 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball League Forums » Speed Leagues » Tony Conigliaro League » C Endurance SP Poll
| Poll: C Endurance SP Poll | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 12 |
| No, keep current rule (only in | 5 SP slot) |
| 3 | |
ballmark
"Your starting rotation may only carry *one* pitcher rated C Endurance, and if a RP with C Endurance rating, that player may only be slotted as the #5 starter."
If adopted, a C Endurance pitcher labeled "SP" by ABE may pitch anywhere in a team's rotation. C Endurance pitchers labeled as RP may still only slot in at the #5 position.
C Endurance SP Poll
September 05, 2017 at 04:16AM View BBCode
Please vote:"Your starting rotation may only carry *one* pitcher rated C Endurance, and if a RP with C Endurance rating, that player may only be slotted as the #5 starter."
If adopted, a C Endurance pitcher labeled "SP" by ABE may pitch anywhere in a team's rotation. C Endurance pitchers labeled as RP may still only slot in at the #5 position.
BabyDoc
September 05, 2017 at 01:02PM View BBCode
What about allowing him to slot at #4 for the playoffs?
ballmark
You're asking if we can adjust the rules so that a C Endurance *RP* can be slotted into the #4 hole for playoffs, right?
That's really a separate issue, and it isn't, at the same time.
It would seem to logically follow the outcome of this vote, however.
September 05, 2017 at 01:15PM View BBCode
Can we make that a separate vote?You're asking if we can adjust the rules so that a C Endurance *RP* can be slotted into the #4 hole for playoffs, right?
That's really a separate issue, and it isn't, at the same time.
It would seem to logically follow the outcome of this vote, however.
Baskets
September 06, 2017 at 11:00AM View BBCode
So far only one dissenter, would like to hear the rationale. I seem to recall in the past one point was is that it was just easier to police if the top 4 couldn't be C's even if one was rated an SP by Abe. But I don't see that as much of an issue as it's fairly uncommon for a pitcher to be at that exact point and I can't imagine it being too much extra work to check. Now if we had thousands of teams this might be an issue.
BabyDoc
September 07, 2017 at 11:57AM View BBCode
Mark, you're right- I'm asking a separate question that would need a separate vote.
jzirker
ANA (#4 SP), KC (#4 and #5 SP), CHA (#5), CHN (#5 SP) each have C-endurance pitchers in the rotations.
Only The Blaze's guy shows as SP-rated
[Edited on 9-7-2017 by jzirker]
September 07, 2017 at 12:24PM View BBCode
So is this proposal approved?ANA (#4 SP), KC (#4 and #5 SP), CHA (#5), CHN (#5 SP) each have C-endurance pitchers in the rotations.
Only The Blaze's guy shows as SP-rated
[Edited on 9-7-2017 by jzirker]
ballmark
http://www.simdynasty.com/league_pitching.jsp?leagueid=304
And then just hover your mouse over any SP with C listed as Endurance.
As Jeff shows, even if adopted, Anaheim and KC will need to make an adjustment to their rotation.
September 07, 2017 at 01:48PM View BBCode
I'm not sure if something like this needs to be unanimous or not, but the rule is easily policed at this link:http://www.simdynasty.com/league_pitching.jsp?leagueid=304
And then just hover your mouse over any SP with C listed as Endurance.
As Jeff shows, even if adopted, Anaheim and KC will need to make an adjustment to their rotation.
frankum
September 07, 2017 at 02:25PM View BBCode
I'm not comfortable making some rule votes unanimous and others not.
jzirker
Alternatively, we could go with a %age (60% = 10 votes; 75% = 12 votes)
September 07, 2017 at 03:22PM View BBCode
I don't know that the Rules describe how Rules changes are made/approved? I agree unanimous seems too much, perhaps a super majority (Majority +1)? So, 16 owners, 10 votes would be required to approve an issue?Alternatively, we could go with a %age (60% = 10 votes; 75% = 12 votes)
ballmark
I would be comfortable with what we have, a 10-1 vote to enact for next season. I would be more comfortable with all 16 owners voting, however.
And, like John (Baskets), I would be interested in hearing the rationale for maintaining the status quo. Part of me wonders if it could just be that I've been a bit of a pot-stirrer in recent seasons and if I'm for it, someone here is automatically against it. I don't really believe that's the case, but it is passing idly across my brain.
September 07, 2017 at 04:39PM View BBCode
I think the standing rule of thumb (and I'm sure it's just an oral tradition, nothing in writing) is that for rules to go into effect immediately, it must be a unanimous vote, but a majority vote is all that's required for rules that change effective *next* season.I would be comfortable with what we have, a 10-1 vote to enact for next season. I would be more comfortable with all 16 owners voting, however.
And, like John (Baskets), I would be interested in hearing the rationale for maintaining the status quo. Part of me wonders if it could just be that I've been a bit of a pot-stirrer in recent seasons and if I'm for it, someone here is automatically against it. I don't really believe that's the case, but it is passing idly across my brain.
frankum
First, we had a vote a couple seasons ago on multiple rules that would have been the majority. But it was "since it's not unanimous, these rule changes do not happen".
If your argument is "but those rule votes weren't unanimous", well, that's because the voting wasn't the same. There were 3 options on the prior votes and there are only two options on this vote. Which is probably also why you don't have full participation. I have not voted, because I don't care. But were I to vote, based on the way we are arbitrarily defining the rules for a vote requiring implementation, I would vote no.
September 07, 2017 at 07:36PM View BBCode
Sorry guys, your argument on when and why this rule should go into effect does not make sense.First, we had a vote a couple seasons ago on multiple rules that would have been the majority. But it was "since it's not unanimous, these rule changes do not happen".
If your argument is "but those rule votes weren't unanimous", well, that's because the voting wasn't the same. There were 3 options on the prior votes and there are only two options on this vote. Which is probably also why you don't have full participation. I have not voted, because I don't care. But were I to vote, based on the way we are arbitrarily defining the rules for a vote requiring implementation, I would vote no.
Baskets
Please take this opportunity to make adjustments to your rotations and lineups for rules we actually DO have.
September 08, 2017 at 01:37AM View BBCode
Majority is fine except for if there is a real strong opposition. As memory serves this is pretty much how we've always done it. I don't recall rules changes not happening because they weren't unanimous. Jason can clarify and make it official.Please take this opportunity to make adjustments to your rotations and lineups for rules we actually DO have.
frankum
September 08, 2017 at 01:56AM View BBCode
What happened with the previous rule vote? Showing letter grades, getting rid of 3rd round steal, etc?
Baskets
September 08, 2017 at 02:11AM View BBCode
Not sure, I know it seems some changes can only be implemented after a renewal? Pretty fuzzy myself, hopefully Jason can clarify.
jzirker
September 08, 2017 at 12:08PM View BBCode
Guys, please check pitching staffs again, we still have teams with C-endurance guys in the rotation. Thanks!
ballmark
Jason, I think this is where you need to step in, please, with your unique view and historical perspective on the TCL.
September 08, 2017 at 12:48PM View BBCode
Sorry guys, your argument on when and why this rule should go into effect does not make sense.Well, I expressed an opinion on the when, but please don't vote no based on that. It's just an opinion, not fact. I am not the Commissioner here and in no way have a final say on anything.
Jason, I think this is where you need to step in, please, with your unique view and historical perspective on the TCL.
cwballer25
However since it's not a league setting, and is just a league rule, I think that is where the distinction is between needing to be unanimous or not. For example, we didn't change the minor league CP system, injury system, blind/not blind which are all major league settings.
Where to start a relief pitcher is merely a league rule, so should (in my opinion and interpretation anyways) be a majority vote that could be effective either immediately or the next season.
September 10, 2017 at 01:58AM View BBCode
It will be really annoying if it turns out this needed to be unanimous...However since it's not a league setting, and is just a league rule, I think that is where the distinction is between needing to be unanimous or not. For example, we didn't change the minor league CP system, injury system, blind/not blind which are all major league settings.
Where to start a relief pitcher is merely a league rule, so should (in my opinion and interpretation anyways) be a majority vote that could be effective either immediately or the next season.
DVfhsindians058
To be honest I'm not really sure I fully understand why there is such a push for this, even after reading through comments again.
I would like to go on record as saying I dissent. My reason for dissenting is because I think this is a unique rule that allows the GM to value players in a unique way. For example, I go into every single draft placing a certain value on pitchers and one thing I've come to value is whether or not they'll one day be a 1-4 starter. It means the GM has to make an important decision to pick a certain player because perhaps they won't even pitch 200 innings a season... or perhaps their endurance is C+ and you've gotta make a gamble as to whether or not you'll develop them a certain way and maybe get them over that cusp...
In either way this is the way I've always valued pitchers. I've based my current team, past team, and seemingly future teams on these rules. In so few words... I like the rule and the way things are.
Also... regarding the past votes... my understanding is they were not implemented because not unanimous.
Perhaps we need to focus on establishing some kind of a policy for votes required to implement a rule before we try to implement them?
Drew
September 15, 2017 at 02:12AM View BBCode
I have been largely silent during this time because I haven't dug through this as deeply as I'd like to.To be honest I'm not really sure I fully understand why there is such a push for this, even after reading through comments again.
I would like to go on record as saying I dissent. My reason for dissenting is because I think this is a unique rule that allows the GM to value players in a unique way. For example, I go into every single draft placing a certain value on pitchers and one thing I've come to value is whether or not they'll one day be a 1-4 starter. It means the GM has to make an important decision to pick a certain player because perhaps they won't even pitch 200 innings a season... or perhaps their endurance is C+ and you've gotta make a gamble as to whether or not you'll develop them a certain way and maybe get them over that cusp...
In either way this is the way I've always valued pitchers. I've based my current team, past team, and seemingly future teams on these rules. In so few words... I like the rule and the way things are.
Also... regarding the past votes... my understanding is they were not implemented because not unanimous.
Perhaps we need to focus on establishing some kind of a policy for votes required to implement a rule before we try to implement them?
Drew
Pages: 1