[IBL] Further look/discussion at the OF positioning rules

[Paul Schneider]

This past off-season, the proposal to allow corner OF to be eligible at the
opposite corner was voted down. While I personally disagreed with that
vote, I don't think there should be a re-vote every off-season without a
change in context.

I know that both my team and my caretaking team are going to be hit with
position switches involving corner OF that are going to affect IBL (LF
moving to RF or vise-versa) as the rule currently stands.  I know one of
the arguments is that OF positioning is one of the things you have to plan
for, but in all of these cases, this is simply a MLB team moving a player
because it fits their current roster better, not because there is something
inherent in the player's skills forcing the move. As has been discussed,
there is no significant difference in playing LF/RF other than arm strength
(which is accounted for in IBL), unlike other positional changes (SS to 3B,
LF to 1B, etc.)

Anyway, here is my question for the league. If the rule was modified to
something like this (see below), would it change your "no" vote, or would
it be enough to nudge people to at least consider it/re-vote in the
off-season?

Proposed rule:

*A player who is eligible at one corner OF position may gain the same
eligibility at the opposite corner OF position, provided they were fully
eligible at that position the previous season. *

So, rather than give this flexibility to every corner OF, it would at least
give that flexibility to players who had been full time players at the
"opposite position" as recently as last season and would give IBL teams a
better chance/more time to adapt their roster to account for this switch if
that positional switch is indeed permanent..  If the MLB move was indeed
permanent, IBL owners will still need to find a solution, but it would
allow you to stick with your current roster if the player is moved back the
following year.  I already have seen that finding a trading partner who
matches your needs, and with players that are roughly comparable, can be
very, very difficult so giving two off-seasons rather than one would be a
huge asset....sort of a grace period if you will.

The idea here is to try to find common ground between the yes votes and the
no votes. One of the things I love about IBL is having to deal with real
issues, but I think this is a small issue that makes the game much harder
than actual MLB baseball, so if we could find a compromise, I think it
would make the game run more smoothly for everyone. Thoughts?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20250723/ffdb75f9/attachment.htm>