|
|
Post by commish on Jan 5, 2007 11:30:04 GMT -5
What are the rule changes you would like to see for next season?
|
|
Rule Changes for 2007
Guest
|
Post by Rule Changes for 2007 on Jan 6, 2007 14:47:10 GMT -5
The defending league champion gets to pick first in every round!
|
|
|
|
Post by sugarbutch on Jan 6, 2007 14:55:23 GMT -5
Wow anonymous, that's a great suggestion, I second the motion!
|
|
|
|
Post by ironfist on Jan 6, 2007 22:58:23 GMT -5
Wow I wonder who anonymous is?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Bagwell on Jan 11, 2007 22:34:21 GMT -5
wasnt me
|
|
|
|
Post by sugarbutch on Jul 9, 2007 17:46:38 GMT -5
How about this rule... outfielder eligibility requirements as at other positions. Instead of being eligible at all three outfield positions, a player is eligible at LF, CF and/or RF based on games played at that position. For simplicity I would say make it just like every other position, 10 games minimum.
Before you start thinking about how much this rule would suck for your team if you don't have a "real" CF, remember we would vote on at the 2008 Draft and then, even if it passed, it would go into effect for the 2009 season, so don't allow your judgment to be clouded by how it would effect you now or even next year... we are talking about the year after next year.
So let's judge it for its own sake...
In real life they say a great team is strong up the middle (C, 2B, SS, CF), but we let anyone be a CF.
I just think it's a little crazy that you can make Manny Ramirez your center fielder.
Yes, you could argue that outfield is outfield, that there's no difference between left field and right field, that anyone can play left field, that Hideki Matsui used to play center field in Japan so he could play center in the MLB if they used him there... etc. All these arguments could be made about any other position though. Just make it 10 games played the previous year like every other position.
I think having LF/CF/RF would add a little more complexity and realism to our game. Guys with mediocre offensive numbers who can play CF would become a little more valuable than guys with slightly better offensive numbers but who can only play LF. This is definitely true in real life, so why not have it in the DMBL?
OK, so... any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by commish on Jul 11, 2007 10:25:37 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind the outfield distinctions. What do you think if we did 5 games as an ellibility instead of 10 for OF positions with at least 10 games total to qualify for outfield at all. For example a guy who played 5 games in LF, 2 in RF, and 1 in CF would only be DH-elligible, but a guy who played 5 games in LF, 5 in RF, and 0 in CF, would be elligible in LF and RF, but not CF. This would at least accomodate more for those guys who "could play" CF if his team let him play more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Pack on Jul 15, 2007 3:51:03 GMT -5
I agree that we should have specific OF positions.
Butch brought this up a couple of years ago and I agreed then as well. It's silly the way we have it now. Stump can use Bonds in CF next year and the guy can't move three feet in either direction in left this year.
I think we need to keep it at a ten game rule to qualify though. Otherwise people could argue for IF utility guys that play 35 games at 3B, 12 at 1B, 5 at 2B and 7 at 1B should be eligble ANYWHERE in the IF since they could play those positions in real life.
10 appearences at a position to be eligble. ANY specific position
|
|
|
|
Post by sugarbutch on Jul 17, 2007 15:18:17 GMT -5
I agree with Eric... just make it 10 for left, center or right, makes things a lot simpler.
|
|
|
|
Post by commish on Sept 26, 2007 8:35:20 GMT -5
By the way, I'm going to put up the OF positions rule to a league wide vote on draft day, so if it passes, we will start with the 2009 season.
I'm somewhere in between and can see plusses and minuses on both side, so I'll let the majority decide.
|
|
