[IBL] Hello and Thoughts on Ballot Voting

[Russell Peltz]

To (hopefully) clarify:

I intend to start enforcing the playoff deadlines, because I am not happy
with the playoffs dragging into the next year.  I may still allow some
leeway if there are difficulties finding a time for FTF.  If there aren't
any penalties specified in the rules, I guess this just means I'll nag more.

But if the ballot item passes and late playoff results can result in a team
losing position in the draft due to forces outside of their control, then I
will be even more strictly enforcing the deadlines to make sure that
doesn't happen.  That includes mandating MIS games if FTF can't be arranged.

-Rusty


On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:07 AM Russell Peltz <peltz38 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The Constitution has rules for when playoff series results are due, but we
> haven't strictly enforced them.  If there are consequences for late playoff
> results, I will make sure to enforce the deadlines.  If someone is not
> making themselves available to play a playoff series FTF in a timely
> manner, their opponent will be allowed to play the games by MIS.  The
> Constitution specifies two weeks to play a five-game Wild Card series and
> three weeks for all other series, which allows plenty of time to complete
> them.
>
> -Rusty
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:48 AM Mike Monostra <monostram1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As someone who has been hurt by repeat 100% injuries, I still don’t think
>> we should change the injury rules. I 100% agree with everything Larry said,
>> owners receive enough benefits in regard to playing time flexibility. I
>> also agree with his thoughts on the suspension proposal.
>>
>> The one item I was uncertain about was 2021-06. I agree with others that
>> something needed to be done about the playoffs all winter long. After some
>> deliberating, I ultimately voted in favor of the proposal even though I
>> shared similar concerns to David and Brent. It’s hard to predict if it will
>> have the intended effect of speeding up the playoffs or not, I think it
>> needs to be put into practice. If we have to amend it later, than we can
>> certainly do that
>>
>> NJR Mike
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:20 AM Larry Selleck <lms4th at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I’m voting No on getting to choose when to serve TEST / SUSP because (a)
>>> it shouldn’t be a choice and (b) in the MLB, when a player is suspended for
>>> testing positive, even if their suspension ends, they are still not allowed
>>> to play in the playoffs.  As a side note, because the roll is quite rare, i
>>> suspect most players with test / susp don’t end up getting hit with it.
>>>
>>> In regards to any rule to limit injuries to substantially no more than a
>>> player actually had, I’m against as well.  We already get enough benefits
>>> by being able to exceed player usage by 33% (or more) than what hey had and
>>> we have no requirement to rest our players ... yes, our stud catchers (and
>>> any position player) can play 36 games in a row without rest and both ends
>>> of a double header.
>>>
>>> As a side note, I did play in a league once where injury days were
>>> equated to days they were actually injured in MLB (I.e. if a player missed
>>> first 3 weeks of the season in MLB, they missed equivalent of first 3 weeks
>>> of the sim season).  It made planning easier, but roster construction a bit
>>> more of a challenge and end of season a real challenge.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 pence,
>>> Larry
>>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 04:14, imap.mail.rcn.net <noel.steere at rcn.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [As an aside, I am strongly in favor of changes to the injury rules
>>>> that would mitigate the chances a player suffers substantially more injury
>>>> days than they did in real life in the prior MLB season. That would be a
>>>> higher priority for me than softening the blow only of a test/suspension.]
>>>>
>>>> I’ve been meaning to make a suggestion regarding this:  After a player
>>>> has served the number of injury days listed on their card, any further
>>>> injury rolls are treated as if they have 0 injury days.
>>>>
>>>> I’d have to look at the charts, but I believe this limits a player to
>>>> 18 further injury days on a single roll, and the 2d10 scenarios are less
>>>> likely as the player’s durability rating increases.  So more durable
>>>> players still have an advantage, but players who have already served, say,
>>>> half a season on the IL can play a season that resembles what they actually
>>>> played.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> > On Mar 17, 2021, at 2:49 PM, D <genny429 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > [As an aside, I am strongly in favor of changes to the injury rules
>>>> that would mitigate the chances a player suffers substantially more injury
>>>> days than they did in real life in the prior MLB season. That would be a
>>>> higher priority for me than softening the blow only of a test/suspension.]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20210322/5e0b8bc1/attachment.htm>