Issue 15

Chris
Matt
Brew
(3)

(0)

Jim
Jon
Brendan
Larry
(4)

Blake
Neal
(6)

Issues Page

Vote to Change the Yearly Innings Pitched Limit from 1450 to 1650

STATED ISSUE:

FINAL RULING:

The League rules NOT IN FAVOR.

VOTING TALLY:

"Yes" = a vote in favor of the proposal

"No" = a vote not in favor of the proposal

"Impartial" = a voiced indecision on the proposal (Uncounted towards final percentage of votes entered)

"No Vote" = an unvoiced indecision on the proposal (Uncounted towards final percentage of votes entered)

YES:

NO:

IMPARTIAL:

NO VOTE:

Percentage to Overturn = 33% (2/6)

ISSUE RAISED BY:

BLAKE

INITIAL POST:

Calling a Vote (2 of 3) - Change the Yearly IP Limit
by: ** COMMISSIONER ** (** COMMISSIONER **)
Jul 21 12:31pm
Change the Yearly IP limit from 1450 to 1650.

The reason given is that over the past few years, the top 6 starting pitchers and 3 relief pitchers (i.e. the desginated roster spots) compiled an average of 1650 innings pitched in a year.

Similarly over the same amount of time the AVERAGE 7 Starting Pitchers and 3 relief pitchers reached that same limit.

And so the thinking goes that, with 6 Starting and 3 Relief roster spots, the best possible, most durable team can reach their fullest potential with just the designated spots. And, should a team not be as good as possible, they can still reach the IP limit with just one more pitcher added to the rotation.

BLAKE

ARGUMENTS MADE IN FAVOR:

Responding to Brendan's Post
by: Blake (The@ssKickin' Friars)
Jul 23 11:24pm
For anyone who needs to be reminded of my objections to Brendan's points, here they are again. Use these points as you wish in your decision making.

BR: "As I've stated before, it is the job of each manager to assemble the best TEAM with regard to the league structure."

RESPONSE: As I have said from time and time, if you use this logic then you reject any change to the league. For example:

You can no longer believe that HRs and RBIs/Runs should be changed because all teams were drafted "with regard to the league structure" (i.e. that HRs and RBIS/RUNS were overvalued)

Similarly, we would need to recorrect the flaw for the Face of Franchise players because, as Brendan would agree, teams were drafted "with regard to the league structure." Matt and Chris *managed their teams* exactly as the league permitted (i.e. they were able to manage a trade so that matt could afford Ryan Howard and Miguel Cabrera, etc.).

And so, if one believes that the IP limit can not or should not be changed because this was the structure of the league under which we drafted, then we must go back and make all changes their original, and also never make any further changes.

This argument does not mean that my change is correct, but that to argue that the change can't be made because it is the current structure of the league is invalid and should be disregarded. The next point sums up why the change needs to be made...

BR: "For example, with the team I (haphazardly) drafted this year, I was forced to start Bobby Abreu in my AAA system, and Paul Konerko on my bench. These were players who employed roster spots but were unable to achieve thier maximum values do to the structure of the league."

RESPONSE: This is 100% irrelevant. Paul Konerko and Bobby Abreu were only unable to be used to the fullest because some other player occupied their designated postions. However, Paul Konerko and Bobby Abeu could have been put in their designated positions (1B and RF) left there the whole season and would have had their entire value fulfilled.

What would be a comparable analogy is if a Games Played limit had been placed at 150 games. What Brendan is requiring is that managers play matchups against their opponents. So, a manager would have to decide what 12 games Paul Konerko and Bobby Abreu would have to sit out. All I am proposing is to raise the Games Played from 150 to 162 so that the Miguel Tejadas and Adam Dunns of the pitchers can play all the games they play.

Anyone besides Brendan object to my logic on this one? If not, please end this issue by voting. If so, please show me where I am at error.

BLAKE

ARGUMENTS MADE NOT IN FAVOR:

Re: Calling a Vote (2 of 3) - Change the Yearly IP Limit
by: gratealbinofrogsociety (Killa Beez)
Jul 23 6:22pm
Blake-
Based on your response to me, I assume that your primary reason to raise the IP limit is to ensure that "each roster spot allows for a single player to reach his maximum value."
As I've stated before, it is the job of each manager to assemble the best TEAM with regard to the league structure.
For example, with the team I (haphazardly) drafted this year, I was forced to start Bobby Abreu in my AAA system, and Paul Konerko on my bench. These were players who employed roster spots but were unable to achieve thier maximum values do to the structure of the league.
However, no votes were proposed to add Utility spots or to raise the salary cap. These proposals would have been ridiculous, in that they undermine the leagues structure and remove the challange presented to managers to actaully MANAGE the team they drafted.
But that's exactly whats being proposed - unncessary changes which will address some manager's desires to add value to their players with no compelling rationale.

BRENDAN