Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - BBFL: Offseason Rule Change Discussion, Round Two

BBFL: Offseason Rule Change Discussion, Round Two

I've heard from all the owners, thirty-eight of whom are returning. We have lost one Alomar owner (Jordan "Dad" Furlong's SABR Magicians) and one Barfield owner (Mike Hansen's Springfield Isotopes, relegated from Alomar). It speaks well of our league that everyone responded quickly and that almost everyone can continue to play. Kudos to the returning owners, and thanks to Jordan and Mike for playing the last two seasons.

Proposed Rule Changes To Date:

Change the system of promotion. The current system promotes the top three regular-season finishers. A "yes" vote would change the system to the top two regular-season finishers and the winner of the Championship Bracket playoff. If the playoff winner is among the top two regular-season finishers, the third-place team would be promoted. (Clarification: This rule, if enacted, will NOT apply to the 2004-2005 offseason, only subsequent seasons.)

Add a Center Fielder position to the required offensive positions. (Clarification: As proposed, the rule would add a CF, not make one of the existing outfielders a CF.)

That's it. Plenty of discussion, but no other proposals have been seconded. Current owners might want to review the previous thread and second proposals they like or create new ones. The issue of transferring ownership of orphaned teams is particularly thorny. If you have any additional thoughts regarding how to handle it, please share them. Suggestions are welcome from anyone, but only current owners may propose rule changes and vote on them.

Also, not to be nitpicky, but no one has seconded the proposal of the Carter Division or any rules pertaining to it. For my part, I'm not against a third division as such, and the waiting list is long enough to indicate that we could field it. However, I do have to say up front that my statistical upkeep of it will be minimal at best. I enjoy compiling the league's statistics, and I hope you enjoy perusing them, but it takes time. I have to draw the line somewhere.

Preseason Schedule:
Today through Feb 8: Rule Change Proposals, General-Purpose Discussion
Feb 9 through Feb 12: Rule Voting
Feb 14 through Feb 28: Offseason Trading Window (see below)
Mar 01 through Mar 04: Announce Keepers
All deadlines are 11:59pm PST.

Once I've tabulated the proposal ballots, I'll contact members of the waiting list and fill up the remaining slots as decided by rule. New owners deserve some time to become acquainted with their rosters, so I may slide the trading window back a day to accommodate them. I'll keep everyone posted on matters in this thread.

Posted by Lucas on Friday, February 04 2005 @ 08:43 AM EST.

BBFL: Offseason Rule Change Discussion, Round Two | 39 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Lucas - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 08:45 AM EST (#891) #

Also, I've created a new email to separate my fantasy duties from regular Batter's Box matters. Use "bbfl" instead of "bb" if you need to email me regarding fantasy ball.

_David Goodwin - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 09:04 AM EST (#892) #

I would like to officially propose (or second) the creation of a Carter division. Lucas, there should never have been any obligation on your part to maintain statistics for the Barfield division, let alone Carter, so I don't think that should limit our expansion. Realistically, the league only needs a commissioner, and someone to record the rosters at end of year. I don't think that would be too difficult. And out of the 59 other owners, I'm hopeful that someone will step to the plate to give a similar statistical treatment to Carter.

Though I have not yet thought this through well enough, we should also vote on how to handle the bottom division, whether that be Barfield or Carter, next season. Primarily, I think the relegation threat is enough to encourage very competitve play until the very end of the season, and should apply to all divisions (even the bottom one, meaning 3 owners would be removed from the BBFL). I am sure this issue is contentious, but speaking from the experience in Barfield last year, I know that the lack of relegation skewed things, at least with respect to Alomar. Anyhow, it's just a thought.

Pistol - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 09:11 AM EST (#893) #

(Clarification: As proposed, the rule would add a CF, not make one of the existing outfielders a CF.)

So does this take away a DH, or are we adding a player entirely to get to 14 batters?

_David Goodwin - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 09:16 AM EST (#894) #

25 players per team are more than enough in my mind, I will definitely vote against adding a CF if it is not replacing an OF. Perhaps it can be a two part vote?
A) Include a CF position (Yes or No)
B) If A) is yes, the CF will replace an existing OF position (Yes or No)

Lucas - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 09:41 AM EST (#895) #

25 players per team are more than enough in my mind, I will definitely vote against adding a CF if it is not replacing an OF. Perhaps it can be a two part vote?

I was thinking the same thing.

We can create two-part, three-part, or twelve-part votes if we want. As I'd mentioned, the vote on assigning ownerless teams will almost certainly be "multiple choice." The Carter vote will also need to be bifurcated: 1) Do we create it, 2) Will it have relegation/promotion rules just like Alomar/Barfield (I think it should), and 3) is it a keeper league (it doesn't have to be).

I'm kind of warming to the idea of owners choosing their replacements as they wish, so I'll second that proposal. It's very clean. If the owner doesn't want to choose or cannot be contacted, the team is offered to the highest-ranked unpromoted team in the lower division.

_Moffatt - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 09:43 AM EST (#896) #

If there's multiple proposals on the same thing, we vote via borda count. So if the question was:

1. Should we use a centerfielder?
a) Yes, as an entirely extra player
b) Centerfielder replaces one of the existing OF spots
c) no
(or however you want to phrase it)

Then people vote on their preferences from most-favourite to least-favourite, say b,c,a.

_David Goodwin - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 09:49 AM EST (#897) #

Re: Choosing a Replacement

As with tax policy, there are two considerations here--equity and efficiency.

Perhaps it is not the most equitable to allow an outgoing manager to select his own replacement (for example, Jordan picks person x, who is not even on the waiting list, hence unfair to those that have been waiting patiently but were passed over). However, it is far and away the most efficient. Most significantly, there is no fiddling around with relegation. I believe the only stipulation that needs to be attached to the proposal is that it must be a manager that does not have an interest in another team in the BBFL. I know this sounds silly and straightforward, but it would close any potential loopholes with Barfield managers dropping their team to take Jordan's, or other such problems.

To repeat how I would word the proposal, an outgoing manager should be able to simply select their replacement from the waiting list, but they should not be forced to.

_David Goodwin - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 09:54 AM EST (#898) #

Mike,

I see a problem with the CF question being put to a borda count, as there are two separate questions.

Do you want a CF position is the primary one. The secondary question is whether it should replace an OF slot, or become a new position altogether.

If we can only vote for one of the options (CF replacing OF, CF a new position, no CF) it gives a built in advantage to adding the CF, as two of the three choices support it.

_David Goodwin - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 10:07 AM EST (#899) #

Nevermind that last post, in fact someone can delete it if they wouldn't mind. I had a brain cramp and forgot that you can prioritize the three choices in a borda count, you don't only have one vote as I had alluded to.

Lucas - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 10:12 AM EST (#900) #

I believe the only stipulation that needs to be attached to the proposal is that it must be a manager that does not have an interest in another team in the BBFL.

That was my thinking also, but it should be expressed, not implied. The new owner must really ne new, not a current owner.

_David Goodwin - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 12:09 PM EST (#902) #

I propose we drop the mulit-part voting associated with the CF addition and word it as follows:

Replace one of the existing four OF roster positions with CF.

Since Lars was the one who initially proposed it, and his intent was always to have it replace an OF position.

_Jonny German - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 12:46 PM EST (#903) #

I second David's clarification proposal. And I vote No. Not that I've figured out what my roster is yet...

_Homer Jay Simps - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 12:53 PM EST (#904) #

I totally reject the idea of adding a CF position.
It was first proposed because "Add a designated Center field position. I still think it is a shame that we undervalue CF's and their defensive skills"
1. If we want to add a defence varible to the league then we should add the PUTOUT static or something like that, and not a different position. I'm sure every baseball team would love to have a 2b / ss with great range. These player are desireable but we don't add another 2b / ss player. Why not take away the UTIL position as well?
2. It's hard enough trying to fill a 25 roster team with 20 teams in the league. Adding another definate position will make it even harder. It will also restrict roster movements because if you are trading away a CF you want to get a CF back to replace your starter.

Lucas - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 12:55 PM EST (#905) #

When I proposed the CF idea I assumed the CF would replace one OF designation.

Fine with me. It shall be so.

_David Goodwin - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST (#908) #

I think adding another DL spot merits consideration. Consider that a seconded proposal.

_R Billie - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 02:31 PM EST (#909) #

I think adding a CF requirement now makes things difficult for people who put together their roster the previous two seasons with no such consideration. There are some people out there now with what would be very valuable assets in CF and others who have lesser CF options or maybe even no CF options.

If everyone was to start over without keepers and draft new teams then it would be fair. But changing roster composition in a keeper league is a big deal. Rosters were drafted in previous years with certain considerations in mind. Replacing an OF with a CF requirement would be like replacing the SS position with IF. It changes the values of an entire subset of players, sometimes drastically.

Just so I know, will there still be five keepers this season?

_R Billie - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 02:40 PM EST (#910) #

One rule change that I suggested last year after it was too late was to plan for a "League Reset" down the road. A lot of keeper leagues run in three year cycles where after three seasons all rosters are wiped out and the next draft is done from scratch.

This will be the third year of the BBFL and while I'm not suggesting that rosters reset after this year, I think it is something we should consider for one of the upcoming seasons because at that point we can then talk about changing roster composition and other things that would affect league balance if everyone is starting from square one.

Lucas - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 02:53 PM EST (#911) #

Just so I know, will there still be five keepers this season?

Yes. All teams must have five keepers.

_David Goodwin - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 03:32 PM EST (#912) #

Re: League Reset proposal

Having a League Reset year is another interesting idea, and is worth considering. I second it, though am not sure I support it. It would probably benefit from a "should we do this" question, followed by an "if yes, what year" one.

Obviously having one season where no players will be kept would have serious impacts on how people play. One dynamic this would alter is the "keep players for only 3 years" requirement, that to my knowledge has already led Alomar managers to be proactive and trade some of their players away, just to get a fresh 3-year service clock.

_Geoff North - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 05:43 PM EST (#914) #

I'll second Greg's proposal. The limited number of DL spots led me to drop many players prematurely, because I couldnt' afford the dead roster space.

I still don't like the CF idea, mainly for the reasons that R Billie stated. This past season, I could have drafted Jim Edmonds with my 1st pick. If I had needed a CF, I probably would have, and been set for the next few years.

A new proposal: Change the K/BB pitching rate stat to K/9. Having K/BB penalizes pitchers twice for the walks they give up (K/BB and WHIP), while also downgrading pitchers who have high strikeout and walk rates (like a Victor Zambrano) and upgrading pitchers with excellent control (like a Brad Radke). I think K/9 would mesh with our other rate and counting stats to more accurately reward good pitchers performance.

Pistol - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 05:47 PM EST (#915) #

Change the system of promotion.

Add a Center Fielder position to the required offensive positions.

I vote Yes on both proposals.

_Michael - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 06:07 PM EST (#916) #

I'm not an owner nor do I play one on TV (but I'd like to be an owner). One way to implement the reset so that people are always building for the future/now but a reset can still occur would be to pick some percentage chance that there will be a reset each year. Say 25%. So that any year could have the reset, but most likely will not. That way even in the year before the reset you have teams playing appropriately for this year and for future years and don't have the last year be one where people can't make trades for that year versus future value. It also means future value is always discounted slightly.

_Shrike - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 06:51 PM EST (#917) #

Um . . . no thanks. If I want to play an honest to goodness lottery, I'll but a ticket.

_Shrike - Friday, February 04 2005 @ 07:06 PM EST (#918) #

But=buy. Rotten typos!

_King Rat - Sunday, February 06 2005 @ 12:37 AM EST (#919) #

I'm not sure I like the idea of a league reset. It was my understanding that we instituted the 3-year limit on keepers to encourage the sort of fluidity hoped for in a reset style league, without completely shaking the league up every few seasons. Given that we are now heading into our third year of operations, it seems premature to me to give up on that system as a loss. And speaking as last year's sixteenth place finisher, I think I speak against a strict assessment of my own self-interest.

I like the proposed solution to the question of owners who choose to walk away from the league-it's simple, and I imagine it's not something we'll have to worry about in multiple examples from year to year. I still think we should add a Carter division, though I can't imagaine that anyone would hold it against Scott if he was less amazingly detailed statistically with regard to them as he has been hitherto with the Alomar and Barfield divisions.

Finally, on the question of centrefielders: I've been in favour of adding such a category for two years now, because I think it encourages us to field teams that could actually play a game together, at least without giving up a lot of gap doubles. This is merely an aethetic preference of mine-I do realize this is fantasy baseball-but I think it's not at all a bad idea, or one that would be unduly onerous for those teams that have been constructed without a centrefielder at the moment to come in line with. I would personally encourage us to replace one of the current four OF spots with the CF, but whatever people think is best.

Regardless of what we decide, I'm already looking forward to the start of the season. Beware the Rats.

Lucas - Monday, February 07 2005 @ 05:15 PM EST (#921) #

Current roster below. We already have four OFs.

1 C
1 1B
1 2B
1 3B
1 SS
4 OF
1 MI (2B or SS)
1 CI (1B or 3B)
2 Utility (DH or any non-pitcher)
4 SP
3 RP
3 P (SP or RP in any combination)

_snellville jone - Monday, February 07 2005 @ 09:45 PM EST (#922) #

I was a proponent of a CF designation when we started the league, but was convinced that some players, like Berkman at the time I believe, were CF eligible, but obviously not skilled at the position. At the time, that seemed like a reasonable argument, but it seems like there are examples of this at other positions pretty consistently. (Case in point: Teixeira was a 3Bman all of last year.) I think I would support a shift to a CF position after for the 2006 season, taking the place of one of the OF slots.

Lucas - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 08:57 AM EST (#923) #

Today is the last day to propose rule changes or second proposals.

Voting begins tomorrow.

_David Goodwin - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 09:15 AM EST (#924) #

Scott,

Can you please give us a brief rundown of the rule changes that have been proposed and seconded, so nobody is up in arms if they assume something to be there and it's not.

Lucas - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 06:25 PM EST (#925) #

Proposed proposals (quick version):

1. CREATE a Carter Division (y/n).
1a. I suggest that it should have the same rules and promotion system as Alomar/Barfield, the only question is whether it's a keeper league.

2. DESIGNATE a Center Fielder position: add one, change an OF to CF, or oppose both

3. CHANGE promotion system (see main entry above) (y/n). Will apply to all leagues starting 2005-2006.

4. PERMIT a departing owner to designate his replacement if he chooses (y/n). New owner may not be a current owner of ANY BBFL team.
4a. APPROVE a system for replacing Alomar owners who cannot or choose not to designate a replacement: highest non-promoted team in lower division, waiting list from 2003, combined 2004-2005 waiting list.

5. INCREASE number of DL slots: total of 2, 3, or 1 (no change)

Note that all of #4a hasn't been formally seconded, but we have to vote on something, otherwise it's me making decrees and potentially jilted parties saying "why didn't we vote on this?"

Also, as written above, the "reset" proposals are so vague that I'm not sure there's anything to vote on. If someone wants to submit a more concrete proposal, fine, but FWIW I'd be against it. We only keep 20% of our rosters from year to year and have to turn over that 20% every three years. That's pretty close to a reset already. I think the reset concept better fits a league with more keepers.

_David Goodwin - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 09:33 PM EST (#926) #

I second Scott's proposal 4a to formalize a system for designating replacement managers, and leave him to craft the correct way to word this.

Scott, if you want a pair of eyes to give the full complement of proposals a once over before posting them, feel free to email me (COMN).

Pistol - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 10:01 PM EST (#927) #

4. PERMIT a departing owner to designate his replacement if he chooses (y/n). New owner may not be a current owner of ANY BBFL team.

Why would it matter if the replacing owner was already in the BBFL or not?

If someone in Alomar left and was replaced by a Barfield owner the Barfield owner could then designate someone to replace that spot. It doesn't seem like it would complicate things that much.

Also, in the event that this ended up being a majority to 'no', how would a replacement be determined?

It'd probably be best to do something along the lines of:

Replacing an exiting owner -
A. Let exiting owner designate new owner
B. Go to the waiting list
C. Promote a team from the division below
D. Option I didn't think of

And then from there you could do the borda count.

_David Goodwin - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 11:48 PM EST (#928) #

The reason the "designate an owner from outside the BBFL" stipulation was made is to keep things clean. It could get really messy if we don't close the door on passing a team on to an existing owner, whereby we may have a revolving door of teams being passed along. Once someone is a BBFL owner, they should not be able to switch teams as they please. Promotion/relegation is the only way an existing BBFL owner should be given a new team to manage, and really, that's option C that Pistol lays out above. Either we have a system for having an extra team move up or one less team be relegated, or we go outside the league and get a new owner altogether (option A and my distinct preference).

So to clarify, I think the choices are:

A. Outgoing owner designates a new manager to take-over his/her team. This new manager must not be a member of the BBFL.
B. The waiting list is employed to find a new manager.
C. The highest regular season finisher in the division below is promoted. The waiting list is employed to find a new manager for the lower division.
D. The highest regular season finisher that is currently set to be relegated stays in his/her current division. The waiting list is employed to find a new manager for the lower division.

Options C and D are quite messy, as it becomes unclear how we handle which team belongs to which manager in promotion/relegation. As it stands now 18th Alomar/1st Barfield, 19A/2B, 20A/3B swap is our method, so having one Alomar manager stay up or one extra Barfield manager go up makes life difficult, moreso the extra Alomar manager staying in his/her division.

At any rate, I'm confident Scott will craft a suitable Borda count question to see what the league thinks.

_David Goodwin - Tuesday, February 08 2005 @ 11:49 PM EST (#929) #

Sorry, option C should say "The highest regular season finisher not already being promoted."

BBFL: Offseason Rule Change Discussion, Round Two | 39 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.