September 21, 2004

The 2005 Rule Proposals

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, we take a step back and consider how this great league could become even greater.  Last year, we passed nine of the twelve proposals on the ballot, including a radical realignment of divisions.  This year, there isn't any proposal on the ballot that will significantly alter the way we participate in this hobby, but there are some important initiatives that could make this league just a tiny bit more fun and realistic.  As the league turns seven years old, it's comforting to know that we've seemingly reached the "tweaking" stage.

Below, I've listed a summary of each proposal, along with the pros, the cons and my own recommendations.  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: Eliminate the second part of Rule 17.1, which requires teams to protect no more than $55 million in salary on Cutdown Day.

Pros: Originally, the second part of Rule 17.1 was written into the rulebook to promote a healthy turnover of free agents and to prevent a team from stockpiling all of the best talent for years to come. Now that I think of it, I'm not really sure WHY that part of the rule was written, but I'm sure I had a good reason for it at the time.

Cons: If you believe that keeping the limit at $55 million would be beneficial in some way, let me know.

My vote: When you have a rule on the books, and no one (not even the guy who wrote it) knows why it's there, that's a good indication it doesn't belong.  I'm giving this one the thumbs-up.

Proposal #2: Eliminate Rules 14.8(a) through 14.13, which refer to eligibility in the playoffs, and replace them with a blanket rule limiting ALL players in the post-season to 8% of their total MLB IP's and PA's in each round.  An extra 1% will be allowed for each six innings of extra-innings play.

Pros: As you all should know by now, I'm a big fan of keeping rules as simple as possible.  This proposal may require some up-front math before each series, but in the end, it is much simpler, and much more fair.  The bottom line with all of our usage rules is that we don't want severe part-time players deciding the outcomes of the biggest games of the year.  This proposal solves that problem while keeping everything simple.

Cons: Initially, I was against this proposal because it required what I felt was too much up-front math work and constant policing during the playoffs.  When I'm managing in the post-season, I have enough to think about as it is, and having to keep an eye on usage is just about the last thing I want to do.

My vote: Questions like these call for a bit of perspective.  Sure, it sucks having to do all that up-front math work, and it will suck greatly to have to watch usage so closely during the playoffs.  But it will suck even worse if you get beat by a 100-AB Rudy Pemberton-look-alike who goes 4-for-4 in the first four games of the series.  I vote "yes" on this proposal.

Proposal #3: Players acquired in trade at the Chapter Four deadline are ineligible for the post-season.

Pros: I named this rule after Sharky because he's the one who thought of it.  And unlike the fish after whom he is named, this proposal has legs.  If you are not a fan of moving the deadline up to Chapter Three, but you're sick and tired of seeing the one-way exodus of players from pretenders to contenders every year, this proposal is for you.  This proposal allows contending teams to continue fighting for a spot in the playoffs, but prevents them from becoming unbeatable all-star teams in that best-of-seven tournament.

Cons: Perhaps the word "prevent" in the previous sentence isn't quite accurate.  This rule will not prevent any team from building an unbeatable all-star team in the post-season.  In fact, this rule may cause more teams to drop out of contention earlier than ever before, and cause even more lopsided trades to occur one chapter earlier than usual.

My vote: In the end, I think this proposal would exacerbate the problem more than it would fix it.  Instead of seeing ridiculously lopsided trades in Chapter Four, we'd see those trades in Chapter Three.  Instead of seeing good teams bail out of contention in Chapter Four, they'd do so in Chapter Three.  The final two chapters of the season are often the two more boring chapters, as pennant races are all but decided and no trading is allowed.  Why extend the most boring period of the season another chapter?  Thumbs-down on this one.

Proposal #4: Change Rule 7.16 as follows: Pre-season rewards and penalties will be assigned to each team as follows, based upon the previous BDBL season's winning percentage:

.000 - .313: - $5 million
.314 - .375: - $2 million
.376 - .438: + $1 million
.439 - .499: + $2 million
.500 + : + $3 million

Pros: Last year, Rule 7.16 passed in an effort to remove the incentive for poor teams to dump all their best talent to the best teams.  With rare exception, that effort failed miserably, in part because the penalties and rewards that were passed weren't steep enough.  With this proposal, truly awful teams will be harshly punished.  If a team is on pace to lose 110+ games, this proposal would give incentive for that team to continue to try its hardest to win.  This proposal also creates extra incentive for bottom feeders while removing unnecessary rewards for successful teams.

Cons: If Rule 7.16 failed to fix what it was intended to fix last year, what makes us think this proposal would fix what it is intended to fix?  What happens when a team is a legitimately bad team on pace to lose 110 or more games without making any trades whatsoever?  Do we really want to punish that team any more than it has already been punished?  Will this proposal make it harder for that team to compete in the future?

My vote: Often, when a team outside of New Milford loses 90+ games in the BDBL, it wins 90+ games the following year.  The reason, of course, is that these 90+ losers have the luxury of spending the entire season stockpiling cheap, but productive, spare parts for the following season.  This is the way it has always been, and it is the way it will always be, regardless of what changes we make to Rule 7.16.  If you agree with that assessment, then the goal for changing this rule should not be to prevent future lopsided trades, but to bring the BDBL more in line with reality and provide a proper disincentive for losing and incentive for winning.  With those two goals in mind, this proposal gets my vote.

Proposal #5: Institute a luxury tax where, at the end of Chapter Four, teams are assigned a dollar-for-dollar penalty on any salary above $76.5 million, and any salary that is more than 20% below their Opening Day salary.

Pros: Obviously, the goal here is to eliminate those lopsided trades that seem to tear apart the league year after year.  Without exception, this becomes an issue each and every year, and this proposal could very well solve that problem.

Cons: As with every rule, there are loopholes.  In this case, the loopholes have already been exposed.  For example, if a team trades a high-impact walk-year player with a low salary (such as Roy Halladay or Esteban Loaiza), salary isn't an issue, and a luxury tax would do nothing to deter such trades.  Also, a team with a useless, high-salaried player (such as Javier Vazquez or Hideo Nomo) could easily use such a player as a throw-in, thus negating any difference in salary.

My vote: I've waffled back and forth over this proposal, and I'm still unsure of where I stand.  While I think it may help, I'm not sure that it would.  And if I'm not 100% certain that a rule would benefit this league, I will not vote for it.  My vote is "no."

Proposal #6: Change the order of the draft, so that the 11th-ranked team receives the first pick of each round.  The new order would be #11 through #24, then #10 through #1.  The farm draft, however, would remain the same at #24 through #1.

Pros: Losing should never be viewed as a positive in this or any competitive hobby.  This proposal would eliminate practically ALL incentive for a team to lose games in the current season.  It would also mirror reality more closely, as average MLB teams tend to sign average free agents.

Cons: Some would say it is tough enough to compete in the BDBL, even with the current benefits that come with losing.  Some would also say that passing this proposal would mean it would take longer for a really poor team to become competitive.  And that, they say, would result in owners losing their enthusiasm for this league and eventually quitting.

My vote: When I first put together the rulebook for this league, one of my main goals was ensuring a steady turnover of top free agents and winning teams, in order to keep as many teams interested and active as possible.  Today, I don't believe this issue is as important as I once thought.  I believe that teams will stay interested and active even if their teams occupy the lower half of the standings -- a belief based upon six years of experience in this league.  As I stated previously, teams with losing records in the BDBL have the benefit of rebuilding for an entire season through trading, and picking up the top free agents throughout the season.  I have no doubt that the tools are there for losing teams to become winners, even if this proposal passes.  What this proposal will do is keep those middle-of-the-road teams interested, even if the pennant races have all but been decided.  That is why this proposal will get my vote.

Proposal #7: Change all mentions of at-bats in Section 6.0 (Usage) to plate appearances.

Pros: We've gone back and forth, and back and forth again, on whether or not to use plate appearances or at-bats in our usage rules.  To be honest, it doesn't really make that much of a difference in the end.  Unless, of course, you own Barry Bonds.

Cons: Are there any?  Does anyone really care?

My vote: Sure, why not.

Proposal #8: Injuries will be set to "random" for all post-season games.

Pros: Injuries occur in real baseball (both in the regular season and post-season), and they occur throughout the BDBL regular season.  So why shouldn't they occur in the BDBL playoffs?

Cons: Injuries are fine during the regular season, because they add to the realism and challenge of the game, and because they last for no more than four games at a time.  The playoffs are simply too important to allow the outcome to be decided upon something as random as an injury.  There is enough randomness involved in a short series as it is.  Why add to it if it can possibly be avoided?  MLB doesn't have a choice as to whether injuries will or won't occur in the playoffs.  We do.  We should take advantage of that difference.

My vote: Is our current rule as realistic as it can be?  Of course not.  But what's the point in winning a series if you know the only reason you won it is because the other team's star sat out the entire series with a random injury?  What has been proven?  We don't play for money in this league.  The only real reward at stake is pride.  And how much pride can there be in winning a series against a crippled opponent?  I vote a hearty thumbs-down to this proposal.