Pitchers will be limited as follows per playoff series:
1.Starters qualify for 1 start for every 10 actual MLB starts in the prior season, always rounded down.
2.Pitchers with 30+ appearances in the prior MLB season will be eligible for an unlimited number of relief appearances.
3.Pitchers with less than 30 appearances in the prior MLB season will be eligible for 1 relief appearance for every 10 appearances in the prior MLB season, always rounded down (less the number of starts made by such pitcher in such playoff series, if any).
4.Unlimited starting pitchers are allowed 2 starts (unless they would otherwise qualify for more starts using the above rules) .Unlimited pitchers are allowed unlimited relief appearances.
**I dont have a problem with the starts aspect of this rule at all, and believe it is quite fair in its ratio of what the player did in real life and what he should be allowed to do in the playoffs.Having a 30 start pitcher pitch in 3 games if they can go on the short 3 day rest is probably what you would see in MLB.
The issue is with the 30 appearances is automatically unlimited with complete disregard for the type of pitcher that reliever is in MLB.So the trend in the playoffs is to see several 30+ appearance guys who have around 30-40ip for a MLB season all the sudden become unlimited go to guys in every game of the ARBA playoffs.With the stated rule as is there becomes a huge discrepancy in the value of what a player should be based on what he did in MLB and how he is actually used in ARBA.
If a player has 30 appearance and 35ip, how does that equate to a pitcher who can pitch in 6 of 7 playoff games?
Exp:Player X pitches
Game 1 1 ip
Game 2 1 ip (now tired)
Travel Day rest eliminates tired
Game 3 1 ip
Game 4 1-2 ip (now tired, but has 2 days to rest)
Game 5 cant play, but now rested
Travel Day rested
Game 6 1 ip
Game 7 1-3 ip (b/c rest isnt an issue after this game)
The player in real life probably pitched around 1 inning per appearance for 30 appearances.That is approximately 20% of the MLB season if you consider 162 games.However, in the playoffs this player can play in approximated 80+% of the games.
So a player who can be grabbed in the F/A draft or rookie draft (probably no more than $200k) suddenly becomes as valuable as a closer (most are $400k+) or a stud set-up guy who has 60-70ip on the season.Im just trying to understand how a player who has very little impact in MLB the previous season (and current ARBA regular season usually) all the sudden becomes a major player (and series determining factor) for an ARBA playoff team.
A playoff team could have 3 (30 app, 35ip) guys who didnt have much impact on a MLB regular season or them actually making the playoffs in ARBA suddenly become the equivalent of facing 3 closers in a row when stacked in the 6, 7, and 8th innings.
Take a team like Harmony Grove who has 3 closers and pays the price in ARBA dollars to keep them contracted.Three A salary closers would cost him annually upwards of a million dollars or more, not counting the money, prospects, cards traded to procure them.
Harmony Grove
Closer A 400k (50app, 60-70+ip) 2.50 ERA
Closer B 400k (50 app, 60-70+ip) 2.50 ERA
Closer C 400k (50 app, 60-70+ip) 2.50 ERA
$1.2 million 180-210ip of quality relief
Team X
Reliever A 200k (30 app, 30-40ip) 2.50 ERA
Reliever B 200k (30 app, 30-40ip) 2.50 ERA
Reliever C 200k (30 app, 30-40ip) 2.50 ERA
$600k 90-120ip
Both of those sets of the relievers have the exact same impact in the playoffs even though their actual value/ip in MLB is quite contrasting.
Yes I understand both teams can do the same thing, and thats not the point Im trying to make.Im talking about the discrepancy in value of what should be compared to what is in ARBA.Yes I also know I used Harmony Grove which is probably an extreme, but most playoff teams have several guys who have lots of innings, and usually cost a pretty penny to contract that theyve used to make the playoff in the first place.
So my recommendation is to go to IP like we do in the regular season and force teams to 1) use the relievers that got them to the playoffs, 2) quit using ringers who shouldnt be having the impact on the playoffs like they are having.
So what Im looking at is something like this: (This would be actual IP and not with the 10% added)
25-34ip - 3
35-44ip - 5
45-54ip - 8
55-64ip - 10
65-74ip - 12
75+ - unlimited
** The big inning guys still get their innings (almost 2ip per game for the series, but it would limit the impact the specialist pitchers have on a series.These specialist guys shouldnt be the dominant forces coming out of the bullpen for entire games during a 7 game series.The low IP guys still have enough innings to have an impact, but are more in the range of their specialty role, or limited innings from the actual MLB season.
Hopefully this is typed out simple enough for everyone to understand.I know weve already done rule changes for this season, but I really think these topics need to start getting discussed so rules can be proposed next year.
More topics to followand hopefully some discussion too.
I can see what your are saying but having RP with 30-40 IP hurts the team as well. Like Cladio Vargas= 45 AIP on the season, but b/c of the lack of IP I now have to get a second RP or a SP to throw mop up innings. So that 200k for Vargas and the with KC the second guy is Sean Green C 300k so that caust me 500K. I would like to have an A closer but with teams like HAR keeps others from having those and making it harder to field the bulpin. I even tried trading Vargas to several team including I think 3 other playoff teams. I think the rules are fine the way they are.
Not picking on any one, just throwing out my 2 sences.
Claudio Vargas (since you brought him up) is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Vargas 36 App 41.1 IP .097 WHIP 1.74 ERA
Green 79 App 69.2 IP 1.44 WHIP 4.52 ERA
I'm not talking about it from a money stand point either. Actually I'm not really talking about it from a money standpoint at all, it's from a player usage perspective that I have the biggest complaints.
You actually prove my point. You had to pick up a player like Green for the regular season b/c you needed the innings to complete your staff. But Green who you had to use to get through the regular season all the sudden becomes a non-factor in the playoffs b/c you have a guy like Vargas who becomes an unlimited stud that you can use in almost every game instead of using a guy like Green. Green and Vargas aren't really comparable from a numbers standpoint b/c Vargas clearly has the better numbers. Green pitched almost twice as much as Vargas did, but odds are in a playoff game you would choose Vargas 10 times out of 10 when there are no limits on IP or APP.
Vargas has the ability in the playoffs to pitch the same amount and have the same effect as a stud closer like Joe Nathan despite not being remotely close in IP. Obviously Vargas wasn't a reliever in MLB that pitched in almost every game, but in ARBA he can be almost anything you want him to be. He literally could pitch up to 8+ innings in a playoff series which is almost 25% of what he pitched the entire year in MLB. That's insane imho.
Does he have a good card? Yes! Should he get to pitch in the playoffs, yes! But he shouldn't be unlimited. We are manipulating the rules to allow players to do things they aren't designed to do (or did do in real life).
I understand it's a game and sometimes we can't replicate reality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the every effort we can to keep things as real as possible.
Managers in the league have spent a pretty penny "collecting" quality relief cards with lots of innings. They've paid heavy prices to acquire them b/c that's what it takes to make the playoffs. But in the end it really doesn't benefit a team with a great relief staff if all the other teams in the league can get an equivalent playoff bullpen just based on the rules of the league and not actually having the card numbers to back them up.
**Let me reiterate again, this is a flaw I've seen in the system over the last 3 years and not specific to Doug and his example he gave...he just happened to give an example that proved my point.
Sorry I was trying to say that with teams getting all the good high inning RP/CL it is hard for other teams to get them same tipe of RP. I lost at least 2 games b/c I had to have Green. So what I am saying is the I eat Greens innings in the regular season to use Vargas. Just like in real life there are guys that don't see the mound in playoffs b/c there are better RP. I understand the inings usage but the flaw with David Price in 08 pitch like the last week of the season the pitchin in almost all the play off games. I think thats what happened. I understand the it suck but it suck when you can't get a good high innings RP b/c other teams have them all that has been my problem over the past couple years.
Not sure I agree with the statement about the high inning closers not being available. If you look there are a lot of non playoff teams that don't carry high end closers because they are not needed if you are not in contention. I think in most cases it is that most teams aren't willing to pay the price to acquire a high end closer.
For instance Francisco Rodriguez has been on the trade block all year and no one has acquired him. I think this in itself proves the statement as false. I have kicked the tires on Rodriguez and decided his asking price was too steep for me so it is more a case of not wanting to pay for high end closers then them not being available.
And yes I realize the original point of this thread has now swerved completely off course!
So to bring it back on course I agree with some of what both Doug and Jeff are saying. There are certain players in the ARBA playoffs that our current system allows to play a more prominant role than they did in real life but there are also instances where guys in real life come on late in the season and play a very large role in the playoffs.
In short (or long) I think if everyone has the same shot at getting these guys before the season starts then the system is still fair, maybe not completely correct but fair. I have no problem either way, rule change or status quo.
So 25-34 ip = 3 relief appearances or innings pitched in a series?
I would have an issue with appearances as that would limit certain pitchers.
A loogy, for example, typically has more appearances than ip.
And I would like to point out that Francisco Rodriguez had exactly 5.2 ip during the regular season for Anaheim, yet pitched 8.2 innings in 4 games. He definitely had an impact on that series.
I'm fine with things the way they are. The teams that pick up those type of players also limit themselves during the regular season.
Dave, I want to do away with appearances in the playoffs and go to innings, so the 3 you're talking about is IP, not total appearances. So your Loogy could still have 5-6 appearances in a series, they would get a total of 3ip so they are used like they would be in real life getting an out here or there or maybe pitching a full inning. The rule now allows them unlimited appearances and innings and the only limiting factor is rest.
True the guys who grab these cards limit themselves in regular season to a degree. But one needs to ask would these guys be in such demand if it weren't for the playoff rule. I personally don't really care about the regular season b/c that's not what this topic is about, it's playoff specific. Everyone knows this league is contenders and rebuilders in the regular season and not much in between.
A loogy is brought in a certain situations in real life. Odds are they pitch to a batter or two, or even an inning. You more often than not don't see them in every game in a full 7 game series pitching a full inning or more.
So again, a "specialist" pitcher has to be used as a specialist and not some unlimited innings eater.
If you figure a starter averages 6 innings in MLB. That leaves 3 innings per game for relief. So look at the ratio from a total ip standpoint and then a playoff series ip standpoint.
MLB Regular Season: 3 (possible relief ip) x 162 (MLB games) = 486 (total possible relief ip in MLB)
Relievers actual MLB numbers: 34 (actual ip in MLB) / 486 (total possible MLB relief ip) = 7.2%
ARBA Playoff Series (assume 7 games): 3 (relief ip per game) x 7 (games) = 21
Ratio Playoff Justification: 3 (ip) / 21 (tot. relief ip opportunities) = 14.3%
The 3 ip "suggested" for a guy with 34ip or less in the playoffs is double the ratio of what they actually pitched in total relief innings in real life. The point was to reduce their innings from what the current rule allows and bring them more in balance with their real life role.
For those who want to say the possible relief ip available would be 4 b/c starters average 5 ip per start then here are those numbers as well.
MLB Regular Season: 4 (possible relief ip) x 162 (MLB games) = 648 (total possible relief ip in MLB)
Relievers actual MLB numbers: 34 (actual ip in MLB) / 648 (total possible MLB relief ip) = 5.4%
ARBA Playoff Series (assume 7 games): 4 (relief ip per game) x 7 (games) = 28 (relief ip/game)
Ratio Playoff Justification: 3 (ip) / 28 (tot. relief ip opportunities) = 10.7%
The ratio is still double whether you use 3 or 4 ip per game. It's just a lower % of total innings but is still over 10% either way. So 3ip in an ARBA playoff series is actually "generous" when you consider their actual role in real life.
That means that one reliever is accounting for 10 or 15% percent of your total relief opportunities in a playoff series depending on which ratio you want to use. That's for a guy with LESS THAN 35ip total on the year. I'd say that's outstanding.
Now do it for a guy in the next bracket (35-44ip) and we'll take the top end at 44ip which will casue the lowest ratios.
MLB Regular Season: 3 (possible relief ip) x 162 (MLB games) = 486 (total possible relief ip in MLB)
Relievers actual MLB numbers: 44 (actual ip in MLB) / 486 (total possible MLB relief ip) = 9.0%
ARBA Playoff Series (assume 7 games): 3 (relief ip per game) x 7 (games) = 21
Ratio Playoff Justification: 5 (ip) / 21 (tot. relief ip opportunities) = 23% _______________________________________________________________ MLB Regular Season: 4 (possible relief ip) x 162 (MLB games) = 648 (total possible relief ip in MLB)
Relievers actual MLB numbers: 44 (actual ip in MLB) / 648 (total possible MLB relief ip) = 6.8%
ARBA Playoff Series (assume 7 games): 4 (relief ip per game) x 7 (games) = 28 (relief ip/game)
Ratio Playoff Justification: 5 (ip) / 28 (tot. relief ip opportunities) = 17.8%
Again, the ratio depending on which one you look at is either 23% or 18%. I used the top end of that bracket which is 44ip, the ratios for a guy between 35-43ip would be higher. That's for ONE reliever, and we're talking about the lowest two brackets.
As a percentage they are still getting more than their share of possible relief IP, they just won't be unlimited.
The rule as stated now essentially makes all bullpens equal in the playoffs with complete disregard to whether those bullpens should be equal or not based on the numbers on the card and usage. Playoff teams essentially can bench the majority of their bullpen to use these unlimited speciality cards over and over which is completely unrealistic.
I've been on both sides of this equation...as a winner and loser...as a loser it pisses you off and as a winner you almost feel guilty that some guy who should be limited becomes the MVP of a playoff series b/c you completely shut down the opposing team time and time again.
If we're gonna be a replay league then lets be a replay league, if we're gonna be a fantasy league, then lets call a spade a spade.
**Again these are just discussion points...they aren't coming up for vote this year anyway.
I totally get where you're coming from...and while I don't see it as necessary, I'm not opposed to it either.
By the way, I neglected to say that Francisco's stats were from the 2002 season. Do you think the Angels felt guilty about winning that series?
I felt far more guilt when Juan Castro rolled a 1 with a 1 in 20 chance on a home run to win an ARBA championship for BTM. How's that for fantasy?
I've never thought of this as a replay league. There are far too many ways to take advantage of the ARBA system to even consider it. While I have no problem with Mr. Leopold's relief strategy, it has little resemblance to replay. The all-star teams that are fielded by the eventual winner every year also point more to a fantasy league than replay.
Ok, I'm done talking about that rule, not much else i can say the numbers are there for everyone to see.
Dave we've hashed and rehashed the whole "incentive" process in this league a 1000 times already.
Fact is there is no incentive to finish .500. So you get All-Star teams and Little Sisters of the Poor.
I'd be for taking a look at a bell curve compensation package for money distribution at the end of the year instead of everyone getting the same thing.
Bottom 5 teams: Get $7 million, +10% (There compensation comes in the form of draft picks and the fact that if they are that bad they probably aren't spending any money on players anyway)
Next 5 Teams: Get $7.5 million, +10% (Again they get decent draft picks, probably aren't spending a great deal money)
Next 5 Teams: Get $8 million, +10% (Top of the curve, and that extra million might get these guys motivated to spend a little more money to compete)
Next 5 Teams: Get $7.5 million, +15% (These guys are right on the fringe of competition, and the 15% probably isn't as big as you think considering they are spending money already (probably have minimal carry over) to get to this point...and it essentially takes the place of a upper round draft pick).
Top 8 Teams: Get $7 million, +10% (Their extra compensation would come in the form of playoff money (all categories increased by $50k)
Again a topic for discussion....just trying to throw out ideas of how to make this league a better.
Another thought, and it's just a thought, how about eliminating the return money in a "c" auction? Instead, follow MLB's lead, and give compensatory draft picks. That would suck a lot of money out of the league and would eventually prohibit anyone's ability to stockpile high salary teams. We could always adjust money awards at a later date if this sucked too much money out of the league.
Ok Travis I know that other non playoff teams don't have them b/c they are not needed but the teams that know they are have a at least 2, and then there is HAR that has 3. To get one I have to trade a key conponet. So I guess the key to winning the playoffs should be to get all the 400K CLOSERS so there are none for teams trying to contend. The only way I see this working is if we use thesame amout of IP and PA that players have in real life but we can't do that for reasons everyone knows. And if we are looking at that Why do LHP get screwed on the cards. A LHP has to be a stud to get a good (not stud)card like a righty. Like I said I see Jeffs point I am just saying that teams Trade alot to get a 400K guy when that can hold on to thats and get a Vargas. So whats the Deal everyone can do that not just one team. The way I see it to better describe that I said in the last post I made is I pay for having Vargas by having to use Green in the regular season as Travis pay the price with salary. We all pay for what we have one way or another. In truth I find trading for players very fun. But like almost everyone has people they will not trade with for one reason or another. I try to make trades with everone but I hate that some people have the ( I have so you over pay ) thinking in all trades. It makes trading with some people hard. I know me and Jeff love the offseason b/c we can do the GM stuff.
I have no hard feelings for Jeff or Travis, I just want to say what I said.
As Commissioner, I'm thrilled that people are talking about the playoff rules. These haven't really been seriously discussed for a few years and some of these rules are over a decade old. Always good to discuss, re-examine, and possible change them as the league decides. Since the rule change process for this year is already done and people have (presumably) made moves based on the current rules, we can only change the rule for the 2012 ARBA season, but I think that discussing proposals now will give a good idea about where we might be going after this year.
As an individual owner, I have long thought that the 30 appearances = unlimited rule is kind of silly. Yes, it parallels real life in terms of someone like KRod who only comes up in September and then dominates the playoffs, but that strikes me as a rare situation, and I share Jeff's feelings about the mismatch in value that ARBA places on these low-IP pitchers in the regular season and the playoffs.
