|
|
Post by baabaa on Aug 21, 2012 20:07:35 GMT -4
The purpose of this new rules forum is for the accumulation of new rule proposals for the off season meeting for next season, which believe it or not is swiftly approaching.
***Please do not post new rule proposals for this season being played as the proposals for this forum are to be utilized as noted above.
Thanks !!
|
|
|
|
Post by albert2b on Aug 22, 2012 9:47:15 GMT -4
Ok here's my first proposal:
Let's say a manager makes a usage or roster mistake that results in a replay game. If the same manager makes a 2nd mistake in the replay game that results in ANOTHER replay game or partial replay game, I propose that the offending manager forfeits that game. The usage will be recorded for both teams using the PAs and IP of the last completed replay game. This rule only applies if the SAME manager makes the mistake in the replay game. If it's the other manager that makes a mistake that results in another replay game, then the 2nd replay must be played.
I get the fact that we're all human and mistakes happen. That's why we allow a replay game when we make a mistake. However, if a manager is involved in a replay, they should take extra precaution and be more conscious of getting their usage/roster moves right, as opposed to being just as careless as before and treating it as "just another game." Getting together with people and getting games in on time is cumbersome enough without having to re-play games. It's incredibly frustrating for the manager who did nothing wrong to have to play a single game over THREE times! I just feel that having a rule in place will get managers to at least pay a little more attention to something they should have paid attention to from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooklyn_BlackSox on Aug 23, 2012 17:53:01 GMT -4
Id second that rule proposal
_Sean
|
|
|
|
Post by CCStegos on Aug 27, 2012 10:27:52 GMT -4
Look at this example:
The offending team just doesn't care because his season is in the toilet. Well a forfeit isn't a PENALTY for him because he doesn't care. Meanwhile you have the "good guy" in the midst of a playoff fight for the 8th seed with two other teams. He's happy about getting the forfeit win against a team that "doesn't care" which has already beaten him twice (albeit illegally)! Meanwhile the guys he is competing with "lose" a game in the standings.
I'd be for a real penalty - something that would make the guy really pay attention. Something along the lines of a lost roster spot or draft pick.
If replays really are too mauch of a hassle, we could extend to to "repeat" offenders that are causing them for multiple different managers as well.
Forfeits are just a bad thing for the integrity of the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyhitmen on Aug 27, 2012 12:04:53 GMT -4
I would like to see if we could have some sort of rule adjustment for not getting games played on time. I know we have the unforgivable fine but it seems not right that people have to be reminded in 10 different emails to play their games on time and then having to extend the deadline. There were a lot more teams behind this year then last if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ichithekiller on Aug 27, 2012 14:15:03 GMT -4
I would be in favor of Albert's rules proposal. I'm not sure I fully understand the need for a penalty greater than a forfeit.
I am not in favor of Jim's proposal. I think the league does a very decent job of keeping up with the schedule, especially given the fact that many of us have real life responsibilities that sometimes take priority over strat (perish the thought).
|
|
|
|
Post by CCStegos on Aug 27, 2012 14:51:34 GMT -4
A "penalty" has to be a actual penalty. Something the offending guy wants to avoid. If his season is in the trash, how is a forfeit a penalty?
I agree if the team is in the thick of things, it would be considered a penalty but these "sloppy" mistakes typically - but not always - happen to teams that are just looking forward to ending their season.
I couldn't agree more with Labruno about games getting played on time. No need for extensions with all the warnings given. However, saying "some sort of rule adjustment" isn't saying anything at all. Rule proposal need to be actual rule proposals so if you have an idea how to improve getting the games played, then put it out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyhitmen on Aug 27, 2012 22:49:40 GMT -4
A "penalty" has to be a actual penalty. Something the offending guy wants to avoid. If his season is in the trash, how is a forfeit a penalty? I agree if the team is in the thick of things, it would be considered a penalty but these "sloppy" mistakes typically - but not always - happen to teams that are just looking forward to ending their season. I couldn't agree more with Labruno about games getting played on time. No need for extensions with all the warnings given. However, saying "some sort of rule adjustment" isn't saying anything at all. Rule proposal need to be actual rule proposals so if you have an idea how to improve getting the games played, then put it out there. Very true, I will think about it and come up with something to submit. |
|
|
|
Post by ichithekiller on Aug 28, 2012 6:05:46 GMT -4
A "penalty" has to be a actual penalty. Something the offending guy wants to avoid. If his season is in the trash, how is a forfeit a penalty? I agree if the team is in the thick of things, it would be considered a penalty but these "sloppy" mistakes typically - but not always - happen to teams that are just looking forward to ending their season. I couldn't agree more with Labruno about games getting played on time. No need for extensions with all the warnings given. However, saying "some sort of rule adjustment" isn't saying anything at all. Rule proposal need to be actual rule proposals so if you have an idea how to improve getting the games played, then put it out there. Okay Jim. Follow your own suggestion. Give a concrete rule proposal where you outline a specific penalty for an offending manager who causes multiple replays. That was Albert's original rule proposal - if a manager makes multiple usage errors causing the same game to be replayed a second time then that manager should be forced to forfeit said game. My question is if a manager is trashing the season (behavior that aught to be penalized in any case) why would he want to play the same game over three times? I mean if a manager doesn't care if he wins or loses and just wants to get his season over with, why would he be so sloppy as to chance having to play one game three times over? I'm just not sure I follow your logic. I'm curious if this has actually happened with any regularity in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by CCStegos on Aug 28, 2012 7:07:48 GMT -4
No, not much regularity of this happeneing. In fact, I can't think of a specific instance when this HAS happened before - although I would not be surprised if someone could recall it happening.
I also agree a manager really wouldn't want to replay a game a third time. However, with the "downside" of continued sloppiness being - at worst - a forfeit, then he won't have to worry about being careful. He could lose the game outright or lose it as a forfeit. I will always think of forfeit as "4fit" i.e. a 4-letter word mostly because of the "freebie" victory that could knock someone out of the playoffs.
I did build upon Albert's proposal about what I thought could be a penalty/deturrent - namely loss of a roster spot and/or a draft pick - which is the same as the fine we now give for missing quarterly submissions. However, the rule proposal is Albert's - not mine. He will be allowed to submit it any way he chooses. I was just suggesting what I thought would be an improvement since it would provide much more incentive for the manager to be careful.
|
|
|
|
Post by volkert on Oct 10, 2012 12:19:20 GMT -4
One thing about finishing your season in 18th place and not having the playoffs to look forward to is that you have spare time to just think about the draft or rules to propose.
My thought as far as getting games in, is that we have penalties in place which rarely get enforced because we all have reasons for getting extensions and seem to get them granted. So many are VERY legit and many things in life are more important than Strat according to my wife...
With that in mind, I'm writing a proposal that gives rewards for team who stay up to date. I think that whoever proposed the extra days of rest at certain quarters for finishing on time got a lot of managers to meet deadlines. Along those lines, I'm writing something about picking up a carded waiver wire pick at the end of scheduled 3rd quarter (game # 80) for those who have met ALL 3 quarter deadlines with NO EXTENSIONS. One rostered player would be dropped at that time if the manager wanted to pick up a card off of the waiver wire. The dropped player who could be carded or non carded, would return to our pile of un-owned players. A carded player could be picked up for the remaining quarter ONLY. All waiver pick ups would return to the draft at the end of the year. (This is not a plan to mess with our current draft system, but an incentive to get our games in on time while maybe providing a playoff boost to those who need it, or give extra AB's or Innings to a manager who may need it.) The order of this one quarter waiver wire pick up would be based on 80 games starting with the worst record and making our way up to the team with the best 80 game record. Any team not at 80 games would not be allowed to participate. (NO EXCEPTIONS!) Similar to the ballpark draft, team #1 would email the scribe/league their dropped player as well as the card that they are picking up. The scribe will confirm and let team #2 know that they are on the clock... I have the actual wording of this proposal at home on my computer, but you all get the idea. Bottom line in my experience is that rewards have gotten managers to play faster than penalties. Love to hear your thoughts.
Pete Volkert
|
|
|
|
Post by machinegm on Oct 10, 2012 15:57:03 GMT -4
One thing about finishing your season in 18th place and not having the playoffs to look forward to is that you have spare time to just think about the draft or rules to propose. My thought as far as getting games in, is that we have penalties in place which rarely get enforced because we all have reasons for getting extensions and seem to get them granted. So many are VERY legit and many things in life are more important than Strat according to my wife... With that in mind, I'm writing a proposal that gives rewards for team who stay up to date. I think that whoever proposed the extra days of rest at certain quarters for finishing on time got a lot of managers to meet deadlines. Along those lines, I'm writing something about picking up a carded waiver wire pick at the end of scheduled 3rd quarter (game # 80) for those who have met ALL 3 quarter deadlines with NO EXTENSIONS. One rostered player would be dropped at that time if the manager wanted to pick up a card off of the waiver wire. The dropped player who could be carded or non carded, would return to our pile of un-owned players. A carded player could be picked up for the remaining quarter ONLY. All waiver pick ups would return to the draft at the end of the year. (This is not a plan to mess with our current draft system, but an incentive to get our games in on time while maybe providing a playoff boost to those who need it, or give extra AB's or Innings to a manager who may need it.) The order of this one quarter waiver wire pick up would be based on 80 games starting with the worst record and making our way up to the team with the best 80 game record. Any team not at 80 games would not be allowed to participate. (NO EXCEPTIONS!) Similar to the ballpark draft, team #1 would email the scribe/league their dropped player as well as the card that they are picking up. The scribe will confirm and let team #2 know that they are on the clock... I have the actual wording of this proposal at home on my computer, but you all get the idea. Bottom line in my experience is that rewards have gotten managers to play faster than penalties. Love to hear your thoughts. Pete Volkert Pete, I'd actually like to hear more about this proposal. In another vein, instead of a carded pick-up, how about if you can meet all 3 quarters with no extensions, maybe your limited hitters are rewarded with 4 extra PAs, and pitchers could be rewarded with innings equivalent to their POW, which is like an extra game for both batters and pitchers? Maybe I'll submit this idea. Feedback would be welcomed. --Ray |
|
|
|
Post by Nyhitmen on Oct 10, 2012 16:51:32 GMT -4
One thing about finishing your season in 18th place and not having the playoffs to look forward to is that you have spare time to just think about the draft or rules to propose. My thought as far as getting games in, is that we have penalties in place which rarely get enforced because we all have reasons for getting extensions and seem to get them granted. So many are VERY legit and many things in life are more important than Strat according to my wife... With that in mind, I'm writing a proposal that gives rewards for team who stay up to date. I think that whoever proposed the extra days of rest at certain quarters for finishing on time got a lot of managers to meet deadlines. Along those lines, I'm writing something about picking up a carded waiver wire pick at the end of scheduled 3rd quarter (game # 80) for those who have met ALL 3 quarter deadlines with NO EXTENSIONS. One rostered player would be dropped at that time if the manager wanted to pick up a card off of the waiver wire. The dropped player who could be carded or non carded, would return to our pile of un-owned players. A carded player could be picked up for the remaining quarter ONLY. All waiver pick ups would return to the draft at the end of the year. (This is not a plan to mess with our current draft system, but an incentive to get our games in on time while maybe providing a playoff boost to those who need it, or give extra AB's or Innings to a manager who may need it.) The order of this one quarter waiver wire pick up would be based on 80 games starting with the worst record and making our way up to the team with the best 80 game record. Any team not at 80 games would not be allowed to participate. (NO EXCEPTIONS!) Similar to the ballpark draft, team #1 would email the scribe/league their dropped player as well as the card that they are picking up. The scribe will confirm and let team #2 know that they are on the clock... I have the actual wording of this proposal at home on my computer, but you all get the idea. Bottom line in my experience is that rewards have gotten managers to play faster than penalties. Love to hear your thoughts. Pete Volkert I think you are on to something here. I think rewarding a team who got the first 3 quarters done on time with NO extensions at all no matter what the excuse is a good idea. I love the idea of letting them draft a player or something like that. Or adding some abs. You are on to something for sure |
|
|
|
Post by CCStegos on Oct 11, 2012 8:23:54 GMT -4
I'm for guys just getting their stuff done on time. Whatever it takes. We joined this league cuz we like to play this stupid game. Yet for some reason, guys just don't play. Yeah, I know life gets in the way. Whether it's penalties or rewards, they have to be something bad/good enough to light fires under people without being TOO bad/good.
Along the incentive line, how about this: If you make each of the first TWO quarters on time, then you get a 46th roster spot for the following season. If you make each of the first three quarters on time, you get a 47 roster spot the following season.
The extra spot(s) would disappear the following season unles you are on time yet again.
Or - If people are too concerned with bigger rosters, this could be done by "lowering" the standard roster to 43 and then the additional two roster spots to bring a team back to 45 would have to be "earned" by playing on time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyhitmen on Oct 11, 2012 21:27:37 GMT -4
I'm for guys just getting their stuff done on time. Whatever it takes. We joined this league cuz we like to play this stupid game. Yet for some reason, guys just don't play. Yeah, I know life gets in the way. Whether it's penalties or rewards, they have to be something bad/good enough to light fires under people without being TOO bad/good. Along the incentive line, how about this: If you make each of the first TWO quarters on time, then you get a 46th roster spot for the following season. If you make each of the first three quarters on time, you get a 47 roster spot the following season. The extra spot(s) would disappear the following season unles you are on time yet again. Or - If people are too concerned with bigger rosters, this could be done by "lowering" the standard roster to 43 and then the additional two roster spots to bring a team back to 45 would have to be "earned" by playing on time. That is something I would vote for. Some won't like it but that is those who never play on time. Everyone else would be for it |
|
|
|
Post by brodnine on Oct 12, 2012 16:32:43 GMT -4
The problem with the benifits or fines for not being on time is that it is not always your fault that you are not on time. Having never been late on a 1/4 in my fifteen years in the league I can still see how hard it is to do so. Making yourself free when the person you have been chasing down to play for 3-4 months gives you a last second day that they are free.I am not married so Its easier for me to comply in that way but others in the league can't. For them to loose roster spots because people don't make time to play you even though you have made in known week after week that you are free with no response doesn't seem right. I like the rewards becasue if you put it the tme and go the extra mile you can get the games in and should be rewarded for it.I don't like the penaltys but without them how would you get people to play? Extra roster spots is a huge incentive but it gives people with more free time a huge edge and could unbalance the league. I see two of the top propspects this year who are in the draft and would most likley be on my team with two extra spots available. That would lead to the draft being watered down which I feel should be avoided at all costs. We need talant in the draft so teams can bounce back. I missed the playoffs two years in a row largely due to needing to raise my teams overall talant level and rebuild the farm in two very deep farm drafts. If 5-6 maangers get the edge of extra roster spots thats 10-12 players not in the draft and as I said before a huge edge for those teams. I think parity has set in and a rule like that would undo that to the detriment of the league. I could see fustrated maangers leave the league as their family obligations and work keep them from being ontime all 4 quarters and leaving. I could see managers proposally avoiding managers so that they will not be ontime and get the spots which could lead to the same thing managers quitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by brodnine on Dec 16, 2012 12:38:42 GMT -4
The problems i see with this. 1 I get to 80 games ahead of schedule now I have the option of waiver pick up but I have to wait until the 80 game mark is due so I stop playing. I hate rules that stop people from playing.
2 I lose or gain roster spots for being on time the first 3 quarters. I am at the mercy of the other managers in the league to get the quarters done on time. In 15 yrs I have never missed a 1/4 but I have come close and not by my own fault. Sometimes it's like pulling theeth trying to get people to play. People that are perinially behind having less spots then people who are always on time means a unbalancing of the competive balance of the league. It could laso mean a avoiding of playing teams that have been on time by teams that have missed a 1/4 just so they won't get that edge on them. While I would love greater rewards for teams on time, make them to good and it could break the league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyhitmen on Dec 17, 2012 21:28:18 GMT -4
I think one of the issues is people not wanting to travel when it is their turn to travel. If someone says (and I have heard this before) I can not travel too busy. Maybe they should not be in the league. I understand we want everyone to stay but not at the price of people being hijacked to get games in. We have the rule based on the schedule of who is going to be home and the home team should not have to travel or be forced to play on the pc. Enforcing this might help in a way Brody you not having to have to pull teeth to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by machinegm on Dec 18, 2012 18:41:54 GMT -4
If someone is avoiding playing another manager solely to make sure they miss a potential quarter, in my mind, that is bullshit. That's why the Ruling Committee can make the determination of who is trying to duck who.
Some people are known to not play for a while, then go on a maniac run. That's different.
--Ray
|
|
|
|
Post by hbernstein on Dec 25, 2012 11:50:27 GMT -4
How about this: The first four teams who finish the first quarter on time get sandwich picks between the 5th and 6th rounds of the draft in the order in which they complete the quarter; the first four who are up to date at the end of the 2nd quarter get sandwich picks between the 4th and 5th rounds; the first 4 who are up to date after three quarters get sandwich picks between the 3rd and 4th rounds; and the first 4 completing the season on time get sandwich picks between the 2nd and third rounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyhitmen on Dec 25, 2012 12:43:04 GMT -4
How about this: The first four teams who finish the first quarter on time get sandwich picks between the 5th and 6th rounds of the draft in the order in which they complete the quarter; the first four who are up to date at the end of the 2nd quarter get sandwich picks between the 4th and 5th rounds; the first 4 who are up to date after three quarters get sandwich picks between the 3rd and 4th rounds; and the first 4 completing the season on time get sandwich picks between the 2nd and third rounds. Now that is a good idea! |
|
|
|
Post by CCStegos on Dec 27, 2012 13:52:54 GMT -4
Here are a few formal proposals I have for the General Meeting. I may have more but I wanted to make sure I got these posted. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyhitmen on Dec 27, 2012 16:48:30 GMT -4
Here are a few formal proposals I have for the General Meeting. I may have more but I wanted to make sure I got these posted. Assuming I understand the last rule proposal you wrote Jim I love it. Adding roster spots for the following season for people who play games on time with no extensions needed is a good reward. |
|
faggs
Short Season
Posts: 6
|
Post by faggs on Jan 1, 2013 13:00:12 GMT -4
awesome so i get my games in on time and get two extra roster spots then have to replay albert a third time losing ONE roster spot hell im still ahead of the game by one IM all IN
|
|
|
|
Post by CCStegos on Jan 1, 2013 15:24:02 GMT -4
Shut up, Kevin!  Okay, here are three more proposals from me to add to the agenda: 1 - Allow "unbalanced" trades during the season. Every team will get to their required level at the draft (i.e. 45 players each). Immediately after the draft is concluded, guys can make trades without having to throw back bodies to even things out. Therefore, one team would have less than 45 while the other will have more than 45. 2 - "IMBA Dice" - I forget the teams involved (not trying to protect anyone's identity). This past season I was playing someone who was using the dice Peter Marcus gave to each of us when his term as Commissioner ended. That person told me his opponent would not let him use those dice because they were tested (floated in water?) and found to be loaded. I find it hard to believe, but I have no problem with my opponent using "IMBA Dice". I just wanted to get this out there as I haven't seen the results of any rigourous testing done/certified. Either the dice should be allowed or banned - but there has to be some real proof for a ban. 3A - Asterisk starters - Beginning with the 2013 carded season (i.e. a year from now) I'd like to do away with the Asterisk starter rule for the regular season. SOM gives out the asterisks based on a combination of innings and starts. Their rule allows for more starts but not more innings. So here's the problem is see. If Pitcher A has 200 innings over 29 starts and Pitcher B has 190 innings over 30 starts, then SOM will give Pitcher A an asterisk but will not give one to Pitcher B despite the fact he made more starts. We handle a starter that is an innings eater by allowing him to throw more innings. We should not be allowing him to make more starts but rather allow him to go deeper into the game. Note that under this rule, an asterisk starter would retain his asterisk for use during the playoffs. 3B - Alternate Asterisk starter rule. Again, this would take effect with te 2013 carded season. Instead of using the SOM rule for giving an asterisk, all pitchers who made 33 starts get an asterisk and all that made less than 33 starts do not. This cutoff point will allow someone with 32 starts to make 21 starts (two-thirds of his real life starts) during a 108 game season. Meanwhile a guy that made 33 (or more) starts would be able to make 22 (or more) starts during a 108 game season. |
|
|
|
Post by Nyhitmen on Jan 1, 2013 15:38:06 GMT -4
I was using Peter's Dice down the stretch and can tell you if they are loaded I got the wrong pair!
|
|
|
|
Post by brodnine on Jan 2, 2013 13:36:58 GMT -4
If Hal wanted the criteria to be a Asterisk SP to be 33 starts he would have made it that way. He has a few other ways to do it. I am always wary of changing basic core game rules. As for a low inning guy getting a asterisk, you should be happy. It gives you a advantage. If you run out of IP early than you haven't learned how to manage usage in our league yet. That's a big part of this league. I don't like rules that restrkct the way I manage. If my guy earns a asterisk then I have a advantage, same as anyone else with one. How I choose that advantage is up to me. I don't see the need for a rule just to keep inexperianced managers from burning threw usage fast.
I found the IMBA dce tended to roll alot of 4's. The year Pete bought them for the league Cliff Lee had hits in the 4 column only and he was destroyed everytime someone used those dice against him.
|
|
|
|
Post by brodnine on Jan 2, 2013 13:44:01 GMT -4
Unbalanced trades.
We used to not allow them at all. A few years ago we allowed them in the off season,
to ease trading. We don't allow them in the regular season for competive balance. Who wants to be batteling for a playoff spot against a guy with a 50 man roster when you only have 45. Balancing out trades during the season is harder because of this but thta just makes it more interesting. If you want a edge you can always make sure you have 40 carded players so when you expand you have a big edge. The downsize is less prospects on the farm. Checks and balances.
|
|
|
|
Post by CCStegos on Jan 2, 2013 15:42:36 GMT -4
The September expansion issue should not matter as we already require teams to cut down to 40-man during expansion. So there isn't much difference between cutting down from 45 to 40 or from something bigger than 45 down to 40. You still gotta cut down to no more than 40 carded guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by albert2b on Jan 2, 2013 16:25:05 GMT -4
A couple things...
Are all the rule proposals in this thread being added to the agenda of the general meeting? If so, can we please add my proposal (the first one on page 1 of this thread) to the agenda. I know there were different variations of penalties being suggested by various managers regarding my proposal, but I'd like to submit it in its original form AS WRITTEN in this thread. If it gets voted down, then I'd be open to changing the penalty to something else.
Regarding the controversial IMBA dice, are we seriously accusing Peter of giving out loaded dice two years ago? If this truly was an issue, shouldn't this have been brought up when the accusing manager found out that the dice were loaded? Why are we waiting until the off-season to discuss a matter as serious as this? And if someone really did find that the dice were loaded, that person really should put their name behind it. And once that's established, that person needs to prove they are loaded...otherwise this should be considered a dead issue. For the record, I've played every game for the last two years using Peter's dice and have not noticed any particular number coming up more than others. My team missed the playoffs in '11 and made it in '12. I don't believe my team was significantly better or worse off because of any pattern of dice rolls I received.
Lastly, I agree with Brody about the asterisk SP rule. Hal works in mysterious ways and not always in a way that makes sense to us. There are many SOM rules/ratings that aren't always consistent with actual stats or previous rules/ratings. If we change this, where do we draw the line? Do we get to determine who's an asterisk base stealer next? Or who gets a closer 3 rating as opposed to a closer 2 rating? I know some of Hal's rules/ratings are completely subjective, but if we mess with this, then we're messing with basic SOM rules. It's going to be an on-going thing and we're going to end up with a game resembling SOM less and less.
|
|
