|
Post by Garret Torres on May 12, 2014 9:15:40 GMT -5
Your team should not have been subject to that. And playoff positioning to be determined by the other team's inability to field a real pitcher is not right so 17 runs makes it realistic at least. So if the game gets to 50 in the first inning, do you think that should determine playoff positioning? Then the team that loses out because of run differential doesn't play against that same "pitcher" later in the year. especially since everyone who plays them after week 2 now has to face a guy who can at least throw heat and be in the neighborhood. I guarantee you don't see that amount of runs being hung on them again. Also note there is a rule that was not followed in that game. Something about 26 runs TOTAL between the teams ends the game. That rule takes effect IN the 4th inning, not before it. I asked Brett about it by the time we put up 20 runs.
|
|
|
Post by Andy "BDB" Blickley on May 12, 2014 18:46:11 GMT -5
^ Absolutely need go get every run possible. I would hope every other team would have done the same. Didn't stop anyone from dumping on my team last year. Your team should not have been subject to that. And playoff positioning to be determined by the other team's inability to field a real pitcher is not right so 17 runs makes it realistic at least. So if the game gets to 50 in the first inning, do you think that should determine playoff positioning? Then the team that loses out because of run differential doesn't play against that same "pitcher" later in the year. I'm not suggesting in any way that we shouldn't move to change the rule. I'm just saying can you blame a team for tagging another squad for a bunch of runs? No. That's my point.
|
|
rgoo5
Still Runs Bases
Posts: 148
|
Post by rgoo5 on May 16, 2014 19:35:23 GMT -5
Brett. I think 12 after 2 and 10 after 3 Def works.... and a be I totally agree that 19 in amy inning is a joke... so I just thought of the perfect solution.... This is what mmy Lil leaguers used to do...
Instead of calling a game over after a big inning or whatever. You simply have an inning mercy rule... so after 10 runs in an inning.. The inning ends. Not the game just that inning.. so in the first a team is killing it and once they reach 10 the inning is over.. Then the next inning they'd have to score 2 more to have the run rule... I think that solves every angle whatchall think
|
|
|
Post by A-Bev on May 16, 2014 19:50:42 GMT -5
Brett. I think 12 after 2 and 10 after 3 Def works.... and a be I totally agree that 19 in amy inning is a joke... so I just thought of the perfect solution.... This is what mmy Lil leaguers used to do... Instead of calling a game over after a big inning or whatever. You simply have an inning mercy rule... so after 10 runs in an inning.. The inning ends. Not the game just that inning.. so in the first a team is killing it and once they reach 10 the inning is over.. Then the next inning they'd have to score 2 more to have the run rule... I think that solves every angle whatchall think I don't think that works. If you are down 4-0 and only score 10, then you can't win by mercy rule. If you have a great rally going, then can't get it going the next inning and the other team comes back, not good.
|
|
|
Post by Brett Bevelacqua on May 16, 2014 20:31:11 GMT -5
Good points Goo and A-Bev. I am very reluctant to change any rule mid-season but I think we will have to do something if we get to 19 runs in a game this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by A-Bev on May 16, 2014 23:46:23 GMT -5
Good points Goo and A-Bev. I am very reluctant to change any rule mid-season but I think we will have to do something if we get to 19 runs in a game this weekend. I don't think we should change the mercy rules this year. We cannot now put a limit on runs after already playing two weeks as that is just not fair to batters who didn't receive all those free RBIs and homerun balls to hit. I have mentioned this before but I didn't get any traction - the playoffs tiebreaker should not be head to head record, runs allowed, then runs scored. I agree with head to head. But runs allowed punishes teams that may be stronger hitters. Runs scored is not good because of these 29-4 games. I mentioned before that the 2nd tie breaker should be run differential on head to head. If that is somehow tied, I would then go to total bases on head to head. Think about it, it should be the team that did better head to head. If that is tied, I don't give a shit what you do. Then you can go runs allowed and runs scored for the year.
|
|
|
Post by Brett Bevelacqua on May 17, 2014 1:21:57 GMT -5
We have to leave the option open to put a limit on the runs. We can't have a team score 29 runs again or have two hour games during the regular season. There have been a few pitchers sidelined, a few spot starters and #3s facing dozens of batters. There has been a ample opportunity to get it done across the board so far this season. The forecast is also pretty damn close to perfect that could help a few pitchers.
As to your other point 95% of the time record alone decides who makes the playoffs and the seeding. In 2010 the Reds and Jays tied for first with 17-5 records, the Jays allowed 45 less runs, and were +40 better in run diff. The Reds came in first because they went 4-0 against the Jays that year. Say the Reds went 3-1 against the Jays and in the one game they lost got shutout and gave up 4 runs while beating them 1-0 in all three wins. That would have been a hard pill to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by A-Bev on May 18, 2014 22:42:45 GMT -5
We have to leave the option open to put a limit on the runs. We can't have a team score 29 runs again or have two hour games during the regular season. There have been a few pitchers sidelined, a few spot starters and #3s facing dozens of batters. There has been a ample opportunity to get it done across the board so far this season. The forecast is also pretty damn close to perfect that could help a few pitchers. As to your other point 95% of the time record alone decides who makes the playoffs and the seeding. In 2010 the Reds and Jays tied for first with 17-5 records, the Jays allowed 45 less runs, and were +40 better in run diff. The Reds came in first because they went 4-0 against the Jays that year. Say the Reds went 3-1 against the Jays and in the one game they lost got shutout and gave up 4 runs while beating them 1-0 in all three wins. That would have been a hard pill to swallow. I would really like to put this to a league vote. We can't have these early Philly games potentially deciding playoff seeding. They will be a different team once Weiner gets the hang of it. Run differential is potentially fraudulent, especially when teams face the Phillies three times and say us, don't face them until the last week of the year and only face them twice. Can we put this to a league vote? More head to head tiebreakers make sense. As far as 2010 goes, I still think more head to head tie breakers make more sense because again, run differential could have been fraudulent. Whatever, you can say no, I'll just end this like this.
|
|
|
Post by Brett Bevelacqua on May 18, 2014 23:11:19 GMT -5
We can put it to a vote but right now the tie breakers are..
1. record. 2. if record is tied it then goes head to head. 2 (a) or if there are multiple teams with the same record and none of those teams have a winning record against all teams with the same record, see #3 3. if those teams split it then goes to runs allowed. 4. if it is still tied at runs allowed, then it goes to runs scored. 5. still tied after all that it is the flip of a coin.
Run differential is not used at all. So I think we should be OK?
|
|
|
Post by Take a Wiff on May 18, 2014 23:17:05 GMT -5
Do it!
|
|
|
Post by A-Bev on May 18, 2014 23:25:01 GMT -5
We can put it to a vote but right now the tie breakers are.. 1. record. 2. if record is tied it then goes head to head. 2 (a) or if there are multiple teams with the same record and none of those teams have a winning record against all teams with the same record, see #3 3. if those teams split it then goes to runs allowed. 4. if it is still tied at runs allowed, then it goes to runs scored. 5. still tied after all that it is the flip of a coin. Run differential is not used at all. So I think we should be OK? Before this year, I didn't understand the runs allowed being a tie breaker first. Now with seeing how runs scored can be overblown, I understand the runs allowed tiebreaker. Giving a team credit for pitching better over a course of a season does make sense to me. I would vote to change the 4th and 5th tiebreakers although I doubt it will ever get to that point.
|
|
|
Post by Brett Bevelacqua on May 19, 2014 1:29:40 GMT -5
#5 would be horrific for the loser. In that case it should really be a play-in game.
|
|
|
Post by WIFFSTAIN on May 19, 2014 13:27:17 GMT -5
We can put it to a vote but right now the tie breakers are.. 1. record. 2. if record is tied it then goes head to head. 2 (a) or if there are multiple teams with the same record and none of those teams have a winning record against all teams with the same record, see #3 3. if those teams split it then goes to runs allowed. 4. if it is still tied at runs allowed, then it goes to runs scored. 5. still tied after all that it is the flip of a coin. Run differential is not used at all. So I think we should be OK? This would mean diamondbacks are in second to last then, no?
|
|
|
Post by Brett Bevelacqua on May 19, 2014 14:00:09 GMT -5
You are correct. D-Backs are in ninth place. I didn't take into account head-to-head.
|
|
|
Post by Take a Wiff on Jun 19, 2014 23:54:23 GMT -5
How about you can have guys core three next year that have played together this season provided two are a pitcher and they have to give up there #1 pick in the draft in 2015!
|
|