2019 Rule Change Proposals
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
All in favor of a re-vote?
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
cowtippers wrote:(We didn’t really think this through...)
Shocking...
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 7523
- Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:20 pm
- Location: deep below Cheyenne
- Contact:
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
cowtippers wrote:All in favor of a re-vote?
Yes.
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
Outlaws wrote:cowtippers wrote:By the way, I promised Greg that next year, Prop #4 will be to increase the VORP cap to 111.
BS. 10-year moratorium. I can't wait until the next person bitches because they go to 110.3 or some stupid shit.
Have fun with the second wild card. It makes sure I never compete for it again. I'll openly tank for here on out instead of trying for it.
When I saw that the second wild card passed, my first thought was I wonder if I could just forfeit the wild card game if I finished with the second spot.
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
Ryche wrote:When I saw that the second wild card passed, my first thought was I wonder if I could just forfeit the wild card game if I finished with the second spot.
I'm right with you. Back in '16 when Matt and I tied and had to play a Game 161 to get in, that was exciting to me. We had to break a tie. Even teams. If I end up eight games back of the first wild card, I don't deserve to be in. It doesn't reward the regular season.
I've already told Mike I'd throw games to not win the spot or would throw the actual playoff game.
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
cowtippers wrote:What if two teams tie for the second-best non-division-winning record? Do we have a one-game playoff followed by another? Which team gets the #1 pick then?
(We didn’t really think this through...)
Yes, we have a 1-game playoff
The #1 pick goes to the loser of the 1-game playoff.
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
Jamboree wrote:cowtippers wrote:What if two teams tie for the second-best non-division-winning record? Do we have a one-game playoff followed by another? Which team gets the #1 pick then?
(We didn’t really think this through...)
Yes, we have a 1-game playoff
The #1 pick goes to the loser of the 1-game playoff.
+1
I think the 1 game playoff is great.
Where there is a Gill, there is a way
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
cowtippers wrote:RESULTS:
rop #6 (Radical Realignment): FAILS, 18-3, but one of three involved in switch
Prop #7 (Pussy Realignment): PASSES? 19-2 (one of teams involved did not vote)
My geuss is that Johnny Bo voted against 6 as he stated he did not want to move. I am guessing the team involved that did not vote also did not vote in proposition 6 since the vote total is the same (21).
Where there is a Gill, there is a way
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
Black Sox wrote: I am guessing the team involved that did not vote also did not vote in proposition 6 since the vote total is the same (21).
No reason for you to guess. It'd be easy enough for you especially to ask the said team.
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
Love that the WC passed. Makes winning your division that much more important. Should also put more teams in the hunt. Better to have more teams playing for something.
I'm not throwing any games. Hope no one else does.
I'm not throwing any games. Hope no one else does.
Trust your coach. Trust your team. Trust yourself.
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
Just some thoughts....
1. The Paulson rule only applies to the playoffs and not the regular season per how it was written in the proposal. Given this, shouldn't there be a corresponding rule requiring teams to carry a certain number of starting pitchers on their playoffs roster? Cause now in theory a team could carry 12 RPs.
2. I think the loser of the wildcards should be treated as non-playoffs teams with respect to the draft. Slightly avoids the Newgard tanking issue, though I know that might happen for other reasons, and our draft doesn't work like MLB so you cannot compare the two.
3. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind only allowing 3 days for voting. None of this needed to be decided at this moment. Why can't we wait for all teams to vote or at least announce a deadline?
1. The Paulson rule only applies to the playoffs and not the regular season per how it was written in the proposal. Given this, shouldn't there be a corresponding rule requiring teams to carry a certain number of starting pitchers on their playoffs roster? Cause now in theory a team could carry 12 RPs.
2. I think the loser of the wildcards should be treated as non-playoffs teams with respect to the draft. Slightly avoids the Newgard tanking issue, though I know that might happen for other reasons, and our draft doesn't work like MLB so you cannot compare the two.
3. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind only allowing 3 days for voting. None of this needed to be decided at this moment. Why can't we wait for all teams to vote or at least announce a deadline?
Charlotte Mustangs - Patience shall be rewarded. (hopefully)
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
Ryche wrote:Black Sox wrote: I am guessing the team involved that did not vote also did not vote in proposition 6 since the vote total is the same (21).
No reason for you to guess. It'd be easy enough for you especially to ask the said team.
So did you not vote for either one?
The easiest alignment would have been to just have me switch with Granite State
Where there is a Gill, there is a way
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
I received confirmation from the team that didn’t vote. Wimpy Realignment has officially passed.
Re. Chamra’s points:
1) Only a pitcher rated as a starter can start (playoffs or regular season.) That rule hasn’t changed.
2) If the Wildcard Series (or whatever the hell we’ll call this thing) is considered to be apart from the regular season, and usage counts toward the postseason, then we can’t call the Wild Card loser the first Draft winner.
3) We had 13 votes to pass almost all of the proposals. No need to wait for the final three teams to vote.
Re. Chamra’s points:
1) Only a pitcher rated as a starter can start (playoffs or regular season.) That rule hasn’t changed.
2) If the Wildcard Series (or whatever the hell we’ll call this thing) is considered to be apart from the regular season, and usage counts toward the postseason, then we can’t call the Wild Card loser the first Draft winner.
3) We had 13 votes to pass almost all of the proposals. No need to wait for the final three teams to vote.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 7523
- Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:20 pm
- Location: deep below Cheyenne
- Contact:
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
A 1 game playoff is a joke. You make the playoffs you should get a multi-game series, even if it's best of 3.
This is the worst rule change ever.
This is the worst rule change ever.
Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals
Black Sox wrote:Ryche wrote:Black Sox wrote: I am guessing the team involved that did not vote also did not vote in Proposition 6 since the vote total is the same (21).
No reason for you to guess. It'd be easy enough for you especially to ask the said team.
So did you not vote for either one?
The easiest alignment would have been to just have me switch with Granite State
Myrtle Beach didn't vote. I voted for both realignments. Obviously, or they both would have failed instead of just the first one.
For the record, my ballot went...
1. No
2. No
3. Didn't vote
4. Didn't vote
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes
I'm assuming that my two non-votes counted as no votes. Ries asked me why I didn't vote on those two. Because I don't care one way or the other. I just wish that we would pick something and stick with it. No more debating it and putting it on the ballot. I agree with Greg on #3. It's failed three times now, seems like it's settled. Or should be.
Return to “League Announcements”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests