Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Other Rules Change Proposals


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 451
Date:
Other Rules Change Proposals
Permalink   


Some other rule change proposals - one that I received and one from me.  Others more than welcome!

(1) No current "tired" pitcher can be used in a game IF there is an available pitcher who is not "tired".  If all pitchers available pitchers are tired, then a tired reliever can be used, but like the current rule, must be removed at the end of the current inning.  Additionally, a non-tired pitcher cannot be removed for a tired pitcher.

(2) Increase the "little a" limit for pitchers from 30 IP to 40 IP

 



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 12
Date:
Permalink   

1. No (dont see the need)

2. yes



__________________
Rick

Date:
Permalink   

1. Yes - I had a situation this season that speaks to this rule change.  Since we allow starting pitchers to relieve, the home team brought in their stud starting pitcher (a lefty) in a key spot in the game in the 9th inning.  The starter had just pitched 6 innings the prior game, so he was tired (and would be tired for the next few games as well).  He came in to face my two lefty hitters (since the team had no lefties left in the pen) and killed a rally and notched the save, but the team had several righty relievers available that were not tired (and the pitcher removed was not tired, having faced a single hitter).  I don't believe usage such as this is realistic, nor is it fair.

2. Yes

 



__________________
Mike

Date:
Permalink   

What's the reason for increasing the Little A pitching requirement?

I'm not opposed, but don't see why we'd do this. 



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 451
Date:
Permalink   

The current rule is that a pitcher needs 25 IP to be carded at all but can be a little a if they have 30 IP.  That narrow range creates a tiny window for pitchers to be little a.  I just thought it would be better if we had a bigger range of possible little a guys.  Of course, they wouldn't have to be little a's if you didn't want them to be and you had roster space.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Date:
Permalink   

I agree with expanding the range for minors eligible pitchers.  That would allow more flexibility.  It's currently difficult for teams to carry starter-only pitchers who just miss minors eligibility.  However, I think 30-40 might be too big of a jump.  There are relievers who pitch all season and still end up around 40 IP.  That's typically LOOGY types, but still.  Make it 35 and I'll vote for that.  



__________________
Josh

Date:
Permalink   

1) No.  We don't need more complications.

2) Yes.



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard