Here are this year's rule change proposals. Please get votes in to me by next Weds (Nov 15). Remember it's one vote per manager, not one vote per team. Rules will pass if voted for by a majority of those casting votes. Abstentions, either generally or on any specific proposal, are A-OK.
I'm listing all proposals I got from any owner here, along with some of the justifications I was given, but I strongly encourage anyone interested either way in these votes to comment and discuss here. If someone votes before the deadline and is later convinced to change their vote, that is also fine if they tell me of the change before the deadline.
Proposal One: Remove injuries from the game options for both the regular and postseason. (From Rick/RDW)
Rationale: Injuries are too disruptive for road games, and can play havoc with usage limits in the postseason, where backups often times have limited usage, particularly at the catcher position. The league already employs usage restrictions, so injuries are not needed as a limitation.
Proposal Two: Change playoff usage restrictions as follows (From Rick/RDW)
MLB PA = PA Per Playoff Series
50-150 = 8 (changed from 6)
151-250 = 14 (changed from 10)
251-350 = 20 (changed from 14)
351-450 = 24 (changed from 18)
451+ = Unlimited
Relief Pitchers:
30-59 Appearances - 1 Appearance for every 10 MLB appearances
60+ Appearances - Unlimited
Rationale: The playoff usage restrictions are heavily favored toward pitchers, and unduly limiting for position players. For example, a relief pitcher that participates in just 19% of his teams MLB season (30 appearances in 162 games) gets unlimited usage in the postseason, while a position player who participates in 50% of his teams MLB season (325 PAs of a full seasons worth of 650) gets just 14 plate appearances in a playoff series (a full time player gets about 30 PAs over a 7 game series). This rule proposal attempts to fix this inequity so that pitcher and batter usage has more of an equal effect on a playoff series. Therefore, the adjusted postseason usage charts are presented below. The proposal does not change the number of starts that a pitcher can make according to their asterisk (asterisk starter can still start 3 games in a 7 game series by pitching on 3 days rest), but in a 7 game series, a team must use 4 starters. This proposal does not change the current usage rule for starting pitchers and their number of starts in a series.
Proposal Three: Allow owners, once every 3 years, to design their own ballpark ratings, creating lefty/righty ballpark single and home run splits as to their own preference. (From Rick /RDW)
Rationale: Strats annual changes to ballpark ratings are based on realistic replays of seasons and have no correlation in a draft league such as ours. In fact, the annual changes can wreak havoc on an owners attempt to tailor their team to the dimensions of their home park. This proposal would allow the owner to tailor their team to their park, without the fear of Strat disrupting that plan by changing the ratings. You can select any ballpark you wish for your backdrop during game play, but you would be allowed unlimited freedom to pick your own ballpark splits.
Rationale: The myth of the closer is hogwash. Almost any relief pitcher good enough and mentally tough enough to pitch in the majors can pitch in the 9th inning.
Special Note: If this passes, the calculation of A Pitchers will also be changed to delete the inclusion of Saves as part of the calculation, since that would penalize closers for something that would no longer be of any game benefit.
Proposal Five: Change the rule for Players coming off A Contracts that are traded so that they revert to a B salary level equal to what their contract would be if they had been a B player throughout their major league career. (From Tom/SFE-TER - still me!)
Rationale: The current rule results in this outcome 90%+ of the time but makes things confusing trying to look up if a player has ever been on a C contract, often many years back.
Proposal Six: Make the rule that tired pitchers must be removed at the start of the next inning inapplicable during the playoffs (From Chris / WCH)
Rationale: As we have all seen in MLB, weird things happen in the playoffs. The intent of this rule was to prevent unlimited scum from pitching 9 innings and giving up 30 runs, which would be unrealistic. Once we're in the playoffs, that concern is not applicable. If a playoff team thinks its best chance to win is to leave a tired pitcher in, they should be allowed to do so.
Proposal Seven: Allow BOS to move from the CL South to the NL North (Commish)
Rationale: I forgot this even needed a vote until I was looking at the Rules when putting this up. As previously posting, Doug is going to one team and has asked to keep BOS but move it into KC's old division. Doug is a very long-standing owner in good standing and I cannot see any reason not to allow this, but technically it requires approval of a majority and no objection from any owner in the CL South or the NL North.
2. No- dont mind the batter adjustments but I do not like what it does to the RP. The playoffs are a different animal as Tom points out in the closer rule proposal. A long reliever with less appearances than a short reliever should not be punished. A LOOGY might have 60+ appearances with 45 IP or so and be unlimited, but a long reliever with 39 appearances and 70 IP can only pitch 3 times in the playoffs? That is not realistic at all. Also, a combo starter-reliever like Joe Musgrove this year (38 app, 15 starts and 109 IP) can only pitch 3 times whereas Boone Logan from 2016 has 66 App and 45 IP and is unlimited?(admittedly to NMO's advantage) It is extremely unrealistic and we should strive for realism wherever practical I believe. I think IP should be accounted for RP in the playoffs and not just appearances. I actually meant to put in a rule proposal to level out this abhorrent hatred for long relievers in the playoffs for this year, but never got around to it.
3. No- It obviously would give the home team even more of an advantage over the road team and I do not see that as a good thing, though it would be interesting. I am all for lessening the home advantage if practical. I would not mind seeing a new ballpark choice every year as the constantly changing numbers are frustrating. I don't see that being too logistically daunting, though Tom and Eric might have a different view.
4. No- The playoffs are different, agreed, and I wouldn't mind addressing that particular situation in a rule. However, the biggest problem I have with this rule is that it skewers relievers' values. Kimbrel, Jansen, Chapman, Osuna, and Wade Davis and any other stud closer are the most valuable relievers due to their status as closers as it should be, not CJ Edwards, Pedro Baez, or Matt Albers, who might be if this rule passes. Certainly their value increases exponentially and it should not be so. Once again, in a simulation we should strive for realism whenever possible. Also, a marginal closer like Santiago Casilla has value because he is a closer, ala real life. If anyone can close, his value is pretty much destroyed, but he does have some value IRL. ARBA should reflect that as it does now.
2. I would actually prefer to have pitchers usage in the postseason tied to their innings (say 10%) and do away with the game appearances, but that system is more difficult to track for the manager. However, if that change would pass, I'd happily adjust that portion of the proposal. I'm more concerned about increasing the position player usage and less concerned about decreasing relievers. It just seems unfair that a relief pitcher with 30 appearances (and as such, as little as 30 IP over a full season) is unlimited in the playoffs. True, the situation involving long relievers isn't improved in the proposal, but voting no retains that problem, but then also fails to improve the imbalance between hitters and relievers, and also the overusage of short relievers who pitched 1/4 of the season. So perhaps the proposal may not be perfect, but if its a improvement over the current rule, then thats a good thing.
3. I disagree that creating your own ballpark ratings skews a larger advantage to the home team than our current system. But I agree, the main point of the proposal is the frustration with Strats constantly changing numbers every year. At least with the proposal, you can't change any of your ratings for 3 years, once you've created them, so there is some degree of stability.
Way to pick out small sample size.....ask Giles how hard it is......and I believe those guys went more than 3 outs in their saves....way more.
I agree with Warren, makes every good relief card a closer, just grab a couple 30 inning stud relievers and you have a cheap stud closer for the season.
One more thing, I would be for being able to change your ball park every season, agree its crap that strat changes the metrics of your park each year.
But also agree with Warren on this, if its too much of a headache for Tom and Eric then I am good with keeping the ballpark change to once every 3 years.
Can someone explain what happens to a pitcher who threw ~22 innings (or had 12 appearances), in terms of that proposal. If my team's reliever started 3 games and threw 29 total innings (starts and relief appearances) is he ineligible for the post season?
2. Abstain until I actually make the playoffs and see how things work. :(
3. I don't like the instability, but I think 3 years might be too often, as you could track your roster changes too easily. No on 3, but I could get behind something longer.
4. I can't even describe how much I want to lock Jerome Holztmann's corpse and Tony LaRussa in a shed and blow it up. Kimbrel et al will still be valuable because they have great cards, and we already inflate the value of good low-inning starters by letting them become relievers (I'm looking at you Jake Faria - I think I see the logic here but it certainly doesn't match "real life"). There are any number of articles about the closer myth (e.g. http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/080805 etc etc), and as a Phillies fan, I really enjoyed Jeanmar Gomez's burst of "fortitude" in 2016. Yes please.
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. As long as this is OK with Peter Angelos, it's OK with me
Your example of an eligible reliever with less than 30 appearances illustrates a type in the proposal. The proposal does NOT change any eligibility rules for the playoffs, so pitchers are still eligible if they accumulate over 25 MLB innings. As for their playoff usage, the proposal does not change the current rule for players with less than 30 appearances...they are allowed 1 appearance per 10 MLB appearances (rounded down).
1) ABSTAIN- I see both sides and am happy either way.
2) YES
3) NO - I personally don't consider it a problem that strat revises the ballpark ratings every year, so in my opinion this proposal makes the league more complicated and more work without actually making it better.
4) NO - IF we were starting a new league then we could have a conversation about whether we were going to use the closer ratings or not. But I personally don't have a problem with using closer ratings, and more fundamentally I don't agree with making a change like this that radically alters the value of players who are already owned. When people trade for closers, bid on closers in the C auction etc. the price they decide to pay is partially predicated not only on the fact that they need the closer rating this year but the expectation that the guy will continue to have a closer rating going forward. Consequently, in my opinion, if we were going to do this at all, then we shouldn't make it take effect until multiple years in the future.
So, obviously I'm going to lose the Closer Rule vote - I 125% agree with Mike G of course, but I do see Kevin's point (and Trav, Giles is not your best example - he has sucked for a while now, whether in closing situations or not).
But I am amazed and shocked at how few people are voting for ballpark freedom. Throw off the yokes of Strat ballpark tyrrany! Why should it matter whether your park has its dimensions set as "Coors Field" vs whatever dimensions you pick? And the once-per-3-years thing prevents intense roster customization. Come on people, let's have some fun with this!!!
I do see Kevin's point about altering existing value structures dramatically, which is pretty close to the argument Warren was making I think.
As a thought for the future then: how about having the ability to designate one reliever which would not otherwise be rated to get a 1 or 2 closer rating? The Kimbrels and Chapmans of the world would keep their 6's, and you couldn't stack multiple otherwise N guys into the closer position, but it would be a nod to the idea that closing is something that any good reliever can do (which is the argument Tom and I would make).
I agree with Kevin's statement that we are setting a bad precedence if we start changing player values with teams already made.
What do we do with closers currently on A contracts?
Where does it end? I mean everyone knows that if a player is good enough to play ss then they are good enough to play 2b and 3b. Why not start giving all ss's the same rating at 2nd and 3rd as the rating they have at ss?
Serious question, not snark: Being relatively new to the league, can someone explain the original rationale for being able to give relief ratings to starting pitchers?
Okay, I'd better finally make my official votes before it's too late.
1) Yes - Although I will certainly miss the random wackiness caused by multiple injuries!
2) Yes, but just barely. Increase in batter PA is probably for the best. Agree that this still isn't an ideal solution for pitchers, but the proposed change to them should have minimal impact.
3) No - Don't mind it so much, but would rather just let teams change parks every year without penalty than build their own, particularly given the negative reception to this idea.
4) No - I'm not a true believer in the Closer Mystique, but do think taking it away would change the game too much and also change the value of many players. For the record, SUR doesn't have a closer right now, but SHI has a few.
5) Yes - Don't have a strong feeling about this, but it's probably better to have more clarity about post-A salary than we do now.
6) Yes - Yet another one where I don't have a strong opinion, but guess it would be fine.
7) Yes - Although it's tempting to vote no, just so this one won't unanimous...I'm not feeling quite that jerky today.
1. yes although injuries add some intrigue, it would work better in a net play league where the manager with the injured player could adjust "on the fly"
although injuries add some intrigue, it would work better in a net play league where the manager with the injured player could adjust "on the fly"
