September 15, 2003

The 2004 Rule Proposals

It's that time of year again.  If the mark of a good organization is its desire to never leave well enough alone, then the BDBL is a tremendous organization.  Each September, the league steps back a bit and considers how this great league could become even greater.  Last year, we introduced a few radical changes to the way free agents are acquired - changes that have since made our jobs as GM's much more challenging and realistic.

This year, we have twelve proposals on the ballot - over twice as many as last year.  Some of these changes are minor, some pretty major.  Below, I've touched upon some of the pros and cons of adopting each of these twelve proposals.  I know that you all will put as much thought and consideration into your votes as I will into mine.  This is your league, and it is up to you to decide how fun, realistic, challenging, simple or complex you want it to be.

Proposal #1: "Farm Expansion, Part Three." Farm rosters will be expanded from 15 players to 20.

Pros: Since the BDBL began, we have expanded our farm rosters from 5 to 10 and now to 15.  With each expansion, it becomes more and more difficult to find quality farm free agents, thus making it more and more difficult to replenish the farm after trading.  In addition to the added challenge of trading, expanding the farm has also added to the fun and enjoyment of the league for most GM's in the league.

Cons: At what point does the madness end?  Or, to put it another way, at what point does Billy Baseball's head explode?  Eventually, the expansion has to stop somewhere.  No matter how many farm players we have, there will always be a few impact prospects that slip through the cracks.  Surprise players (like Jeremy Reed) pop up every single year in the minor leagues, and if we were to expand the farms to 50, those surprise players would still find a way to sneak through.

My vote: I'm voting "PASS" to Proposal #1 for three reasons: 1) I love following my farm guys year-round, taking fliers on obscure prospects and watching them blossom, 2) If Proposal #6 passes, Proposal #1 would be essential, and 3) passing this rule certainly wouldn't harm the league in any way.

Proposal #2: "Farm Definition."  Increase the eligibility for the farm from 150 career MLB at-bats to 350, and from 50 career IP for starting pitchers (defined as any pitcher that has started at least half of his MLB games) to 125 IP.  (Note: relief pitchers remain the same, at 50 career MLB IP.)

Pros: This rule would give GM's a larger sample size from which to base their contract decisions for their farm players.  As it stands, GM's are sometimes called upon to make long-term decisions regarding prospects that haven't yet fully established themselves in the Major Leagues.  With this rule in place, the option year is merely delayed another 200 at-bats and 75 innings, giving the GM time and information with which to base his decision.

Cons: It's tough to think of a "con", really.  There may be the occasional impact player that reaches 349 AB's while providing a 950 OPS before embarking on a Hall of Fame career.  That would be the worst-case scenario.  And in that case, the worst that would happen is that his owner would get an extra year out of that player at minimum wage.  But if a GM is savvy enough to have picked such a gem, shouldn't he reap the rewards?

My vote: Obviously, I vote to "PASS" this proposal.  There's simply no compelling reason not to.

Proposal #3: "The Pemberton Rule."   Batters with fewer than 75 at-bats, starting pitchers with fewer than 40 IP, and relief pitchers with fewer than 20 IP in the prior Major League season will not be eligible for the active (25-man) roster at any time (including the playoffs.)

Pros: Ah...an old friend has returned!  If this rule looks familiar, it's only because you've now seen it five times.  The purpose of this proposal is to help correct the flaw in the DMB software that allows extreme short-usage players from deciding the outcomes of important games.  This rule is named after Rudy Pemberton, who hit .512/.556/.780 in 41 at-bats in 1996.

Cons: Opponents of this proposal point out that Pemberton did truly hit .512/.556/.780 in 41 at-bats, and therefore it is realistic for Pemberton to hit just as well in 41 at-bats in the BDBL.  The problem with this argument is that Pemberton was likely not exploited in 1996 the way he would be in the BDBL.  In the BDBL, Pemberton would only be used in clutch situations as a pinch hitter, where the fate of the game is on the line, or as a starter batting in the #3 or #4 spot in the lineup against the best teams in the league.  In the BDBL, Pemberton would have 45 at-bats, and all 45 of them would be in clutch, game-deciding situations.  That is simply unrealistic.  But more than that, it's unfair.

My vote: For the fifth year in a row, I will vote "PASS".  The Diamond Mind game was built to accurately simulate an entire Major League season under the same conditions under which the original games were played.  In that regard, DMB is an extraordinarily accurate piece of simulation software.  However, when used in a league setting such as ours, DMB is highly flawed because the software doesn't take into account that realistic usage over a short usage period doesn't necessarily translate to the same performance over longer periods or with different usage patterns.  This proposal helps neutralize the flaws in the software and restores some of the lost integrity to our game.

Proposal #4: "The Hendrickson Rule."   Any pitcher with fewer than 75 IP cannot start any game of the playoffs.

Pros: This proposal blends very nicely with the previous proposal, because it is based upon the same exact principle.  We have a couple of rules that are specifically designed to neutralize the flaws in the DMB software I wrote about above.  Rule 14.9 states that any starting pitcher with less than 100 IP cannot pitch more than five innings, and Rule 14.11 states that any starting pitcher with fewer than 30 IP is ineligible for the playoffs.  These rule work well, but there are loopholes.  Mark Hendrickson, for example, tossed 36.2 innings in the big leagues last year, and compiled a 2.45 ERA with 468/580 OPS splits.  He was primarily a relief pitcher, but because he started 4 out of 16 games, he has a Durability rating and therefore can be used as a starter.  Not only that, but Rule 14.9 doesn't apply to him, since he's not technically a "starting pitcher" (defined as a pitcher that has started at least half his games.)  This is a loophole that needs to be closed before someone with a "win at all costs" mindset exploits it in the future.

Cons: Some would argue that a pitcher with 74 innings is just as legitimate as one with 75.  I can't argue that.  But we have to set a limit somewhere, and I think 75 innings is a reasonable number of innings, where the sample size would be large enough to be meaningful.  75 innings is about ten or eleven starts, or about one-third of a full-time starting pitcher's season.  That seems more than reasonable.

My vote: Once again, I vote, "PASS".

Proposal #5: "The Way Selig Should Have Fixed It Rule."   Home field advantage in the BDBL World Series goes to the team with the better record during the regular season.  A tie is decided by the team with the greater run differential.  The second tie-breaker would be prior season's record.

Pros: Throughout the entire post-season, we award home field advantage to the team that played better throughout the regular season.  Yet for some reason, when we get to the biggest post-season series of the season, we award home field advantage randomly, based on whether the current year ends in an odd or even digit.  It doesn't make much sense, does it?  Then again, we adopted that tradition from Major League Baseball, so that explains why it doesn't make any sense!

Cons: Some people would have you believe that since one league is tougher than the other, a win in one league should count for more than a win in the other.  If that's the case, then regular season wins (and runs) would be deceiving.

My vote: Does it really matter who gets home field advantage in the BDBL?  Judging by historical records, it certainly doesn't seem to make a difference.  Still, if there is such a thing as "home field advantage", it should go to the team that has earned it.  My vote is to PASS this proposal.

Proposal #6: "The Are You Happy Now, Jeff? Rule."   Farm free agents may only be selected once per year, during the Chapter Four free agent acquisition period.

Pros: Jeff Paulson has been arguing for a number of years now that farm teams are used unrealistically in the BDBL.  His contention is that contending teams are able to load up by trading prospects for contributing players, then replace those prospects with other prospects that are then traded for more ammunition.  Sadly, he has a point.

Cons: I've always looked forward to each free agent acquisition period with a certain amount of excitement.  I enjoy the process of searching for those golden nuggets in the minor leagues and around college campuses and discovering "the next big thing" before anyone else knows about him.  I know I'm not alone.  This proposal would eliminate the fun and excitement of this process throughout the season, save that one day in Chapter Four.

My vote: This is a tough one for me, I have to admit.  The rational side of me - the one with the best interests of the league at heart - says this proposal must be passed in order to preserve the integrity of the pennant races and add a bit of realism to our farm clubs.  The irrational side of me - the one that lights up when I hear about some fifth-round draft pick in Low-A ball who added ten pounds of muscle in the off-season and is now leading the minor leagues in home runs - would sorely miss the opportunity to trade up on my farm system every chapter.  I will vote "PASS", but I will do so with a heavy heart.

Proposal #7: "The Fan Appreciation Rule." Teams will be rewarded or penalized the following dollar amounts toward the following year's cap depending on their regular-season wins rank (with run differential and previous season's wins being the tie-breakers): (NOTE: this rule would not take effect until the 2005 season.)

#1 - #5: +$2 million
#6 - #10: +$1 million
#11 - #14: No change
#15 - #19: -$1 million
#20 - #24: - $2 million

Pros: Every year, without fail, we see good teams give up halfway through the season and begin tearing apart their team in the desperate goal of winning it all the following season.  It's not pretty, and it's never fun, but it's a fact of life in the BDBL.  For contending teams, this means sacrificing the future for the present, just to keep pace with the other contenders.  For the non-contenders, it means selling off whatever you can for whatever you can get in return before the buyer's market dries up.  This proposal seeks to minimize the incentive for teams to tank, and to minimize the number of "dump trades" that occur in the BDBL with more frequency than seems comfortable or realistic.

Cons: One of the standing goals of the BDBL rulebook is to ensure that bad teams have the opportunity to improve themselves and become contenders within a reasonable amount of time.  After all, nobody likes to come in last year after year after year (right, Billy?)  Taking salary away from these poor teams and adding to the salaries of good teams certainly seems to go toward the opposite direction of that goal.

My vote: Despite the "con" stated above, I will vote "PASS" for this proposal.  Another one of the standing goals of the BDBL rulebook is to simulate reality as much as possible, and this proposal would make our league more realistic.  In general, good teams have more money to spend than bad teams.  Fans pay to see winners, not losers.  There should be no incentive for throwing in the towel early.  This proposal won't stop dump trading, but it may help curb it a little, and that's good enough for me.

Proposal #8: "The There's No Crying in Baseball Rule."   Injuries will be turned OFF for all games (regular and post-season.)

Pros: We have usage rules to ensure that short-usage players are not used more often than they were used in reality.  Therefore, having a random injury rating does nothing to prevent overusage.  With the random injury setting, a player that never missed a game in reality might miss several BDBL games.  That is unfair to that player's team and an unrealistic usage pattern for that player.

Cons: The injury setting has nothing to do with usage and everything to do with mimicking reality and presenting managers with a real-life challenge.  Players get hurt in reality, and managers must find a way to work around those setbacks.  Remember: we are not attempting to duplicate the MLB season in the BDBL.  The BDBL season is a completely separate entity than MLB; therefore, just because a player never missed a game in MLB, that shouldn't mean a thing in the BDBL.  Derek Jeter seldom missed a game prior to this season, but Joe Torre had to deal with his absence for several weeks this season.  These things happen, and it's part of what makes managing such a challenge.

My vote: I will vote "REJECT" to this proposal.  My reasons for doing so are summed up in the "Cons" section above.

Proposal #9: "The Technically, There is No Such Thing as a 'Series' of Two Rule."   The schedule will be modified so that teams will play four-game series, with 32 games being played in Chapters One and Six and 24 games being played in Chapters Two through Five.

Pros: When games are played two at a time, teams can (and do) load up their aces against certain opponents each and every chapter.  As a result, certain teams only face the two best pitchers from certain opponents.  A four game series would force a team to throw their #3 and #4 starters against every team.  Teams would also have to manage their bullpen a bit more realistically, adding a bit of challenge to the managing experience.

Cons: It's sometimes difficult to find the time to schedule four games against an opponent.  And while teams can play a four game series two at a time, doing so can be a bit complicated, as it involves exporting and importing stats.

My vote: I vote to "PASS" this proposal, as I feel the pro's vastly outweigh the "cons."

Proposal #10: "The We Don't Need No Stinking Gimmicks Rule."   Interleague play will be scrapped and replaced by two additional games against opponents in the other two divisions of each team's league.

Pros: What is the point of scheduling interleague games?  In the big leagues, interleague play was introduced in order to boost revenue, but that certainly doesn't apply to the BDBL.  Aren't games against teams in your own league more meaningful?  Also, from a wild card perspective, isn't it more fair for teams to be playing the same opponents throughout the year?

Cons: Interleague play is nice in that every owner in the BDBL can play every other owner in the league at least four times every three years.  Interleague play keeps us all from being too isolated and forces us to interact with "that other league" every now and then.

My vote: Initially, I was all for scrapping interleague play.  But now that I think about it, I kind of like it.  I'll vote, "REJECT".

Proposal #11: "The How About a Little Consistency, Ump Rule."   Rule 6.2(a) will be rewritten so that lefty/righty split usage is based upon AT-BATS, not PLATE APPEARANCES.

Pros: This one's a slam dunk.  The only reason we tracked split usage by plate appearances is because that's the way the DMB report was set up in Version 7.0, and there was no way to customize it.  Now that we have the freedom to customize reports, there's really no need to keep this inconsistent rule around anymore.

Cons: Um...are there any??

My vote: "PASS".

Proposal #12: "Radical Realignment."   The league will adopt the following realignment of teams. (NOTE: this rule requires 19 votes - 80% approval - in order to pass):

Pros: Ah...we've saved the most controversial for last!  What began as a joke has now ended up as a ballot proposal.  The premise here is that our divisional races would be much more exciting if they included natural rivals in each division.  In the new alignment, we've got a "Glander Four" division, featuring four high school friends from way back.  In the Griffin Division, we have four California teams vying for the title.  In the Person Division, father and son have been paired together.  The Hrbek Division has developed some good rivalries over the years, so it has been left intact.  And the Higuera and Benes Divisions have been left alone as much as possible, while including some great rivalries of their own.

Cons: There is something to be said for tradition and continuity.  We've had the same divisional alignment (for the most part) since this league began, and several good rivalries have developed as a result.  This new alignment breaks up some of those old rivalries (in particular, Stamford/Bear Country and Salem/Marlboro), which is a shame.  Our History page would also be a mess if this rule were to pass.

My vote: The more I think about this, the more this idea grows on me.  When we began this league, there was no real blueprint as far as where teams were placed divisionally.  It was pretty much a first-come, first-serve arrangement.  Now that we're an established league, it makes sense to divide the teams into natural rivalries.  I never thought I would say this, but I will vote "PASS" on this issue.  And if this proposal does pass, you can guarantee the most exciting season ever!