[IBL] Newsletter - August 21, 2024

[Paul Schneider]

As the proposed rule has been designed, I (RRG) would have considered using
it for a player like Matthew Boyd, who was hurt  back in week 5, but the
keeper contingency would have made me think twice.

However, I probably would have used it on Eduardo Rodriguez. Coming back
for the last 3 weeks of a lost season would not have meant anything  for
RRG, so I would have put him on the IR week 16 to continue to churn through
the FA pitchers looking for a potential keeper. In other words, I would not
have needed to use it to field a team, but would have used it for strategic
advantage.

Should there also be a stipulation for players that have used a certain
percentage of their usage?  For instance, I made the choice to burn Pedro
Avila (30 BF more than his MLB usage with only 40 BF left). I don't think
we want a scenario where I would be rooting for him to get hurt so I could
stash him (and yes, I know he may not be a keeper for next year, so pretend
he was a better player) That doesn't seem like a case of a player being
"consequential for usage", as stated in the rationale.

This of course assumes that folks like the idea of the rule.




On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:51 PM Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:

>
> > On Aug 23, 2024, at 2:48 PM, Robert Barnes via Members <
> members at lists.ibl.org> wrote:
> >
> > 2024-10
> > No, not as currently written. deGrom & HOU Garcia, both 115 MLB bfs, and
> neither could be placed on IR at the start of, pre or post-season? Needless
> to discuss the 4 other pitchers in similar situations I've rostered or
> released (some uncarded) that could have benefited by an richer IR system.
> So, I think an IR would potentially be good.
>
> The IR rule deliberately excludes players like deGrom and Garcia because
> otherwise rostering low usage players with major injuries would be a
> predictable way to net extra roster spots.  You know ahead of time that
> you’re not going to get much out of those guys, losing them for the season
> at some point is expected.  The limit was set at 150 PA/BF to align with
> the cutoff for unlimited use in the playoffs, but the general idea is that
> IR is only supposed to be used after losing a significant usage contributor.
>
> I’m not necessarily advocating for passage, simply explaining the design.
> It might be useful for people to respond with examples of how they would
> have used this rule this season had it been in place.
>
> Sean
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20240823/625a5ccc/attachment.htm>