| 0 |
Subject: PoliticoBaseball 2003 Proposals and Votes
Posted by: biliruben
- Sustainer [589301110] Thu, Feb 13, 2003, 14:22
Since Nerve has requested some help with some of the details, and because I am getting antsy, I will start this thread.
This is a thread for proposed changes as well as clarifications of rules; both discusion and voting.
Prop1: Rule changes. Anyone can propose a rule change. After a proposal is made, we will discuss for 24 hours, and then vote. 10 yays and it it passes. 5 nays and it fails.
Prop2: Change batting average to on-base percentage.
Prop3: Increase prospect eligibility to 125IP or 300 AB.
Minutae that I don't think can be considered rule changes that we can discuss here, though Nerve should just decree in the end:
- Can we swap keepers due to significant injury before draft day (I feel we should. It will likely not happen, and even if it did for a player or 2 it wouldn't affect your developing draft strategy in a significant way).
- Can we swap keepers between the 15th and the 17th.
- When does the draft start.
Talk amongst yourselves. |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 40 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 01:38
|
5a: No
|
| 41 | CCRider
ID: 6439172
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 01:46
|
Sorry for the delay...it's been a long week...
1. Y
2. N
3. Y
4. N
5. Y
5a. Y
|
| 42 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 04:12
|
5a yes
|
| 43 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 06:38
|
5a Y
|
| 44 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 14826271
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 06:47
|
5a - No
|
| 45 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 589301110
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 09:32
|
Prop 2 Fails
Walks will continue to get disrespected.
|
| 46 | deepsnapper
Sustainer
ID: 17103420
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 11:14
|
PD - ??? I either need more coffee or I'm missing the point (maybe both)in #35.p2:
To clarify, I have Schilling and he breaks an arm, and will be out until the ASB: I can declare him a non-keeper and pick up another player from my roster if I haven't done so twice already
Personally, a broken arm wouldn't cause me to drop Schilling from my list of keepers even if he was lost for half a season unless I had the first pick in the draft. (I didn't miss the meeting where a DL position was added did I?)
My understanding of this is - Any keeper player dropped to a non-keeper status prior to the draft goes back into the draft pool and is available for anyone to select during the 14 round live draft. A manager can do this twice before the start of the draft.
|
| 47 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 5012623
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 11:17
|
The Schilling example is not the best, but I think you get the gist of it. We can swap a keeper for a non keeper up to 3 days before the draft for PUP or retirement reasons.
pd
|
| 48 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 11:18
|
For a Schilling, certainly I would still hold, barring a career threatening injury. This rule is likely going to affect more some guy who is deciding between Izzy and Koch. He keeps Izzy, and Izzy ends up going under the knife Feb 18th. He switches to Koch, and Izzy goes into the pool.
|
| 49 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 11:26
|
The bili example is just one of the reasons I think this would be a bad rule. People with potential keepers like izzy, with current injury problems (or BTW Sasaki, whom I own) get more time, in effect, to pick their keepers than everyone else. The ruling will apply to more than just the Schilling who suddenly breaks an arm. Keeper selection deadline is supposed to be just that.
Vote No on 5a
|
| 50 | deepsnapper
Sustainer
ID: 17103420
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 11:40
|
Thanks PD
#5A - Yes
|
| 51 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 11:52
|
I see a problem with 5A. It isn't a rule change, and as such, shouldn't be subjected to the 10-5 rule. This is part of the reason why I requested in the opening post that Nerve just make a pronouncement. If PD or Zen had worded this rule as a negative (which would have admittedly gone against our pre-conceived thoughts on keeper deadlines, but no stated rule), it would already have passed.
|
| 52 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 11:56
|
To continue my thought, this may not be a long-term issue. As we approach the 1-year mark for this league, we should likely have precedent for most-all situations, and won't be creating new rules once we have addressed every aspect of this league. If this weren't the case, I would propose a majority vote for new rules (as opposed to rule changes, such as this.
|
| 53 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 11:57
|
I agree with bili 51 on procedure. Other than having 7 keepers to be named at some time before the slow draft starts, we don't really have any keeper rule to change, just undiscussed points to decide, so only a majority should be required (or just a ruling by Nerve, for that matter).
Toral
|
| 54 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 12:06
|
I actually think last year left lots of unclarified issues, without precedent, that will require simple clarification at some time.
|
| 55 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 12:10
|
Prop 6: For new rules, as opposed to rule changes a simple majority will be sufficient to incorporate that rule into the league.
I vote yes.
|
| 56 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 12:16
|
The principle stated in Prop6 has always been the rule, so I don't feel any need to vote on it; further IMO in invites a lot of counterproductive haggling disputes over what a new rule is as opposed to a rule change.
|
| 57 | deepsnapper
Sustainer
ID: 17103420
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 12:59
|
Nerve - couple of ?'s on the keeper thread plz.
|
| 58 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 13:21
|
Fine. I withdraw prop 6 and assume, in the absence of proclaimations from Nerve (which I prefer, btw. Up with dictators!), any new rule change, including prop 5a, will merely need a simple majority.
This is important that we decide before keeper declarations, so SPEAK NOW, if you have a problem with this proceedural issue.
|
| 59 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 13:27
|
I presume you mean "any new rule" not "any new rule change"? :)
Toral
|
| 60 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 13:27
|
I definately see the arguement that this is not a rule change. This is the first year we have named keepers so rule 5 a is coming up for the first time. That is not a rule change.
We have BA as a catagory, you want to change it to OBP that is a rule change. Or changing IP/AB for rookies that is a rule change because that was a rule last year.
The new keeper list this year is creating new rules. That is simple majority. Since everyone is here and voteing I will not decree. But I do think a simple majority is all that is needed.
|
| 61 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 5310281417
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 13:27
|
Right. Cross out change. Nice catch.
|
| 62 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 13:40
|
Toral the reason I voted for 5a, you mentioned that People with potential keepers like izzy, with current injury problems (or BTW Sasaki, whom I own) get more time, in effect, to pick their keepers than everyone else.
You say that like it's a negative. I think it's good that someone with an injured player gets a little more time. Remember, you have to be able to show, in print I assume, that doctors are saying the injury will keep player out till ASB. That's a small group of players and an even smaller group of keepers.
The only thing that worries me is that if someone already knows that a player is out till ASB and they purposely put him on the keeper list to in effect give him a longer time to decide on last keeper.
If someone puts a player, who is already been said to be out till ASB, and anyone on the board can show the league this is the case, the team should decide immedeatly if he is keeping said player. Otherwise why not purposely add the injured player to give you flexibility up until draft day.
Therefore I am adding to rule 5a, as a decree, because it is so obviouly right at face value and keeps the spirit of the ruling the following:
If you put a player on your keeper list, who is already injured, and the league can site a written source that he is already expected to be out till the ASB, you must decide in 24 hours if you are keeping said player. Furthermore, if you put a healthy player on the keeper list and he becomes injured, and the league can show he is out till ASB, again you have 24 hours to decide if he is a keeper. (Assuming the league is in touch wioth you and you are aware of the situation (i.e. if your on a trip and not connected to the internet))
This will prevent someone from purposely putting said player on team with intention of switching at last minute.
Is that at least a little better Toral? It at least removes a cheat loop-hole.
|
| 63 | Blueballs
ID: 521351517
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 19:00
|
1) Y
2) Y
3) Y
4) N
5) Y
|
| 64 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 19:08
|
Looks like 5A passed.
Unless I hear major arguements against, the loop hole decree in 62 becomes part of 5a.
Nerve
|
| 65 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 14826271
Sat, Feb 15, 2003, 19:14
|
I'm not making an argument aginast it (although I voted against it); but it is a rule change. The rule was keepers will be declared by a certain date. Now the rule is keepers will be declared by a certain date, unless...... That's a change from before; I'm not arguing against it, just saying...
|
| 66 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, May 29, 2003, 16:14
|
butt
|
| 67 | deepsnapper
Sustainer
ID: 17103420
Sun, Jun 01, 2003, 13:34
|
AF's decision to drop both his Prospect keepers brings an interesting thought to my mind(lessness).
Since the Prospect draft's length is irregular based upon the number of players each of up retains, could/should additional "supplemental" round(s) be done to allow anyone to "drop & draft" after the regular draft is over? One issue could be when the coach must declare wanting a "supplemental" pick. I'd assume sometime before the draft is complete. D'uh!
The draft order could be used for prioritizing any claims on the player released. If unclaimed, the player re-enters the Prospect pool (Marco Polo!). If claimed, the team claiming has to repeat the process for the new player. This process would be repeated as needed.
Should there be a consequence of making a late change? I think so. Possibly forfiture of a round in the next prospect draft, or moving the round from first to last in the next prospect draft?
I can remember MLB draft's being this incredible number of rounds in length in earlier years. How long did those drafts take? I guess when there were only a dozen or so teams you could do that. I know it's not the same thing, but drafting is an integral part of any sucessful baseball team and I do enjoy the draft.
I know this is a hell of a time to bring something up about the supplemental draft, but this is a new experience for me drafting minor leaguers and the thought processes used for juding prospects isn't quite the same as an established MLB player (at least for me). Heck this has to be a pretty new experience for most of us IMO.
Sorry for the brain-fart, but I'm sure there's a proposition in here somewhere. I wanted to throw it on the wall and see what stuck before putting a number on it anyway. ;)
ds
|
| 68 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Sun, Jun 01, 2003, 15:32
|
Snapper Since the Prospect draft's length is irregular based upon the number of players each of up retains, could/should additional "supplemental" round(s) be done to allow anyone to "drop & draft" after the regular draft is over?
I guess what I don't understand here is why would someone wait till the end of the draft? Why would they have not just dropped the player prior to the draft. I had a post up for 4 or 5 days reminding everyone to drop anyone they didn't want. I had a note on the league page asking everyone to go to the thread and read it.
Why would someone want to wait till the end of the draft to drop?
Now if you mean some people didn't read the thread and are too late to drop players now but may want to at the end of the prospect draft, then I guess it makes sense.
Obviously Action didn't read the thread as he dropped players with his first pick. I am assuming since he was the 2nd pick of the draft no one has objected but since he is my brother I will remain neutral and see if any protests arise. I have seen none yet.
I wonder how many league members are in that position though, didn't see the thread to drop players. Anyone?
I assume most people dropped who they wanted.
Nerve
|
| 69 | deepsnapper
Sustainer
ID: 17103420
Sun, Jun 01, 2003, 17:34
|
#29 baseball prospect draft thread: Anyone in the minor league or who has been drafted to be in the minor league (We never said this but I would think no amatuers) can be drafted as a prospect..
#68 above: I guess what I don't understand here is why would someone wait till the end of the draft? Why would they have not just dropped the player prior to the draft.
Nerve - There are some "amatuers" who may become "pros" this week with the 2003 MLB Amatuer Draft starting on Wednesday, June 3.
I'm not saying I would change my first round pick based upon the draft, but if I thought there was another Teixeira sitting there, I would've at least liked to think I had a chance to draft him.
Maybe I'll just go grab a brew and finish the paper.
|
| 70 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Sun, Jun 01, 2003, 17:51
|
re non-minor leaguers: last year someone from Japan was drafted in the prospect draft.
|
| 71 | Nerveclinic
ID: 16538111
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 02:05
|
I have a suggestion for the league and I promise this proposal is not based on analysing my team and how many players I want to keep. Here's the theory.
We have a keeper league with a minor league draft.
We only get to keep 7 players. If the minor league draft goes well, as the years go by we are seriously punishing the successful minor league drafters.
With only 7 keepers it punishes the managers who do research and find hidden gems because at a young age they are to risky/unproven to keep.
Here is my proposal which will take a 3/4 vote is it? since it's a rules change.
Next year we can keep 8 players. The following year 9 players and the next 10.
The end number is negotiable but there is probably a stopping point. Perhaps 10 when the number stops rising.
Do others see the logic in this and should we put it to a vote?
Nerve
|
| 72 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 14826271
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 08:00
|
I agree 100%. I said last year that a "keeper" league should mean you keep more than 1/3 of your players.
Nerve's graduated plan would mean that plenty of useful players would still remain in the draft pool. It would also make the prosepct draft worth something - right now all the stars have to line up for a prospect to matter. Right now, for instance, Miguel Cabrera is tearing it up; even if he could help me though, I'd be a moron to bring him up and reward myself for picking him in the prospect draft last year, because I'd lose him next year.
I'd vote yes.
|
| 73 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 08:16
|
I'd not getting how the prospects (current or future) fit into this. We can keep 8 next year. Is that 8 plus 3 keeper prospects? Or is the keeping of prospects being eliminated/replaced by this new system? The 8 have to be Yahoo! eligible or can they be a mixture of them and prospects?
I need some clarification.
|
| 74 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 14826271
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 08:37
|
Just that we could bring them up this year - play them knowing we have an additional keeper spot to out them on. Right?
|
| 75 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 589301110
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 10:55
|
I vote no. I feel for you regarding the prospects, and that is why we voted to increase the limits where you could keep them on your prospect roster.
I just don't think that this would help much, and it would completely destroy any interest in the draft itself. When your first round of the draft contains such superstars as (looking at round 4 of the draft this year) Mark Bellhorn, Paul Byrd and Carlos Lee, it essentially destroys one of the best parts of the league.
If you think someone's going to be a superstar, suck it up and put him on your roster. 7 spots are plenty.
|
| 76 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 12:13
|
I vote no because I don't believe a change like this should be made in mid-season -- why now? It's just like the proposal someone made during the prospect draft to increase the number of keepers. The time to make a decision like that, if it is to me made, is before the league drafts, so the number of keepers can be taken into account in drafting. Not when the season is 2/3 over.
I've also spent (wasted?) some time on trade offers predicated on everyone having 7 keepers. It hasn't amounted to anything, and maybe a switch to 8 would help me, but it just makes me wonder again, why now? Why are debating this idea out of nowhere in the last week of July?
I'll reconsider the issue for next year -- that is, keeping 8 people at the end of next year -- if someone puts it up for a vote at the beginning of next season.
BTW I'm still mad my proposal to increase the roster size by 1 was turned down. What are the ethics of vote trading in a situation like this? Dubious, I imagine.
Toral
|
| 77 | deepsnapper
Sustainer
ID: 17103420
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 15:21
|
I only echo the reasons billi & Toral posted above. I enjoy the draft too much to see it reduced in meaning over time. It's hard enough to get everyone together to draft as it is. Maybe in the offseason I could be convinced otherwise, but it's doubtful.
Therefore I vote no at this time.
|
| 78 | Madman
Donor
ID: 398591212
Tue, Jul 29, 2003, 15:26
|
I vote no for the time being; I think all rule changes should be made in October.
In general, I think 10 keepers is too many. I might be open to 8 in the off-season, or maybe 10 keepers in total -- prospects or otherwise.
Dunno. But the last week of July isn't the time to make changes.
|
| 79 | Nerveclinic
ID: 16538111
Thu, Jul 31, 2003, 02:56
|
Point taken about not changing after the season starts.
Perhaps it's 7 again this year and during the spring we open discussion on 8 for the following year. I just think 7 punishes the good researchers.
nerve
|
| 80 | Baldwin
ID: 111112015
Thu, Jul 31, 2003, 12:22
|
I have IMO an all keeper batting lineup including the two on my bench. Really what are the odds any of my prospects will ever see a month on my roster? I hate the small number of keeper slots and have always stated so.
It's like the 'let's keep Baldwin from permanently taking over the league' rule. Wait, forget I said that. ;>
|
| 81 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Jul 31, 2003, 14:05
|
You also have a player who belongs to someone else added onto your team today. How 'bout dropping him?
And while you might have 8 batters worthy of keeping, you have no pitchers so worthy, so it all evens out.
|
| 82 | Baldwin
ID: 111112015
Thu, Jul 31, 2003, 14:16
|
Ack...ok ok. BTW my pitching is doin just fine.
|
| 83 | deepsnapper
Sustainer
ID: 17103420
Mon, Aug 11, 2003, 00:46
|
Any chance Blueball will drop Jose Reyes in the next day or so? Blueballs had him starting today and Reyes was 1-4 with a run scored and a SB.
I sent him an email at egav16@yahoo.com. Any other suggestions?
|
| 84 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 49132614
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 15:21
|
This is getting serious. Blue Balls could be affecting the standings of those at the top by his idiocy. DROP REYES Blueballs!
|
| 85 | rockafellerskank
Leader
ID: 461124288
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 15:22
|
Why don't all 13 of us each send him an e-mail? He should gte the point? no?
|
| 86 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 49132614
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 15:42
|
Just checked. He's made it all better.
|
| 87 | deepsnapper
Sustainer
ID: 17103420
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 15:57
|
The funny thing is I was telling Peter N on Saturday that I was thinking about going ahead and bringing Reyes up since he's playing so well (most multi-hit games since the ASB per to ESPN) and when I look, he's gone! Timing is everything. Guess I'd better bump Harden up to the bigs while he's hot too! ;-)
I looked this morning & Blue Balls hadn't checked his team since picking up Reyes on the 9th so he hadn't seen any of the BB messages, but he has dropped him and posted regrets now. Thanks guys.
|
| 88 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 16:26
|
Get Nerve on the case. Use that magic Commish wand.
|
| 89 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Mon, Jan 05, 2004, 23:46
|
buttiful for example of what we did last year.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|