September 9, 2000

Rules are Made to be Changed

Hard to believe, but it is that time of the year again.   No, I don't mean the time of year when drunken college students return to school to compare their summer body piercings.  I don't mean the time when BDBL owners begin jumping ship like Atlanta fans off the Braves bandwagon.   I don't mean the time when Red Sox fans begin drinking heavily.  I don't mean the time when Phil Geisel quits the league and rejoins under a false identity.   And I don't mean the time when all professional hockey players return from their weeks-long break to begin yet another exciting, thrill-packed regular season to determine which one of the 35 teams will not make the playoffs.  Although each one of these statements is also true, what I am talking about is the time of year when the BDBL reflects on its set of league rules and determines how to make this great league even greater.

For the past few weeks (and all year, really), I've been collecting ideas for rule changes.  At the end of this month, we'll be voting on these rule changes for next season.  To help you with your decision process, I've listed below some of the rule changes that will be appearing on the ballot this year along with the "pro" and "con" viewpoints on each (and, as always, my unsolicited opinion.)

Bear in mind when considering each rule that the goal of this league is to: a) simulate reality as closely as possible, and b) ensure fairness and competition.   Feel free to debate these rules on the league message board.  The more we talk about them, the better our league will be.  If you have any suggestions of your own, please get them to me before it's too late.

Rule #1: The "Costas Rule."   The only worthwhile idea ever to escape the atrophied cranium of Bob "Chicken Little" Costas.  His idea is to eliminate the wild card by giving the team with the best record in each league a first round bye in the playoffs.  The two remaining division winners in each league would battle in the Division Series, with the winner earning a spot in the Championship Series against the team that earned the first round bye.

Pro: For many people, the phrase "wild card" is an abomination created by greedy owners to stir up artificial playoff fever among undeserving also-ran's (and, as a result, generate gobs of post-season bucks and increase late-season attendance.)  According to this sect, the wild card race strips all meaning from divisional races and interdivisional rivalries.  By eliminating the wild card, you restore value to both and reward the proper team - not the second-place also-ran.  With the wild card in place, what's the purpose of having divisions in the first place?

Con: Is a 96-win wild card team any less deserving of a playoff spot than an 82-win division winner?  I don't think so.  A win is a win.   It doesn't matter what division the winning team happens to have been randomly thrown into.  What is a division, anyway?  Is the purpose of league play to determine which team, among a randomly-generated group of teams, is the best?  Or is it to determine which team, overall, is the best?  The fact that the wild card gives more teams the opportunity to make the post-season only prolongs the season for most teams and keeps interest alive that much longer.  I don't think a wild card race is any less exciting than a division race, and I don't think the wild card completely eliminates division races or rivalries.  If you want to get rid of the wild card, then why not just create four eight-team divisions and go with two playoff rounds instead of three?  (Or, better yet, two 12-team divisions...or, better yet, one 24-team division.)

My verdict: As much of an old-fart traditionalist as I am, I have somehow never had a problem with the wild card.  I am only concerned with seeing the best and most deserving teams make the playoffs. Only eight of the 30 teams in major league baseball (and eight of 24 in the BDBL) make the post-season, and to me that seems appropriate.  If not for the wild card, we never would have witnessed the exciting OLDS series between the Litchfield Lightning and Los Altos Undertakers last season - not to mention the Yankees and Red Sox.  The present system doesn't seem to be broke, so why fix it?  (And no, I don't say that just because I hate Bob Costas.)

Rule #2: The "Pemberton Rule."   Any batter having less than 100 at-bats, any starting pitcher having less than 75 innings pitched, or any relief pitcher having less than 30 innings pitched, is not eligible for the 25-man (active) roster.

Pro: In 1996, Rudy Pemberton hit .512 over 41 at-bats, with an on-base percentage of .556 and a slugging percentage of .780.   Under current league rules, Pemberton would be allowed on the 25-man roster, to be used by his manager in official games in any manner desired.  What this rule change boils down to is realism.  Is it realistic if Pemberton hits .512 over 41 at-bats in the BDBL?  Of course it is - that's what he hit.  But is it realistic if every one of those at-bats comes in a clutch pinch-hitting situation?  Did Pemberton's big league manager use him in such a way?  (If so, the Red Sox would have been a MUCH better team!)  Or did most of Pemberton's AB's come off of inexperienced pitchers in meaningless situations?  If a manager knows a batter will get a base hit once out of every two times he sends him to the plate, and he uses this batter to win several games in late innings, is it realistic use of this player?  More importantly, is it fair to the opposing team?

Con: Rudy Pemberton hit .512 over 41 at-bats in the big leagues in 1996.  That is a FACT.  If our goal is to simulate reality in the BDBL, then allowing Rudy to bat 41 times (or 45 times at 110-percent) would be realistic.  Let the software decide what his performance level will be.   That's not our problem.  Every owner in the league is aware of this rule, therefore every owner has the opportunity to acquire a player like Pemberton to use in pinch-hitting clutch situations (or any other situation they'd like to use him.)

My verdict: As the former owner of Mark Quinn (.333/.385/.733 in 60 AB's), and as one who has lost more than one game at the hands of Angel Echevarria (.379/.455/.586 in 29 AB's), I have first-hand experience with both sides of this issue.  Quinn hit seven home runs in 38 at-bats for me this season, and each one came in a clutch pinch hit situation.  Each time, I felt guilty winning a game in such a way, because it's not exactly realistic or sportsmanlike.  For that reason alone, my vote is in favor of this rule.  Big league managers don't have the luxury of inserting a sure thing into a pinch-hit situation in close games.  We shouldn't have that luxury either.

Rule #3: The "Edgar Rule."   Any manager who wishes to start a player out of position must first request this change through the Commisioner's Office.  The Commissioner will then designate the player with a range rating of "Pr" and an error factor of 300 (three times the average error rate.)

Pro: This rule change was suggested earlier this season by someone on the message board as a way of lending realism to a situation such as Litchfield's usage of Edgar Martinez as their starting third baseman all season.  We all know that if the real Edgar were to start every game at third, he would have some horrific stats at year's end (and would probably spend most of the season on the DL.)  While Edgar isn't exactly flashing the leather over there in Litchfield (he currently ranks 8th in the OL in fielding at .937, with 17 errors and poor range), he also isn't that much of a liability.  This rule would not apply to position changes between outfielders (left fielder playing center, etc.), but only to players like Edgar who are clearly playing out of position.

Con: Who determines if a player is playing out of position?  For example, if I decide to start Rey Sanchez at second, does he become a Pr/300 because he's not rated at that position?  If so, why?  Sanchez has played second base in the past, and was rated a "Vg" at that position on last year's disk.  It's a little unreasonable to think that any shortstop with excellent range would have poor range at second.  Likewise, I don't think the move from first to third (or third to first) is such a great leap.  Plenty of players have done it, and done it successfully.

My verdict:  The #1 issue with this rule is realism.  Is it realistic to start Edgar Martinez at third?  If there were no DH in baseball, and a team had a good first baseman and no third baseman, you'd better believe they'd find a spot for Edgar's bat SOMEWHERE.  However, it should be noted that in 18 interleague games this year, Seattle - who do have an excellent defensive first baseman and no third baseman of note - started Edgar only twice, and both times at first base.  I still say keep the rule as it is.   Diamond Mind is supposed to handle situations where players are playing out of position internally.  And for the most part, it seems to do a decent job.  If Geisel wants to start Edgar at catcher next year (and don't laugh - he might), I've got no problem with it.  Is it unrealistic?  Probably, but not necessarily.  Big league managers occasionally sacrifice defense for offense (see Glenallen Hill, Jose Offerman and Chuck Knoblauch for proof.)  My estimate is that Martinez probably costs the Lightning 15-20 runs a year, all of which gets subtracted from the runs he creates at the plate.  If Geisel is able to live with that, so am I.

Rule #4: The "Smoltz Rule."   Any player on a team's roster may be declared an "18.11" player (in reference to Rule 18.11.)  Players in this category may have all future contract money waived, making it easier to trade the player.  If the player in this category accumulates more than the 75/40/20 minimums specified in Rule 18.11, the team trading the player is fined $1 million toward the following year's cap and the player returns to his original roster at year end.

Pro: As we all witnessed for the first time this season, it has become increasingly difficult to make trades given the salary cap restrictions we all face.  This rule provides an escape clause for teams that are lucky/unlucky enough to own players like John Smoltz, who own hefty contracts that will be voided at year end because of extensive injury (or, in Tony Fernandez's case, a vacation in Japan.)

Con: When you sign a player to a long-term, big money contract, you take a risk.  The rulebook already provides an escape clause if one of those big money players is lost for the season due to injury.   Some element of risk must be retained.  Otherwise, being a GM becomes too "easy".

My verdict: I generally avoid complicated rules that take more than a sentence to explain because: a) they're usually filled with loopholes that sharks like Marazita would be just aching to exploit, and b) these types of rules generally are misunderstood, causing more trouble than they're worth.  This may be a good idea, or it may be a bad one.  But my vote is against this rule, simply because I don't believe its complexity outweighs its value.

Rule #5: The "Vazquez Rule."  Make it illegal to use pitchers as pinch hitters.

Pro: This rule was presented as a challenge to the "Pemberton Rule."  If it is illegal to use a 50-AB stud hitter to pinch hit only in clutch situations, shouldn't it also be illegal to pinch hit a 50-AB stud pitcher?   Case in point: Salem's own Javier Vazquez.  In 51 at-bats this season, Vazquez has hit .392/.439/.647 with three home runs (one a clutch, three-run, ninth inning pinch hit) and 12 RBI's.  Isn't he every bit as dangerous as Mark Quinn or Rudy Pemberton?   If so, why allow one and not the other?  What if a pitcher goes 2-for-2 during the regular season?  Pinch hitting that pitcher would almost guarantee a hit, no?  There are no limits on AB's or PA's for pitchers, so technically that pitcher could be used again and again.  One player could mean the difference between ten wins or ten losses.

Con: There are a handful of hitters every season who put up monstrous numbers in a small number of at-bats.  Pitchers like Vazquez only come around about as often as Paul Marazita does something spontaneous (which is to say, for those who don't know him: not often.)  I don't think there is such a threat posed by pitchers like this that a rule is required to snuff out this "problem" before it gets out of hand (and I'm not just saying this because I own Vazquez.)  I've used Vazquez three times this year in pinch hitting situations, and suffice it to say the only reason I did so was because I had no other options. 

My verdict: Like the "Edgar Rule", if someone wants to do something unconventional and totally against the book, I have no problem with it because I think it will fail more often than succeed.  I have faith that the DMB software will do the right thing.  So my vote is against this rule.  I say we keep things as they are.

Rule #6: The "Meche Rule."   Eliminate off-days during the playoffs.

Pro: The team that plays in the post-season is supposed to be the same team that earned the right to play in the post-season in the first place.  However, because of off-days during the playoffs, weaknesses like a team's #4 and #5 pitchers can be completely ignored.  The major leagues aren't able to eliminate off-days because of travel times and, more importantly, television scheduling.  But there's nothing stopping the BDBL from doing so.

Con: Once again, if we are supposed to be simulating reality, then the off-days - which exist in reality - should be kept.

My verdict: Major league teams tend to use their #4 pitcher in the playoffs, but for whatever reason BDBL pitchers seem to function just fine on three days rest.  Therefore, the format is already somewhat unrealistic.   And my position has always been to stick with reality unless fantasy provides a much better solution (such as our salary cap.)  So my vote is in favor of this rule.

Rule #7: The "Division Series Rule."   Expand the Division Series from a best-of-five to a best-of-seven series.

Pro: Like Rule #6, this is one of those rules that doesn't follow Major League Baseball rules, but is actually an improvement to our fantasy league that simply isn't possible to do in reality.  The only reason Major League Baseball uses a best-of-five format in the Division Series is to avoid playing a summer game in the middle of winter (and, more importantly, to avoid television scheduling conflicts.)  In the BDBL, this is simply not a problem.  Our games take no more than 45 minutes to play head-to-head, so adding two games only means playing an extra hour and a half - not adding an extra three days to the schedule.  And if it happens to be snowing out while we're playing, who cares?   We play our playoff games in November anyway.

Con: I really can't think of any.

My verdict: We all know that the more games you play, the better the chance of the better team coming out on top (well...most of us outside of the Stamford area accept this fact.)  I see no reason not to expand the Division Series to seven games.  And if this rule passes, I guarantee I will be ahead three games to two in some future Division Series and lose in Game Seven.

Rule #8: The "Bruzzone Rule."   Disallow trading of draft picks.

Pro: Because draft picks are such unknown quantities, they are much easier to trade than real players, and often times have much less value.  It is simply far too easy for a team to improve themselves while giving up nothing but nameless, faceless draft picks in return.  This practice is especially dangerous when it comes to owners who resign at the end of the season, leaving their heirs with a swiss-cheese-like draft grid.  Not only do these picks erode the integrity of the game, but they make a giant mess of Draft Day.  After a pick is traded more than once, it becomes nearly impossible to figure out who owns the pick.  Multiplied by 24 teams, the Draft Day grid becomes a very ugly thing to behold (much like Phil Geisel on a Sunday morning.)

Con: Not all draft picks are worthless, and the longer we play in this league, the more value certain picks will hold.  As long as something has value, it makes sense that we should allow it to be traded for something else of value.

My verdict: I have campaigned for two years now to eliminate the trading of draft picks, all to no avail.  I'll continue to bring it up each year, however, in hope that some day saner heads will prevail.

Rule #9: The "Free Agent Rule."   Allow each team to pick up one free agent at the end of the first, third and fifth chapters.

Pro: This rule is somewhat of a compromise between the Zigmund Camp (which no longer exists) and the rest of us who wanted to keep our free agent pick-up periods at the end of each chapter.  For those who are new to the league, we did allow free agent pick-ups at the end of each chapter last year until the present rule was adopted last September.  For teams that need to pick up a filler free agent after a multi-player trade, this rule could provide a needed mid-season patch.

Con: This rule could also provide an opportunity for a team to sneak a little-known player under the radar.  The two pick-up periods seem to work just fine.  Why mess with a good thing and cause more work for our already overworked and under-appreciated league officials?

My verdict: I was initially a strong proponent of keeping our free agent system last year.  I enjoyed having the opportunity to add to my team each chapter, and I couldn't understand why so many people were having so much trouble finding enough "free time" to put together a list of names every six weeks.  That said, I have to admit the present system has grown on me.  I don't find the present system restrictive at all.  I have to admit, however, that it now takes me much, much longer to put together my free agent lists than it did last year.  Now, if I make a mistake and miss out on a player, I'm stuck for the next two months - or until the next Draft Day.  I think the present system provides plenty of opportunity for teams to add to their roster, and it seems to be fair for everyone.  (And beside that, two free agent pick-ups are more than enough work for me.)  I say keep the rule as it stands.

Rule #10: The "Wussy Rule."   (No, I didn't name this rule after Ken Kaminski.)  This rule would allow each team the opportunity to extend the contract of any player by one year (at an additional $1 million unless the player's salary is already max'ed out at $10m) at the end of Chapter Two.   A player could only be extended one time throughout the life of his contract.

Pro: Every team has at least one player who would fit under the category of: "Damn!  I knew I should have given him another year!"  On my team, for instance, Ellis Burks would be a perfect example.  This rule would allow each team to correct a past mistake.  In terms of realism, because some major league player contracts contain option year clauses, this rule would seem to mirror reality.  And the early deadline (one month into the major league season) would mean that some risk would be involved.

Con: Some risk, but not enough.  BDBL owners are already given enough luxuries as it is over their major league brethren.   When we draft a player, we already know how they'll perform (for the most part) because their stats are already etched in stone.  Likewise, when we trade for a player, we know exactly what we're getting in return.  There is very little guesswork in the BDBL.  The only real risk we take as BDBL GM's is in the area of long-term contracts.  We take the risk that the players we sign long-term will be worth it, and the ones we don't, won't.  This guesswork is all part of the strategy that makes this game so fun and exciting.  Whatever realism gained through this rule is canceled out by the unrealistic aspect of knowing a player's stats ahead of time.  While it is true that April performance doesn't necessarily mean the player will continue to perform at that level (see Olerud, John), it is also true that it doesn't necessarily mean that player won't (see Erstad, Darrin.)  And beside all of that, this rule would add more paperwork for me as Commish.  In addition to keeping track of every player's salary and contract, I would also need to know which players have been extended and which have not.

My verdict: One of the reasons we have a contract system in place is to ensure that good players will be available each year at the draft.  If we adopt this rule, we cut down on the number of quality players available.  We also risk losing a significant portion of the game's strategy, which is predicting future performance.   My vote is against this rule.