------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | International Replay Baseball League - Founded October 30, 1973 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ***************** IRBL NEWSLETTER # 585 ***************** 10-24-99 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...................................... Managers who have paid their 2000 IRBL dues and are eligible to make trades starting Nov. 1st: Barry Koopersmith YANKEES Don Tobin CARDINALS Matt Cummings ANGELS Mike Boling CUBS Chip Hopkins WHITE SOX Ricky Diaz PIRATES Massimo Ortensi DODGERS Andrea Cristiani PADRES Don Swearingen MARLINS Wing Lee ROCKIES George Widenor DEVIL RAYS Michael Walsh RANGERS Bill Mattfeld INDIANS ALL OTHER MANAGERS: The IRBL dues for 1999 is $15 (payable in U.S. funds). The deadline is Oct. 31st. The team draft order will be finalized once all managers who have any LSP's or PUP's have officially signed up. The trading season will begin on Nov. 1st. A manager is not eligible to make trades until I receive his dues check. ...................................... VOLUNTEERS NEEDED FOR OPEN TEAMS: The ROYALS and BLUE JAYS are temporarily without managers. Volunteers are needed to handle the ROYALS and BLUE JAYS for the upcoming draft until new managers are found. ...................................... 1999 POST-SEASON RESULTS: NL Division Series: DODGERS defeated PHILLIES, 3-2 MARLINS defeated BREWERS, 3-1 AL Division Series: WHITE SOX lead RED SOX, 2-0 RANGERS defeated BLUE JAYS, 3-0 REMAINING POST-SEASON SCHEDULE FRI: DS G3 - WHI @ RSX SAT: DS G4*- WHI @ RSX SUN: DS G5*- WHI @ RSX MON: off day TUE: CS G1 - MLN @ DOD, (see below) WED: CS G2 - MLN @ DOD, (see below) IRBL # 585 10-24-99 2 THU: off day FRI: CS G3 - DOD @ MLN, (see below) SAT: CS G4 - DOD @ MLN, (see below) SUN: CS G5*- DOD @ MLN, (see below) MON: off day TUE: CS G6*- MLN @ DOD, (see below) WED: CS G7*- MLN @ DOD, (see below) THU: off day FRI: off day In the League Championship Series, the Division Series winner with the highest regular-season winning percentage (but never never the Wild Card) will be the home team in games 1, 2, 6 and 7. SAT: WS G1 - NL @ AL SUN: WS G2 - NL @ AL MON: off day TUE: WS G3 - AL @ NL WED: WS G4 - AL @ NL THU: WS G5*- AL @ NL FRI: off day SAT: WS G6*- NL @ AL SUN: WS G7*- NL @ AL *: if necessary Refer to the post-season series results files for all scoresheets, boxscores and statistics. ...................................... RESULTS OF PROPOSALS: PROPOSAL SUMMARIES: Proposal # 1 (future expansion teams): Change IRBL Rule # 27 (expansion draft and two extra picks per round starting in round # 2) Proposal # 2 (One-time expansion draft for the two 1999 expansion teams compensation) Proposal # 3 (60% minimum AB/GP usage) (submitted by Rick Dean) Proposal # 4 (draft pick trading rule change) (submitted by Chris Williams) VOTING SUMMARY: PROPOSAL # ---> 1 2 3 4 -- -- -- -- FOR ---> 21 16 4 8 AGAINST ---> 6 10 23 19 NOT VOTING ---> 1 RESULT: ---> Pass Fail Fail Fail IRBL # 585 10-24-99 3 Proposal # 2 would have passed except that six managers voted FOR proposal # 1 but AGAINST proposal # 2 (i.e., saying that future expansion teams can have the expansion draft but not the DIAMONDBACKS and DEVIL RAYS). Therefore, these two teams will have to struggle for a number of years until they become competitive. Detailed voting results can be found at the end of this newsletter. ...................................... RESULTS OF POST-SEASON PUP WAIVER: Since IRBL Newsletter # 584 was published, the IRBL WHITE SOX' manager, Chip Hopkins, has requested a league vote to allow him to use BRIAN JORDAN in the post-season series even though he was over-used for one game during the season which resulted in a PUP. The vote will only be to allow BRIAN JORDAN to be used (the WHITE SOX will still get the PUP which will affect the draft order). Chip Hopkins' appeal: Brian Jordan....On my June 30 6 game Home series verses the Blue Jays I thought I would play Jordan 1 game of the 6 game series thus giving him 5 games off and fulfilling his season requirement for rest. My problem was that it was a 5 game series thus giving him only 4 games rest. I marked him off and never looked at his games played again till I saw the PUP file and was shocked to see he was overused. Please allow a vote for post season usage. VOTING SUMMARY: PROPOSAL # ---> 1 -- FOR ---> 7 AGAINST ---> 15 NOT VOTING ---> 5 RESULT: ---> Fail Detailed voting results can be found at the end of this newsletter. ...................................... NEW RULE CHANGE PROPOSALS: Proposal # 1: (Prohibition on PUP post- season waivers) (submitted by Don Swearingen, MARLINS): A request by a manager for a league vote to allow a IRBL # 585 10-24-99 4 player to be use in the post-season series even though he was over-used during the season (even if it was an honest mistake) which resulted in a PUP will not be permitted Proposal # 2: (Minimum player usage) (submitted by Wing Lee, ROCKIES): Any IRBL batter who has greater than 300 actual Major League At Bats is subject to the following minimum usage: a) If a player had >=400 actual AB, then he must play in at least 60% of his actual Major League Games Played b) If a player had >300 and <400 actual AB, then he must have IRBL ABs of at least 60% of his actual Major League ABs Any player that fails to meet his minimum usage will be released from his team and will become part of the next Rookie/Free Agent Draft. The player will, however, be eligible for post-season series. A proposal will pass if 2/3's of all votes received by the deadline are "FOR" the proposal. Send an email to me stating "FOR" or "AGAINST" proposals # 1 and 2. For your convenience, I will send an email to all IRBL Managers where you can just respond and indicate your votes. The deadline for submitting your votes is Nov. 7th. ...................................... Files included on LRD # 585: --------------------------- LDS-1103.S99 --> DODGERS vs PHILLIES LDS-1526.S99 --> RANGERS vs BLUE JAYS LDS-1822.S99 --> RED SOX vs WHITE SOX LDS-2819.S99 --> MARLINS vs BREWERS NEWSL585.xxx --> Newsletter # 585 File Extension Legend (xxx): --------------------------- T1C --> Viewable one column newsletter text format TXT --> Viewable text format ...................................... BK IRBL # 585 10-24-99 5 MESSAGES OF INTEREST SENT VIA INTERNET EMAIL -------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:35:09 +0100 To: IRBL Managers From: Andrea Cristiani Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote PUP's are almost always due to mistakes. Last year I got PUP's for too much GP by Doug Strange: I paid a lot of attention in not exceeding his AB limits and I did not realize I used him too much to pinch hit. The AB's were OK but he'd exceeded the GP's. Sorry, Chip, I have to vote against the use of Brian Jordan in the playoffs. From: BMulla6940@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:22:58 EDT Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote To: JOHN_PARKER@bc.sympatico.ca, bkoopers@optonline.net CC: IRBL Managers I would vote against allowing since I would think at least half of overuses are inadvertent. Mike Ranney Astros From: Boling Mike To: "'GWidenor@aol.com'" , BMulla6940@aol.com, JOHN_PARKER@bc.sympatico.ca, bkoopers@optonline.net Cc: IRBL Managers Subject: RE: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:50:30 -0500 I tend to agree here. I think perhaps we should have some built in leniency, say a range of games from 1-5 or 1-10, where the post-season penalty at least is a bit more forgiving. Having a player play in one game over and then losing that player completely for the post-season is far too harsh IMO. From: "Dean, Rick" To: "'GWidenor@aol.com'" , BMulla6940@aol.com, JOHN_PARKER@bc.sympatico.ca, bkoopers@optonline.net Cc: IRBL Managers Subject: RE: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:23:34 -0600 Hello, anyone listening? This is what I tried to bring up about a month ago. How is it possible to control your players when you don't get the results back in some sort of schedule? You're hanging out there until you get road results and sometimes it is too late. This PUP thing sucks because only 1 extra AB gives you a PUP. It also relates to what I was trying to get across, some teams hoard players so some teams have just enough AB or IPP to get thru the season with inflated 400 ABers with .200 BAs or 250 IPP with 6.00 ERAs. These are the teams the ones hurt by the PUPs. They are low on AB/IPP/GS and usually get the PUPs and therefore drop down in the draft so they can't pick up players to improve their teams and accumulate enough stats to get them over the hump, so to speak. It seems to me that this league is built on negativity, everything is intended for penalties and not very many of you want to make changes to fix problems. As one intelligent e-mail read, "22 years and we haven't had a problem". How many expansions have you had in 22 years, 4 or 5? It doesn't happen every year, it didn't work, a lot of things don't work. Let's fix them or a least try to fix them and not ignore them. IRBL # 585 10-24-99 6 From: Boling Mike To: "'Dean, Rick'" , "'GWidenor@aol.com'" , BMulla6940@aol.com, JOHN_PARKER@bc.sympatico.ca, bkoopers@optonline.net Cc: IRBL Managers Subject: RE: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:43:16 -0500 I disagree that the 'league is built on negativity' and 'everything is intended for penalties'. It's obviously intended to keep people from playing people too much and taking advantage of it. For example having a guy who had 100 AB's and hit .350 and playing him 200 AB's or something along those lines. We have IMO generous rules built in to allow everyone to have enough AB's and IP's and starts to get through the season. I think you are overreacting Rick. Reading the PUP report it doesn't look like to me that the teams you refereed to were the ones getting most of the PUP's either. Maybe I'm wrong. but it appears you could be stretching things a bit to further your own agenda on player usage. Just my opinion. On the '22 years and we haven't had a problem' quote. I agree that was a little odd. We were talking about expansion problems. Like Rick said, how many times did expansion occur in 22 years?? From: "Chip Hopkins" To: "Frank Hopkins" , "Boling Mike" Cc: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 21:01:35 -0700 Just so everybody knows I overused Bill Haselman by 1 AB and am not asking for his usage in the playoffs despite his .405 Batting Average. This was my mistake by walking away from the computer when Haselman was playing in a game on CM. I never meant there to be discussion about this...just a vote. Can I pull back my request for a vote. Lets do the playoffs and make a decision starting next year. I will play without Haselman or Jordan. From: Frank Hopkins To: Boling Mike Cc: IRBL Managers Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 1:22 PM I hope that these discussions are not the actual response to the proposal. I have noticed several responses and counter responses that don't actually say "for" or "against" the proposal. But, since this has started already, I'll give my opinion (oh great Frank, we were waiting to make our decision until we heard from you). Normally I would agree with the general opinion expressed by Mr. Boling & others. However, we are talking about ONE game. We are also talking about Brian Jordan, a player that is very important to the White Sox. I know the arguments, "he should have paid better attention, yadda, yadda, yadda" but, knowing Chip as I do, this was an honest mistake, it makes no since to punish him because of a simple clerical error. I play the White Sox in the first round, I do not want to win this way. I want to beat the real White Sox (you know, the ones that rule the world). Just my thoughts. Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:18:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Tobin To: Boling Mike cc: IRBL Managers Subject: RE: Post-season player penalty waiver vote IRBL # 585 10-24-99 7 Well, I think most of the overuses are avoidable by watching things at home. Ihad one pitcher overused because someone DID NOT follow instructions and make him unavail like he was supposed to. So I petition it. I had a pitcher overused by 0.1 innings, but I should have seen it in home usage. I think it is pretty easy, unless you had an expansion team, to watch usage during the season, IF you set your instructions up right. I just make a list of all the folks to watch before the season starts. Since I am probably the lowest common denominator, I thik anyone can do it if I can... :-) don From: "Donald Swearingen" To: , , Cc: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:53:51 -0400 Thats an interesting argument. Not that there should be no penalty, but maybe the argument that the penalty is too harsh. I could agree on something a little harsh like loss of position in the draft or something but still have the player eligible for post-season...as long as it was a minimal overusage and had no impact. Problem is, how do you determine that? Also, If the limit is 150 games and the player appears in 151, do you say that anything less than 155 only affects draft position, a big violation like 156 would cause the player to be ineligible for the playoffs? What if it was an honest mistake that caused the guy to appear in the 156th game? Do we forgive that? I would say NO, but I could be swayed to vote YES on minimizing the penalty for next year. Barry is NOT gonna waive penaltys this year...I dont think so anyway, nor do I think he should. But we can put it to a vote on the penalty for next year. C'mon Chip, any ideas . Don Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:22:03 -0700 From: Frank Hopkins To: Boling Mike CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote I hope that these discussions are not the actual response to the proposal. I have noticed several responses and counter responses that don't actually say "for" or "against" the proposal. But, since this has started already, I'll give my opinion (oh great Frank, we were waiting to make our decision until we heard from you). Normally I would agree with the general opinion expressed by Mr. Boling & others. However, we are talking about ONE game. We are also talking about Brian Jordan, a player that is very important to the White Sox. I know the arguments, "he should have paid better attention, yadda, yadda, yadda" but, knowing Chip as I do, this was an honest mistake, it makes no since to punish him because of a simple clerical error. I play the White Sox in the first round, I do not want to win this way. I want to beat the real White Sox (you know, the ones that rule the world). Just my thoughts. From: gerrym@Interpra.com To: "Dean, Rick" cc: IRBL Managers IRBL # 585 10-24-99 8 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:00:19 -0400 Subject: Player Usage Rick and George have raised the issue of player usage and the number of teams getting PUP's. When we think of why a team gets PUP's there are a number of reasons: 1. The team is short at bats (Ricks point) 2. The team mismanages its at-bats (makes a miscalculation, or does not manage the at bats carefully enough) 3. The manager (or the opposing manager) makes a simple mistake (see yesterdays request for a waiver) 4. The team doesn't care and uses the players anyway #1 - Short at bats. I am not sure how many of the PUP's that were earned this year were from teams that had no alternative, that is, there was no-one left on the roster with available at bats for that position. Barry would probably know this. In any event, a major league general manager has to deal with this problem, as do we. It is an integral part of the game. Managers need to know their at-bats before the draft. Last year I drafted a 400 at bat shortstop in the fifth round because I needed the at-bats. After the draft Barry called me to ask if I would trade a surplus outfielder to a team that needed at-bats, and I did. My point is that this isn't something that should be left until a couple of days before the final trading deadline. Then you are backed into a corner and you won't get a good deal. On a related point, we all know that offenses are booming these days. A few years ago we adjusted pitcher limits to compensate for this. I am wondering if there are fewer hitters now with averages under .220 (400 AB's). Barry may know. If there are fewer now we may want to change the rule to move the 400 ab limit up to .230 or so. #2 - Mismanages. Managing your atbats is a big job. I had a spreadsheet going all summer to track at-bats for all my infield. I was micro-managing down the the last series of the season. Don yesterday said that if he could do it anyone can. It is a big job. Getting results on time is a big part of the concern. If you don't know how much ab's a player is getting then it is a problem. This has been mentioned before and we should look for an answer. #3.- Mistake. This is the toughest one. I think we should change the rules so that if a team gets one PUP, from one incident (i.e. not 10 players with 1 extra ab each) then we should waive penalties for that. One PUP is so close, and I think many of the one PUP teams appeal the PUP anyway. So I would support a one mistake amnesty. #4 - Nothing to say, thats why the rule is there. So in summary, Barry could help this discussion by telling us if an AB shortage is the reason for so many PUP's (#1), and if there are fewer 400 Ab players now (also #1). Also what does everyone think of the 1 PUP amnesty. Gerry - Mets From: GWidenor@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:28:30 EDT Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote To: BMulla6940@aol.com, JOHN_PARKER@bc.sympatico.ca, bkoopers@optonline.net CC: IRBL Managers IRBL # 585 10-24-99 9 I have a different take on all of this. I played back when we still rolled dice (boy, wasn't that fun?), and I cannot remember the epidemic that is PUPs being as bad as it has been since we went fully automated and no longer kept our own statistics. Is the current PUP rule serving it's purpose? Should it be revised? I think it is ridiculous ONLY 9 TEAMS are PUP free. Back in the day we might have had only 9 teams total in a really severe PUP year (Barry--Is my memory right on this?). Is this really what the rule was intended to do? Just a thought for discussion..... George Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:59:05 -0400 To: GWidenor@aol.com, BMulla6940@aol.com, JOHN_PARKER@bc.sympatico.ca, bkoopers@optonline.net From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Cc: IRBL Managers George, >I think it is ridiculous ONLY 9 TEAMS are PUP free. I don't think it's ridiculous. It would appear that these 9 teams took the time to monitor their player usage, per the constitution. Jeff Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:01:52 -0400 To: "Dean, Rick" , "'GWidenor@aol.com'" , BMulla6940@aol.com, JOHN_PARKER@bc.sympatico.ca, bkoopers@optonline.net From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: RE: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Cc: IRBL Managers Rick, >some teams hoard players Would you prefer that a team trade a player for something less than they want ? I don't think so. If a team doesn't want to trade a player, that's their business. Jeff From: "Jim Jansen" To: , , , , "Jeff Nicholson" Cc: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:56:46 -0400 I WOULD AGREE AS I AM 1 OF THE 9, THANK YOU JJ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:04:08 -0700 From: JOHN PARKER IRBL # 585 10-24-99 10 To: Barry Koopersmith CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote This happened last year and we wouldn't let that manager use the over used player. I'll have to vote against the use of B.Jordan for the playoffs. J.P. Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 06:04:48 +0200 To: JOHN PARKER , Barry Koopersmith From: Massimo Ortensi Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Cc: IRBL Managers At 19.04 11/10/99 -0700, JOHN PARKER wrote: >This happened last year and we wouldn't let that manager use the over >used player. >I'll have to vote against the use of B.Jordan for the playoffs. I stand with John Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:16:21 +0200 To: "Dean, Rick" , "'GWidenor@aol.com'" , BMulla6940@aol.com, JOHN_PARKER@bc.sympatico.ca, bkoopers@optonline.net From: Massimo Ortensi Subject: RE: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Cc: IRBL Managers I completely disagree. poor teams usually are the one (at least I speak for my team when it was poor) with lesser problems. They can easily afford to loose 3 or 4 more games in order not to overuse a player. On the other hand good teams must carefully evaluate the usage of their player: I have used my AB-rated players 50-100 AB less then I could just to avoid the risk of loosing them in the postseason. From: MNUSARMY@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:35:58 EDT Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote To: fhop@ix.netcom.com, wmb1889@kcpl.com CC: IRBL Managers I agree. Getting a PUP for overusing a guy 1 game is enough punishment. The mistake was not intentional, it didn't affect the outcome of the regular season, and it should NOT affect the outcome of the post-season. Matt/Angels From: MNUSARMY@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:31:00 EDT Subject: Re: Player Usage To: IRBL Managers Wow, a whopping 3 per team! I wonder what fraction were actually used for, say, a couple hundred at-bats or so. IRBL # 585 10-24-99 11 Matt. From: "Walsh, Mike" To: IRBL Managers Subject: RE: Problem, What Problem Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:07:31 -0700 My two cents..... It seems to me that one IRBL rule that directly effects the amount fo quality ABs is the use of the DH in both leagues. I am not advocating that we have seperate rules in the NL and AL like MLB. Instead, if we abolished the DH, there would be additional quality ABs that could be used to fill rosters. For example, my team, baring a trade, has two second baseman (Castillo and Bush). With no trade, I will use one as a DH. This means that some team is probably scrambling to fill a second base spot for entire season. With the MLB AL teams (14) using the DH, the IRBL has 16 extra teams attempting to fill a lineup slot. This is a minimum of 9600 ABs that are more than likely being filled with marginal players. I would support the abolishing of the DH, as long as this does not add any additional burden to running the league. From: Frank Hopkins [mailto:fhop@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 1:31 PM To: IRBL Managers Heck, I don't want to be left out. When I read the first sentence to Mr. Dean's proposal, I thought I had found a kindred spirit, but unfortunately he went in a completely different direction. It has long been my opinion that the use of the so-called "fringe" players (defined by < 35 AB & 20 inn.) is not necessary and creates pretty ridiculous statistics. With the IRBL rules that are in effect, there are more than enough AB & inn to go around. There is no excuse that I can see for the non expansion teams. There was a particularly bad situation for the expansion teams this past year that was not seen with Colorado & Florida the last time around. Without going back to look at the draft, I would think there was plenty of opportunity to draft usable ab & inn. Maybe Barry's proposed rule change would have helped. What probably would have happened is more players with 4 AB's (as an example) would have been picked. The only way to keep this from happening is to have some kind of expansion draft like has been mentioned. Having to release players for non usage is an interesting proposal but 70% is ridiculously high number. This would create an opposite problem. Teams that did a good job of drafting or trading would be penalized by having to dump good players for less than their value to keep from losing them. If there is this kind of proposal, I would make it a very low percentage or not using the player at all. There is always the salary option but, once again, any rule that requires more work for Barry I would not be in favor of. I still go back to the idea of severely restricting the use of these fringe players. If you remember these are players that weren't even available until about 3-4 years ago when Diamond Mind started including everybody. One last word, with 30 teams in the league, having to rely on one person to do all the work in the IRBL is too much. We need to look at the possibility of distributing the workload among the other members. I have seen first-hand in another league what can happen when one person has all the responsibility and is no longer able to do IRBL # 585 10-24-99 12 it. Something to think about. Frank Hopkins Red Sox Date: Sun, 26 Sep 99 23:11:13 PDT From: Wing Lee To: Barry Koopersmith Cc: IRBL Managers Subject: Expansion Draft Proposal I have the following suggestion for implementing an expansion draft that will minimize the work required by Barry and minimize the delay in the start of the trading period. I propose the following: 1) IRBL teams are divided into 2 categories. The Diamondbacks can only choose players in the NL minus the Brewers, the Devil Rays can choose players in the AL plus the Brewers 2) When an IRBL submits his dues check to Barry, he also submits electronically a protected list of 15 players 3) The expansion team (Diamondbacks or Devil Rays which ever is appropriate) has 1 week to select either 0, 1 or 2 players from the IRBL team a) If the expansion team selects 1 player, the expansion team is free to trade away that player to another team during the pre-free-agent draft period, if it so desires b) If the expansion team selects 2 players, the expansion team cannot trade any of the 2 players during the pre-free-agent draft period, UNLESS it returns the other player to the original IRBL team c) If the expansion team waives a player chosen in the expansion draft during the pre-free-agent draft period, that player is returned to the original IRBL team 4) After an expansion team has select player(s) from an IRBL team, the IRBL team is free to make any trades to any other IRBL team that has satisfied #3. This proposal allows expansion teams to pick players as Barry receives DUES checks. It avoids delaying the trading period and it saves Barry from having to conduct a LIVE expansion draft. If the expansion team picks too many players, the excess is returned to the original IRBL team. Wing Rockies Date: Sun, 26 Sep 99 22:05:15 PDT From: Wing Lee To: Barry Koopersmith IRBL # 585 10-24-99 13 Cc: IRBL Managers Are we talking about long term or near term. If you are looking at improving the expansion teams in the near term I think the expansion draft would be of bigger help because most of the players picked in the regular draft will not be able to play much in the next IRBL season (e.g. september call-ups). If we do decide to have an expansion draft, I would suggest allowing each team to lose TWO (instead of one) players. This will allow the expansion teams to pick more players from the stronger IRBL teams (i.e. the 17th player on the first place team is probably going to be better than the 10th player on the last place team). On the 70% minimum usage rule, I would be in-favor if it only applied to hitters. To make it less harsh, you could set the usage to 60% or 65% or instead of losing the player, the team would have to trade him instead. Anyway, my two cents Wing ROCKIES From: "REGALADO DIAZ JR." To: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: IRBL rule change proposals Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:34:20 -0400 The Pirates vote 1. For 2. For 3. Against (% too high) 4. Against. The best way to combat this problem is to work the trade in a manner that you receive equal amount of picks in return in later rounds. For example. Troy O'leary and 6th and 7th round pick for Joe Blow my 1st and 2nd round picks. Rick Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:55:35 -0400 From: John Mattfeld To: IRBL Managers Subject: Expansion team draft I think all the managers in the IRBL like and respect Ricky Diaz, and what he's done in and for the IRBL. He never really complains, so I'm going to complain for him. You managers who think nothing should be done about the expansion teams to make them more competetive NOW, should look at what happened to Rickys' Pirates this year. The Pirates played the expansion teams a total of 9 times. The Cardinals and Marlins (who won the wild card by 2 games) played them 12 times. Those 3 "automatic" wins would have made a difference to Ricks' Pirates. How are some of you going to feel if you get SCREWED next year if this happens to your team, like it did to him. Some of you complain and want to make rule changes about the stupidest things, and here he gets screwed BIG TIME and doesn't say a word. Something HAS to be done. I've been in this league for 22 years, and nothing like this has ever happened. Lets' try this expansion draft IRBL # 585 10-24-99 14 protected list and see if it helps. If it doesn't help we will know that something different has to be done next expansion time, but we have to try something. John Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:10:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Tobin To: John Mattfeld cc: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft This is a game to play and enjoy. Being "screwed" out of something in a game is osmething I don't understand. Just like in real life quirks in schedule and opportunity happen... heck, I played every home game this year CM vs CM, and I had a statistically significant difference in home games vs away games. What does this mean? I have no idea, and more importantly I don't care really. But, whoever plays me next year will likely have automatic wins, so get Barry to schedule more games against me if you want... :-) Think - "be the computer" don Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:21:59 -0400 From: John Mattfeld To: IRBL Managers Subject: Expansion team draft (correction to my last email) Stop the presses!! I made a mistake. Only the Marlins, not the cardinals played the expansion teams 12 times. Please correct this if you can before you send it out. I will be in trouble with the Cardinals manager if you don't. Actually it is the Marlins that beat out the Pirates anyway. John From: "Donald Swearingen" To: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft (correction to my last email) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:04:02 -0400 John and All Great rhetoric and discussion going on in the IRBL. For the record, the Marlins were 10-2 against the poor expansion teams. If it is at all possible, I would like to play them 16-20 times next year as well. Perhaps play the Cardinals a bunch too if they are gonna be pathetic. Seriously though, Don Tobin has the right attitude about that....so?....Thats baseball. I had no idea I was 10-2 vs expansion. Luck of the draw basically. Thanks for the scheduling! Don/Marlins From: "Chip Hopkins" To: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:03:55 -0700 IRBL # 585 10-24-99 15 The fact it has not happened in 22 year tells me there is not a problem with the system...don't fix something that is not wrong! From: John Mattfeld To: IRBL Managers Subject: Expansion team draft Date: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 10:55 AM I think all the managers in the IRBL like and respect Ricky Diaz, and what he's done in and for the IRBL. He never really complains, so I'm going to complain for him. You managers who think nothing should be done about the expansion teams to make them more competetive NOW, should look at what happened to Rickys' Pirates this year. The Pirates played the expansion teams a total of 9 times. The Cardinals and Marlins (who won the wild card by 2 games) played them 12 times. Those 3 "automatic" wins would have made a difference to Ricks' Pirates. How are some of you going to feel if you get SCREWED next year if this happens to your team, like it did to him. Some of you complain and want to make rule changes about the stupidest things, and here he gets screwed BIG TIME and doesn't say a word. Something HAS to be done. I've been in this league for 22 years, and nothing like this has ever happened. Lets' try this expansion draft protected list and see if it helps. If it doesn't help we will know that something different has to be done next expansion time, but we have to try something. John From: gerrym@Interpra.com To: "Donald Swearingen" cc: IRBL Managers Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:36:13 -0400 Subject: Re: Expansion team draft (correction to my last email) Don, I prepared the schedule for last year. I am getting ready to do the schedule for next year. If you want to play the expansion teams 20 times, then make a contribution to the Gerry McDonald benevolent fund, in unmarked bills. I may be easy, but I'm not cheap. Seriously, for those who are wondering, the Marlins played the DRays 12 times because they are in the same division. The Pirates and Cardinals are in the central. I just follow whatever the real MLB does. Gerry Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 16:40:13 -0400 To: IRBL Managers From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Chip, I agree with you 110 %. Jeff Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 16:53:15 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: IRBL Managers IRBL # 585 10-24-99 16 Subject: Re: Expansion team draft If an IRBL team ended the season with an 81-0 home record and a 30-51 road record, would you also accept this as a "once in 22 year occurrence" or would you expect an action to be taken to correct an apparent problem? From: "Dean, Rick" To: IRBL Managers Subject: RE: Expansion team draft Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:57:07 -0600 I agree 120% From: "Chip Hopkins" To: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:12:23 -0700 I am not saying there is no problem...I am saying the problem is not with the system. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 18:36:08 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: Chip Hopkins CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Since you are saying that "the problem is not with the system", am I correct that it is your position that the DIAMONDBACKS' and DEVIL RAYS' managers should have traded away away their first 6 draft picks (two Preliminary, one first round and three second round) and gotten one or more full-time players for each of these picks and since they did not, those teams have to just take as many years as needed to slowly build up to a competitive team? If not, then what was the problem? Are you also saying that future expansion teams should not get an expansion draft either (since that was not the problem) or are you saying that just the DIAMONDBACKS and DEVIL RAYS should not get an expansion draft? From: "Chip Hopkins" To: "Barry Koopersmith" Cc: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:49:41 -0700 I am saying they had some bad luck with the draft (as happens with young players, bomb or bust) So everytime somebody has a bad draft we should now subsidize there team with an expansion draft? I think that is wrong. I like the draft idea I just don't think it is necessary. It should we should add it because it would make them competitive faster, that said it is not necessary for the league to be viable. To prove this I stand on 22 years of tradition. Please do not change a rule because of one unfortunate draft. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:24:34 -0400 To: IRBL Managers From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Barry, IRBL # 585 10-24-99 17 I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The two newest teams finished with records that appear appropriate given their roster makeup. No team, even the '27 Yanks, can go 81-0 at home. In this case there would obviously be external forces at work causing the record. With the newest teams, things fell into place as they apparently should have. Jeff Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:26:47 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: Chip Hopkins CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Please clarify your statement of "It should we should add it because it would make them competitive faster". Does this mean that you are or are not in favor of an expansion draft? Why are you asking "So everytime somebody has a bad draft we should now subsidize there team with an expansion draft?". Who ever said or implied that? In fact, I have made clear just the opposite. Did you read the full text of the proposal where I stated "a one-time additional compensation" and "It is understood that after this last special compensation, these teams will have to build their teams up via the normal drafting a trading rules, no matter how many games they lose next season and in future seasons" and my email dated 10/2/99 that was reprinted in the newsletter where I stated "The IRBL has never had a policy of "helping" a team. That is the job of each manager. I don't think I can make this point any clearer: The "Expansion" team problem is a unique situation. It has never occurred before and if the proper action is taken now, it will never happen again." Why don't you just say that you believe that the expansion team managers should have done much better with their draft picks (if that is your opinion) and because of that, you do not want these teams helped and just leave it at that? Tradition has nothing to do with situation. The previous expansion teams went into the draft with a core a players (in 1994, the ROCKIES had 17 players and the MARLINS had 13 players). There is no tradition of going into the draft with only 8 players. That is why this is a unique situation. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:30:41 -0400 To: "Chip Hopkins" , "Barry Koopersmith" From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Cc: IRBL Managers Barry, Chip makes an excellent point. Because something happens once is no reason to alter long standing rules. I suggested a MLB type expansion draft to you last year, but it was not done. Since it wasn't, the league should move on with the rules that are in place. IRBL # 585 10-24-99 18 Jeff Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:35:49 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: Jeff Nicholson CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft I agree with you and that is exactly my point. The DIAMONDBACKS and DEVIL RAYS roster makeup resulted in 140 game loss teams. The intent of the IRBL Rules for stocking new (expansion) teams was for a roster makeup that would result in 100 to 120 losses (not 140 losses). The extra 20 losses is the reason for changing the rules for the future expansion teams and a one-time fix for this year's expansion teams. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:39:40 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: Jeff Nicholson CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft On this point we clearly disagree. It has always been my policy that when a situation occurs that causes a problem that is not properly handled by existing IRBL Rules, then the rules are changed to fix the problem and to prevent it from happening again. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:45:38 -0400 To: Barry Koopersmith From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Cc: IRBL Managers Barry, I don't see how any set of rules can possibly claim to have an expected number of losses that a team should suffer. Jeff Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:53:21 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: Jeff Nicholson CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Major League expansion teams lost that amount of games and the first two sets of IRBL expansion teams, with the teams starting with 15 or more "normal" players prior to the draft, resulted in that range of losses. Draft picks alone cannot field a team with enough allowed AB's and IP's (otherwise a lineup of mostly batters with a .000 batting average and pitchers with a 6.00 E.R.A. are used which results in 140 losses). The core 15 or so normal players are needed which these two teams did not get. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 19:59:12 -0400 To: Barry Koopersmith From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Cc: IRBL Managers Barry, IRBL # 585 10-24-99 19 Why is a team losing 140 games a "problem" ? Sure, I wouldn't want to lose 140 games but that's the breaks. What if it happens next year, or 2 years from now for unknown reasons ? You claim it's a one time fix but if it happens again how can you justify "fixing" it now and not when it happens again ? The bottom line is, we all have the potential to have our roster, or at least our core players wiped out for a season or more. What if a team had Moises Alou and Andres Galarraga as their big guns ? They would be pretty well out of luck for next season, losing their #3 and #4 hitters. What if they had no decent backups and had to use 400 AB players as their replacements and lost 140 games ? It's a possibility we all face each and every season. This "extra" help that the newest teams are apparently going to get is out of line in my opinion since we all could be in the same boat each and every season. It doesn't matter why you lose 140 games, everyone knew the rules going in, if they don't like 140 losses, they should become proficient at drafting and/or trading, or move on. They shouldn't expect me or any other team to prop them up. Jeff From: "Chip Hopkins" To: "Barry Koopersmith" Cc: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:01:07 -0700 Barry, You saw my vote and I explained it to you I am in favor of an expansion draft because I feel it would be fun, but not everytime an expansion, or established, team has a miserable team. As far as a "one time" expansion draft...the only reason it is one time is because after this it will be permanent. I am in favor of the expansion draft, just not in arrears. Now as far as "The IRBL has never had a policy of "helping" a team", I would say until now!. Bottom line so they lost 140 games, a temporary problem like a headache...I am not going to have brain surgery because of a headache and I don't think we should go changing the rules that have worked for 22 years because of one bad draft. It will pass. The teams will be better next year, and better after that. Chip PS Barry, I will support you in what ever decision you make, just voicing my opinion. I love this league and what ever the outcome of the vote this will still be the best league around Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:09:03 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: Jeff Nicholson CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft 140 losses is a problem because in my judgment it only occurred because these two new teams were not initially stocked with about 15 "normal" players. If by chance some other "older" team happens to lose 140 games (however unlikely that would happen), I would let that team rebuild IRBL # 585 10-24-99 20 under the current draft and trading rules. I am drawing this distinction and you apparently just disagree with me. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:22:12 -0400 To: Barry Koopersmith From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Cc: IRBL Managers Barry, I disagree with going outside of established rules/procedures to "fix" a one time incident. The rules are the rules, the former expansion teams knew what they were. They chose to draft and trade/not trade as they saw fit. Now they have the benefit of prelim and 1st round picks, AND they get to take a player from every other team. It's time that teams stood on their own two feet. They made their decisions, they should live with them, period. You will always have the upper hand in this incident by virtue of your position, but that doesn't mean that you're correct. Jeff Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:25:07 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: Jeff Nicholson CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Do you think the fact that those two teams did not start with about 15 "normal" players prior to the draft made any difference? The DIAMONDBACKS' manager does not have to live by his decisions since he resigned. Just because I "have the upper hand" does not mean I am incorrect either. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:48:48 -0400 To: Barry Koopersmith From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Cc: IRBL Managers Barry, >Do you think the fact that those two teams did not start with about 15 >"normal" players prior to the draft made any difference? What's a "normal" player ? 500 AB's or 200 IP ? Sorry, there's no guarantees for any of us, period. Each season we take what fate gives us, good, bad, or in between. >The DIAMONDBACKS' manager does not have to live by his decisions since >he resigned. I shouldn't have to live by his decisions either ! >Just because I "have the upper hand" does not mean I am incorrect IRBL # 585 10-24-99 21 >either. People/teams/managers need to stand on their own. Do you remember the TV commercial with John Houseman, for the brokerage firm ? You know, the one where he said they made money the old fashioned way, they "earned" it. Well, these newest teams need to build their teams the old fashioned way, they should "earn" it, not have it given to them at the expense of every other team. Jeff Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 21:03:32 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: Jeff Nicholson CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Do you think the Major Leagues should have an expansion draft when they form new teams or should the new teams be stocked only by drafting college and high-school players and by signing free-agents? If that were to happen, those new teams would also lose 140 games for the first several years. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 21:10:57 -0400 To: Barry Koopersmith From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Cc: IRBL Managers Barry, >>Do you think the Major Leagues should have an expansion draft when they >>form new teams or should the new teams be stocked only by drafting I definitely think expansion teams should be stocked via an expansion draft, that's why I suggested it last year. However, we do not have any expansion teams in the IRBL. We did last year, but not this year. Jeff From: RDeaner9@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:28:05 EDT Subject: Re: Expansion team draft To: bkoopers@optonline.net, jnichol@erinet.com CC: IRBL Managers All this discussion and it comes down to 3 issues: 1. We screwed up last year, first by not having a vote and as you can see, Barry was swayed by a few who have a lot of opinions. Second, we now see the mistake and are trying to correct it. 2. Every year there is expansion in sports, there is an expansion draft in which teams lose players and not until the Browns this year, did a high draft choice also go with expansion. 3. The main reason we are trying to correct our mistake is that we need managers to run teams. Hardly anyone wants a team that has players he never heard of or who won't be around next year. One manager saw no future with his team and bailed. It is hard to recruit when the roster is made up of no talent. We haven't had expansion every for 22 years and probably won't for a long time. Everyone isn't as smart as the guys who have "taken their team from nothing to a championship". Some of us just play because we like certain players and couldn't care less if we win the championship. What are IRBL # 585 10-24-99 22 we going to do, put it on our office wall or fireplace? Let's put this in perspective and move on. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 21:29:44 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: Jeff Nicholson CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft After all this discussion, am I correct that it is your opinion that there should be an expansion draft for future IRBL expansion teams but just not for the DIAMONDBACKS and DEVIL RAYS? If that is the case, then I believe we have both said all we can say on the subject. Proposals # 1 and # 2 address the future and the present and the outcome of the vote will determine what we will do (if anything). From: Barry Koopersmith To: Rick Dean - office , Rick Dean - home CC: IRBL Managers Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Thank you for your above comments. You have summarized the issues well and I agree with your points. Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 21:42:13 -0400 To: Barry Koopersmith From: Jeff Nicholson Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Cc: IRBL Managers >>After all this discussion, am I correct that it is your opinion that >>there should be an expansion draft for future IRBL expansion teams but >>just not for the DIAMONDBACKS and DEVIL RAYS? If that is the case, then That is correct. Jeff From: MNUSARMY@aol.com Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:30:54 EDT Subject: Re: Expansion team draft To: jnichol@erinet.com, bkoopers@optonline.net CC: IRBL Managers My two cents: Jeff, you were right last year suggesting an expansion draft last year. At that time, you had few people agree with you, but the results showed you were right. I believe the adjustment that was made at that time was adding draft picks to each round after #1. The reason this adjustment wouldn't work is that Ex teams were forced to draft the best 400 AB players just to fill out the roster. There weren't many guys with lots of good AB's and IP's by the second round (much like any draft), and we all know draft picks after the second round aren't worth much in a trade. I'm sure that the major argument(s) for an ED last year went something like this: 1. The major leagues had an expansion draft (actually, they got 2 or 3 IRBL # 585 10-24-99 23 players from each roster) 2. Expansion clubs were able to sign Free Agents (another thing that can't be done in the IRBL) 3. We saw how anemic these rosters were, and knew just drafting players was not going to supply these teams with even enough guys to complete the season. I'll add another argument besides the competitiveness issue: I simply wouldn't like to see those two teams monopolize the first six picks in the draft for the next few years. No, I'm not afraid of an upcoming 'super team' (Heck, we've always had a few of those, anyway, and I don't think any of them lately were built through the draft), It's just that there are other lousy teams which also need high draft picks, but probably will never qualify for preliminary picks because of the 8-12 wins they pick up against AZ and TB. On the other hand, I think the major dispute right now is over compensation of future expansion teams. I can see how giving future expansion teams the new rookies on the real-life major league club, 2 preliminary round picks, AND a #1 first round pick, AND extra picks in each round afterwards, AND an expansion draft would not be palatable. I voted for the proposal, simply because the rule is better than the present one. But I think, in fairness to any OTHER lousy teams out there, I'd find the rule more palatable if expansion draft picks after the preliminary round were mid-round picks, rather than the first picks in each round. That way they'd be drafting behind 'second-division' clubs (now THAT's a term I haven't heard lately, I guess it was replaced by 'small-market' :-) ) . The thinking is that existing clubs 'EARNED' their draft position on the field the season before, whereas expansion teams haven't earned anything yet. Don't want to inject any controversy, but if anyone agrees with me, the new expansion rule, if adopted, can be amended as such, and if not, it can be modified and brought to another vote. If not, soon maybe I can wake up and not have 30 e-mails to read (Just kidding! I love this stuff!) Matt. Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 18:56:32 +0200 To: MNUSARMY@aol.com, jnichol@erinet.com, bkoopers@optonline.net From: Massimo Ortensi Subject: Re: Expansion team draft Cc: IRBL Managers At 10.30 07/10/99 EDT, MNUSARMY@aol.com wrote: >Don't want to inject any controversy, but if anyone agrees with me, the new >expansion rule, if adopted, can be amended as such, and if not, it can be >modified and brought to another vote. > I like it. From: gerrym@Interpra.com To: bkoopers@optonline.net Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 23:58:58 -0400 Subject: Mets Barry: I wanted to send you this note concerning the Mets record for the 1999 IRBL # 585 10-24-99 24 season. Specifically the Mets had a 53-28 record at home and a 35-46 record on the road. The difference between home wins and road wins was +18. This was the second largest in the NL after the Expos +21 and ahead of the Dodgers +15. It was also the opposite of 1998 when I had a -11 home versus road differential. I was very surprised by the differential. I wanted to see if there was a reason for the differential, in the event that any other manager raised questions about it. When I analyzed the results I could see that the Mets record in one run games was a big reason for the differential. While the Mets overall 1 run record was 31-17, the best in the NL, the home 1 run record was 23-6, a very impressive differential. It appeared to me therefore that a big reason for the Mets +18 home differential was the +17 record in home one run games. I also noted that 29 out of the Mets home games, or 36%, ended in one run games, a very high percentage. I looked at the 23 one run Mets home victories. An amazing fourteen of the 23 games were ninth or extra inning wins. So the Mets had 14 walk-off victories. This also seemed to be a very high number. The other 9 one run wins, decided before the ninth, were routine with many scenarios accounting for the wins. I looked closely at the 14 91walk-off 92 wins. - Seven ended with Mets home runs, 3 by Andruw Jones, 2 by Raul Mondesi, and 1 each by Darrin Fletcher and Raul Casanova - One ended on a triple by a Mets hitter (Orlando Cabrera) - Three ended with a double by a Mets hitter - Two ended with a single by a Mets hitter - One ended on a bases loaded walk (by Rob Nen!) So why do I think the Mets had such a strong home record? I believe these are the reasons: 1. The game has a built in bias towards the home team (see the correspondence with Tom Tippett last fall) 2. Good Luck 3. The Mets had a very strong bullpen. I had 3 righties and 2 lefties with real ERA 92s under 3.3. My lefties are Mike Myers and Steve Kline with real ERA 92s of 2.70. My three righties, Paul Shuey, Jay Powell and Dan Miceli had ERA 92s of 3.00, 3.20 and 3.30. In the late innings of games I would actively switch my relievers to get the best matchups. This would stop the visitors from scoring and allow more time for #1 to take effect. 4. I had a number of home run hitters who could come up big in extra innings. The big home runs are listed above. To have seven games end on home runs sounds like a lot to me. So Barry, those are my comments. I send them to you for your informati on. Gerry Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:36:00 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: ~~~~ Subject: PUP rule background information "Dean, Rick" wrote: > > ...This PUP thing sucks because only 1 extra AB gives you a PUP. ... > > It seems to me that this league is built on negativity, everything is IRBL # 585 10-24-99 25 > intended for penalties and not very many of you want to make changes > to fix problems. ... The PUP penalties used to be more harsh than they are now. Before it was changed, if you had ten players that each had one AB over, you would get ten PUP's. Now all the AB or IP overages are added together and then divided by 10 to get the PUP total (so the above case would result in only one PUP instead of 10) (so there is no harsh penalty if you have a few players that just went an AB or IP over the limit). Prior to the 1996 IRBL season, the PUP rule was changed in 1996 to make those players ineligible for the post-season. I did not propose or vote for the original PUP rule. For that matter, I did not propose or vote for the LSP rule either. The vast majority of IRBL managers at that time wanted penalties for player overages. If you feel that having penalties for violating the agreed upon rules creates a "negative" atmosphere, then feel free to submit a proposal to change or delete the rule. Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:16:37 -0400 From: Barry Koopersmith To: ~~~~ Subject: Re: Player Usage gerrym@Interpra.com wrote: > > So in summary, Barry could help this discussion by telling us if an AB > shortage is the reason for so many PUP's (#1), and if there are fewer 400 > Ab players now (also #1). Also what does everyone think of the 1 PUP > amnesty. > > Gerry - Mets If a manager had to overuse a player because he ran out of AB's for that position, please post a message indicating the player. In the past four years, these were the total number of players who were allowed 400 AB's per IRBL Rule # 8A1 Exception #1: Year Total 1996 69 1997 80 1998 56 1999 95 From: RDeaner9@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:53:38 EDT Subject: ABs and IPPs To: ~~~~ Here are some numbers for you to digest: Using 1999 stats and assuming each team needs 1458 IPP (162*9) and approx 5400 ABs and 162 GS, only 7 (out of 30) teams have enough starts (Astros, Blue Jays, Dodgers, Mets, Pirates, Rangers and Rockies), 7 teams have enough IPP (Blue Jays, Cubs, Marlins, Mets, Orioles, Pirates and Rockies). The DEVIL RAYS (85) and DIAMONDBACKS (75), Giants (64), Reds (69), Twins (75), Giants (64) need the most starts by pitchers. The DEVIL RAYS (827) and DBACKS (800) lead the teams with needed IPP. In ABs, the Reds (+2642) and Phillies (+2585) have almost 50% more ABs than needed, whereas the Dbacks (-4741) and Drays (-2579) are 50% or more under IRBL # 585 10-24-99 26 the number of ABs needed for a complete season. 11 teams have more than 5400 ABs and 19 are under. Of course there are ABs, IPP and GS in the draft, but only approx 140 ABs per team and 20 GS and 200 IPP. The league has to supplement with "400 AB and 250 IPP weak players" because of this screwed distribution. So it sure makes a lot of sense to leave things as they are??? R Dean From: "REGALADO DIAZ JR." To: ~~~~ Subject: Re: ABs and IPPs Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:05:34 -0400 I don't see anything wrong with things as they are. Even in the major leagues teams fill holes and bring up youngsters every year. If a team needs a pitcher they trade for him (or free agent) or draft him. Either way is costly. To say the teams that are short should be given starts from a team that has more than enough is ludicrus. I don't see the braves giving away any of there pitchers all of which are needed aces on other teams. The same applies to hitters. The teams that do not go out and get there needs are the teams that suffer. In this league all you do is lose alot of games in the pros you lose fans as well. Just my 2 cents worth Ricky From: "REGALADO DIAZ JR." To: "Chip Hopkins" , "Frank Hopkins" , "Boling Mike" Cc: ~~~~ Subject: Re: Post-season player penalty waiver vote Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:12:04 -0400 Once again Chip you show class. I bet even Frank can overlok the fact that you are his brother when you come out and accept penalties that are rightfully imposed. Guys were stating that the penalties are nothing but a negative thing in this league but I believe penalties keep things in order. They are listed in the rules and each manager has the same amount of responsibilities to abide by those rules. I am in leagues in which overused players are lost to teams and reinserted back into the draft. That may sound severely harsh but its the rules and if you don't want to lose him don't overuse him. In this league if you don't want PUP's and lose of player in post season don't overuse him. This may sound insensitive but without rules and regulations there is no order. Ricky Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:46:55 -0500 From: Mike Boling To: "REGALADO DIAZ JR." CC: ~~~~ Subject: Re: ABs and IPPs It's called being a General Manager. You fill those holes the best way you can. Through the draft and through trades. If you're fortunate and good enough to IRBL # 585 10-24-99 27 manage to have a surplus, you use it to your advantage. If you're not as fortunate, you work at it a little harder. That's about all there is to it. The IRBL rules help out those who because of retirements, injuries and what have you fall, short in one area or another. Mike Boling Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:35:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Tobin To: RDeaner9@aol.com cc: ~~~~ Subject: Re: ABs and IPPs wow... you got a lot of free time... I barely remember which team I have... :-) IRBL # 585 10-24-99 28 NEWSLETTER # 584 PROPOSAL ------------------------- TEAM MANAGERS 1 2 3 4 ---- -------- - - - - DIAMONDBACKS DODGERS Massimo Ortensi F A A A GIANTS Mike Mayko A A A F PADRES Andrea Cristiani A A A A ROCKIES Wing Lee F F A F ASTROS Mike Ranney F A A A BREWERS John Mattfeld F F A A CARDINALS Don Tobin F F A A CUBS Mike Boling F F A F PIRATES Ricky Diaz F F A A REDS Jeff Nicholson A A A A BRAVES Jim Jansen A A F F EXPOS Chris Williams F F A F MARLINS Don Swearingen F F F F METS Gerry McDonald F F A A PHILLIES John Parker F A A A ANGELS Matt Cummings F F A A ATHLETICS Tom Meegan F F A A MARINERS Robert Gunter A F A A RANGERS Michael Walsh F F A A INDIANS Bill Mattfeld F A A F ROYALS TIGERS Rick Dean A F F A TWINS Mark Johnson F F F A WHITE SOX Chip Hopkins F A A A BLUE JAYS DEVIL RAYS George Widenor F - A A ORIOLES Carmine Salerno F A A F RED SOX Frank Hopkins F F A A YANKEES Barry Koopersmith F F A A PROPOSAL # ---> 1 2 3 4 -- -- -- -- FOR ---> 21 16 4 8 AGAINST ---> 6 10 23 19 NOT VOTING ---> 1 RESULT: ---> Pass Fail Fail Fail IRBL # 585 10-24-99 29 WHITE SOX PUP WAIVER PROPOSAL ----------------------------- TEAM MANAGERS 1 ---- -------- - DIAMONDBACKS DODGERS Massimo Ortensi A GIANTS Mike Mayko A PADRES Andrea Cristiani A ROCKIES Wing Lee - ASTROS Mike Ranney A BREWERS John Mattfeld A CARDINALS Don Tobin A CUBS Mike Boling F PIRATES Ricky Diaz A REDS Jeff Nicholson A BRAVES Jim Jansen A EXPOS Chris Williams F MARLINS Don Swearingen A METS Gerry McDonald F PHILLIES John Parker A ANGELS Matt Cummings F ATHLETICS Tom Meegan A MARINERS Robert Gunter A RANGERS Michael Walsh A INDIANS Bill Mattfeld - ROYALS TIGERS Rick Dean - TWINS Mark Johnson - WHITE SOX Chip Hopkins - BLUE JAYS DEVIL RAYS George Widenor F ORIOLES Carmine Salerno F RED SOX Frank Hopkins F YANKEES Barry Koopersmith A PROPOSAL # ---> 1 -- FOR ---> 7 AGAINST ---> 15 NOT VOTING ---> 5 RESULT: ---> Fail