|
(Continued from page 6)
And I also have to seriously question the idea that there will even BE a shortage of starts on teams. I don't see it. For those rare cases when it does happen, there is always the innocuous player rule which would cover the few starts someone may fall short on.
Now, the downside of this rule.
Their names are Reggie Jefferson and Dave Nillson.
Reggie played 16 games at first, 45 in the outfield, and 49 as DH. He can start 5 games out of 7 and bashed the ball at a .347 clip with a .593 slugging pct. Thats 5 power numbers. A Monster. Can someone please tell me why he should be allowed to start all his games at firstbase?
Dave Nillson played 24 games at firstbase, 61 in the outfield, and 40 as the DH. He can start 6 out of 7 and also kicked the crap out of the ball at a .331 clip and a .525 slugging pct. He has 4 power numbers. He only played 20% of his games at first, why should he be allowed to start all his games there?
Strangely enough, both of these guys are on the same team, Long Island. And both of these guys would have played a major part in a pennant run had they been allowed to perform at firstbase this year. Players like this are why I don't like to lower the minimum requirements. These two guys will still play a big part in LI's run, but they'll do it from the outfield, where they belong.
If these two guys were allowed to play firstbase this season, I can tell you two things that would NOT have happened:
- Macs trade with Horseshoe Bay giving up cash for Julio Franco, and
- Macs trade with Newmarket giving up Jeffries for Olerud
In other words the mere fact that there was a reasonable constraint on these guys disallowing there use meant that Mac had to go out and acquire firstbase help to make a pennant run. He made two deals with Building teams that will help them in the future by giving up some of their current talent that has peaked. This dynamic is what makes the league go round. This is a good thing. This is how the Builders get stronger by sucking talent from the Contenders.
Now keep in mind, Mac wasn't short starts…..he just wanted better starts to make the run. A reasonable want. And he was willing to pay the future price to get what he needs now.
A Builder doesn't have to make a deal to improve a position because he has nothing to lose by playing a mediocre player in that position. He can even go innocuous if he wants. So the old rule shouldn't hurt a building club at all.
In conclusion:
If the reason for lowering the required games from 25 to 15 games was to increase the elegibility pool for fear of not being able to cover starts…..then I don't think this rule will do the job. It only gave us 16 more positions being covered by players and 7 of them were firstbase.
It increases the risk of allowing monster card players to play all games out of their 'normal' position…. Thus threatening league balance and realism. This risk far outweighs any minimal gain in players available.
I propose that we should at least play a year or two with the Actual Number of Games Played Maximum Rule before we conclude that we will be short players. If after two seasons we think it will be a problem, then we can re-address it and entertain ideas, but I don't think lowering the min to 15 games should be one of them.
I will undoubtedly propose a rules change for Lancaster next year asking to return to the 25 games at a position. Please remember this analysis when voting. I'm not saying that 25 is the perfect number, but its one we've had on the books for the last two decades. Its served us well and I see no reason to upset the consistent nature of this rule….at least not without a documented reason that we can analyze before making a decision.
For anyone interested, here is the list of the players this 15 game rule will add, by position:
Firstbase: Baerga, Espinoza, Reg Jefferson, Kent, Nillson, Paquette, Mark Sweeney
Secondbase: K. Abbott, Reboulet
Shortstop: Alfonso, Carlos Garcia, Loretta
Thirdbase: T.Batista, Loretta, FP Santangelo, Sefcik
-written by Marty Fiehl
|
|