Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
 
ARBA Message Board -> ARBA Message Board -> Rule Change Proposals and Procedures - Votes DUE 1/10
Post Info TOPIC: Rule Change Proposals and Procedures - Votes DUE 1/10
Ye Olde Commissioner


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 483
Date:
Rule Change Proposals and Procedures - Votes DUE 1/10
Permalink   

Thanks to all for some great rules discussion!  I have taken the below from the various posts, particularly Josh's most recent.  Remember that each owner gets 1 vote regardless of how many teams they own.  Rules will pass with a simple majority of those voting.

 

#1: Expanded Playoffs

Current language:

Four [sic] teams from each league will qualify for the playoffs: the 3 division winners plus the second place team with the best overall record (the Wild Card team).  IAll players will be eligible for this game.

Proposed Language:

Five teams from each league will qualify for the playoffs: the 3 division winners plus the two teams with the best overall record (the Wild Card teams).  

#2 Tiebreakers (Separated from Josh's proposal)

Current Language:

n cases of tie, there will be a 3-game playoff with the Home Team determined by coin flip.  

Proposed Language:

In cases of a tie for a division where both teams will make the playoffs, the winner will be decided as follows: head-to-head record; record within the division; road record, coin flip.  In cases of ties for the last playoff spot, the winner will be decided as follows: one game playoff.  Any one-game playoff shall be considered a "163rd" game and regular season usage restrictions apply.   

#3: Adopt Current MLB Rules:

Current Language:

The Maximum Rules as of the 2018 SOM game will be used, with the exception of: Improve Statistical Accuracy, Home Field Advantage, Starting Pitcher Clutch, Force Daily Injuries, Realistic Throwing Errors, Allow Extra Pre-1920 Errors, Correct Board Game Excesses, Allow Errors on Pickoffs, Pro-Rate Injuries to Length of Season, Limit All Injuries to Current Game Only, Allow Defensive Shifts, and Extreme Batter-Pitcher Matchups.

Proposed Language:

The Maximum Rules of the current SOM game will be used (including the option labeled as "2023 and Beyond Rules" or the equivalent), with the exception of: Improve Statistical Accuracy, Home Field Advantage, Starting Pitcher Clutch, Force Daily Injuries, Realistic Throwing Errors, Allow Extra Pre-1920 Errors, Correct Board Game Excesses, Allow Errors on Pickoffs, Pro-Rate Injuries to Length of Season, Limit All Injuries to Current Game Only, Allow Defensive Shifts, and Extreme Batter-Pitcher Matchups.  In the absence of a vote of a majority of the owners before the start of play in a season to not adopt a Major League Baseball Rule, the Commissioner shall circulate league files with playing rules intended to match the rules of Major League Baseball to the extent possible.

#4: Smaller Active Rosters. 

Current Language:

No more than 30 Major League players may be active for any series (as designated by the away manager in a CM or written instructions) other than the last two series.  Any playoff team may resets [sic] its 30-man roster for each round of playoffs.

Proposed Language:

No more than 26 Major League players may be active for any 6-game series, and no more than 27 Major League players may be active for any 8 or 9 game series.  Active rosters are designated by the away manager in a CM or written instructions.   Any playoff team may reset its 26-man roster for each round of playoffs.

#5: Simplify Pitcher Fatigue.

Current Language:

Pitcher fatigue will be monitored by the game.  The current setting for pitcher usage in the game is Use SADV Fatigue Rules.    A pitcher must be removed by the manager playing a game at the beginning of the inning after the inning he becomes fatigued; a tired pitcher may be brought into a game, but must be removed at the beginning of the inning following the one in which he enters the game; provided that these restrictions will not be applicable during the Playoffs.

Proposed Language:

Pitcher fatigue will be monitored by the game.  A tired pitcher may not start a game; otherwise there are no other restrictions on the use of tired pitchers.  The current setting for pitcher usage in the game is Use SADV Fatigue Rules.   

#6: Free Ballpark Changes

Current Language:

Teams will be allowed to change ballparks for a remodeling fee of 500K.  A free ballpark change will be allowed every 3 years and for any team that has a new manager.  The next free change will be for the [2026] ARBA season.

Proposed Language:

Teams may change their ballparks each season.

#7 No Cap on Money for Wins / Panelty for Insufficient Wins

Current Language: 

10K for each win in the prior season, up to a cap of 950K.  A team winning less than 40 games in the prior season will not receive any Position Money.

Proposed Language: PLEASE VOTE FOR ALL YOU SUPPORT

 (A)  10K for each win in the prior season.  (no cap)  A team winning less than 40 games in the prior season will not receive any Position Money.

(B)  10K for each win in the prior season, up to a cap of 950K. (No minimum win requirement)

(C) 10K for each win in the prior season.  (no cap AND no minmum win requirement)

(D) Leave it as is  

#8 Usage Penalties

Current Language:

[Extensive rules with Commissioner-circulated annual fine chart]

Proposed Language:

Add the following:  Any team failing to get to 40 wins in a season is exempt from any fines associated with usage provided that their roster was capable of starting 162 games, pitching 1450 innings, and 6400 plate appearances.  For purposes of this rule, unlimited batters shall be deemed to have 650 PA and unlimited pitchers shall be deemed to have 200 IP.  However, any penalties incurred (for example, by not reporting the results in time) will not be exempted.

 



__________________
Travis

Date:
Permalink   

I guess I'll try to go first, this might be the most convoluted vote I remember (but I am getting old)

1. I think proposed language is what we already have correct?  (If so then yes)

2. Yes, I guess

3. No, but I'm torn - home managers already have a huge advantage, this I think might lessen the bullpen advantage but increase the extra innings advantage

4. No

5. The only reason this rule was put in place was to keep a team that was trying to tank from the very beginning of the season rostering a total pitching staff of say 6 unlimited pitchers only (to save money) and going through a season (so throwing 6 pitchers 243 innings a piece).  I know I have used tired pitchers in the playoffs because they were my best option to win.  I would be okay with changing this rule maybe with something that says you have to carry a minimum of 10 carded pitchers or something along those lines.

6. Sure I guess, I think some iteration of this is voted on every year

7. Put in to discourage teams from tanking, not sure it accomplishes the goal, if you are trying to build a war chest like some teams have I don't think they worry about a measly $400K :)  (C I think is my vote)

8. No, don't see why someone with a losing team shouldn't have to pay the same attention to their team as someone with a wining team (its a choice)



__________________
Dave (Cork)

Date:
Permalink   

Our vote is as follows:

1-Yes

2-Yes

3-Yes

4-Yes

5-Yes

6-Pass

7-A-No, B-Yes, C-No, and D-Yes

8-No

 

Dave (Cork)



__________________
Joy in Mudville


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 144
Date:
Permalink   

I vote:

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. A - No, B - Yes, C - Yes, D - No (Just because I want to know if "no" wins, what happens to the rule?)

8. Yes if 7B or 7C both lose, No if 7B or 7C win



__________________
Rick

Date:
Permalink   

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. Yes

5. No

6. Yes

7. D

8. No

 



__________________
Josh


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 11
Date:
Permalink   

Hollywoo! votes:

#1: Expanded Playoffs -- YES, but I think we already have five teams each league in playoffs, right?  This just corrects a typo in rules, does NOT expand playoffs.

#2 Tiebreakers -- YES

#3: Adopt Current MLB Rules -- YES

#4: Smaller Active Rosters -- YES

#5: Simplify Pitcher Fatigue -- YES

#6: Free Ballpark Changes -- NO

#7 No Cap on Money for Wins -- NO to All except YES to (D) No Change

#8 Usage Penalties -- NO

 



__________________
cgmucci


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 25
Date:
Permalink   

Washington responses:

1. Expanded Playoffs - yes (though based on what I am reading this just fixes as written)
2. Tiebreakers - Yes
3. Current MLB Rules - Yes (though I do want to see what pre-1920s errors look like)
4. Smaller Active Rosters - No (selfish vote due to needing to platoon my bad roster!)
5. Fatigue - Yes
6. Free Ballpark Changes - No
7. A - Yes, B - Yes, C - Yes, D - Yes (I obviously haven't been good enough to have this impact me too much!)
8. Usage Penalties - No

Thanks!

__________________
Mike G

Date:
Permalink   

1. yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Meh, I suppose yes

6. No

7. No for A or C, Yes for B or D ( which is essentially voting for no minimum win floor but a max win cap if I read this correctly).

8. No



__________________
Kevin

Date:
Permalink   

1 - yes

2 - yes

3 - abstain

4 - no

5 - yes

6 - yes

7 - D (and only D)

8 - no

 

 

 

 



__________________
Dennis Derby

Date:
Permalink   

1      yes

2      yes

3     yes

4     no

5    yes

6    yes

7   D

8   no

 

Thanks

Dennis 



__________________
Eric


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 343
Date:
Permalink   

Okay, I'd better get my votes in.

1) Yes - Although it seems more like a clarification than a rule change. I kind of wish we were going for 6 and 6 like MLB.

2) Yes - It looks like this one is unanimous so far.

3) Yes - I don't love the current rules but feel like adopting them is the right move. 

4) No - I would vote for a number between 26 and 30 but 26 feels too restrictive...and my other league uses 26.

5) Yes - Mostly for simplicity's sake. 

6) Yes - The damn BP ratings fluctuate too much year-to-year. 

7) A - Good luck with sorting out the votes on this one!

8) No - It should be easy for a terrible team to avoid overusage fines by stocking up on unlimited players. 



__________________
tbanes


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 15
Date:
Permalink   

1. yes

2. yes

3. yes

4. no

5. yes

6. yes

7. C

8. no

todd, BRO

 



__________________
todd banes
DDDGator


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 38
Date:
RE: Rule Change Proposals and Procedures - Votes DUE 1/10 =DGG vote
Permalink   

1) Y

2) Y

3) Y

4) N

5) N

6) N

7a) N

7b) Y

7c) N

7d) Y

8) N



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
ARBA Message Board -> ARBA Message Board -> Rule Change Proposals and Procedures - Votes DUE 1/10
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard