2019 Rule Change Proposals

A forum for official league bizniz.
User avatar
Peaks
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8186
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:48 am
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Peaks » Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:05 am

Law Dogs wrote: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.


Count on it from me. Save this post for posterity. I have no desire to play in this farce of a 'series.' I'll throw games to avoid it and if forced to play in it, will play to lose. That is how much I hate it. I don't care if it's like '09 when I won 102 games, second best in the OL. You make me play one game like this and I'll lose it on purpose. Go ahead and fine me now for it for when it happens. Or kick me out of the league.

Would you want the NFL to decide a playoff game by just playing an OT period?
Would you want a hockey playoff series solely on a shoot out?

Teams already bail too easily now, having an extra WC won't change that.
Image
Mike S./Rocks
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11727
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:56 pm
Contact:

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Mike S./Rocks » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:09 am

It's not an extra OT period for a football game.

It's not a shootout to decide a hockey series.

It's exactly what MLB does.
User avatar
Commish
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 29339
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: Ocala, FL

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Commish » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:19 am

This is the wildcard we’re talking about, right? It’s not as if we’re upsetting the integrity of the division races. (We’re actually making it even more important to win the division.)

That said, the more I think about this the more I hate it. What happens if a division race ends in a tie? Do the two first place teams play a one-game playoff to decide the division winner? If so, can the team that lost that game use the same starting pitcher in the Wild Card Game?

There are just SO many rules we’ll need to change/add to make this happen.
Image
Mike S./Rocks
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11727
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:56 pm
Contact:

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Mike S./Rocks » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:43 am

What happens if the current wild card wins up in a tie? Or current division winners tie? How much harder is it to figure out what happens if there is a tie under this? Just use MLB rules.

Again, this is exactly how MLB does it. It is not a crisis to add this. I voted no, but the majority didn't. Up to 16 people appear to be in favor of it. Change is hard. The win/lost penalties are way worse than this.

The rest of you should put on your pussy hats and take to the streets.
User avatar
Commish
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 29339
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: Ocala, FL

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Commish » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:57 am

Someone please direct me to the subsection of the MLB rulebook that deals with this.
Image
User avatar
JohnnyBo
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 1820
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:04 am
Location: 2500 miles from Vegas

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby JohnnyBo » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:01 am

cowtippers wrote:Someone please direct me to the subsection of the MLB rulebook that deals with this.



From MLB.com ...


Scenario: Two teams tie for the division
The classic divisional push. There are several spots where this could happen, but let's use the Astros and A's as the example. If they were tie finish the year in a tie atop the AL West, they would play a one-game tiebreaker on Oct. 1. Home-field advantage would go to the club with the better head-to-head record* (that's the Astros). The winner of this game would advance to the AL Division Series round, while the loser would either head to the AL Wild Card Game or head home, depending on whether it qualifies for the Wild Card.

*Note that if the head-to-head matchup is a draw, home-field advantage in all scenarios listed below goes to the team with the better intradivision record, or failing that, the team with the better intraleague record.

Scenario: Three teams tie for the division
This possibility is alive in the NL Central. Were the Cubs, Brewers and Cardinals to be deadlocked at season's end, they would receive an A, B or C designation. Club A would host Club B on Oct. 1, and the winner would host Club C the following day. The winner of that game would be the division champ.

Think of this almost like a draft, and the team with the "first pick" can choose the scenario it likes best. A team might rather play two games than one if it gets to host both, which is why a team might choose to be Club A over Club C. On the other hand, a team could choose Club C designation if it wants to rest a certain pitcher and take its chance in one winner-take-all game, even if it is on the road.

Selection order would be based on the head-to-head records (i.e., Cubs' combined winning percentage vs. Brewers and Cardinals, Brewers' combined winning percentage vs. Cubs and Cardinals, and Cardinals' combined winning percentage vs. Cubs and Brewers).

Also of important note here: If all three of these teams were tied not just for the division but for the second Wild Card spot, then the loser of the second game would be declared the Wild Card club.

Scenario: Two teams tie for best record in the league or Wild Card
This would not involve any extra games. If the Cubs and Dodgers, for example, were to win their divisions outright and finish tied for the best record in the NL, the team with the better head-to-head record (in this case, the Cubs) would get home-field advantage throughout the League Championship Series round.

As for the Wild Card, if, say, the Cardinals and Rockies were the only two clubs in NL Wild Card position at season's end and had identical records, they would not play an extra game to determine who gets home-field advantage in the Wild Card Game. It would go to the team with the better head-to-head record (the Cards won the season series, 5-2).

Scenario: Two teams tie for the second Wild Card spot
If, for example, the Cardinals and Rockies tied for the second NL Wild Card spot, they'd have to play each other Oct. 1 for the right to advance to the NL Wild Card Game. Home-field advantage would go to the team with the better head-to-head record (the Cardinals).

Scenario: Three teams tie for two Wild Card spots
If the Cardinals, Brewers and Rockies were tied, the three teams would choose/receive A, B and C designations. Club A would host Club B on Oct. 1 and the winner would host Club C on Oct. 2. Again, the three designations are decided by head-to-head records. (The Cardinals and Brewers still have series against each other this week, so it's too soon to say how this example would shake out.)

Scenario: Three teams tie for one Wild Card spot
Now we're talking. And this is still a distinct possibility in the NL.

In the three-team tie, we'd have to have the three teams choose/receive their A, B and C designations, with Club C traveling to face the winner of the game between Clubs A and B to determine who advances to the Wild Card Game.

Scenario: Two teams tie for the division, plus a tie with club outside division for a Wild Card spot
If the Rockies and Dodgers finished in a tie atop the NL West and a third club -- let's say the Brewers -- tied them for the second NL Wild Card spot, the following would happen: The Rockies and Dodgers would play a tiebreaker game Oct. 1 (at the home park of the club with the better head-to-head record). The winner is the division champ, and the loser would face the Brewers at Miller Park (in this scenario, MLB has determined that the team from the other division gets home field in the second tiebreaker game, regardless of the head-to-head record) the following day to determine the winner of the second Wild Card spot.

If it were a tie for the division and a tie with an outside club for two NL Wild Card spots, the scenario is the same as above, except this time the second game would be the NL Wild Card Game, with home-field advantage determined by the two-team tiebreaker system mentioned earlier.

Scenario: Two teams tie for the division, plus a tie with club outside division for two Wild Card spots
Same as above, except this time the second game (Brewers vs. loser of Rockies-Dodgers) would be the NL Wild Card Game, with home-field advantage determined by the two-team tiebreaker system mentioned earlier.

Scenario: Two teams tie for the division, plus a tie with two clubs outside the division for two Wild Card spots
Let's take the above and add a fourth team -- the Cardinals -- into the mix. Two games would take place Oct. 1 -- the Dodgers-Rockies game to determine the NL West winner and a game between the Cardinals and Brewers to determine who advances to the Wild Card round. The losers of those two games would then face each other Oct. 2 (with the same tiebreaker rules applied to determine home field) to decide who faces the winner of the Cardinals-Brewers game in the NL Wild Card Game on Oct. 3 (again, with the same previously stated home-field advantage rules applied).

Scenario: Three teams tie for the division, plus a tie with a club outside the division for one Wild Card spot
If it's the Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers and Rockies all knotted up, they would go to the A, B, C and D designations (Club D would be the club outside the division, so the Rockies). On Oct. 1, Club A would host Club B and Club C would host the Dodgers. It's too soon to know how the head-to-head matchups would finish or what designation clubs would choose, so let's randomly assign the Cubs as Club A, the Cardinals as Club B and the Brewers as Club C.

If the Rockies beat the Brewers, they would be declared the Wild Card club. The winner of the game between the Cubs and Cardinals would be declared the NL Central champion.

If the Brewers were to defeat the Rockies, the winner of the Cubs-Cardinals game would then host Milwaukee. The winner would be declared the division champ and the loser would be declared the Wild Card club.

Scenario: Three teams tie for the division, plus a tie with a club outside the division for two Wild Card spots
Same setup as above, except: If the Rockies beat the Brewers in the first "round," the loser of Cubs-Cardinals would host the Brewers to determine the second Wild Card club. Alternatively, if the Brewers beat the Rockies, they would face the winner of Cubs-Cardinals to determine the NL Central champion. The loser of that game would be declared one Wild Card club, while the loser of Cubs-Cardinals would host the Rockies to determine the other Wild Card club.

Scenario: The two World Series teams have the same regular-season record
In case you forgot, World Series home-field advantage is now tied to regular-season records. If the Cubs and Indians, for example, were to face each other in the World Series and had identical regular-season records, home field would go to the club with the better head-to-head record in 2018. In this case, that would be the Indians, who beat the Cubs three times in their four meetings this year. Had the clubs not met in Interleague Play, the second tiebreaker would be division record. If that were also a tie, the tiebreaker would be intraleague records (the NL club's record vs. NL teams and the AL team's record vs. AL teams).



Pretty straight forward.
Battling Maxo says, "I'll be back!"
User avatar
Commish
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 29339
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: Ocala, FL

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Commish » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:36 am

“Pretty straightforward?” :lol:

Okay, can someone now please translate that War and Peace-length novel into a rule or two that I can add to our rulebook?
Image
Mike S./Rocks
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11727
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:56 pm
Contact:

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Mike S./Rocks » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:47 am

JB with the best comment in league history. :D
Black Sox
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5382
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Aurora, IL

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Black Sox » Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:51 am

The one game play off is the same as a game 7 in any series. Obviously we have several owners who dislike game 7s.

One of the reasons for this is to provide an advantage for those teams who won their division. We play an unbalanced schedule, so if you win your division you should be rewarded for that.

If you are against that then lets get rid of the divisions and play an equal schedule and take the top 8 teams for the playoffs. I'm sure that would be hated even more.


Teams in the Ozzie league already have an advantage next year and going forward since you know that one team if facing that possibility will forfeit or try to lose rather than trying to win the world series. I wish I were in that league.
Where there is a Gill, there is a way
User avatar
Undertakers
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7788
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:08 pm
Location: Los Altos, CA
Contact:

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Undertakers » Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:01 am

Mustangs wrote: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.


Two things...
1. I didn't know why we voted so early - but we now know that DMB will not rate openers as starting pitchers. I think we need to change the rules to allow pitchers who started games in real life to start games in BDBL.

2. If a team wanted 12 relief pitchers for the playoffs - I have no problem with that. They would have so many tired pitchers. Bobby tried this somewhat against me - bringing guys like Chapman in the 3rd inning and had some pretty tired pitchers as the series went on.
BDBL Champion: 5 times
Ozzie League Champion: 6 times
Griffin Division Champion: 16 times
Best Looking GM: 2 times
#1 in Franchise Wins
User avatar
Commish
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 29339
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: Ocala, FL

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Commish » Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:37 am

“So early?” We’ve been voting for rule changes in September since the league began! And I asked for proposals in early August (if not earlier.)

Don’t blame me because DMB sucks!
Image
User avatar
Peaks
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8186
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:48 am
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Peaks » Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:53 am

We deviate from MLB in so many cases where we as a league don't agree, so saying "this is the way the MLB does it" holds zero water with me.

I love Game 7s. You know why? There were six other games to build up the drama. Hockey Game 7s are the most exciting thing I've ever watched. Calling the MLB WC games, and now ours, Game 7s Is fundamentally wrong and you've bought into marketing.

It's a single elimination game. Nothing more. Excitong, but no Game 7. Let's take a playoff series and cut it into 1/7th of a piece? Sure.

And I agree, it does give a small award one or two division winners a tiny bit. You may get to dodge someones #1, IF they don't just decide to bullpen it. A bullpen will have some usage in place. Meh. In real life with cross country travel, it can be a bigger deal. Here, not so much.

If the "Game 7s" are all the rage, let's change.every series to them. Their so awesome.
Image
User avatar
Commish
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 29339
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: Ocala, FL

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Commish » Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:13 pm

Saying the one-game Wild Card playoff is just like Game Seven is like saying the Home Run Derby is just like a walk-off homer in extra innings.
Image
User avatar
Peaks
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8186
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:48 am
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Peaks » Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:33 pm

Especially given what happened early on in our history. In 2001, we switched from a five-game Division Series to a seven-game format. Why was that done? Was it because seven games was seen as a fairer way to play the series? It certainly wasn’t because MLB values that because they still play five gamers. So seven game was seen as a better measure.

So let’s add a one-game format now? For no other reason that we want to mimic MLB, the same league that brought up the All-Star game counting?

If we want to expand the playoffs to allow more teams in, I’m fine with it. We could do a 6-team format where the top two seeds get byes and let 3-6 battle it out, like in the NFL. But the length of their “series” is the same as any other series. It a full game no matter what. They don’t have to contrive some “Game 7” like MLB has. We can go to eight teams like the NBA and NHL. NHL is all seven game series. I can’t remember if the NBA does a five-game in the opening round. But we could follow that and I wouldn’t have a problem.

It’s the concept of a one game non-tie-breaker idea that I am vehemently opposed to.
Image
User avatar
Commish
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 29339
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: Ocala, FL

Re: 2019 Rule Change Proposals

Postby Commish » Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:38 pm

We chose a one-game playoff because: a) it punishes a team for joining the TOR as a wildcard, and b) it takes far less time to schedule, and our November schedule is tight enough already.
Image

Return to “League Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests