[IBL] Hello and Thoughts on Ballot Voting

Mon Mar 22 17:44:22 EDT 2021

I’m an outsider now, but I promise we will finish the 2016 season some time
soon!

I’ll refrain from commenting on the actual proposal.  But I always hated
waiting for several weeks for the AC to finish its wild card series.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 4:37 PM Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:

> Just so everyone is aware, the statutory deadlines for playoff series in
> the Constitution date back to the original conception of the league where
> all games were played by MIS (i.e. team with home field plays first two
> games of series by MIS one week, then opponent plays the games at their
> park the next week, etc).  IMO the Commissioner shouldn’t feel bound by
> these artificially long deadlines. Two weeks should be plenty of time to
> play a series that can’t have any more than 7 games. Furthermore, in the
> past our regular season schedule has been extended by 4 real time off
> weeks. Assuming the other proposal passes that changes how IP penalties are
> accrued we will be able to reduce the number of these off weeks and start
> the playoffs sooner.
>
> Sean
> < via mobile >
>
> On Mar 22, 2021, at 4:09 PM, D <genny429 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Thanks Rusty, enforcing the individual series deadlines sounds good.  One
> question:
>
> If the individual series deadlines are added, they total eleven weeks
> allotted for the playoffs from the start of the wild card series to the end
> of the championship. This past IBL season, I believe week 27 was played in
> or about the last week of October.  Eleven weeks would run through the end
> of the calendar year. How would the December 15 hard deadline be reconciled
> with the cumulative eleven-weeks time allotted owners for individual series
> in the Constitution?
>
>
> Thanks, the discussion around the proposal is much appreciated!
>
> David
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:38 PM Mike Monostra <monostram1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Rusty. With that clarification, I fully support the proposed
>> change and hope others do the same.
>>
>> NJR Mike
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:16 PM Russell Peltz <peltz38 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/de16057e/attachment.htm>