playing with retro/Hall of Fame player cards from older
years could be a fun option for a year possibly. But not sure if the
retrosheet data is available or it may be too much work/effort to create,
if I understood correctly.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 10:32 PM Jed Rosenthal <jedrosenthal at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20200602/002e0149/attachment.htm>