|
September 13, 2002 A Look at the 2003 Rule Proposals One man's ballot for the 2003 rule proposals: Proposal #1: "Farm Expansion Lite." Farm rosters will be expanded from 10 players to 15. As you all know by now, I think this is a good idea, both from the standpoint of enhancing the enjoyment of this league and from the standpoint of competition and realism. Expansion to 15 farm players would remove the top 360 prospects from the pool and would seriously hurt a team's chances of being able to trade-and-replace, as has been the perceived problem in this league recently. The only downside of this rule is that it may require some additional research, but if you're doing the research for ten already, I don't think it would require any additional research to find 15 farm players. There are enough web sites and magazines devoted to prospects that this shouldn't be an issue for anybody. Proposal #2: "Farm Expansion to the Max." Farm rosters will be expanded from 10 players to 20. (Note: if you vote "Pass" for this proposal, you should vote "Pass" for Proposal #1 as well.) I will vote "Pass" on this rule as well, for all the same reasons as I stated above. If 15 farm players adds to the realism, enjoyment and competition of the league, increasing that figure to 20 only makes it that much better. Proposal #3: "The Pemberton Rule Lite." Batters with fewer than 75 at-bats, starting pitchers with fewer than 50 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. It's no secret that I've been a big fan of this proposal as well. This is the third year in a row I've put a rule like this one on the ballot because I truly believe it is needed in order to make our league more realistic and more fair. This proposal is named after Rudy Pemberton, who hit .512/.556/.780 over 41 at-bats for the Red Sox back in 1996. Under our current rules, someone like Pemberton could be used 45 times - all in late-game pressure situations where one swing of the bat could mean the difference between a win and a loss. If Pemberton hits .512 in 45 simulated at-bats, that is realistic. But if Pemberton hits .512 in 45 simulated at-bats, all in clutch late-game pinch-hitting situations, that is not realistic, nor is it fair. Clearly, a rule needs to be put in place to stop something like this from happening. Otherwise, it's likely that the integrity of some future season could be called into question. Proposal #4: "The Pemberton Rule to the Max." Batters with fewer than 100 at-bats, starting pitchers with fewer than 75 IP, and relief pitchers with fewer than 30 IP in the prior Major League season will not be eligible for the active (25-man) roster at any time (including the playoffs.) (Note: if you vote to "Pass" this rule, you should vote "Pass" on Proposal #3 as well.) I don't feel Proposal #3 goes far enough, so I will vote to pass Proposal #4 as well. In the past, I've learned that if these minimum limits are set too high, the proposal will not pass. So, learning from my mistakes, I've put two proposals on the board with two different limits. Hopefully, one of them will pass. Proposal #5: "The Pemberton Playoff Rule." Batters with fewer than 250 at-bats are not eligible to start any playoff game, and are limited to 10 at-bats total in any playoff series. This has been a hot topic all season, so there's probably nothing for me to add right now that you haven't heard already. Suffice it to say, I will be voting to pass this rule, as I believe it is needed, both in terms of realism and fairness. The downside of this rule is that it can be abused. For example, this rule allows a team to start a different player on defense in the top of the first, then bring in that stud part-timer to pinch hit at the first available opportunity. Like many of our rules, I feel this rule is best regulated by the honor system. By leaving it up to the integrity of the managers to decide how this rule is enforced, it allows the flexibility that may be needed in cases where a player is injured or other circumstances where early replacement can't be avoided. Proposal #6: "Schedule Expansion." The BDBL schedule should be created manually to provide for as many four-game series as possible. As I've said on the message board, I've grown to like our current schedule, which features mostly two game series. I understand the call for more realism in our schedule (both in terms of bullpen usage and seeing the same starting pitchers time and again throughout a season), but I feel these advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages of trying to schedule a four game series. As The Shark mentioned on the board, it is possible to interrupt a series and pick it back up later in the chapter. However, I see this as being a bit too complex for some, and I fear that most people would simply opt to play these games against an MP instead of going to the trouble of learning how to do this. I'd rather see more head-to-head games being played, so my vote is to reject this proposal.
|